3 ms·

So many people are trying to project onto this anecdote or substitute their own reality. The reality is simpler: It was basically "Yeah it sucks that <minor an

by Aurornis 10mo ago

So many people are trying to project onto this anecdote or substitute their own reality. The reality is simpler: It was basically "Yeah it sucks that <minor annoyance> happened at work, but sulking about it for 3 days is not a good way to handle that" Whereas the "validating emotions" guy would just jump in and be a sounding board for 3 days straight Feeling a little upset over minor annoyances is valid. Having your emotional state crumble at the slightest breeze is not. Having someone around who basically validates the latter is not good.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 10mo ago
> So many people are trying to project onto this anecdote For what it's worth, I imagined a scenario very similar to the one you described in this comment. > Yeah it sucks that <minor annoyance> happened at work This is emotional validation. > sulking about it for 3 days is not a good way to handle that This has nothing to do with emotional validation. It can be said before, after, or without said validation. > Whereas the "validating emotions" guy would just jump in and be a sounding board for 3 days straight It sounds like the "validating emotions" person was validating the sulking behaviors (whether in addition to validating the related emotions or not) and saying that they were only validating the emotions. Anyway, the purpose for my replies is not to get you to agree with that person or to change your mind about the anecdote, but to offer a more meaningful distinction of what's being discussed.