> Validate her emotions, offer comfort, not question the validity of responding that way.
IDK if anything here counts as a good container for emotion.
'validate' is very ambiguous.
'comfort' is very different from presence. It can actually be a way of invalidating funnily enough.
'not question' has a lot going on.
I definitely hear a lot of enablement in your example. It sounds like she is better off without that.
> This is the problem with the overly abstract notion of validating emotions without endorsing them. If you consistently "validate" the way someone is feeling even when it's obviously harming them, you're not actually helping. You're implicitly agreeing and condoning.
I agree here. Validate itself is a loaded term, especially in the tech world. It sounds like it implies correctness. Maybe I'm onboard with just a need for 'emotional presence' over 'validation'.
Validation can slide into enablement. Challenge can slide into invalidation. Presence is the impossible one. Having someone you can openly explore an emotion, even just say it all without evoking a fear or anger response, a validation or invalidation response from. Let's it just hang in the air without reaction. Let's it exist without adding distance or withdrawing connection. Have endless curiosity.
I do think I am onboard with validation being a more dangerous term. I get its origin/concept - maybe trying to combat the amount of invalidation in the world but it's ironic to see how invalidating the wrong kind of validation can be.
I've clearly struck a nerve with how many people arrived in this comment thread to project different scenarios on to the situation, as well as all the different and conflicting definitions of "validate emotions"
To be honest, I'm growing even more distaste for the "validating emotions" academic concept after reading some of the mental gymnastics people are doing in this thread.
But in other instances in this thread I am not so sure each time you mention her emotions you are talking about her feelings, distinct from her actions or interpretations. There is a difference between anger (the emotion), aggression (waving hands, loud voice etc), and physical contact (undirected against objects, directed at objects, against self, against others). Maybe you are “striking nerves” since it’s not always clear which one you are referring to in terms of her “validation”. And these distinctions are not academic.
> To be honest, I'm growing even more distaste for the "validating emotions" academic concept after reading some of the mental gymnastics people are doing in this thread.
(chiming in)
It's not academic, but practical. For me, these skills have been immensely helpful for navigating both my own emotions and those of others. My relationships improved quite a bit once I started using these skills. I'm closer to more people, I can get to depth more quickly and more safely with new people, and me and those close to me are all growing/healing more quickly because we can meet our emotional needs while also gradually working to reshape those needs.
To me, "validation" is about addressing someone's actual underlying emotional needs. But it still leaves space for disagreeing with the interpretation/perception of what happened. My own saying is that we should "accept our emotions, but not always accept the story they are telling us".
> as well as all the different and conflicting definitions of "validate emotions"
'validate' is very ambiguous. 'comfort' is very different from presence. It can actually be a way of invalidating funnily enough. 'not question' has a lot going on.
I definitely hear a lot of enablement in your example. It sounds like she is better off without that.
> This is the problem with the overly abstract notion of validating emotions without endorsing them. If you consistently "validate" the way someone is feeling even when it's obviously harming them, you're not actually helping. You're implicitly agreeing and condoning.
I agree here. Validate itself is a loaded term, especially in the tech world. It sounds like it implies correctness. Maybe I'm onboard with just a need for 'emotional presence' over 'validation'.
Validation can slide into enablement. Challenge can slide into invalidation. Presence is the impossible one. Having someone you can openly explore an emotion, even just say it all without evoking a fear or anger response, a validation or invalidation response from. Let's it just hang in the air without reaction. Let's it exist without adding distance or withdrawing connection. Have endless curiosity.
I do think I am onboard with validation being a more dangerous term. I get its origin/concept - maybe trying to combat the amount of invalidation in the world but it's ironic to see how invalidating the wrong kind of validation can be.