4 ms·

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 +

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 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
      3. Understanding, Independence and control. The desire to continue to have a working computer in future, and to have own control over that by knowing what went wrong, how to avoid it happening again and what to do after. "There I fixed it." does not help with this. It is low information and high dependence. Some would draw the conclusion that the person doing this is deliberately maintaining high dependence. That may be paranoid (The tech person may just be overworked and find social explanations harder than fixing computers) but some do draw that conclusion.
  - macintux 2y ago
    I'm annoyed with that kind of response because I want to know what was broken, so I can keep an eye out for it in the future or be careful not to trigger the behavior.
    - zippyman55 2y ago
      Those messages can be a little short. For the back end staff, I hope they collect meaningful information to resolve subsequent issues down the road. But I don’t expect the user to respond to the IT staff w “thank you. I can verify you solved my problem as I can now perform eigenvalue decomposition” What pissed me off was my occasional lazy employee who would report the problem fixed but no verbiage as to what was fixed. Problem would reoccur and everyone would be frustrated.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bloat 2y ago
  "You are a total wimp for wanting gloves in this weather! Here they are though, you weakling."
  - spencerflem 2y ago
    Still acknowledges that they understand youre feeling cold and that you'd rather not be. I guess it doesn't agree that it's something you should be feeling, just that you are feeling it. Maybe its a definions thing, idk which of the two validation is supposed to refer to
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      > which of the two validation is supposed to refer to In this context, it's the former. If I say, "It's dumb that you feel that way but here's you're stupid gloves," to a toddler, I solved their problem but I also likely made them feel like their problem is somehow not a "valid" one. Especially when this happens repeatedly to children is when they grow up with particularly anti-social behaviors, for fear of others abusing them similarly.
fragmede 2y ago
the game theoretic is to notice that +validate -solve is cheaper than +validate +solve, and capitalize on that. -validate +solve is the Comcast and Spirit airlines approach, so it's also valid
- gowld 2y ago
  ? Comcast and Spirit both run their business on NOT solving problems.
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    In fact Comcast is one of the few cases where I've had a customer service rep commit outright fraud. Validated my problem, responded to my questions, told me they did X when in fact they did Y (which I would not have found acceptable and they were fully aware of this). It's the alternative option that most people don't realize is in the table. Validate, pretend to have solved, don't actually solve.
ang_cire 2y ago
> The game theoretic optimal solution for a service provider is to always validate Which can be a mistake when the person you are dealing with has or may have an ulterior motive for your interaction (i.e. said "toddlers"). This is why in actual customer service, validating someone's feelings ("I understand you did not like the cook on the steak") is good, while validating their concerns ("I understand that the steak was undercooked") is bad. You don't want to "find common ground" or "shared viewpoints" just to fulfill the validation matrix plot, because it may very well be based on a false premise, or even a blatant fabrication. In real world terms, validating concerns can often be an admission of liability or fault, or a soundbite that will be weaponized against you.
- seszett 2y ago
  > This is why in actual customer service, validating someone's feelings ("I understand you did not like the cook on the steak") is good, while validating their concerns ("I understand that the steak was undercooked") is bad. Well at least to some people, this makes it look like a sleazy attempt form customer service at deflecting blame from a fact ("the steak is undercooked") to a feeling from the customer ("you just don't like the steak, but I don't believe you when you say it's undercooked"). It immediately makes the person seem less human and more like a customer service robot. I'm pretty sure most people hate it, but maybe I'm wrong.
  - hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
    Yeah, no. I don't want to end up in a lawsuit because I agreed with the customer offhand that the steak was undercooked. I'll stick with "I understand the steak was not to your liking. May I ask the chef to bring you another? Drinks are on the house, by the way." You can't sue an agreeable robot. If you assume I can take a good look at you and just know you're the kind of guy who would never do that, you're assuming a level of sight-reading people that even most police investigators don't have. I'm sorry, I'm only human, and I'm waiting five tables simultaneously right now.
    - burnished 2y ago
SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
> * Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed Actually, if they came to vent about a problem that they don't view as solvable, then validation only is what they're looking for. e.g. When your partner tells you about their difficult day at work, or your friend tells you about a bad date that they had, they're not usually asking for advice. They just want emotional support. Spotting when this is the case is useful. Trying to solve it when validation and empathy is what's wanted can be the more annoying response. https://medium.com/musings-with-meg/the-first-question-you-should-ask-when-someone-is-venting-at-you-f579c3a2b225 https://medium.com/musings-with-meg/the-first-question-you-s...

spencerflem 2y 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 2y 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 2y 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.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
    3. Understanding, Independence and control. The desire to continue to have a working computer in future, and to have own control over that by knowing what went wrong, how to avoid it happening again and what to do after. "There I fixed it." does not help with this. It is low information and high dependence. Some would draw the conclusion that the person doing this is deliberately maintaining high dependence. That may be paranoid (The tech person may just be overworked and find social explanations harder than fixing computers) but some do draw that conclusion.
- macintux 2y ago
  I'm annoyed with that kind of response because I want to know what was broken, so I can keep an eye out for it in the future or be careful not to trigger the behavior.
  - zippyman55 2y ago
    Those messages can be a little short. For the back end staff, I hope they collect meaningful information to resolve subsequent issues down the road. But I don’t expect the user to respond to the IT staff w “thank you. I can verify you solved my problem as I can now perform eigenvalue decomposition” What pissed me off was my occasional lazy employee who would report the problem fixed but no verbiage as to what was fixed. Problem would reoccur and everyone would be frustrated.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bloat 2y ago
"You are a total wimp for wanting gloves in this weather! Here they are though, you weakling."
- spencerflem 2y ago
  Still acknowledges that they understand youre feeling cold and that you'd rather not be. I guess it doesn't agree that it's something you should be feeling, just that you are feeling it. Maybe its a definions thing, idk which of the two validation is supposed to refer to
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    > which of the two validation is supposed to refer to In this context, it's the former. If I say, "It's dumb that you feel that way but here's you're stupid gloves," to a toddler, I solved their problem but I also likely made them feel like their problem is somehow not a "valid" one. Especially when this happens repeatedly to children is when they grow up with particularly anti-social behaviors, for fear of others abusing them similarly.

fragmede 2y ago

the game theoretic is to notice that +validate -solve is cheaper than +validate +solve, and capitalize on that. -validate +solve is the Comcast and Spirit airlines approach, so it's also valid

gowld 2y ago
? Comcast and Spirit both run their business on NOT solving problems.
- fc417fc802 2y ago
  In fact Comcast is one of the few cases where I've had a customer service rep commit outright fraud. Validated my problem, responded to my questions, told me they did X when in fact they did Y (which I would not have found acceptable and they were fully aware of this). It's the alternative option that most people don't realize is in the table. Validate, pretend to have solved, don't actually solve.

ang_cire 2y ago

> The game theoretic optimal solution for a service provider is to always validate Which can be a mistake when the person you are dealing with has or may have an ulterior motive for your interaction (i.e. said "toddlers"). This is why in actual customer service, validating someone's feelings ("I understand you did not like the cook on the steak") is good, while validating their concerns ("I understand that the steak was undercooked") is bad. You don't want to "find common ground" or "shared viewpoints" just to fulfill the validation matrix plot, because it may very well be based on a false premise, or even a blatant fabrication. In real world terms, validating concerns can often be an admission of liability or fault, or a soundbite that will be weaponized against you.

seszett 2y ago
> This is why in actual customer service, validating someone's feelings ("I understand you did not like the cook on the steak") is good, while validating their concerns ("I understand that the steak was undercooked") is bad. Well at least to some people, this makes it look like a sleazy attempt form customer service at deflecting blame from a fact ("the steak is undercooked") to a feeling from the customer ("you just don't like the steak, but I don't believe you when you say it's undercooked"). It immediately makes the person seem less human and more like a customer service robot. I'm pretty sure most people hate it, but maybe I'm wrong.
- hiAndrewQuinn 2y ago
  Yeah, no. I don't want to end up in a lawsuit because I agreed with the customer offhand that the steak was undercooked. I'll stick with "I understand the steak was not to your liking. May I ask the chef to bring you another? Drinks are on the house, by the way." You can't sue an agreeable robot. If you assume I can take a good look at you and just know you're the kind of guy who would never do that, you're assuming a level of sight-reading people that even most police investigators don't have. I'm sorry, I'm only human, and I'm waiting five tables simultaneously right now.
  - burnished 2y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago

> * Validate + not solve: Most people will be annoyed Actually, if they came to vent about a problem that they don't view as solvable, then validation only is what they're looking for. e.g. When your partner tells you about their difficult day at work, or your friend tells you about a bad date that they had, they're not usually asking for advice. They just want emotional support. Spotting when this is the case is useful. Trying to solve it when validation and empathy is what's wanted can be the more annoying response. https://medium.com/musings-with-meg/the-first-question-you-should-ask-when-someone-is-venting-at-you-f579c3a2b225 https://medium.com/musings-with-meg/the-first-question-you-s...