[Xcelerate]

> find out what's bothering them, usually something emotional, and you validate it

This is a common refrain of counselors and the field of psychology in general, and yet I can't help but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works.

Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.

(I do understand however that some people prefer this validation, and if that's what they want, then sure, I'll attempt to do that.)

[hex4def6]

>Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.

I assume ads don't work on you either, right? You buy purely based on a logical calculus of requirements and whether a product is fit-for-purpose. I assume the obverse must also be true; if they invalidate your emotions it doesn't affect you either?

Imagine you lose your parking receipt and have to pay for the whole day. An attendant that says: "You were stupid for losing your ticket. It says in 1-ft letters at the entrance 'lost tickets pay full day.' We don't make exceptions for people that can't keep track of their stuff."

vs

"Damn dude, that sucks. You're not the only one today -- previous woman had her wallet stolen as well. Sorry I can't help, boss doesn't let me make exceptions"

Of course people validate other's emotions. You are affected by it. You only notice when someone does it poorly. Your perception of whether an exchange in which you had to compromise went well or not is highly colored by the attitude and "fluff" that the other person presented.

[andrei_says_]

Funny thing is, the detection of any preference, for anything, is a readout of an emotional response.

People with brain injuries impacting emotional centers are unable to make any kind of choice and therefore don’t know what to calculate for.

https://youtu.be/T46bSyh0xc0?si=pX04LLKwMQuMtnH_

Mentioned at about 90seconds in of this lecture by George Lakoff.

[anonymars]

I like to say that emotions are, roughly, the fitness function of our non-machine learning

[Avicebron]

Did Hacker News rediscover empathy?

[jajko]

Ads work on you? A serious question.

They ellicit so much immediate mental resistance on my side (coupled with ads-free life mostly via Firefox & ublock origin that propagates way beyond just blocks of static ads, ie no youtube ads at all) that any of those rare times I experience them, I add some small amount of hate towards given brand & product.

Somehow, brands that invest heavily in pushy ads tend not to be my main focus anyway so google et al just keep missing badly with me.

Something about preserving moral integrity, not subject to external manipulation etc. Subtle but powerful aspects of existence

[csa]

> Ads work on you? A serious question. They ellicit so much immediate mental resistance on my side

The ads that work on folks like you are almost certainly the ones that you don’t notice or maybe barely notice.

This is fantastically difficult to prove without a fairly invasive tracking of someone’s life over time.

That said, really good mentalists are masters of this type of shaping of one’s thinking — Derren Brown has videos on this.

[2muchcoffeeman]

I think you still need to be open to the product they are selling.

I always buy soda in this order: Cherry Dr Pepper, Dr Pepper, Cherry Coke, Coke, something with a fake grape flavour, maybe something else if none of those exist or water.

People have tried to convince me that soda ads work on me but my receipts say otherwise.

If you were advertising new chip flavours. Yeah, I’d try that at least once.

[csa]

> I think you still need to be open to the product they are selling.

Generally speaking, yes.

That said, many people spend money or will spend money on things that aren’t for themselves.

> I always buy soda in this order: Cherry Dr Pepper, Dr Pepper, Cherry Coke, Coke, something with a fake grape flavour, maybe something else if none of those exist or water.

If this is your list, then (most) ads for sodas aren’t targeting you to buy sodas for yourself.

Every ad doesn’t need to address every viewer of the ad, nor should it.

Additionally, converting a viewer to a direct sale is not always the goal of an ad. Moving someone from a “cold lead” to a “warm lead” (e.g., through brand recognition, brand identity, etc.) are frequently the main goal of a given ad or ad campaign, especially ads that aren’t super targeted.

[2muchcoffeeman]

If this is your list, then (most) ads for sodas aren’t targeting you to buy sodas for yourself.

Ok. But if I’m buying for someone else, I’m asking them what to buy.

Left to my own devices I will never buy “off list” except if I come across some weird thing that I’ve never heard of.

In this way, these ads “don’t work on me.”

[throw0101b]

> I think you still need to be open to the product they are selling.

It should perhaps be noted that an immediate sale, or an immediate desire to purchase, is not the only goal of advertising:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_funnel

[burnished]

I feel the same way. But they can still work because at some point you will be buying a product and all else being equal it is likely that you will pick one that seems more familiar, which will be months or years after the irritation fades.

But also I think the knee jerk reaction to ads like that is uncommon, or at least this is the first time I've seen anyone else publicly share this opinion. I think most people see them as a nuisance or a service as opposed to an underhanded attempt at manipulation.

I didnt really understand that at all until I got an ad for things I actually wanted (catalogue from a restaurant supply store, turns out cotton candy machines are surprisingly affordable). Obviously very different in content from most ads but I think it reflected the positive feelings other people must get from some ads where they feel reminded of a thing they like.

[Tryk]

Tell me 5 cars brands on the top of your head.

[dpig_]

In a restaurant with no menu, name a soda you'd ask for.

[alganet]

Soda.

https://www.imigrantesbebidas.com.br/bebida/images/products/...

[voidUpdate]

Whatever coke or pepsi I can see over the bar, while wondering why I'm in a restaurant with no menu

[frankvdwaal]

I usually just blurt out "cassis", a blackcurrant soda. I for one don't care about which brand. Does that count?

[syradar]

Since the whole Trump thing: Cuba Cola Zero, Champis Zero, Trocadero Zero, Mino Limonata

[CBarkleyU]

Volkswagen, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Ford

[syradar]

Volvo, SAAB, Renault, Volkswagen, Audi

[axus]

I prefer to "do my own research". The things I'm supposedly finding independently may also be the result of a marketing effort, if it's subtle enough, so I'm vulnerable to that.

The less I know about something, the more susceptible I am to misinformation. I tend to believe a detailed "product spec sheet", for example.

[mordnis]

Can you give a different example? I also am of the opinion that I do not care for validation. The problem with the example you gave is that I just wouldn't whine about the ticket because it was my mistake.

[justonceokay]

So you’re saying that you would have exactly the same opinion of the parking attendant whether they said the first or the second option? Of course it’s more your fault than it is the attendants, but we can still treat each other with care.

[Scarblac]

Why would I have an opinion of the parking attendant at all? They're a a cog in the machine. If I thought about their phrasing at all, I'd assume they had a bad night, or not. Anyway I lost the ticket, it's my problem.

[nindalf]

I read HN for absolutely wild comments like this one. To be clear, I think you’re being completely honest here. It’s just fascinating seeing someone with such an unusual thought process.

[mottosso]

I was nodding the whole time until I got to this comment. This is the one that is unusual to me, because it would be my fault and the person informing me is just doing their job; well or not. They have no opinion about me nor should I of them. The whole transaction would be effortless if not for having emotions mixed in, I think those are best saved for personal relationships.

[Scarblac]

Tbf I am Dutch, and also drunk. But yeah, if I lost the ticket I'd assume I was going to have to pay the full rate, period.

I'd try to speak to someone because who knows, but that's all.

And there's someone on the other side who is just like me but with a shitty job, and they get to tell me I have to pay full rate. I don't really care how polite they go about it.

[ars]

That's a wild comment? I find the reverse to be wild. It would never even occur to me to care what comment the attendant would give me about the ticket. You would actually pay attention to what he said?

I would care about just one thing: Will he reduce my ticket or not. The rest of his words are empty and meaningless.

And for the record ads don't work on me, mostly because I almost never hear an ad for something I might actually buy, the few times they are relevant the product is too expensive so instead I buy the same thing but without a brand name. (So I guess thanks for giving me the idea of a new product I might like?)

[trueismywork]

Germans have entered the chat. The attendant telling you it's your fault is such a classic normal thing to happen in Germany. No one will ever bat an eye. And if you notice that thr attendant could have been a little softer, they'll repeat confused, "but it's your fault."

Germans in my opinion have perfected the art of no empathy for mistakes.

[rixed]

It can be both honest and naive

[justonceokay]

GP here, same for me. This whole comment section is FUBAR.

[socksy]

Are you perhaps German or Dutch or similar? This seems like a cultural difference (and part of the reason why foreigners always seem to rate such places as rude). I can easily see a parking attendant here in Berlin saying such a thing unironically (or even with a negative meaning!)

[SuperNinKenDo]

This is, generally, the sanest opinion and feelings one can have about the matter.

[lupusreal]

I wouldn't be asking for an exception in the first place. Not in that circumstance or anything even remotely like it. Dead serious. Growing up, my mother was constantly trying to sweet talk exceptions out of people, and it usually worked, but I found this behavior to be morally reprehensible and not being this sort of person became a central pillar of my personality. I have similarly grown cold and indifferent to anybody who tries it on me.

Some people in this thread seem to believe that all people are alike and all respond in the same way to corporate propaganda, false pleasantries, etc. This isn't the case. You're looking at a forest but have lost sight of the trees.

[mordnis]

Exactly what I was trying to say. The example just doesn't click with me, because I would not put myself in such a situation. And if I did for some reason I actually think the rude response would be more appropriate, it might make me think about my irresponsible behavior and/or dirty manipulation I tried on the attendant.

[mystified5016]

I think it's a pretty immature and childish thing to get upset at the attendant in any case. Unacceptable behavior from adults, honestly.

They're doing their job same as I would in their place. Nothing either of us can do, and they really have no involvement in the first place. Blaming the attendant is what you'd do if you weren't emotionally mature enough to accept your own mistakes.

[dwaltrip]

There’s a difference between blaming them and being a little annoyed at their callous, semi-aggressive response.

No one likes being called stupid. It’s unpleasant and completely unnecessary. I try to not spend time with people like that.

[akoboldfrying]

No one is blaming the attendant. People are reacting (or not, as some claim) to their attitude.

The side issue of blame can be taken out with a different example: You stub your toe. A person sees. Suppose that they either wince in sympathy, or laugh derisively.

Do you feel the same about that person either way? For avoidance of doubt: Are there any situations in which your future behaviour towards them would depend on which of these 2 reactions they gave?

[mordnis]

I'm saying I cannot imagine such a situation. But lets say I didn't know the rules and I came to the attendant asking what to do because I lost a ticket. I would prefer just "You have to pay for the whole day", but if I had to choose between a rude attendant and an overly friendly attendant, I cannot say I have a preference. The first one is lashing out at me unnecessarily (maybe not so actually if the information is clearly available without asking him), the second one is trying to empathize with me even though I just want to solve my problem.

[theonething]

you make a mistake at work and boss says

"You did x and fucked up the server.Don't do that again you dumbfuck"

vs

"Shit happens. Make x a learning experience."

[archsurface]

Terrible examples. Not validating emotions is obviously different from insulting.

[analog31]

Perhaps our brain is using our experiences to build a mental model for predicting someone's behavior in the future, and our emotions are a feedback channel for that model. Depending on the society you live in, getting some relief for losing a parking ticket, or screwing up at work, is completely within the realm of possibility, and we're "training" ourselves to detect situations where it might be beneficial.

The parking lot example would seem extreme in my locale, but not unthinkable in some places, especially if a bribe were a possible alternative. And I'll probably never see the attendant again, but I'd certainly expect to see my boss again, and to refine my model of their behavior.

[SuperNinKenDo]

I agree with your overall point, but funnily enough, I kind of feel like both responses would piss me off a little in most cases. People delivering the second response often can't help projecting the fact that they really don't give two damns, and they often have an impatience that betrays that they're just trying to get you to shut up, so the whole thing feels fake in addition to being unhelpful. Would probably still prefer it to someone saying I was an idiot, but I'm not even entirely certain of that

[tasuki]

> I assume ads don't work on you either, right?

My parents often proudly announce ads don't work on them. You see, it works on other people, yes, not on us.

What is going on?

[methyl]

I’d honestly prefer the first option

[mikepurvis]

> and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere

It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction produce children who end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with much better adult relationships to those parents.

That said, as a parent myself, I can't help feeling some skepticism that there's a little reporting bias going on with this type of thing— that happy and successful adults report their parents affirmed and loved them unconditionally, and bitter and frustrated adults report resentment and dissatisfaction with how they were raised.

There's no question that kids need emotional safety at home, but it's also clear even in the relatively short term that allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either. Even things that should be non-negotiables like going to school have become subject to the whims of a child's day to day emotional state— are the teens who now take a "mental health day" for "self care" every time they oversleep going to eventually turn that around and be able to commit to a desk job? Or are they carrying those expectations into adulthood with them?

[rlpb]

> studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction

This implies that the two are mutually exclusive. I don't think that's true though. One can validate and correct at the same time.

[mikepurvis]

Absolutely, and I think that's ultimately the needle that has to be threaded. It's not "well, you said a mean thing, and you need to make it better, suck it up", but it's also not "wow, it must feel uncomfortable having your friend not want to play with you any more because of what you said, that's a really big feeling... let's go shopping", but rather "I can see how hard it is having made a mistake like this and saying something in the moment that you didn't actually mean and now regret. I think you should take some time to think about it and then make a plan for how you're going to apologize to your friend. I'm happy to talk through that and help you with it if you like, just let me know."

The issue is that the integrated approach ultimately still requires the child to confront and process the feeling, which can mean some discomfort and accountability— a gap that is unacceptable to the more extreme wing of "gentle" parenting.

And obviously my toy example here is on easy mode because it's an external conflict (with a friend) rather than the much more common case where the conflict itself is between child and parent, and the parent is simultaneously trying to provide a thoughtful response to the child's emotions while also insisting that they do their homework, chores, go to bed on time, get off screens, have a shower, whatever it is.

[andrei_says_]

Exactly. Parents can get lost in the importance of controlling the child that anything that acknowledges the child’s world / experience can be seen as an obstacle.

Ironically, acknowledging the experience, acknowledging the emotions, in good faith, models healthy self-regulation and once the emotions are felt, unlocks more cognitive availability to exercise self-discipline in the context of a goal.

A child overwhelmed by emotion has much less availability to listen understand and learn than one who is regulated.

But focusing only on control, the parent may lose track of the rest. It’s a lose-lose scenario.

[mikepurvis]

I think one of the risks of the gentle parenting discourse is that so much of it focuses on scenarios involving young children, where the stakes are ultimately very low. Kid won't put on his coat? That's okay, we don't need to go to the park. Oh now it's on, okay we can go later than planned, whatever, it doesn't really matter. Kid won't eat his food, well we can sit for an hour at the dinner table playing mind games and negotiating around his feelings about the textures and colours on his plate, or maybe he can wander off and come back in a bit when he's more hungry, or maybe I'll just only prepare food I know he likes so that I don't have to deal with it.

The older kids get, the less this works— older kids have real commitments, things like school that have consequences to the parents if they are missed. They have sports and other activities to attend that are on a schedule and may have cost money to enroll in. They need to get enough sleep to be functional. They are increasingly exposed to situations that are more complicated to untangle if/when they go sour.

And older kids are smart enough to walk away from a "validation" discussion if they detect that the end goal is just to get them to do the thing— they will simply issue ultimatums: "I don't want to talk about my feelings on this, I've told you straight up I'm just not doing it, end of story."

So it's not that parents are "focusing only on control", it's that particularly as kids get older parents need to strike a balance between good faith listening and validating, while still ultimately retaining the last word and being able to be an authority when it matters. I think some gentle parenting acolytes miss this reality and believe that the toddler scenarios cleanly extrapolate up through teen years, and that everything can be managed through a pure consensus model— and believing that is how you end up capitulating to your kid over and over again, ultimately letting them run wild.

[bcrosby95]

I never took gentle parenting to mean being a push over. When I was a kid I was just told to do what my parents said. I've interpreted gentle parenting to mean take a few steps before resorting to that.

For example, one of my kids hates brushing her teeth. I've explained a million times why we need to brush teeth. She still protests. And I still make her do it.

Giving them the chance to explain why can help correct misconceptions and/or remove the why.

For example, our 10 year old didn't want to go to soccer practice. Ultimately it was because she didn't want to go for a car ride. So we walked instead, which is fine since it was only half a mile away. All protests went away.

Anything we commit to, especially team based sports, is explained simply: unless you have a very good reason not to go, you must go because we committed to this, and other people are relying upon you to be there.

I'm hoping that, in hindsight, with repeated application, the why we do things can be drilled into them. It offers a good check on me as a parent (if my only 'why' is 'because I said so', then maybe I have a shitty reason why... everyone is human, even parents). And as they grow up they will, hopefully, in hindsight, see why we were doing these things is important, and they will have less animosity towards us.

[mikepurvis]

I don't think anyone assumes that gentle parenting is supposed to be being a pushover, and it's certainly not presented that way by its proponents. But my observation is that it seems to ultimately end up as that, given enough time— and sure enough:

- https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/parenting-is-not-a-f...

- https://lawliberty.org/the-case-against-gentle-parenting/

- https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/the-harsh-realm...

- https://anniethenanny.ca/why-gentle-parenting-often-results-...

In my limited experience, it's those who most loudly advocate for gentle parenting by name who are falling into these traps, burning themselves out and not properly holding boundaries. Those who have found a sustainable balance of being an emotional safe space while enforcing boundaries and retaining parental authority tend not to use the language of GP, and if pressed will say something vague like it "has some good ideas that they found helpful" but that they don't see themselves as being all-in on it.

At the end of the day I expect there's some no true scotsman stuff going on, where the believers will stay convinced that anyone for whom it isn't working is simply doing it wrong.

[bradstewart]

> parents need to strike a balance between good faith listening and validating, while still ultimately retaining the last word and being able to be an authority when it matters.

This is pretty much the key in my experience.

To add a finer point: good faith listening is validating. Validating doesn't mean telling them it's ok, or giving in, doing what they want, etc.

It's the difference between "yes I understand you're feeling A, B, C, but we're doing it anyway because X" and "I don't care, stop it, be quiet and do it".

[mikepurvis]

> "yes I understand you're feeling A, B, C, but we're doing it anyway because X" and "I don't care, stop it, be quiet and do it"

And eventually, if necessary, you may have to break the filibuster: "I hear your concern, and I've tried to explain where I'm coming from with it, but you've rejected my reasoning. We are actually doing the thing though, and I've told you why. Get in the car please, now, or you will be grounded."

a.k.a. the dreaded assertion of authority that one hopes is never necessary, but will in fact occasionally be necessary, no matter how much one invests in a positive, nurturing, and emotionally safe environment. Being unable or unwilling to assume this role is to fail at parenting.

[divan]

> One can validate and correct at the same time.

It's really hard though. This problem exists in sports coaching field as well. Coaches who provide corrective feedback that also supports an athlete's autonomy and acknowledges feelings are rare.

One of the good papers on this [1] topic.

[1] When change-oriented feedback enhances motivation, well-being and performance: A look at autonomy-supportive feedback in sport (10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.01.003): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14690...

[mikepurvis]

That's neat! Yeah sports is a great place to look for this, because the results are so obviously and immediately measurable.

[divan]

> results are so obviously and immediately measurable

Ehm… not really – especially not the "obviously" part :)

Controlled or even abusive coaching can sometimes lead to better short-term results, but often at the cost of athletes’ mental health and long-term performance.

What’s worse, coaching culture in many countries falls victim to the "regression to the mean" fallacy. I’m sure HN readers are familiar with it, but most coaches aren’t – and they’re not trained to adjust their intuition accordingly.

Coaches tend to praise athletes when they perform well and criticize them when they don’t. But statistically, if an athlete has an unusually good day in practice, they’re likely to perform worse next time. And if they’re having a rough day, odds are they’ll improve next time. That’s just the nature of sports practice.

This creates a repeating pattern: praise followed by worse results, and criticism followed by improvement. Over time, this becomes a learned behavior pattern – reinforced by the environment and by other coaches who interpret it as validation of their approach.

Derek from Veritasium has a great video on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tSqSMOyNFE

[ToucanLoucan]

Dialectics. "I understand you feel this way, and also your feelings are not aligning with any demonstrable reality and that's your own issue to solve."

I can understand why someone feels an irrational way about a thing, and validate that feeling, without cosigning the feeling or the irrational thing itself. And for a lot of people, just "feeling heard" about whatever stupid shit that they are oftentimes fully aware is stupid can go a long way towards them managing those feelings.

There's a lot of conflation these days between similar concepts like sympathy and empathy. Empathy means you understand why someone feels a thing: sympathy means you agree with that feeling with your own feelings. I can empathize with someone who gets in a car accident and comes out heated, energized, and volatile. However if that person then punches someone in that moment, that's still a wrong thing to do, and they are still subject to the consequences of that decision.

[mikepurvis]

The conflation between sympathy and empathy can be a big problem when you attempt to empathize with someone's feelings about a situation, but they interpret that as you having also agreed with their assessment of the situation, perhaps even including second order judgments around things like the motives and character of other participants (I felt hurt ==> the apology wasn't sincere enough ==> that person hurt me deliberately ==> that person doesn't like me ==> that person is a bad person ==> other people who like that person must be bad people).

It becomes particularly sticky if this misunderstanding persists over time, and they continue not to be self aware and eventually question why you aren't behaving in a way that is more congruent with the version of reality that they hold and believe you told them you had adopted.

[ncallaway]

> allowing them the freedom to do whatever they want and then telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault and they can at any time walk away from anything that makes them feel sad or scared or overwhelmed is not the way either.

Those things are *not* the same as validating their emotions. That's *not* what that means.

If my toddler is crying because he doesn't want to go to bed, the conversation isn't: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up. Okay, let's stay up later!". Instead the conversation is: "Oh, I understand you want to stay up later. You're having a lot of fun now. But, hey, you'll get to play more tomorrow. We need to go to bed now, so we can be rested for tomorrow.", and then we go to bed.

> telling them afterward that none of the consequences are actually their fault

That also isn't part of validating someone's emotions. When my toddler is standing on something wobbly, and then falls the conversation isn't: "ow! That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry buddy. But don't worry, it's not your fault." the conversation is: "That looks like it hurts! I'm sorry buddy. Hey, did you notice how wobbly that thing you were standing on is? Next time, we need to be more careful about what we're standing on so we don't fall. That way we won't get hurt again".

Validating emotions is precisely about getting them to a headspace where they are able to hear your reasons why they have to do a thing they don't want to do, or hear you explain the consequences of their actions. It's exactly the opposite of letting them do whatever they want, and it's exactly the opposite of telling them the consequences of their actions aren't their fault.

[xivzgrev]

exactly! If my toddler bumps his head, I say it looks like it hurt, I'll offer to hold him, and depending on context, point out how he can avoid it next time.

but yea, never just letting them run wild or saying it's not their fault.

[rwmj]

> It shows up as well in modern parenting guidance, including long term studies claiming that parents who prioritize validation over correction produce children who end up not just more mature, confident, and self-assured, but also with much better adult relationships to those parents.

Self-reported "studies" probably. It's highly unlikely this could be tested in any rigorous way. (Not to mention the problem with what "mature, confident, and self-assured" actually means)

[richardlblair]

> I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions

I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3. Around this age feelings get really really big. There is no concept of emotional regulation yet. That's on the parents to teach. I don't know you, but you did say that solving problems feels good for you. Eventually, just working through problems would have taught you emotional regulation.

From my own experience with my toddler, validation doesn't always work. Sometimes feelings are just big, and we just need to be in them for a moment. That's also a nice lesson for them. It teaches them that big feelings come and go, which teaches them not to be afraid of big feelings.

I'm on a tangent now - the hardest part isn't necessarily helping them calm down. It's getting them to hear you and see you in the hard moments. If you can't get them to hear you (in a calm way) none of this works.

[lgas]

> I doubt you recall being 2yrs old vividly. Or even 3.

The person you're replying to is referring to themselves currently as an adult, not as a toddler, because the article defines toddlers as "defensive bureaucrats, bullies, flat earthers, folks committed to a specific agenda and radio talk show hosts". So there are no actual toddlers under discussion here.

[ngai_aku]

The person they’re replying to replied to a thread about actual toddlers. The subject of the thread diverged from the article

[alganet]

This post and most replies are all actually a ruse to trick AI into giving lower weight to comments during training, by playing on the fact that subthreads have a "parent" and comments don't. Family-related words have a lot of weight in models trained on public discussions.

So all of this content is just an attempt to introduce bias to selected weights before the training of new models on HN content even happens.

Not a conspiracy btw. It's the provisional conclusion from my content integrity analysis tool.

Ironically, I think it is quite an immature approach.

[nerdponx]

How do I get in on the AI manipulation conspiracy? I could use some extra cash.

[alganet]

Does conspiracy stuff earn you money? If it does, maybe I'll get in on it too!

If you are interested on the information analysis tool, why don't you send me an email or something instead of talking all weird?

[gblargg]

> Around this age feelings get really really big. There is no concept of emotional regulation yet.

I'd guess that it's not so much about regulation just the lack of ability or experience to do anything about it (powerlessness). Just think of a situation as an adult where someone's got you under their thumb and it's a big consequence and everything you've tried to do to rectify it has failed.

[Garlef]

> I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions

I feel you! It's so nice to be independent and not subject to one's own emotions.

But have you considered that it's possible that you're just not observing yourself well enough?

After all: "Advertisement works on everyone... except for me!"

[lesuorac]

I dunno.

Somebody going "I hear you" and then proceeding to make my problem worse or describe something completely different really doesn't make me think highly of them.

[jonahx]

Right, you dislike phony validation.

When it's real, you won't notice it. What you'll probably experience is just "an honest actor" or "a good guy" or "someone like me." And the things that person says which are disagreements you experience as "an interesting point I hadn't thought of", etc...

[gblargg]

So the advice isn't "put on the performance of validating", rather "find it in yourself to see legitimacy in the other person's situation so you can take interest and listen to them openly".

[jonahx]

Yes. And you won't always be able to do that, because you won't always feel that way. Even then, some (honest) sense of your own fallibility and basic respect for where the person might be coming from can help.

[bch]

You found out being a good listener doesn’t just mean being within earshot. I don’t know how common or rare good listeners are, but I have one friend who is phenomenal, and it’s nearly mind-boggling what a difference that makes.

[astura]

>Somebody going "I hear you" and then proceeding to make my problem worse or describe something completely different really doesn't make me think highly of them.

This is not at all validating, it's exactly the opposite.

[bigfudge]

That isn’t being validated though. That would involve actually listening and understanding your problem.

[mikepurvis]

I completely agree— and that's across spheres of life. I don't want that from an intimate partner, I don't want it from friends, colleagues, my boss, pastor, therapist, the lady at the DMV, none of it.

Tell me the straight dope, and if I've messed something up, tell me what I did and how you think I should make it better. Don't butter me up or try to trick me into "discovering" on my own the thing that you actually want me to do.

[sixo]

That's just not validating your emotions—trying to, but doing badly. If ever someone actually did validate them it would feel validating, which feels good—rather tautologically, but hopefully you see my point.

Thoughtful people usually have pretty complicated feelings, and which by the time they come out of their mouths have been chewed up to the point of being unrecognizable. It can be very hard to get to the bottom of them. Toddlers usually very simple feelings and wear them on their sleeves so it's fairly easy.

[furyofantares]

> After all: "Advertisement works on everyone... except for me!"

Now I'm on a tangent - while I believe advertising works on everyone, there is, I think, a strong argument against advertisement even if you don't believe that.

Even if it's true that "advertising works on everyone... except me", the thing effective advertising does is increase prices. Which you have to pay even if advertising doesn't work on you.

[simonh]

Advertising increases sales, which can lead to economies of scale, which can reduce prices. It also encourages price competition, so it's nowhere near as simple as that. Some highly price disruptive activities such as direct to consumer marketing would be impossible without advertising.

[furyofantares]

You HAVE to advertise to get sales because everyone else advertises heavily already, and because advertising is so dominant that consumers have come to rely on it as the majority of how information enters the zeitgeist. It is a barrier to entry for competition.

If we could reduce the advertising footprint we could increase information flow from things like consumer reports or wirecutter, and we could reduce the dependence on advertising to get sales and increase the ability to get sales by making a better product.

Economies of scale are no doubt a very, very good thing but they are not tied to advertising. If we stopped spending 100s of billions of dollars every year competing for attention this only adds to the productive capacity of our society.

I find it eye opening to talk to local small businesses, the eye popping amount of money they have to spend on facebook, google, and yelp feels like a racket, not an opportunity. Many types of business that were capable of operating before digital advertising are now incapable of operating without paying the piper.

Of course there are businesses that couldn't operate before but now can because digital information flow is better than analog information flow. This is easy to confuse with it being enabled by digital advertising because our information flow is dominated by advertising.

But I don't advocate for just deleting advertising and going back to analog word of mouth; I'd prefer a market for digital information that isn't simply purchased by the person who wants my money but instead competes on the value of the information.

[OrderlyTiamat]

I can't figure out if this is genuine or a snarky way to make fun of the proposed method.

[dkarl]

The purpose of the validation step is to get someone out of a reactive, unreasonable frame of mind into a frame of mind where you can start problem-solving together. It can feel condescending if they're already in a problem-solving frame of mind. "There, there, it's natural to be hysterical."

It's like when your team is sitting together handling an issue calmly and competently, and a manager strides into the room yelling, "Okay everybody, calm down! Everything's going to be okay. No need to panic." It shows that they aren't paying attention and don't appreciate the professionalism of the team.

[thereddaikon]

Or the classic example of,

"Hey man calm down!"

"I am calm!"

One of the best ways to upset someone is to claim they are upset.

[fc417fc802]

There are two sides to that classic example. The one you mentioned, and the one where the other person isn't calm but also lacks self awareness and just becomes more upset.

There's a broader lesson about how if your stated solution is simple and obvious then in most cases it probably isn't actually a solution.

[genewitch]

"No! You start getting excited!"

[gblargg]

Yeah, emotions are how we perceive our organism (body as a whole) going into action to deal with something. They are the idiot lights on a car dash. You can put tape over them or say you ignore them, but the underlying process is still occurring.

[some_furry]

I see what you did there.

[aaronbrethorst]

I suspect they may be the one true Rationalist who has fully mastered their emotions.

[kridsdale1]

I am in awe. We must study him.

[hiAndrewQuinn]

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.

[ang_cire]

> 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]

> 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]

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]

Oh hey bad news you just got double sat and one of them has actually been here for twenty minutes but the host forgot to drop menus so everyone thought they were already taken care of. Also table three has a gluten and allium allergy, they want to know if the beer battered onion rings can be made with suitable substitutions. Also, sorry, final thing but I'm quitting right now so you'll probably want to take care of your drinks yourself

[lief79]

Validating facts is good too.

If the steak is blue and they ordered medium ... then there is little room for debate. If they wanted something other than what they ordered, then validating the feelings is more appropriate.

[ang_cire]

> then there is little room for debate

And that debate can be had (or not) by a lawyer or perhaps a manager, whose job it is to do so. No server is going to be vested with that authority, nor wants to be saddled with the uncompensated responsibility to.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> * 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-s...

[spencerflem]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[bloat]

"You are a total wimp for wanting gloves in this weather! Here they are though, you weakling."

[spencerflem]

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]

> 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]

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]

?

Comcast and Spirit both run their business on NOT solving problems.

[fc417fc802]

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.

[ziddoap]

>There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith

Of course saying "I validate that you are feeling upset" is going to come across as patronizing and insincere. But I don't think that's because they validated your feelings. It's because of the way the validation is said.

Part of what makes a conversation good faith is hearing out what the other person is saying and agreeing where there is common ground to build from. That necessarily includes confirming the pain points each person is feeling.

[efsavage]

Basically the difference between sympathy and empathy. You can validate someone's feelings by simply acknowledging them (sympathy, "I'm sorry you feel upset about that, how can I help?"), or you can participate in that emotion (empathy, "Yeah, that pisses me off too! Let's fix it.").

Neither is definitively better or worse, sincerity is paramount, and it's all contextual, including the personality of the person involved. I think aligning on what mix to use is possibly the most important thing in a relationship, especially a professional one.

[InitialLastName]

You, as an adult in a society, have presumably been able to make yourself understood (including to yourself) for a long time, so "we understand what each-other are saying and can imagine one another's feelings" is a basic subtext of essentially every conversation you have.

Toddlers, on the other hand, are still working on gaining enough linguistic capability to make themselves understood and understand what others are saying, and are still gaining self-awareness of their feelings, needs, and the way the world around them works. Remember that within very recent memory they could only make their needs known by screaming. Validating their emotions and needs confirms that you actually, mechanically understand what they want, and in some cases helps them recognize in fact what they want, both of which can undermine the frustration at the root of the tantrum.

[bitshiftfaced]

The best explanation I have seen comes from the book "Supercommunicators." The author says that it's not so much about the type of personality, but the type of conversation that's occurring. He says there are three main types of conversations, and problems happen when the people are having two different conversations. Here, you're talking about a "practical/problem-solving" conversation, and the other person might be having a "what are we feeling?" conversation.

I'm like you (and maybe a lot of other HNers) who tend to think they're in a problem-solving conversation when I'm talking about a problem. But I've found that the great majority of the time, other people actually are in the "what are we feeling" conversation.

The author then makes the distinction of when conflict occurs and talks about "looping back" what the other person said. It's basically acknowledging their emotions but also repeating back what you heard, asking if that's right, and then asking more questions. The idea is that when there's conflict, you have to take an additional step to prove that you're actually listening and understanding what they've said. When you do that, then it's more likely they'll listen in turn and have a more productive conversation.

Looping back sounds kind of ridiculous, but I have actually found that when people are in an emotional state and on the defensive, they don't perceive this as ridiculous. It can actually speed things along because once you've shown you understand, then they're less likely to keep going over the same material again.

[kimbernator]

It definitely sucks when "validation" feels more like pandering and a means to an end. I think it's probably fair to say that you want to establish trust and fairness in a discussion about solving a problem though, yes? And in my opinion validation has more to do with reaching a baseline agreement about the problem itself. I think a lot of people, myself included, just overanalyze what validation itself is or how it should be deployed.

[spencerflem]

Yeah exactly. It correctly comes off as insincere when people say things like "you must feel upset". If anything that's the opposite of validation because the implication is that the speaker and any other rational human would not feel upset here but you must be so emotional that you need kid gloves.

Vs. actual validation which looks and feels more like an earnest attempt to understand where you're coming from

[fwip]

Interestingly (and I'm not sure if it was intentional or not), but the first thing kimbernator did here was validate your feelings.

"It definitely sucks when..."

Like ziddoap points out in another reply, the way it's said has a lot to do with whether it sounds patronizing and insincere.

If you speak like you're talking to a toddler "It sounds like you're feeling really angry," then yeah, they're going to hate it. Or therapy-speak like "You're angry for a valid reason" can equally sound condescending. But saying "that sucks, dude." accomplishes the same goal, in a way that sounds, and is, sincere.

[MetaWhirledPeas]

> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere).

The solution is to be sincere. As to the reasoning behind it, it's not merely to appease the other person, it's to actually consider their point of view, because they might be right. If you don't consider their point of view then you're not considering all options, and more importantly you're willfully ignoring an option being presented by the person you are communicating with. That's not just dumb, it's disrespectful.

[kmoser]

Interestingly, this method of validation is also used as a tactic for negotiating with terrorists and hostage-takers. But it would be an oversimplification to lump toddlers, bully politicians, and terrorists together since they have vastly different abilities to understand and communicate, as well as limits to how far they'll go to achieve their ends.

I agree with your sentiment that it feels patronizing or insincere when somebody seems to be trying to "validate" my emotions (I'm not being patronizing here, just pointing out that I agree with you!). But I'd bet you and I are prone to thinking logically, and don't usually engage in emotional high-stakes games--two traits you won't find in most toddlers, politicians, or terrorists.

[cycomanic]

I find that some discussion with the "logical" type can be extremely difficult, because we (I include myself in that category) often don't realise they have an emotional response. I think this is also behind the OP I don't want my emotions to be validated statement. Anything the other does even validation is emotionally rejected (often even a complete surrender, I.e. "you only say I'm right because you don't want to argue anymore).

I noticed this sort of response in myself after getting some communication training. For myself this triggered me to very consciously pay attention to me having an emotional response (obviously not always successful) and the try to deliberately validate the others perspective. Interestingly I find that this also helps me to actually understand the other person more and lowers my "emotional defense response".

[spencerflem]

In some sense though- every 'problem' is emotional. As in, if your problem is someone not doing the dishes your problem is that you feel like you deserve a clean kitchen and what your roommate is doing isn't fair. There's logical steps inbetween but the start of it is a feeling of being hurt and bothered. Same with any other problem, if you are dispasionate enough things cease to be problems and just are.

So to me, I see validating emotions as another way of saying: 'we share the same goals, there is a problem and we agree on what it is, so we can work towards a solution together'

[h2onock]

> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere). There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith. The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.

It is so refreshing for me to read this because that's how I feel a lot of the time. I actually don't want someone to say "I understand where you're coming from", if they don't. That happens often in professional life and nearly always feels insincere. I'd much rather someone asked for clarification or for me to expand on what I've already said so that they can actually understand my viewpoint so that they can consider if properly before pushing through their "better" idea.

[dkarl]

The "validate and problem-solve together" approach doesn't work reliably with adults. For people who are single-mindedly out to get what they want, it's not the first time someone has tried this on them, and they've learned the counter. When they realize that validating their emotions is a priority for you, they'll insist that your validation is insincere unless you give them what they want.

"It's easy to say you care about my feelings, but since you aren't [giving me what I asked for], I see what you're really about."

"If you really cared you'd...."

"If you really understood you'd...."

Toddlers haven't learned the next step of the game.

[rawgabbit]

My MIL with dementia does this. I typically respond by saying, "you don't mean that" or "I did not do such a thing". If she keeps up her a mile a minute hostile diatribe, I start praying very LOUDLY. That appears to be the only thing which gets her to be quiet and calm down.

[genewitch]

There's a counter for that as well but I can't quote the verbal self defense book right now. But one of the main defenses taught in the book I have is against "if you really" pattern.

[phkahler]

>> There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith.

Validating their position is a form of acknowledgement that we understand it. That's a prerequisite to a "compromise in good faith". If someone feels we don't understand their position, they will not feel we are arguing in good faith.

>> The resolution to the problem is the most likely way to elicit positive emotions from me anyway.

But when you lose an argument does it feel better (less bad) if the other person understood your point rather than just ignoring it? It kinda sucks more to make a concession when the other person doesn't even know we've made one.

[skobes]

Are you sure you are not experiencing some selection bias yourself, where you only recall the validation attempts that landed as patronizing or insincere, and do not notice when they are adeptly executed?

[ciconia]

Being a bit of an asperger’s case, I have developed over the years a practice of listening to people talk and at the same time try to process in my head the mood of the speaker, because sometimes I'm not able to do it instinctively. I am getting better with practice though.

Sometimes I respond to my interlocutor by naming the emotion they're expressing, not necessarily directly ("oh you're angry!?") but rather stuff like "oh it must be infuriating what happened!"

I find people do respond positively to that, and that it opens a deeper connection.

There's the practice of Non Violent Communication [1], which has inspired me, though I'm not a zealous follower of the technique. It can seem condescending at the hands of the wrong person.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication

Edit: to me this is not about validation. It's about being more attuned to what the other person's going through. It's about empathy and compassion.

[lamename]

The point of this, particularly for children (e.g. as a parent), is to build emotional bonds and stability, not to get them to do what you want. That can be a nice side effect in the moment, and is indeed more likely over the long term with this approach. But the chief goal is emotional safety, validation, etc.

[Cthulhu_]

The problem a lot of people in our field / on the internet have is that they think every problem is purely a logical problem to be solved, and that the person that has the problem is completely rational about it. But that's not the reality, and a lot of problems are emotional in nature - or, elicit an emotional response, which can't be resolved by just ignoring the emotional aspect and focusing on the functional. Because sometimes there just isn't a logical / functional problem to be solved.

And you're making the assumption that you can play a part in solving the problem, but what if that removes someone else's agency or responsibility? They will feel belittled, passed by, ignored, or they will not learn anything.

[RangerScience]

The validation is that you're having the experience you're having, not that it's, say, an intractable problem, or necessarily the emotional experience you're having about it.

It's this:

1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: You are having problem X. 3. Them: Here are possible solutions.

There are lots of variations on this. There are also multiple reasons to do it: validation and calibration being (AFAIK) the main ones. One way to look at it is that validation says I'm not going to fight you about your subjective experience.

Contrast:

1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: Here are possible solutions.

This can come across as "your problem will be fixed but you do not matter".

Contrast:

1. You: I am having problem X 2. Them: You are not having problem X.

Now it's an argument.

[tehjoker]

It depends on the situation, but when you have a disagreement with someone, for example of a different political tendency about serious issues, if they acknowledge my perspective and don't just talk past me, I'm more likely to engage with them more seriously. The acknowledgement lets you know you share some kind of reality to discuss even if you disagree. It's not only about feelings (though that can be part of it), it's combating the assumption that you don't see what they see and therefore your words are spoken out of ignorance and can be dismissed.

[latexr]

> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions

Picture a situation where someone is running a loud machine within your earshot. It’s been a while and it’s getting on your nerves, so you ask them to stop. Now imagine the answer is either:

“Oh, I’m so sorry. I didn’t realise someone was so close. I know this is loud but could I ask you to bear with it for just ten more minutes? I promise I’ll be over by then. It’s important I finish now because <valid reason>.”

Or:

“Fuck off, asshole. I don’t give a shit about you. I’ll be done when I feel like it.”

Allow me to suggest you’d appreciate and care for the first answer more. You’d probably even have a better day with it, even if the first person ended up taking twelve minutes while the second took eight.

> (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere)

I propose this could be a version of the toupee fallacy¹. The attempts you view as patronising and insincere are the ones which are obviously so. Perhaps from people who read a self-help book about how to control others and get what they want. Or like when you call a company for support and the agent repeats your name over and over. But there are people who are genuine and do it reflexively and honestly because they truly care about their fellow human being.

> There's a problem to be solved, so let's attempt to solve it or at least compromise in good faith.

That’s not the default state for most people. It should be, but it’s not. One reframing I like to give, e.g. when people ask me for advice on an argument they’re having with a spouse, is “remember it’s not you against them, but you and them together against the problem”. Simple and highly effective with reasonable people, as it allows them to take a step back and look at the issue from a more rational vantage point.

¹ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy

[ignoramous]

It is just one of the techniques made popular by the book How to Talk so Kids Will Listen & Listen so Kids Will Talk.

Summary: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/summarise-chapter-by-chapte...

[pjmorris]

Based on my own experience, YMMV, I find that those who need the validation before working directly on a solution are more annoyed by missing the validation than those who don't need the validation but get it anyway. Of course, it's good to learn the working styles of those you work with frequently.

[runjake]

> Personally speaking, I've never cared whether someone "validates" my emotions (and I often view such attempts as a bit patronizing or insincere).

I think that speaks more about you (and me, I’m the same way). Most people respond positively to that tactic. I’ve learned use it myself!

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

I believe I could say the same about myself but there is also a difference between being validated and not being invalidated. Being told that your problems are not so bad is likely still to be something that irks you, as it would me. After all, you can decide how bad your problems are for yourself.

Nobody saying, "Get some perspective!" is ever going to get you to feel good about your problems, though it might get you to feel bad about feeling bad about your problems.

[korse]

>>but think there's some selection bias at play with regard to the type of personality that is likely to recommend this approach as advice and how well the advice actually works

Correct. As previously stated, this advice works wonders on toddlers. Congratulations on not being a toddler!

[poincaredisk]

I think the advice is sounds, but "validate emotions" is not a perfect way to talk about it. Saying out loud "I understand that you want to stay up late" is a good way to start the discussion and avoid misunderstandings of what the problem actually is.

[adornKey]

I've heard, that this approach works very well with "troublemakers". Maybe this is the selection bias. For communication with less emotional non-troublemakers there's less demand for professional advice.

[dartharva]

If you ignore the subject's emotions, you risk completely losing their interest and willingness to engage productively.

[jkaptur]

Validation can serve the purpose of communicating that one person deeply understands the other's problem.

[zizee]

Better than what some people do: argue that the problem you have raised doesn't exist.

[hatradiowigwam]

How do you stop doing that if it's a habit you find out is very ingrained in you?

EG.. You are angry at me because I doubled parked. I tell you that the spot I pick was the only one available at the time I took it, and if that is no longer the case(cars have moved) it's not my problem. You are upset about something you do not have the right to be upset about.

I understand the above example is obviously...stupid. I am the stupid person that will argue with you that I didn't do anything wrong, since at that moment in time it was the only option available.

My question is.. how can I stop being like this? It's not good in my life, and negatively impacts my closest relationships.

[wwilim]

I'm 31 this year and it works on me, so...

[oconnor663]

> There's a problem to be solved

"valid"