7 ms·

I frame it not as turning a dial down, but as switching channel from practical problem-solver to emotional problem-solver. Often when someone wants to talk abo

by n4r9 9mo ago

I frame it not as turning a dial down, but as switching channel from practical problem-solver to emotional problem-solver. Often when someone wants to talk about a situation involving difficult feelings, they're actually trying to process those feelings: to understand where the feelings are coming from, to be validated, and to be able to take a broader perspective. You can help by being curious about what they're saying, reflecting it back to them in your own terms, explaining how what they're feeling is understandable, and offering context or alternative viewpoints. These are actually complex problem-solving skills, although they can all fall under the umbrella of what people mean when they say "to be heard". As a man, I've realised that once my emotions feel validated and accepted, I relax and the practical solutions just pop into my mind.

lazide 9mo ago
Be careful you don’t end up with people who have constant emotional problems that need fixing - or that you’re 100% sure that you’ll never need to say ‘no’. Speaking from experience. Some people really don’t like ‘no’, especially when they have emotional problems.
- n4r9 9mo ago
  I've heard that's true; compassion and empathy can be a draw for highly insecure people. You need to balance it with assertiveness and self-regulation, which are also part of emotional intelligence.
- Aurornis 9mo ago
  Another pitfall with this approach is when someone has constant emotional but irrational reactions to everything. Being the person who validates their emotions becomes harmful if they’re over-reacting or developing harmful emotional reactions and you’re always there to validate them.
  - Cthulhu_ 9mo ago
    If it becomes damaging to you (the person that is expected to be emotional support), "grey rocking" is the next step. Acknowledge, but don't respond. "uh huh" instead of "I am so sorry" or whatever. Don't take advice from me though.
  - embedding-shape 9mo ago
    > someone has constant emotional but irrational reactions to everything What are "emotions" if not "irrational chemical reactions in our brains"? Seems really strange to decide what it or isn't "irrational emotions" for someone else to have. I, just like you I presume, see myself as a rational and logical person (maybe you're also a programmer), but I also realize that humans are humans, and having irrational emotions is very much part of being a humans, and emotions in general is such a subjective experience.
    - lazide 9mo ago
      If someone stubs their toe, some rage; some anger, etc, might be appropriate. Maybe rational, maybe not. Maybe even yelling at someone nearby. If they go outside and kick a unrelated puppy to get ‘even’? That is when people start to worry. Now the question is, which of these is which?
    - Aurornis 9mo ago
      Everything in your body is a "chemical reaction". Pulling the trigger of a gun is a lot of chemical reactions. That doesn't mean the person isn't guilty. In fact, it's problematic when people start thinking of their emotions as a chemical process that happens to them, outside of their control. A large part of getting people back on track in therapy is getting them to accept that they do have some control over how they react to situations in the world. A lot of TikTok or Reddit style therapyspeak does the opposite: It goes to extreme lengths to try to separate the emotions or negative responses from the person, as if they're an outside force victimizing them. It's comforting to think that, because things that happen to us outside of our control seem like they can't be changed. Getting people to acknowledge that they can and should exert some emotional control over themselves is part of breaking that cycle.
      - n4r9 9mo ago
        You use the word "react" in an ambiguous way; I'm never sure if you mean the emotional response, the subsequent thoughts, or the subsequent behaviour. The latter two we have much more control over, whilst the first must be trained indirectly over a long period of time.
- dapperdrake 9mo ago
  Then their emotions are not their only problem.
thisislife2 9mo ago
> switching channel from practical problem-solver to emotional problem-solver Thank you for this useful tip! I've recently become aware that I may not be as good a listener I thought I was - I too make the common mistake of immediately offering solutions, or talking too much about my own relatable situations and feelings, instead of trying to really listen to them and help them figure out their own world view and feelings of a particular situation (and thus understand them better too in the process).
- nuancebydefault 9mo ago
  Indeed, the more one knows about what it means to be a good listener, the more one becomes aware of not being such a good listener.
  - dapperdrake 9mo ago
    Being a good listener is one of the hardest jobs in the world. And narcissists are soul sucking traps for good listeners.
    - lo_zamoyski 9mo ago
      Which is why you should not be an indiscriminate listener.
- jama211 9mo ago
  “Don’t just do something, stand there!” - I love this quote. Standing there or being there for someone is amazingly helpful and it’s a skill to do it, congrats on working on this.
funkyfiddler69 9mo ago
> they're actually trying to process those feelings Exactly, help exploring their problem, maybe direct them into one nook or the other, support a proper perspective from different angles (to a small extent within the context and constraints they provided!!!), but don't solve the riddle for them. They might not even know how they really feel about it all, yet.
Aurornis 9mo ago
> they're actually trying to process those feelings: to understand where the feelings are coming from, to be validated, and to be able to take a broader perspective. If you’re speaking to a rational person with good intentions and good self-management this can help a lot. If the other person doesn’t have good emotional regulation and is prone to catastrophizing, exaggeration, or excessive self-victimization then validating and reinforcing their emotions isn’t always helpful. It can be harmful. I know this goes against the Reddit-style relationship stereotype where the man must always listen and nod but not offer suggestions, but when someone is prone to self-destructive emotional thought loops behind their emotional validator can be actively harmful. Even if validation is what they seek and want.
- n4r9 9mo ago
  It can be a challenging skill to apply, and you need to use your judgement to discern whether the other person is in a place to engage with what you say. One comment I'd make is the difference between "valid" and "rational". Emotions and feelings are always "valid", in the sense that they are a natural consequence of events and prior conditioning. But feelings are rarely "rational" - they often don't reflect the complete truth of a situation. For example, suppose someone says "Jennifer sent me this short snippy reply today, I swear she's upset with me about something and won't tell me what it is". It is perfectly legitimate to validate that you can see where that fear comes from, but nevertheless offer alternative possibilites: maybe Jennifer is going through a tough time personally, or has a really tight work schedule at the moment. You don't have to fully buy into someone's thoughts and feelings in order to help them process them. In fact this is rarely going to help.
  - Aurornis 9mo ago
    > Emotions and feelings are always "valid", in the sense that they are a natural consequence of events and prior conditioning. If “validating” someone’s emotions comes down to simply saying that, yes, I agree you felt that way, then I suppose that’s true. But when people talk about validating other people’s emotions it implies that they’re saying the emotional response was valid for the circumstances. I have someone in my extended family who has a strong tendency to catastrophize and assume the worst. When she was in a relationship with someone who constantly validated her emotions and reactions it was disastrous. It took someone more level headed to start telling her when her reactions were not valid to certain situations to begin stabilizing the behavior. There’s a hand wavey, feel good idea where we’re supposed to believe everyone’s lived experience and emotions are valid, but some people have problems with incorrect emotional reactions. Validating these can become reinforcing for that behavior. I’m not saying we should start doubting every emotional reaction or white knighting everything, but it’s unhealthy to take a stance that validating other people’s emotions is de facto good.
dan00 9mo ago
> Often when someone wants to talk about a situation involving difficult feelings, they're actually trying to process those feelings: to understand where the feelings are coming from, to be validated, and to be able to take a broader perspective. Right, talking about feelings is a way of regulating yourself. Conflicts with my wife are a lot easier if I'm able to empathize with her emotional distress, acknowledging it, instead of jumping directly into logical problem solving. If I'm only looking logically at the issue, I can't really understand the issue she is having. I like the view of the therapist Terry Real, that during conflicts you can either be right or stay connected. That doesn't mean that you hide your views, but that you also emotionally acknowledge the view of your partner. It's surprising how effectively this takes out the fire in conflicts.
jkestner 9mo ago
> You can help by being curious about what they're saying, reflecting it back to them in your own terms Yes! Be an emotional rubber duck.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
randusername 9mo ago
> I frame it not as turning a dial down, but as switching channel from practical problem-solver to emotional problem-solver. This perspective was a good stepping stone for me, but then I realized I needed bigger changes to keep growing. However I defined the problem to be solved, I was still setting up a dynamic that was arrogant. I thought I was air traffic control when others were looking for a copilot. Somebody along for the ride with them, not just requesting information about them and offering commentary from the ground. Reading _How to Know a Person_ helped me a lot.
kirso 9mo ago
It's called emotional intelligence, and it's a very much needed adult skill that many lack, including self-awaraness as a pre-requisite.

by n4r9 9mo ago

lazide 9mo ago

Be careful you don’t end up with people who have constant emotional problems that need fixing - or that you’re 100% sure that you’ll never need to say ‘no’. Speaking from experience. Some people really don’t like ‘no’, especially when they have emotional problems.

n4r9 9mo ago
I've heard that's true; compassion and empathy can be a draw for highly insecure people. You need to balance it with assertiveness and self-regulation, which are also part of emotional intelligence.
Aurornis 9mo ago
Another pitfall with this approach is when someone has constant emotional but irrational reactions to everything. Being the person who validates their emotions becomes harmful if they’re over-reacting or developing harmful emotional reactions and you’re always there to validate them.
- Cthulhu_ 9mo ago
  If it becomes damaging to you (the person that is expected to be emotional support), "grey rocking" is the next step. Acknowledge, but don't respond. "uh huh" instead of "I am so sorry" or whatever. Don't take advice from me though.
- embedding-shape 9mo ago
  > someone has constant emotional but irrational reactions to everything What are "emotions" if not "irrational chemical reactions in our brains"? Seems really strange to decide what it or isn't "irrational emotions" for someone else to have. I, just like you I presume, see myself as a rational and logical person (maybe you're also a programmer), but I also realize that humans are humans, and having irrational emotions is very much part of being a humans, and emotions in general is such a subjective experience.
  - lazide 9mo ago
    If someone stubs their toe, some rage; some anger, etc, might be appropriate. Maybe rational, maybe not. Maybe even yelling at someone nearby. If they go outside and kick a unrelated puppy to get ‘even’? That is when people start to worry. Now the question is, which of these is which?
  - Aurornis 9mo ago
    Everything in your body is a "chemical reaction". Pulling the trigger of a gun is a lot of chemical reactions. That doesn't mean the person isn't guilty. In fact, it's problematic when people start thinking of their emotions as a chemical process that happens to them, outside of their control. A large part of getting people back on track in therapy is getting them to accept that they do have some control over how they react to situations in the world. A lot of TikTok or Reddit style therapyspeak does the opposite: It goes to extreme lengths to try to separate the emotions or negative responses from the person, as if they're an outside force victimizing them. It's comforting to think that, because things that happen to us outside of our control seem like they can't be changed. Getting people to acknowledge that they can and should exert some emotional control over themselves is part of breaking that cycle.
    - n4r9 9mo ago
      You use the word "react" in an ambiguous way; I'm never sure if you mean the emotional response, the subsequent thoughts, or the subsequent behaviour. The latter two we have much more control over, whilst the first must be trained indirectly over a long period of time.
dapperdrake 9mo ago
Then their emotions are not their only problem.

thisislife2 9mo ago

> switching channel from practical problem-solver to emotional problem-solver Thank you for this useful tip! I've recently become aware that I may not be as good a listener I thought I was - I too make the common mistake of immediately offering solutions, or talking too much about my own relatable situations and feelings, instead of trying to really listen to them and help them figure out their own world view and feelings of a particular situation (and thus understand them better too in the process).

nuancebydefault 9mo ago
Indeed, the more one knows about what it means to be a good listener, the more one becomes aware of not being such a good listener.
- dapperdrake 9mo ago
  Being a good listener is one of the hardest jobs in the world. And narcissists are soul sucking traps for good listeners.
  - lo_zamoyski 9mo ago
    Which is why you should not be an indiscriminate listener.
jama211 9mo ago
“Don’t just do something, stand there!” - I love this quote. Standing there or being there for someone is amazingly helpful and it’s a skill to do it, congrats on working on this.

funkyfiddler69 9mo ago

> they're actually trying to process those feelings Exactly, help exploring their problem, maybe direct them into one nook or the other, support a proper perspective from different angles (to a small extent within the context and constraints they provided!!!), but don't solve the riddle for them. They might not even know how they really feel about it all, yet.

Aurornis 9mo ago

> they're actually trying to process those feelings: to understand where the feelings are coming from, to be validated, and to be able to take a broader perspective. If you’re speaking to a rational person with good intentions and good self-management this can help a lot. If the other person doesn’t have good emotional regulation and is prone to catastrophizing, exaggeration, or excessive self-victimization then validating and reinforcing their emotions isn’t always helpful. It can be harmful. I know this goes against the Reddit-style relationship stereotype where the man must always listen and nod but not offer suggestions, but when someone is prone to self-destructive emotional thought loops behind their emotional validator can be actively harmful. Even if validation is what they seek and want.

n4r9 9mo ago
It can be a challenging skill to apply, and you need to use your judgement to discern whether the other person is in a place to engage with what you say. One comment I'd make is the difference between "valid" and "rational". Emotions and feelings are always "valid", in the sense that they are a natural consequence of events and prior conditioning. But feelings are rarely "rational" - they often don't reflect the complete truth of a situation. For example, suppose someone says "Jennifer sent me this short snippy reply today, I swear she's upset with me about something and won't tell me what it is". It is perfectly legitimate to validate that you can see where that fear comes from, but nevertheless offer alternative possibilites: maybe Jennifer is going through a tough time personally, or has a really tight work schedule at the moment. You don't have to fully buy into someone's thoughts and feelings in order to help them process them. In fact this is rarely going to help.
- Aurornis 9mo ago
  > Emotions and feelings are always "valid", in the sense that they are a natural consequence of events and prior conditioning. If “validating” someone’s emotions comes down to simply saying that, yes, I agree you felt that way, then I suppose that’s true. But when people talk about validating other people’s emotions it implies that they’re saying the emotional response was valid for the circumstances. I have someone in my extended family who has a strong tendency to catastrophize and assume the worst. When she was in a relationship with someone who constantly validated her emotions and reactions it was disastrous. It took someone more level headed to start telling her when her reactions were not valid to certain situations to begin stabilizing the behavior. There’s a hand wavey, feel good idea where we’re supposed to believe everyone’s lived experience and emotions are valid, but some people have problems with incorrect emotional reactions. Validating these can become reinforcing for that behavior. I’m not saying we should start doubting every emotional reaction or white knighting everything, but it’s unhealthy to take a stance that validating other people’s emotions is de facto good.

dan00 9mo ago

> Often when someone wants to talk about a situation involving difficult feelings, they're actually trying to process those feelings: to understand where the feelings are coming from, to be validated, and to be able to take a broader perspective. Right, talking about feelings is a way of regulating yourself. Conflicts with my wife are a lot easier if I'm able to empathize with her emotional distress, acknowledging it, instead of jumping directly into logical problem solving. If I'm only looking logically at the issue, I can't really understand the issue she is having. I like the view of the therapist Terry Real, that during conflicts you can either be right or stay connected. That doesn't mean that you hide your views, but that you also emotionally acknowledge the view of your partner. It's surprising how effectively this takes out the fire in conflicts.

jkestner 9mo ago

> You can help by being curious about what they're saying, reflecting it back to them in your own terms Yes! Be an emotional rubber duck.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

randusername 9mo ago

> I frame it not as turning a dial down, but as switching channel from practical problem-solver to emotional problem-solver. This perspective was a good stepping stone for me, but then I realized I needed bigger changes to keep growing. However I defined the problem to be solved, I was still setting up a dynamic that was arrogant. I thought I was air traffic control when others were looking for a copilot. Somebody along for the ride with them, not just requesting information about them and offering commentary from the ground. Reading _How to Know a Person_ helped me a lot.

kirso 9mo ago

It's called emotional intelligence, and it's a very much needed adult skill that many lack, including self-awaraness as a pre-requisite.