5 ms·

They’re not wrong though, they just left out that it’s two way street and just because you feel something doesn’t mean you aren’t responsible for your actions.

They’re not wrong though, they just left out that it’s two way street and just because you feel something doesn’t mean you aren’t responsible for your actions. The feeling is valid, but the action could be inappropriate or damaging and that’s not okay. “I feel Z so you need to stop X or do Y for me” is not okay.

Hermitian909 3y ago
I think the phrase "feelings are valid" have ended up being... less than ideal for communicating the backing idea. When I talk to mental health professionals they tend to say "your feelings are valid" relates to two fairly incontrovertible things 1. You feel what you feel 2. It is not a moral failing to have a particular emotional reaction in the moment since these are not within our control (acting on the emotion is) The word "valid" ends up granting connotations that the rationale a person applies to why they're feeling their feelings is somehow reasonable or correct. Many emotional reactions are not reasonable or justifiable and the most reasonable course of action may be figuring out how to repress that emotional reaction in the future - phobias are an excellent example here. I think you're seeing that exact miscommunication here, others are reading "valid" in the normal use of the word while you're using it in this more colloquial fashion.
- solarmist 3y ago
  Sure, that's a problem in almost every form of communication. What I mean is you don't get to choose what emotions you feel. So making someone feel wrong/bad for feeling them isn't useful. > two fairly incontrovertible things You say this, but neither my wife nor I took either as incontrovertible until the last few years. I don't have a better way of discussing it or bringing it up though. Do you have a phrase that works for this, but isn't prone to misunderstanding?
  - Hermitian909 3y ago
    > Do you have a phrase that works for this, but isn't prone to misunderstanding? Not a single phrase because there's a decision matrix around the reaction: 1. Do I think I understand why the emotional reaction is happening? 2. Do I think the emotional reaction is healthy? 3. Do I think the emotional reaction is reasonable? And how I respond depends on the answers to these questions. When the answers to the questions are "no" I fall back to building a space of emotional safety things like: "Thank you for sharing your feelings with me", "it's ok that you're feeling that way", "feeling that way doesn't make you a bad person". These statements tend more conservative if I'm feeling it's important to remove misunderstanding.
    - solarmist 3y ago
      Sure, that's in an interaction, but that kind of phrase is a good starting point when talking about the situations in the abstract. As in any conversation, you then adjust and clarify as needed.
weebull 3y ago
Exactly. Telling someone that holding hands isn't your thing is fine. Making them feel like they're abusing you if they do it is not.

Hermitian909 3y ago

I think the phrase "feelings are valid" have ended up being... less than ideal for communicating the backing idea. When I talk to mental health professionals they tend to say "your feelings are valid" relates to two fairly incontrovertible things 1. You feel what you feel 2. It is not a moral failing to have a particular emotional reaction in the moment since these are not within our control (acting on the emotion is) The word "valid" ends up granting connotations that the rationale a person applies to why they're feeling their feelings is somehow reasonable or correct. Many emotional reactions are not reasonable or justifiable and the most reasonable course of action may be figuring out how to repress that emotional reaction in the future - phobias are an excellent example here. I think you're seeing that exact miscommunication here, others are reading "valid" in the normal use of the word while you're using it in this more colloquial fashion.

solarmist 3y ago
Sure, that's a problem in almost every form of communication. What I mean is you don't get to choose what emotions you feel. So making someone feel wrong/bad for feeling them isn't useful. > two fairly incontrovertible things You say this, but neither my wife nor I took either as incontrovertible until the last few years. I don't have a better way of discussing it or bringing it up though. Do you have a phrase that works for this, but isn't prone to misunderstanding?
- Hermitian909 3y ago
  > Do you have a phrase that works for this, but isn't prone to misunderstanding? Not a single phrase because there's a decision matrix around the reaction: 1. Do I think I understand why the emotional reaction is happening? 2. Do I think the emotional reaction is healthy? 3. Do I think the emotional reaction is reasonable? And how I respond depends on the answers to these questions. When the answers to the questions are "no" I fall back to building a space of emotional safety things like: "Thank you for sharing your feelings with me", "it's ok that you're feeling that way", "feeling that way doesn't make you a bad person". These statements tend more conservative if I'm feeling it's important to remove misunderstanding.
  - solarmist 3y ago
    Sure, that's in an interaction, but that kind of phrase is a good starting point when talking about the situations in the abstract. As in any conversation, you then adjust and clarify as needed.

weebull 3y ago

Exactly. Telling someone that holding hands isn't your thing is fine. Making them feel like they're abusing you if they do it is not.