5 ms·

> 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 perspec

by Aurornis 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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.
  - n4r9 10mo ago
    I quite like the definition on Wikipedia: > Emotional validation is a process which involves acknowledging and accepting another individual's inner emotional experience, without necessarily agreeing with or justifying it, and possibly also communicating that acceptance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_validation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_validation It sounds perhaps like your family member's former partner was going further than validating the emotions, and trying to justify or prove them right. But this is quibbling over semantics; I think we both agree that challenging someone is sometimes the kindest thing to do.
    - Aurornis 10mo ago
      I understand the academic concept, but the word "necessarily" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that definition. In real human conversation, when someone is expressing an emotion they aren't looking for other people to confirm that they are indeed experiencing that emotion. That's not even a question up for debate. They're looking for people to share in that anger, sadness, or frustration and confirm that it's a valid response to the situation. The overly academic definition doesn't reflect how people communicate in the real world. There's also a factor of consistency over time: It's no big deal to go along with someone venting from time to time, but when someone you're close to is overreacting to everything and having unreasonable emotional reactions all the time, validating those emotions consistently is going to be viewed as an implicit endorsement. > It sounds perhaps like your family member's former partner was going further than validating the emotions, and trying to justify or prove them right. Not in this case. Just going along with it.
      - relaxer 10mo ago
        The emotional world is vast. From what I hear here, there is a collapsing of a couple things all under 'validation'. Emotional processing, in my experience, is completely separate from action. I hear that your family member had her actions validated - what she decided to do. An emotion itself can be complex, scary and counter-intuitive. In my experience, always valid - but that doesn't mean you have the right reasons. It's often very difficult to get the right environment to actively explore where an emotion is coming from - purely because of the reactions in other people - which try to suppress, deflect, minimize, etc. Strangely, simply agreeing or validating someone's outcome is actually a way of minimizing or deflecting the scary expression. Let's not go deeper, let's not figure out where this is coming from - you just go with your gut and act. Getting to the root of an emotion can come in waves and many iterations. It can be incredibly useful to try and completely unhook action from it. I've had very strong emotions from events that were almost always "right emotion, wrong reason/story" and I've slowly corrected the 'why' multiple times over. A lot of those corrections took removing people from my life that made it hard to feel or have access to those difficult emotions. I wonder if you value that family member or just the idea of them. Value them only when they're 'stable'? Want to get in the muck with them to find where instability comes from? It's okay to not. It's less okay IMO to stay connected to someone you require change from. If you don't like behavior, say it and leave/create much space. Give them agency to choose, agency to fail, agency to be someone you don't like, agency to not be okay.
- nuancebydefault 10mo ago
  Indeed, the more strong the feeling, the less rational it can become, even though the feeling is there for good reasons. A pure rational solution won't help, pure empathy as well not.
- vacuity 10mo ago
  Other people have given good insights, so I'll instead describe one of my pet theories. Given by how we talk about emotions, I think they are "rational", but operate under a different set of rules than we normally apply to "rational" thinking. In fact, feelings are deeply intertwined with our supposedly "rational" thinking, to the point where I don't think there is a significant boundary. The lack of information is prevalent when feelings are in play, and I believe the same is true in general. Even physics feels far different than pure mathematics, after all. Instead of deferring to conventions in how to act when feelings are involved, as if they belong to a wholly different and mysterious world, we can make sense of the entire world. But of course, empathy, kindness, and good judgement are not exempt. None of this conflicts with what you're saying, but I think a subtle shift in mindset will be fruitful in applying it.
  - n4r9 10mo ago
    Yes, I'd agree with that. The way I think of it is that emotions are somewhat "mechanistic". I don't directly control them, but they follow certain principles. For example, fear often arises in response to a perceived threat (physical or otherwise). My boss calling me to an unexpected meeting might make me panic. And even once the peak of the fear subsides, I am more vulnerable to experiencing it again for some time. E.g. I get home and my wife's car is gone, then suddenly I'm scared that she's been in an accident or something. None of this is a rational response. There are some hand-wavey evolutionary-psychology arguments for why they operate that way. But the main thing is that there are principles that make sense out of it, and those principles are (perhaps) surprisingly consistent across humans.
    - Windchaser 10mo ago
      They're heuristics! Or "heuristical", if that makes sense. Simplified ways of processing the world, present even in creatures with significantly less cognitive capability and complexity, and bestowed to us via that ancestry. And because they are very-simplified ways of processing information and provoking action, they often get things 'wrong'.
burnished 10mo ago
I think you missed the bit where they suggested being curious and offering perspective - it really does work out differently
embedding-shape 10mo ago
> then validating and reinforcing their emotions isn’t always helpful I think you might misintrepet what "validating someone's emotions" is/should do. It's not "You're absolutely right for feeling completely sad and broken down because the cafe wasn't open", but more "That must be such a horrible feeling, to feel so sad and broken down", without saying "yes/no" to if you think it's "justified or not". The point is that the person is feeling what they're feeling, that's what the validation and acceptance comes in, not about what they're feeling those feelings about. In the end, you can validate someone's feelings without validating what they're feeling those about, by just saying "that sucks".
- saghm 10mo ago
  This is super important. I'd argue that a huge part of learning to process feelings healthily is being and able to tell the difference between how one feels (which is an involuntary reaction that isn't controllable) and the actions taken as a result of that feeling (which require explicit choice to take). It seems obvious in the abstract, but I think it's almost a universal human condition for the line between them to get blurred. People will often say something like "I'm sorry I got mad" as if being angry is something that can be controlled, when what they should instead be apologizing for is the actions they took while mad (e.g. "I'm sorry for yelling"). There's a reason that "anger management" is a known term rather than "anger prevention", after all. If someone asks why you did something, "because I was mad" is not a healthy explanation; it removes your choice from the equation and paints yourself as a helpless victim of your emotions rather than someone with agency and the ability to act better even in the face of extinuating circumstances. While it might seem like these are just linguistic quibbles, I've seen so many cases of people genuinely thinking that trying to suppress their emotions is the correct way to handle tough situations, and I don't think that ever works well in the long run. At most, it's sometimes beneficial to avoid expressing strong negative emotions immediately in certain situations, but that's only a short term tradeoff to avoid exacerbating whatever is currently going on, not a long term solution to avoid consequences of taking actions under the duress of heavy emotions. I believe that people would learn to act better by mentally framing their emotions separately from their choices and allowing themselves to feel them fully and ideally express them in a healthy way. Venting to a sympathetic family member or friend can be a good way of doing this, but that's also why therapy is something that would be benefit pretty much everyone in my opinion; having a trained, neutral professional to be able to talk through emotions without having to worry about overburdening them or worrying about having to interact with them in any other part of life is hard to beat in terms of a strategy for dealing with tough emotions in a healthy way.
dapperdrake 10mo ago
It really matters how self-destructive the talking person tends to be.
cortesoft 10mo ago
Being able to separate these situations out is part of ‘emotional problem solving’. Just like any problem solving, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for all cases. I think the important bit is to recognize that emotions are separate from (although related to) the situation itself. The problem many people have is approaching emotional problems as simply symptoms of the underlying practical problem, and that the way to solve the emotional problem is to simply go directly to solving the underlying practical problem. Now, sometimes this is the correct approach. However, many times it isn’t. Sometimes the practical problem is not solvable by you or the person you are talking to. Sometimes the practical problem is actually not really a problem and is simply triggering something else. Sometimes you just need someone to share some pain, or some joy, or just need a connection with someone. A good emotional problem solver can navigate all of these situations.

n4r9 10mo 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 10mo 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.
- n4r9 10mo ago
  I quite like the definition on Wikipedia: > Emotional validation is a process which involves acknowledging and accepting another individual's inner emotional experience, without necessarily agreeing with or justifying it, and possibly also communicating that acceptance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_validation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_validation It sounds perhaps like your family member's former partner was going further than validating the emotions, and trying to justify or prove them right. But this is quibbling over semantics; I think we both agree that challenging someone is sometimes the kindest thing to do.
  - Aurornis 10mo ago
    I understand the academic concept, but the word "necessarily" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that definition. In real human conversation, when someone is expressing an emotion they aren't looking for other people to confirm that they are indeed experiencing that emotion. That's not even a question up for debate. They're looking for people to share in that anger, sadness, or frustration and confirm that it's a valid response to the situation. The overly academic definition doesn't reflect how people communicate in the real world. There's also a factor of consistency over time: It's no big deal to go along with someone venting from time to time, but when someone you're close to is overreacting to everything and having unreasonable emotional reactions all the time, validating those emotions consistently is going to be viewed as an implicit endorsement. > It sounds perhaps like your family member's former partner was going further than validating the emotions, and trying to justify or prove them right. Not in this case. Just going along with it.
    - relaxer 10mo ago
      The emotional world is vast. From what I hear here, there is a collapsing of a couple things all under 'validation'. Emotional processing, in my experience, is completely separate from action. I hear that your family member had her actions validated - what she decided to do. An emotion itself can be complex, scary and counter-intuitive. In my experience, always valid - but that doesn't mean you have the right reasons. It's often very difficult to get the right environment to actively explore where an emotion is coming from - purely because of the reactions in other people - which try to suppress, deflect, minimize, etc. Strangely, simply agreeing or validating someone's outcome is actually a way of minimizing or deflecting the scary expression. Let's not go deeper, let's not figure out where this is coming from - you just go with your gut and act. Getting to the root of an emotion can come in waves and many iterations. It can be incredibly useful to try and completely unhook action from it. I've had very strong emotions from events that were almost always "right emotion, wrong reason/story" and I've slowly corrected the 'why' multiple times over. A lot of those corrections took removing people from my life that made it hard to feel or have access to those difficult emotions. I wonder if you value that family member or just the idea of them. Value them only when they're 'stable'? Want to get in the muck with them to find where instability comes from? It's okay to not. It's less okay IMO to stay connected to someone you require change from. If you don't like behavior, say it and leave/create much space. Give them agency to choose, agency to fail, agency to be someone you don't like, agency to not be okay.
nuancebydefault 10mo ago
Indeed, the more strong the feeling, the less rational it can become, even though the feeling is there for good reasons. A pure rational solution won't help, pure empathy as well not.
vacuity 10mo ago
Other people have given good insights, so I'll instead describe one of my pet theories. Given by how we talk about emotions, I think they are "rational", but operate under a different set of rules than we normally apply to "rational" thinking. In fact, feelings are deeply intertwined with our supposedly "rational" thinking, to the point where I don't think there is a significant boundary. The lack of information is prevalent when feelings are in play, and I believe the same is true in general. Even physics feels far different than pure mathematics, after all. Instead of deferring to conventions in how to act when feelings are involved, as if they belong to a wholly different and mysterious world, we can make sense of the entire world. But of course, empathy, kindness, and good judgement are not exempt. None of this conflicts with what you're saying, but I think a subtle shift in mindset will be fruitful in applying it.
- n4r9 10mo ago
  Yes, I'd agree with that. The way I think of it is that emotions are somewhat "mechanistic". I don't directly control them, but they follow certain principles. For example, fear often arises in response to a perceived threat (physical or otherwise). My boss calling me to an unexpected meeting might make me panic. And even once the peak of the fear subsides, I am more vulnerable to experiencing it again for some time. E.g. I get home and my wife's car is gone, then suddenly I'm scared that she's been in an accident or something. None of this is a rational response. There are some hand-wavey evolutionary-psychology arguments for why they operate that way. But the main thing is that there are principles that make sense out of it, and those principles are (perhaps) surprisingly consistent across humans.
  - Windchaser 10mo ago
    They're heuristics! Or "heuristical", if that makes sense. Simplified ways of processing the world, present even in creatures with significantly less cognitive capability and complexity, and bestowed to us via that ancestry. And because they are very-simplified ways of processing information and provoking action, they often get things 'wrong'.

burnished 10mo ago

I think you missed the bit where they suggested being curious and offering perspective - it really does work out differently

embedding-shape 10mo ago

> then validating and reinforcing their emotions isn’t always helpful I think you might misintrepet what "validating someone's emotions" is/should do. It's not "You're absolutely right for feeling completely sad and broken down because the cafe wasn't open", but more "That must be such a horrible feeling, to feel so sad and broken down", without saying "yes/no" to if you think it's "justified or not". The point is that the person is feeling what they're feeling, that's what the validation and acceptance comes in, not about what they're feeling those feelings about. In the end, you can validate someone's feelings without validating what they're feeling those about, by just saying "that sucks".

saghm 10mo ago
This is super important. I'd argue that a huge part of learning to process feelings healthily is being and able to tell the difference between how one feels (which is an involuntary reaction that isn't controllable) and the actions taken as a result of that feeling (which require explicit choice to take). It seems obvious in the abstract, but I think it's almost a universal human condition for the line between them to get blurred. People will often say something like "I'm sorry I got mad" as if being angry is something that can be controlled, when what they should instead be apologizing for is the actions they took while mad (e.g. "I'm sorry for yelling"). There's a reason that "anger management" is a known term rather than "anger prevention", after all. If someone asks why you did something, "because I was mad" is not a healthy explanation; it removes your choice from the equation and paints yourself as a helpless victim of your emotions rather than someone with agency and the ability to act better even in the face of extinuating circumstances. While it might seem like these are just linguistic quibbles, I've seen so many cases of people genuinely thinking that trying to suppress their emotions is the correct way to handle tough situations, and I don't think that ever works well in the long run. At most, it's sometimes beneficial to avoid expressing strong negative emotions immediately in certain situations, but that's only a short term tradeoff to avoid exacerbating whatever is currently going on, not a long term solution to avoid consequences of taking actions under the duress of heavy emotions. I believe that people would learn to act better by mentally framing their emotions separately from their choices and allowing themselves to feel them fully and ideally express them in a healthy way. Venting to a sympathetic family member or friend can be a good way of doing this, but that's also why therapy is something that would be benefit pretty much everyone in my opinion; having a trained, neutral professional to be able to talk through emotions without having to worry about overburdening them or worrying about having to interact with them in any other part of life is hard to beat in terms of a strategy for dealing with tough emotions in a healthy way.

dapperdrake 10mo ago

It really matters how self-destructive the talking person tends to be.

cortesoft 10mo ago

Being able to separate these situations out is part of ‘emotional problem solving’. Just like any problem solving, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for all cases. I think the important bit is to recognize that emotions are separate from (although related to) the situation itself. The problem many people have is approaching emotional problems as simply symptoms of the underlying practical problem, and that the way to solve the emotional problem is to simply go directly to solving the underlying practical problem. Now, sometimes this is the correct approach. However, many times it isn’t. Sometimes the practical problem is not solvable by you or the person you are talking to. Sometimes the practical problem is actually not really a problem and is simply triggering something else. Sometimes you just need someone to share some pain, or some joy, or just need a connection with someone. A good emotional problem solver can navigate all of these situations.