| ▲ | ang_cire 5 days ago | ||||||||||||||||
> 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 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> 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. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | lief79 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
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. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||