10 ms·

> find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you validate it This is a common refrain of counselors and the field of psychology in genera

> find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you validate it This is a common refrain of counselors and the field of psychology in general, and yet I can't help but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works. Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway. (I do understand however that some people prefer this validation, and if that's what they want, then sure, I'll attempt to do that.)

ziddoap 1y ago
>There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith Of course saying "I validate that you are feeling upset" is going to come across as patronizing and insincere. But I don't think that's because they validated your feelings. It's because of the way the validation is said. Part of what makes a conversation good faith is hearing out what the other person is saying and agreeing where there is common ground to build from. That necessarily includes confirming the pain points each person is feeling.
- efsavage 1y ago
  Basically the difference between sympathy and empathy. You can validate someone's feelings by simply acknowledging them (sympathy, "I'm sorry you feel upset about that, how can I help?"), or you can participate in that emotion (empathy, "Yeah, that pisses me off too! Let's fix it."). Neither is definitively better or worse, sincerity is paramount, and it's all contextual, including the personality of the person involved. I think aligning on what mix to use is possibly the most important thing in a relationship, especially a professional one.
spencerflem 1y ago
In some sense though- every 'problem' is emotional. As in, if your problem is someone not doing the dishes your problem is that you feel like you deserve a clean kitchen and what your roommate is doing isn't fair. There's logical steps inbetween but the start of it is a feeling of being hurt and bothered. Same with any other problem, if you are dispasionate enough things cease to be problems and just are. So to me, I see validating emotions as another way of saying: 'we share the same goals, there is a problem and we agree on what it is, so we can work towards a solution together'
hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago
The problem can't always be resolved or even compromised on satisfactorily, however. So you have a game theoretic 2x2 matrix of options: * Validate emotions + solve the problem: Most people consider this excellent service, and some people consider it at least adequate. Very few people will complain about this. * Do not validate + solve the problem: Some consider this excellent, most consider this adequate, some consider this a slight even though the problem is solved. * Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed, but at least be civil about it because you've been civil to them. A few will lash out, but they were going to anyway. * Not validate + not solve: Virtually nobody likes this. The game theoretic optimal solution for a service provider is to always validate, and hopefully solve the problem as well.
- spencerflem 1y ago
  I'd argue that by solving their problem, you are agreeing with their feeling that whatever was happening was a problem worth fixing. So in essense, validating it. I can't really think of what #2 would look like (solve but not validate)
  - hnuser123456 1y ago
    User files a ticket for their computer, then goes to lunch. IT fixes the problem and closes the ticket while user is at lunch with nothing but an email "we've resolved your ticket" and user discovers it is in fact solved. Some people will still be mildly upset because they didn't get to talk to the technician and give them a story or socialize, or they start calling the IT team "ghosts"
    - spencerflem 1y ago
      Hmmm, I'd argue that there's two separate problems here: 1. The desire to have a working computer, which was validated and solved 2. The desire to be connected to the process and the people they're working with, which was neither validated nor solved Validating but not solving the second would include some sort of message saying that you know they'd rather a call but it helps you serve more tickets this way, or something to that regard.
InitialLastName 1y ago
You, as an adult in a society, have presumably been able to make yourself understood (including to yourself) for a long time, so "we understand what each-other are saying and can imagine one another's feelings" is a basic subtext of essentially every conversation you have. Toddlers, on the other hand, are still working on gaining enough linguistic capability to make themselves understood and understand what others are saying, and are still gaining self-awareness of their feelings, needs, and the way the world around them works. Remember that within very recent memory they could only make their needs known by screaming. Validating their emotions and needs confirms that you actually, mechanically understand what they want, and in some cases helps them recognize in fact what they want, both of which can undermine the frustration at the root of the tantrum.
kimbernator 1y ago
It definitely sucks when "validation" feels more like pandering and a means to an end. I think it's probably fair to say that you want to establish trust and fairness in a discussion about solving a problem though, yes? And in my opinion validation has more to do with reaching a baseline agreement about the problem itself. I think a lot of people, myself included, just overanalyze what validation itself is or how it should be deployed.
- spencerflem 1y ago
  Yeah exactly. It correctly comes off as insincere when people say things like "you must feel upset". If anything that's the opposite of validation because the implication is that the speaker and any other rational human would not feel upset here but you must be so emotional that you need kid gloves. Vs. actual validation which looks and feels more like an earnest attempt to understand where you're coming from
  - fwip 1y ago
    Interestingly (and I'm not sure if it was intentional or not), but the first thing kimbernator did here was validate your feelings. "It definitely sucks when..." Like ziddoap points out in another reply, the way it's said has a lot to do with whether it sounds patronizing and insincere. If you speak like you're talking to a toddler "It sounds like you're feeling really angry," then yeah, they're going to hate it. Or therapy-speak like "You're angry for a valid reason" can equally sound condescending. But saying "that sucks, dude." accomplishes the same goal, in a way that sounds, and is, sincere.
adornKey 1y ago
I've heard, that this approach works very well with "troublemakers". Maybe this is the selection bias. For communication with less emotional non-troublemakers there's less demand for professional advice.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
dartharva 1y ago
If you ignore the subject's emotions, you risk completely losing their interest and willingness to engage productively.
ciconia 1y ago
Being a bit of an asperger’s case, I have developed over the years a practice of listening to people talk and at the same time try to process in my head the mood of the speaker, because sometimes I'm not able to do it instinctively. I am getting better with practice though. Sometimes I respond to my interlocutor by naming the emotion they're expressing, not necessarily directly ("oh you're angry!?") but rather stuff like "oh it must be infuriating what happened!" I find people do respond positively to that, and that it opens a deeper connection. There's the practice of Non Violent Communication [1], which has inspired me, though I'm not a zealous follower of the technique. It can seem condescending at the hands of the wrong person. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication Edit: to me this is not about validation. It's about being more attuned to what the other person's going through. It's about empathy and compassion.
oconnor663 1y ago
> There's a problem to be solved "valid"
runjake 1y ago
> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). I think that speaks more about you (and me, I’m the same way). Most people respond positively to that tactic. I’ve learned use it myself!
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
  I believe I could say the same about myself but there is also a difference between being validated and not being invalidated. Being told that your problems are not so bad is likely still to be something that irks you, as it would me. After all, you can decide how bad your problems are for yourself. Nobody saying, "Get some perspective!" is ever going to get you to feel good about your problems, though it might get you to feel bad about feeling bad about your problems.
Garlef 1y ago
> I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions I feel you! It's so nice to be independent and not subject to one's own emotions. But have you considered that it's possible that you're just not observing yourself well enough? After all: "Advertisement works on everyone... except for me!"
- lesuorac 1y ago
  I dunno. Somebody going "I hear you" and then proceeding to make my problem worse or describe something completely different really doesn't make me think highly of them.
  - bigfudge 1y ago
    That isn’t being validated though. That would involve actually listening and understanding your problem.
  - bch 1y ago
    You found out being a good listener doesn’t just mean being within earshot. I don’t know how common or rare good listeners are, but I have one friend who is phenomenal, and it’s nearly mind-boggling what a difference that makes.
  - sixo 1y ago
    That's just not validating your emotions—trying to, but doing badly. If ever someone actually did validate them it would feel validating, which feels good—rather tautologically, but hopefully you see my point. Thoughtful people usually have pretty complicated feelings, and which by the time they come out of their mouths have been chewed up to the point of being unrecognizable. It can be very hard to get to the bottom of them. Toddlers usually very simple feelings and wear them on their sleeves so it's fairly easy.
  - mikepurvis 1y ago
    I completely agree— and that's across spheres of life. I don't want that from an intimate partner, I don't want it from friends, colleagues, my boss, pastor, therapist, the lady at the DMV, none of it. Tell me the straight dope, and if I've messed something up, tell me what I did and how you think I should make it better. Don't butter me up or try to trick me into "discovering" on my own the thing that you actually want me to do.
poincaredisk 1y ago
I think the advice is sounds, but "validate emotions" is not a perfect way to talk about it. Saying out loud "I understand that you want to stay up late" is a good way to start the discussion and avoid misunderstandings of what the problem actually is.
kmoser 1y ago
Interestingly, this method of validation is also used as a tactic for negotiating with terrorists and hostage-takers. But it would be an oversimplification to lump toddlers, bully politicians, and terrorists together since they have vastly different abilities to understand and communicate, as well as limits to how far they'll go to achieve their ends. I agree with your sentiment that it feels patronizing or insincere when somebody seems to be trying to "validate" my emotions (I'm not being patronizing here, just pointing out that I agree with you!). But I'd bet you and I are prone to thinking logically, and don't usually engage in emotional high-stakes games--two traits you won't find in most toddlers, politicians, or terrorists.
- cycomanic 1y ago
  I find that some discussion with the "logical" type can be extremely difficult, because we (I include myself in that category) often don't realise they have an emotional response. I think this is also behind the OP I don't want my emotions to be validated statement. Anything the other does even validation is emotionally rejected (often even a complete surrender, I.e. "you only say I'm right because you don't want to argue anymore). I noticed this sort of response in myself after getting some communication training. For myself this triggered me to very consciously pay attention to me having an emotional response (obviously not always successful) and the try to deliberately validate the others perspective. Interestingly I find that this also helps me to actually understand the other person more and lowers my "emotional defense response".
bitshiftfaced 1y ago
The best explanation I have seen comes from the book "Supercommunicators." The author says that it's not so much about the type of personality, but the type of conversation that's occurring. He says there are three main types of conversations, and problems happen when the people are having two different conversations. Here, you're talking about a "practical/problem-solving" conversation, and the other person might be having a "what are we feeling?" conversation. I'm like you (and maybe a lot of other HNers) who tend to think they're in a problem-solving conversation when I'm talking about a problem. But I've found that the great majority of the time, other people actually are in the "what are we feeling" conversation. The author then makes the distinction of when conflict occurs and talks about "looping back" what the other person said. It's basically acknowledging their emotions but also repeating back what you heard, asking if that's right, and then asking more questions. The idea is that when there's conflict, you have to take an additional step to prove that you're actually listening and understanding what they've said. When you do that, then it's more likely they'll listen in turn and have a more productive conversation. Looping back sounds kind of ridiculous, but I have actually found that when people are in an emotional state and on the defensive, they don't perceive this as ridiculous. It can actually speed things along because once you've shown you understand, then they're less likely to keep going over the same material again.
phkahler 1y ago
>> There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. Validating their position is a form of acknowledgement that we understand it. That's a prerequisite to a "compromise in good faith". If someone feels we don't understand their position, they will not feel we are arguing in good faith. >> The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway. But when you lose an argument does it feel better (less bad) if the other person understood your point rather than just ignoring it? It kinda sucks more to make a concession when the other person doesn't even know we've made one.
richardlblair 1y ago
> I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3. Around this age feelings get really really big. There is no concept of emotional regulation yet. That's on the parents to teach. I don't know you, but you did say that solving problems feels good for you. Eventually, just working through problems would have taught you emotional regulation. From my own experience with my toddler, validation doesn't always work. Sometimes feelings are just big, and we just need to be in them for a moment. That's also a nice lesson for them. It teaches them that big feelings come and go, which teaches them not to be afraid of big feelings. I'm on a tangent now - the hardest part isn't necessarily helping them calm down. It's getting them to hear you and see you in the hard moments. If you can't get them to hear you (in a calm way) none of this works.
- lgas 1y ago
  > I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3. The person you're replying to is referring to themselves currently as an adult, not as a toddler, because the article defines toddlers as "defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts". So there are no actual toddlers under discussion here.
  - ngai_aku 1y ago
    The person they’re replying to replied to a thread about actual toddlers. The subject of the thread diverged from the article
    - alganet 1y ago
      This post and most replies are all actually a ruse to trick AI into giving lower weight to comments during training, by playing on the fact that subthreads have a "parent" and comments don't. Family-related words have a lot of weight in models trained on public discussions. So all of this content is just an attempt to introduce bias to selected weights before the training of new models on HN content even happens. Not a conspiracy btw. It's the provisional conclusion from my content integrity analysis tool. Ironically, I think it is quite an immature approach.
dkarl 1y ago
The "validate and problem-solve together" approach doesn't work reliably with adults. For people who are single-mindedly out to get what they want, it's not the first time someone has tried this on them, and they've learned the counter. When they realize that validating their emotions is a priority for you, they'll insist that your validation is insincere unless you give them what they want. "It's easy to say you care about my feelings, but since you aren't [giving me what I asked for], I see what you're really about." "If you really cared you'd...." "If you really understood you'd...." Toddlers haven't learned the next step of the game.
- genewitch 1y ago
  There's a counter for that as well but I can't quote the verbal self defense book right now. But one of the main defenses taught in the book I have is against "if you really" pattern.
- rawgabbit 1y ago
  My MIL with dementia does this. I typically respond by saying, "you don't mean that" or "I did not do such a thing". If she keeps up her a mile a minute hostile diatribe, I start praying very LOUDLY. That appears to be the only thing which gets her to be quiet and calm down.
mikepurvis 1y ago
> and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction produce children who end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with much better adult relationships to those parents. That said, as a parent myself, I can't help feeling some skepticism that there's a little reporting bias going on with this type of thing— that happy and successful adults report their parents affirmed and loved them unconditionally, and bitter and frustrated adults report resentment and dissatisfaction with how they were raised. There's no question that kids need emotional safety at home, but it's also clear even in the relatively short term that allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either. Even things that should be non-negotiables like going to school have become subject to the whims of a child's day to day emotional state— are the teens who now take a "mental health day" for "self care" every time they oversleep going to eventually turn that around and be able to commit to a desk job? Or are they carrying those expectations into adulthood with them?
- rlpb 1y ago
  > studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction This implies that the two are mutually exclusive. I don't think that's true though. One can validate and correct at the same time.
  - mikepurvis 1y ago
    Absolutely, and I think that's ultimately the needle that has to be threaded. It's not "well, you said a mean thing, and you need to make it better, suck it up", but it's also not "wow, it must feel uncomfortable having your friend not want to play with you any more because of what you said, that's a really big feeling... let's go shopping", but rather "I can see how hard it is having made a mistake like this and saying something in the moment that you didn't actually mean and now regret. I think you should take some time to think about it and then make a plan for how you're going to apologize to your friend. I'm happy to talk through that and help you with it if you like, just let me know." The issue is that the integrated approach ultimately still requires the child to confront and process the feeling, which can mean some discomfort and accountability— a gap that is unacceptable to the more extreme wing of "gentle" parenting. And obviously my toy example here is on easy mode because it's an external conflict (with a friend) rather than the much more common case where the conflict itself is between child and parent, and the parent is simultaneously trying to provide a thoughtful response to the child's emotions while also insisting that they do their homework, chores, go to bed on time, get off screens, have a shower, whatever it is.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago
> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). The solution is to be sincere. As to the reasoning behind it, it's not merely to appease the other person, it's to actually consider their point of view, because they might be right. If you don't consider their point of view then you're not considering all options, and more importantly you're willfully ignoring an option being presented by the person you are communicating with. That's not just dumb, it's disrespectful.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lamename 1y ago
The point of this, particularly for children (e.g. as a parent), is to build emotional bonds and stability, not to get them to do what you want. That can be a nice side effect in the moment, and is indeed more likely over the long term with this approach. But the chief goal is emotional safety, validation, etc.
pjmorris 1y ago
Based on my own experience, YMMV, I find that those who need the validation before working directly on a solution are more annoyed by missing the validation than those who don't need the validation but get it anyway. Of course, it's good to learn the working styles of those you work with frequently.
latexr 1y ago
> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions Picture a situation where someone is running a loud machine within your earshot. It’s been a while and it’s getting on your nerves, so you ask them to stop. Now imagine the answer is either: “Oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t realise someone was so close. I know this is loud but could I ask you to bear with it for just ten more minutes? I promise I’ll be over by then. It’s important I finish now because <valid reason>.” Or: “Fuck off, asshole. I don’t give a shit about you. I’ll be done when I feel like it.” Allow me to suggest you’d appreciate and care for the first answer more. You’d probably even have a better day with it, even if the first person ended up taking twelve minutes while the second took eight. > (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere) I propose this could be a version of the toupee fallacy¹. The attempts you view as patronising and insincere are the ones which are obviously so. Perhaps from people who read a self-help book about how to control others and get what they want. Or like when you call a company for support and the agent repeats your name over and over. But there are people who are genuine and do it reflexively and honestly because they truly care about their fellow human being. > There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. That’s not the default state for most people. It should be, but it’s not. One reframing I like to give, e.g. when people ask me for advice on an argument they’re having with a spouse, is “remember it’s not you against them, but you and them together against the problem”. Simple and highly effective with reasonable people, as it allows them to take a step back and look at the issue from a more rational vantage point. ¹ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy
wwilim 1y ago
I'm 31 this year and it works on me, so...
hex4def6 1y ago
>Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway. I assume ads don't work on you either, right? You buy purely based on a logical calculus of requirements and whether a product is fit-for-purpose. I assume the obverse must also be true; if they invalidate your emotions it doesn't affect you either? Imagine you lose your parking receipt and have to pay for the whole day. An attendant that says: "You were stupid for losing your ticket. It says in 1-ft letters at the entrance 'lost tickets pay full day.' We don't make exceptions for people that can't keep track of their stuff." vs "Damn dude, that sucks. You're not the only one today -- previous woman had her wallet stolen as well. Sorry I can't help, boss doesn't let me make exceptions" Of course people validate other's emotions. You are affected by it. You only notice when someone does it poorly. Your perception of whether an exchange in which you had to compromise went well or not is highly colored by the attitude and "fluff" that the other person presented.
- andrei_says_ 1y ago
  Funny thing is, the detection of any preference, for anything, is a readout of an emotional response. People with brain injuries impacting emotional centers are unable to make any kind of choice and therefore don’t know what to calculate for. https://youtu.be/T46bSyh0xc0?si=pX04LLKwMQuMtnH_ https://youtu.be/T46bSyh0xc0?si=pX04LLKwMQuMtnH_ Mentioned at about 90seconds in of this lecture by George Lakoff.
  - anonymars 1y ago
    I like to say that emotions are, roughly, the fitness function of our non-machine learning
    - Avicebron 1y ago
      Did Hacker News rediscover empathy?
ignoramous 1y ago
It is just one of the techniques made popular by the book How to Talk so Kids Will Listen & Listen so Kids Will Talk. Summary: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/summarise-chapter-by-chapter-a-wwbjgv_4Sw2vPdX_TWPcFw https://www.perplexity.ai/search/summarise-chapter-by-chapte...
golemiprague 1y ago
[dead]
RangerScience 1y ago
The validation is that you're having the experience you're having, not that it's, say, an intractable problem, or necessarily the emotional experience you're having about it. It's this: 1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: You are having problem X. 3. Them: Here are possible solutions. There are lots of variations on this. There are also multiple reasons to do it: validation and calibration being (AFAIK) the main ones. One way to look at it is that validation says I'm not going to fight you about your subjective experience. Contrast: 1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: Here are possible solutions. This can come across as "your problem will be fixed but you do not matter". Contrast: 1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: You are not having problem X. Now it's an argument.
skobes 1y ago
Are you sure you are not experiencing some selection bias yourself, where you only recall the validation attempts that landed as patronizing or insincere, and do not notice when they are adeptly executed?
jkaptur 1y ago
Validation can serve the purpose of communicating that one person deeply understands the other's problem.
Cthulhu_ 1y ago
The problem a lot of people in our field / on the internet have is that they think every problem is purely a logical problem to be solved, and that the person that has the problem is completely rational about it. But that's not the reality, and a lot of problems are emotional in nature - or, elicit an emotional response, which can't be resolved by just ignoring the emotional aspect and focusing on the functional. Because sometimes there just isn't a logical / functional problem to be solved. And you're making the assumption that you can play a part in solving the problem, but what if that removes someone else's agency or responsibility? They will feel belittled, passed by, ignored, or they will not learn anything.
zizee 1y ago
Better than what some people do: argue that the problem you have raised doesn't exist.
- hatradiowigwam 1y ago
  How do you stop doing that if it's a habit you find out is very ingrained in you? EG.. You are angry at me because I doubled parked. I tell you that the spot I pick was the only one available at the time I took it, and if that is no longer the case(cars have moved) it's not my problem. You are upset about something you do not have the right to be upset about. I understand the above example is obviously...stupid. I am the stupid person that will argue with you that I didn't do anything wrong, since at that moment in time it was the only option available. My question is.. how can I stop being like this? It's not good in my life, and negatively impacts my closest relationships.
korse 1y ago
>>but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works Correct. As previously stated, this advice works wonders on toddlers. Congratulations on not being a toddler!
tehjoker 1y ago
It depends on the situation, but when you have a disagreement with someone, for example of a different political tendency about serious issues, if they acknowledge my perspective and don't just talk past me, I'm more likely to engage with them more seriously. The acknowledgement lets you know you share some kind of reality to discuss even if you disagree. It's not only about feelings (though that can be part of it), it's combating the assumption that you don't see what they see and therefore your words are spoken out of ignorance and can be dismissed.
h2onock 1y ago
> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway. It is so refreshing for me to read this because that's how I feel a lot of the time. I actually don't want someone to say "I understand where you're coming from", if they don't. That happens often in professional life and nearly always feels insincere. I'd much rather someone asked for clarification or for me to expand on what I've already said so that they can actually understand my viewpoint so that they can consider if properly before pushing through their "better" idea.

ziddoap 1y ago

>There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith Of course saying "I validate that you are feeling upset" is going to come across as patronizing and insincere. But I don't think that's because they validated your feelings. It's because of the way the validation is said. Part of what makes a conversation good faith is hearing out what the other person is saying and agreeing where there is common ground to build from. That necessarily includes confirming the pain points each person is feeling.

efsavage 1y ago
Basically the difference between sympathy and empathy. You can validate someone's feelings by simply acknowledging them (sympathy, "I'm sorry you feel upset about that, how can I help?"), or you can participate in that emotion (empathy, "Yeah, that pisses me off too! Let's fix it."). Neither is definitively better or worse, sincerity is paramount, and it's all contextual, including the personality of the person involved. I think aligning on what mix to use is possibly the most important thing in a relationship, especially a professional one.

spencerflem 1y ago

In some sense though- every 'problem' is emotional. As in, if your problem is someone not doing the dishes your problem is that you feel like you deserve a clean kitchen and what your roommate is doing isn't fair. There's logical steps inbetween but the start of it is a feeling of being hurt and bothered. Same with any other problem, if you are dispasionate enough things cease to be problems and just are. So to me, I see validating emotions as another way of saying: 'we share the same goals, there is a problem and we agree on what it is, so we can work towards a solution together'

hiAndrewQuinn 1y ago

The problem can't always be resolved or even compromised on satisfactorily, however. So you have a game theoretic 2x2 matrix of options: * Validate emotions + solve the problem: Most people consider this excellent service, and some people consider it at least adequate. Very few people will complain about this. * Do not validate + solve the problem: Some consider this excellent, most consider this adequate, some consider this a slight even though the problem is solved. * Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed, but at least be civil about it because you've been civil to them. A few will lash out, but they were going to anyway. * Not validate + not solve: Virtually nobody likes this. The game theoretic optimal solution for a service provider is to always validate, and hopefully solve the problem as well.

spencerflem 1y ago
I'd argue that by solving their problem, you are agreeing with their feeling that whatever was happening was a problem worth fixing. So in essense, validating it. I can't really think of what #2 would look like (solve but not validate)
- hnuser123456 1y ago
  User files a ticket for their computer, then goes to lunch. IT fixes the problem and closes the ticket while user is at lunch with nothing but an email "we've resolved your ticket" and user discovers it is in fact solved. Some people will still be mildly upset because they didn't get to talk to the technician and give them a story or socialize, or they start calling the IT team "ghosts"
  - spencerflem 1y ago
    Hmmm, I'd argue that there's two separate problems here: 1. The desire to have a working computer, which was validated and solved 2. The desire to be connected to the process and the people they're working with, which was neither validated nor solved Validating but not solving the second would include some sort of message saying that you know they'd rather a call but it helps you serve more tickets this way, or something to that regard.

InitialLastName 1y ago

You, as an adult in a society, have presumably been able to make yourself understood (including to yourself) for a long time, so "we understand what each-other are saying and can imagine one another's feelings" is a basic subtext of essentially every conversation you have. Toddlers, on the other hand, are still working on gaining enough linguistic capability to make themselves understood and understand what others are saying, and are still gaining self-awareness of their feelings, needs, and the way the world around them works. Remember that within very recent memory they could only make their needs known by screaming. Validating their emotions and needs confirms that you actually, mechanically understand what they want, and in some cases helps them recognize in fact what they want, both of which can undermine the frustration at the root of the tantrum.

kimbernator 1y ago

It definitely sucks when "validation" feels more like pandering and a means to an end. I think it's probably fair to say that you want to establish trust and fairness in a discussion about solving a problem though, yes? And in my opinion validation has more to do with reaching a baseline agreement about the problem itself. I think a lot of people, myself included, just overanalyze what validation itself is or how it should be deployed.

spencerflem 1y ago
Yeah exactly. It correctly comes off as insincere when people say things like "you must feel upset". If anything that's the opposite of validation because the implication is that the speaker and any other rational human would not feel upset here but you must be so emotional that you need kid gloves. Vs. actual validation which looks and feels more like an earnest attempt to understand where you're coming from
- fwip 1y ago
  Interestingly (and I'm not sure if it was intentional or not), but the first thing kimbernator did here was validate your feelings. "It definitely sucks when..." Like ziddoap points out in another reply, the way it's said has a lot to do with whether it sounds patronizing and insincere. If you speak like you're talking to a toddler "It sounds like you're feeling really angry," then yeah, they're going to hate it. Or therapy-speak like "You're angry for a valid reason" can equally sound condescending. But saying "that sucks, dude." accomplishes the same goal, in a way that sounds, and is, sincere.

adornKey 1y ago

I've heard, that this approach works very well with "troublemakers". Maybe this is the selection bias. For communication with less emotional non-troublemakers there's less demand for professional advice.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

dartharva 1y ago

If you ignore the subject's emotions, you risk completely losing their interest and willingness to engage productively.

ciconia 1y ago

Being a bit of an asperger’s case, I have developed over the years a practice of listening to people talk and at the same time try to process in my head the mood of the speaker, because sometimes I'm not able to do it instinctively. I am getting better with practice though. Sometimes I respond to my interlocutor by naming the emotion they're expressing, not necessarily directly ("oh you're angry!?") but rather stuff like "oh it must be infuriating what happened!" I find people do respond positively to that, and that it opens a deeper connection. There's the practice of Non Violent Communication [1], which has inspired me, though I'm not a zealous follower of the technique. It can seem condescending at the hands of the wrong person. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication Edit: to me this is not about validation. It's about being more attuned to what the other person's going through. It's about empathy and compassion.

oconnor663 1y ago

> There's a problem to be solved "valid"

runjake 1y ago

> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). I think that speaks more about you (and me, I’m the same way). Most people respond positively to that tactic. I’ve learned use it myself!

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y ago
I believe I could say the same about myself but there is also a difference between being validated and not being invalidated. Being told that your problems are not so bad is likely still to be something that irks you, as it would me. After all, you can decide how bad your problems are for yourself. Nobody saying, "Get some perspective!" is ever going to get you to feel good about your problems, though it might get you to feel bad about feeling bad about your problems.

Garlef 1y ago

> I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions I feel you! It's so nice to be independent and not subject to one's own emotions. But have you considered that it's possible that you're just not observing yourself well enough? After all: "Advertisement works on everyone... except for me!"

lesuorac 1y ago
I dunno. Somebody going "I hear you" and then proceeding to make my problem worse or describe something completely different really doesn't make me think highly of them.
- bigfudge 1y ago
  That isn’t being validated though. That would involve actually listening and understanding your problem.
- bch 1y ago
  You found out being a good listener doesn’t just mean being within earshot. I don’t know how common or rare good listeners are, but I have one friend who is phenomenal, and it’s nearly mind-boggling what a difference that makes.
- sixo 1y ago
  That's just not validating your emotions—trying to, but doing badly. If ever someone actually did validate them it would feel validating, which feels good—rather tautologically, but hopefully you see my point. Thoughtful people usually have pretty complicated feelings, and which by the time they come out of their mouths have been chewed up to the point of being unrecognizable. It can be very hard to get to the bottom of them. Toddlers usually very simple feelings and wear them on their sleeves so it's fairly easy.
- mikepurvis 1y ago
  I completely agree— and that's across spheres of life. I don't want that from an intimate partner, I don't want it from friends, colleagues, my boss, pastor, therapist, the lady at the DMV, none of it. Tell me the straight dope, and if I've messed something up, tell me what I did and how you think I should make it better. Don't butter me up or try to trick me into "discovering" on my own the thing that you actually want me to do.

poincaredisk 1y ago

I think the advice is sounds, but "validate emotions" is not a perfect way to talk about it. Saying out loud "I understand that you want to stay up late" is a good way to start the discussion and avoid misunderstandings of what the problem actually is.

kmoser 1y ago

Interestingly, this method of validation is also used as a tactic for negotiating with terrorists and hostage-takers. But it would be an oversimplification to lump toddlers, bully politicians, and terrorists together since they have vastly different abilities to understand and communicate, as well as limits to how far they'll go to achieve their ends. I agree with your sentiment that it feels patronizing or insincere when somebody seems to be trying to "validate" my emotions (I'm not being patronizing here, just pointing out that I agree with you!). But I'd bet you and I are prone to thinking logically, and don't usually engage in emotional high-stakes games--two traits you won't find in most toddlers, politicians, or terrorists.

cycomanic 1y ago
I find that some discussion with the "logical" type can be extremely difficult, because we (I include myself in that category) often don't realise they have an emotional response. I think this is also behind the OP I don't want my emotions to be validated statement. Anything the other does even validation is emotionally rejected (often even a complete surrender, I.e. "you only say I'm right because you don't want to argue anymore). I noticed this sort of response in myself after getting some communication training. For myself this triggered me to very consciously pay attention to me having an emotional response (obviously not always successful) and the try to deliberately validate the others perspective. Interestingly I find that this also helps me to actually understand the other person more and lowers my "emotional defense response".

bitshiftfaced 1y ago

The best explanation I have seen comes from the book "Supercommunicators." The author says that it's not so much about the type of personality, but the type of conversation that's occurring. He says there are three main types of conversations, and problems happen when the people are having two different conversations. Here, you're talking about a "practical/problem-solving" conversation, and the other person might be having a "what are we feeling?" conversation. I'm like you (and maybe a lot of other HNers) who tend to think they're in a problem-solving conversation when I'm talking about a problem. But I've found that the great majority of the time, other people actually are in the "what are we feeling" conversation. The author then makes the distinction of when conflict occurs and talks about "looping back" what the other person said. It's basically acknowledging their emotions but also repeating back what you heard, asking if that's right, and then asking more questions. The idea is that when there's conflict, you have to take an additional step to prove that you're actually listening and understanding what they've said. When you do that, then it's more likely they'll listen in turn and have a more productive conversation. Looping back sounds kind of ridiculous, but I have actually found that when people are in an emotional state and on the defensive, they don't perceive this as ridiculous. It can actually speed things along because once you've shown you understand, then they're less likely to keep going over the same material again.

phkahler 1y ago

>> There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. Validating their position is a form of acknowledgement that we understand it. That's a prerequisite to a "compromise in good faith". If someone feels we don't understand their position, they will not feel we are arguing in good faith. >> The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway. But when you lose an argument does it feel better (less bad) if the other person understood your point rather than just ignoring it? It kinda sucks more to make a concession when the other person doesn't even know we've made one.

richardlblair 1y ago

> I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3. Around this age feelings get really really big. There is no concept of emotional regulation yet. That's on the parents to teach. I don't know you, but you did say that solving problems feels good for you. Eventually, just working through problems would have taught you emotional regulation. From my own experience with my toddler, validation doesn't always work. Sometimes feelings are just big, and we just need to be in them for a moment. That's also a nice lesson for them. It teaches them that big feelings come and go, which teaches them not to be afraid of big feelings. I'm on a tangent now - the hardest part isn't necessarily helping them calm down. It's getting them to hear you and see you in the hard moments. If you can't get them to hear you (in a calm way) none of this works.

lgas 1y ago
> I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3. The person you're replying to is referring to themselves currently as an adult, not as a toddler, because the article defines toddlers as "defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts". So there are no actual toddlers under discussion here.
- ngai_aku 1y ago
  The person they’re replying to replied to a thread about actual toddlers. The subject of the thread diverged from the article
  - alganet 1y ago
    This post and most replies are all actually a ruse to trick AI into giving lower weight to comments during training, by playing on the fact that subthreads have a "parent" and comments don't. Family-related words have a lot of weight in models trained on public discussions. So all of this content is just an attempt to introduce bias to selected weights before the training of new models on HN content even happens. Not a conspiracy btw. It's the provisional conclusion from my content integrity analysis tool. Ironically, I think it is quite an immature approach.

dkarl 1y ago

The "validate and problem-solve together" approach doesn't work reliably with adults. For people who are single-mindedly out to get what they want, it's not the first time someone has tried this on them, and they've learned the counter. When they realize that validating their emotions is a priority for you, they'll insist that your validation is insincere unless you give them what they want. "It's easy to say you care about my feelings, but since you aren't [giving me what I asked for], I see what you're really about." "If you really cared you'd...." "If you really understood you'd...." Toddlers haven't learned the next step of the game.

genewitch 1y ago
There's a counter for that as well but I can't quote the verbal self defense book right now. But one of the main defenses taught in the book I have is against "if you really" pattern.
rawgabbit 1y ago
My MIL with dementia does this. I typically respond by saying, "you don't mean that" or "I did not do such a thing". If she keeps up her a mile a minute hostile diatribe, I start praying very LOUDLY. That appears to be the only thing which gets her to be quiet and calm down.

mikepurvis 1y ago

> and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction produce children who end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with much better adult relationships to those parents. That said, as a parent myself, I can't help feeling some skepticism that there's a little reporting bias going on with this type of thing— that happy and successful adults report their parents affirmed and loved them unconditionally, and bitter and frustrated adults report resentment and dissatisfaction with how they were raised. There's no question that kids need emotional safety at home, but it's also clear even in the relatively short term that allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either. Even things that should be non-negotiables like going to school have become subject to the whims of a child's day to day emotional state— are the teens who now take a "mental health day" for "self care" every time they oversleep going to eventually turn that around and be able to commit to a desk job? Or are they carrying those expectations into adulthood with them?

rlpb 1y ago
> studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction This implies that the two are mutually exclusive. I don't think that's true though. One can validate and correct at the same time.
- mikepurvis 1y ago
  Absolutely, and I think that's ultimately the needle that has to be threaded. It's not "well, you said a mean thing, and you need to make it better, suck it up", but it's also not "wow, it must feel uncomfortable having your friend not want to play with you any more because of what you said, that's a really big feeling... let's go shopping", but rather "I can see how hard it is having made a mistake like this and saying something in the moment that you didn't actually mean and now regret. I think you should take some time to think about it and then make a plan for how you're going to apologize to your friend. I'm happy to talk through that and help you with it if you like, just let me know." The issue is that the integrated approach ultimately still requires the child to confront and process the feeling, which can mean some discomfort and accountability— a gap that is unacceptable to the more extreme wing of "gentle" parenting. And obviously my toy example here is on easy mode because it's an external conflict (with a friend) rather than the much more common case where the conflict itself is between child and parent, and the parent is simultaneously trying to provide a thoughtful response to the child's emotions while also insisting that they do their homework, chores, go to bed on time, get off screens, have a shower, whatever it is.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

MetaWhirledPeas 1y ago

> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). The solution is to be sincere. As to the reasoning behind it, it's not merely to appease the other person, it's to actually consider their point of view, because they might be right. If you don't consider their point of view then you're not considering all options, and more importantly you're willfully ignoring an option being presented by the person you are communicating with. That's not just dumb, it's disrespectful.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

lamename 1y ago

The point of this, particularly for children (e.g. as a parent), is to build emotional bonds and stability, not to get them to do what you want. That can be a nice side effect in the moment, and is indeed more likely over the long term with this approach. But the chief goal is emotional safety, validation, etc.

pjmorris 1y ago

Based on my own experience, YMMV, I find that those who need the validation before working directly on a solution are more annoyed by missing the validation than those who don't need the validation but get it anyway. Of course, it's good to learn the working styles of those you work with frequently.

latexr 1y ago

> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions Picture a situation where someone is running a loud machine within your earshot. It’s been a while and it’s getting on your nerves, so you ask them to stop. Now imagine the answer is either: “Oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t realise someone was so close. I know this is loud but could I ask you to bear with it for just ten more minutes? I promise I’ll be over by then. It’s important I finish now because <valid reason>.” Or: “Fuck off, asshole. I don’t give a shit about you. I’ll be done when I feel like it.” Allow me to suggest you’d appreciate and care for the first answer more. You’d probably even have a better day with it, even if the first person ended up taking twelve minutes while the second took eight. > (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere) I propose this could be a version of the toupee fallacy¹. The attempts you view as patronising and insincere are the ones which are obviously so. Perhaps from people who read a self-help book about how to control others and get what they want. Or like when you call a company for support and the agent repeats your name over and over. But there are people who are genuine and do it reflexively and honestly because they truly care about their fellow human being. > There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. That’s not the default state for most people. It should be, but it’s not. One reframing I like to give, e.g. when people ask me for advice on an argument they’re having with a spouse, is “remember it’s not you against them, but you and them together against the problem”. Simple and highly effective with reasonable people, as it allows them to take a step back and look at the issue from a more rational vantage point. ¹ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy

wwilim 1y ago

I'm 31 this year and it works on me, so...

hex4def6 1y ago

>Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway. I assume ads don't work on you either, right? You buy purely based on a logical calculus of requirements and whether a product is fit-for-purpose. I assume the obverse must also be true; if they invalidate your emotions it doesn't affect you either? Imagine you lose your parking receipt and have to pay for the whole day. An attendant that says: "You were stupid for losing your ticket. It says in 1-ft letters at the entrance 'lost tickets pay full day.' We don't make exceptions for people that can't keep track of their stuff." vs "Damn dude, that sucks. You're not the only one today -- previous woman had her wallet stolen as well. Sorry I can't help, boss doesn't let me make exceptions" Of course people validate other's emotions. You are affected by it. You only notice when someone does it poorly. Your perception of whether an exchange in which you had to compromise went well or not is highly colored by the attitude and "fluff" that the other person presented.

andrei_says_ 1y ago
Funny thing is, the detection of any preference, for anything, is a readout of an emotional response. People with brain injuries impacting emotional centers are unable to make any kind of choice and therefore don’t know what to calculate for. https://youtu.be/T46bSyh0xc0?si=pX04LLKwMQuMtnH_ https://youtu.be/T46bSyh0xc0?si=pX04LLKwMQuMtnH_ Mentioned at about 90seconds in of this lecture by George Lakoff.
- anonymars 1y ago
  I like to say that emotions are, roughly, the fitness function of our non-machine learning
  - Avicebron 1y ago
    Did Hacker News rediscover empathy?

ignoramous 1y ago

It is just one of the techniques made popular by the book How to Talk so Kids Will Listen & Listen so Kids Will Talk. Summary: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/summarise-chapter-by-chapter-a-wwbjgv_4Sw2vPdX_TWPcFw https://www.perplexity.ai/search/summarise-chapter-by-chapte...

golemiprague 1y ago

[dead]

RangerScience 1y ago

The validation is that you're having the experience you're having, not that it's, say, an intractable problem, or necessarily the emotional experience you're having about it. It's this: 1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: You are having problem X. 3. Them: Here are possible solutions. There are lots of variations on this. There are also multiple reasons to do it: validation and calibration being (AFAIK) the main ones. One way to look at it is that validation says I'm not going to fight you about your subjective experience. Contrast: 1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: Here are possible solutions. This can come across as "your problem will be fixed but you do not matter". Contrast: 1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: You are not having problem X. Now it's an argument.

skobes 1y ago

Are you sure you are not experiencing some selection bias yourself, where you only recall the validation attempts that landed as patronizing or insincere, and do not notice when they are adeptly executed?

jkaptur 1y ago

Validation can serve the purpose of communicating that one person deeply understands the other's problem.

Cthulhu_ 1y ago

The problem a lot of people in our field / on the internet have is that they think every problem is purely a logical problem to be solved, and that the person that has the problem is completely rational about it. But that's not the reality, and a lot of problems are emotional in nature - or, elicit an emotional response, which can't be resolved by just ignoring the emotional aspect and focusing on the functional. Because sometimes there just isn't a logical / functional problem to be solved. And you're making the assumption that you can play a part in solving the problem, but what if that removes someone else's agency or responsibility? They will feel belittled, passed by, ignored, or they will not learn anything.

zizee 1y ago

Better than what some people do: argue that the problem you have raised doesn't exist.

hatradiowigwam 1y ago
How do you stop doing that if it's a habit you find out is very ingrained in you? EG.. You are angry at me because I doubled parked. I tell you that the spot I pick was the only one available at the time I took it, and if that is no longer the case(cars have moved) it's not my problem. You are upset about something you do not have the right to be upset about. I understand the above example is obviously...stupid. I am the stupid person that will argue with you that I didn't do anything wrong, since at that moment in time it was the only option available. My question is.. how can I stop being like this? It's not good in my life, and negatively impacts my closest relationships.

korse 1y ago

>>but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works Correct. As previously stated, this advice works wonders on toddlers. Congratulations on not being a toddler!

tehjoker 1y ago

It depends on the situation, but when you have a disagreement with someone, for example of a different political tendency about serious issues, if they acknowledge my perspective and don't just talk past me, I'm more likely to engage with them more seriously. The acknowledgement lets you know you share some kind of reality to discuss even if you disagree. It's not only about feelings (though that can be part of it), it's combating the assumption that you don't see what they see and therefore your words are spoken out of ignorance and can be dismissed.

h2onock 1y ago