5 ms·

I don't know how to put it politely, but you may be creating a problem out of nothing. If you didn't know you had a traumatic childhood, then most likely you di

I don't know how to put it politely, but you may be creating a problem out of nothing. If you didn't know you had a traumatic childhood, then most likely you didn't have one. No families are perfect and most parents try to do best they can, occasionally failing. Growing up is not without problems, and things turn out mostly OK most of the time. Not knowing your specifics it sounds like you try to find someone to blame and try to find some exotic condition you can identify with. " did not validate my emotions at all growing up " -- what about giving life to you and feeding you though? What does "validating emotions" even mean. I encourage you to let this resentment go and move on with life.

muterad_murilax 7y ago
"What does 'validating emotions' even mean?" To an empathic person, that should be pretty obvious...
0815test 7y ago
> What does "validating emotions" even mean. It's a bit of a misnomer for the process of explicitly acknowledging the emotions that someone else might be feeling, trying to understand the causes of that inner feeling, and prioritizing that acknowledgement and understanding over any subsequent claims as to whether that emotion is unjustified. Saying things like "You're wrong to feel X, because Y!" is corrosive to trust; it leaves our counterparty in doubt as to whether we even care in the least that they felt X in the first place, or might care in the future about any similar situation. "Validating" X means explicitly giving up that option of attacking their feelings in such strong terms - as such, it's a subtle part of day-to-day diplomacy, especially among people who don't trust each other all that much! And the good part is that, once one has achieved that validation, talking effectively about Y only becomes all-the-easier! Added - do you think that children always trust their parents to pursue something close to their best interest, and to never victimize them? Parent-on-child abuse of various sorts is a thing, too. And the parent-child relationship doesn't even start off with that kind of trust. Many kids routinely engage in what we would regard as e.g. pathological lying and gaslighting, if adults did the same thing; we only get to think of such behavior as humorous because they aren't very good at it. They do generally grow out of such things as their moral development leads them to internalize the notions of affective empathy and, yes, trust.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  > especially among people who don't trust each other all that much Doesn't that imply it should be of minimum importance in a parent-child relationship?
HiroshiSan 7y ago
"if you didn't know you had a traumatic childhood, then most likely you didn't have one." Not sure I follow this logic.
- screye 7y ago
  My guess is that most parents do a bad job when compared to the platonic ideal of a parent people may think others have. The implication being, that if one got through childhood without immediately obvious signs of abuse/neglect then their childhood may not have been as bad they think. I grew up in the most liberal/educated part of my country and us children would laugh at lunch time about how getting beaten by a belt was so much better than a hanger. Daily home rules were stricter than what western kids go through when grounded and saying no to their orders was not even an option. (for most) I grew being occasional beaten by hand and stick. Strict rules were the norm and I never had sleepovers at friends or the like. But, my family allowed me to choose my career, they made huge sacrifices for me, and above all genuinely loved me. The physical beatings and restriction on freedoms would have gotten CPS called on them in the west. But, I personally have a great great relationship with them and honestly, think I had pretty good parents as compared to my country's average. People underestimate how many children get a shitty childhood. I will take my imperfect parents over what many of my peers had.
dang 7y ago
I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but this comment crosses into personal attack, which breaks the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20067793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20067793 and marked it off-topic.
- xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago
  I really don't see how it's a personal attack.
  - karvo 7y ago
    It's so goofy that people can use personal experience to illustrate a serious point without having holes poked in their experience.
  - dang 7y ago
    When someone shares their personal story, they put themselves in a vulnerable position. If an internet commenter comes along and presumes to know better about that person's experience, psychologizing, giving condescending advice, and dismissing their understanding of their own life, that's presumptuous and invasive. Since it crosses a line into an intimate place disrespectfully, I call it crossing into personal attack unintentionally. I realize that people often think they're helping the other person this way—e.g. the tough-love approach. But comments on an internet forum lack the relational connection that's necessary for someone to receive help in this way. Instead, it just feels like being talked down to or scolded or worse. I replied that way to the GP comment because those elements were in there. Knowing better: "You may be creating a problem out of nothing." Condescending: "Growing up is not without problems". Condescending advice: "I encourage you to let this resentment go and move on with life". Psychologizing: "You try and find someone to blame and to find some exotic condition you can identify with". Dismissive: "What does validating emotions even mean". Even if the commenter is guessing perfectly and all those points are correct, this is not the way to communicate such information. Indeed, being correct would make it even more humiliating.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

muterad_murilax 7y ago

"What does 'validating emotions' even mean?" To an empathic person, that should be pretty obvious...

0815test 7y ago

> What does "validating emotions" even mean. It's a bit of a misnomer for the process of explicitly acknowledging the emotions that someone else might be feeling, trying to understand the causes of that inner feeling, and prioritizing that acknowledgement and understanding over any subsequent claims as to whether that emotion is unjustified. Saying things like "You're wrong to feel X, because Y!" is corrosive to trust; it leaves our counterparty in doubt as to whether we even care in the least that they felt X in the first place, or might care in the future about any similar situation. "Validating" X means explicitly giving up that option of attacking their feelings in such strong terms - as such, it's a subtle part of day-to-day diplomacy, especially among people who don't trust each other all that much! And the good part is that, once one has achieved that validation, talking effectively about Y only becomes all-the-easier! Added - do you think that children always trust their parents to pursue something close to their best interest, and to never victimize them? Parent-on-child abuse of various sorts is a thing, too. And the parent-child relationship doesn't even start off with that kind of trust. Many kids routinely engage in what we would regard as e.g. pathological lying and gaslighting, if adults did the same thing; we only get to think of such behavior as humorous because they aren't very good at it. They do generally grow out of such things as their moral development leads them to internalize the notions of affective empathy and, yes, trust.

Dylan16807 7y ago
> especially among people who don't trust each other all that much Doesn't that imply it should be of minimum importance in a parent-child relationship?

HiroshiSan 7y ago

"if you didn't know you had a traumatic childhood, then most likely you didn't have one." Not sure I follow this logic.

screye 7y ago
My guess is that most parents do a bad job when compared to the platonic ideal of a parent people may think others have. The implication being, that if one got through childhood without immediately obvious signs of abuse/neglect then their childhood may not have been as bad they think. I grew up in the most liberal/educated part of my country and us children would laugh at lunch time about how getting beaten by a belt was so much better than a hanger. Daily home rules were stricter than what western kids go through when grounded and saying no to their orders was not even an option. (for most) I grew being occasional beaten by hand and stick. Strict rules were the norm and I never had sleepovers at friends or the like. But, my family allowed me to choose my career, they made huge sacrifices for me, and above all genuinely loved me. The physical beatings and restriction on freedoms would have gotten CPS called on them in the west. But, I personally have a great great relationship with them and honestly, think I had pretty good parents as compared to my country's average. People underestimate how many children get a shitty childhood. I will take my imperfect parents over what many of my peers had.

dang 7y ago

I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but this comment crosses into personal attack, which breaks the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20067793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20067793 and marked it off-topic.

xeeeeeeeeeeenu 7y ago
I really don't see how it's a personal attack.
- karvo 7y ago
  It's so goofy that people can use personal experience to illustrate a serious point without having holes poked in their experience.
- dang 7y ago
  When someone shares their personal story, they put themselves in a vulnerable position. If an internet commenter comes along and presumes to know better about that person's experience, psychologizing, giving condescending advice, and dismissing their understanding of their own life, that's presumptuous and invasive. Since it crosses a line into an intimate place disrespectfully, I call it crossing into personal attack unintentionally. I realize that people often think they're helping the other person this way—e.g. the tough-love approach. But comments on an internet forum lack the relational connection that's necessary for someone to receive help in this way. Instead, it just feels like being talked down to or scolded or worse. I replied that way to the GP comment because those elements were in there. Knowing better: "You may be creating a problem out of nothing." Condescending: "Growing up is not without problems". Condescending advice: "I encourage you to let this resentment go and move on with life". Psychologizing: "You try and find someone to blame and to find some exotic condition you can identify with". Dismissive: "What does validating emotions even mean". Even if the commenter is guessing perfectly and all those points are correct, this is not the way to communicate such information. Indeed, being correct would make it even more humiliating.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]