I frame it not as turning a dial down, but as switching channel from practical problem-solver to emotional problem-solver.

Often when someone wants to talk about a situation involving difficult feelings, 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.

You can help by being curious about what they're saying, reflecting it back to them in your own terms, explaining how what they're feeling is understandable, and offering context or alternative viewpoints. These are actually complex problem-solving skills, although they can all fall under the umbrella of what people mean when they say "to be heard".

As a man, I've realised that once my emotions feel validated and accepted, I relax and the practical solutions just pop into my mind.

▲

thisislife2 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> switching channel from practical problem-solver to emotional problem-solver

Thank you for this useful tip! I've recently become aware that I may not be as good a listener I thought I was - I too make the common mistake of immediately offering solutions, or talking too much about my own relatable situations and feelings, instead of trying to really listen to them and help them figure out their own world view and feelings of a particular situation (and thus understand them better too in the process).

▲

Aurornis 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

embedding-shape 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

n4r9 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 an hour ago | parent [-]

> 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.

	▲	lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 40 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> It took someone more level headed to start telling her when her reactions were not valid to certain situations to begin stabilizing the behavior. I guess at the risk of splitting hairs, I think it's more likely they stopped misappropriating more than they started invalidating. I see a difference between "you shouldn't feel that way" and "I disagree with that conclusion" such that one can logically say both (well, the former being "it's okay to feel that way") in the same breath.
	▲	n4r9 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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 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.

▲

burnished 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

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

▲

dan00 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Often when someone wants to talk about a situation involving difficult feelings, 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.

Right, talking about feelings is a way of regulating yourself.

Conflicts with my wife are a lot easier if I'm able to empathize with her emotional distress, acknowledging it, instead of jumping directly into logical problem solving. If I'm only looking logically at the issue, I can't really understand the issue she is having.

I like the view of the therapist Terry Real, that during conflicts you can either be right or stay connected. That doesn't mean that you hide your views, but that you also emotionally acknowledge the view of your partner. It's surprising how effectively this takes out the fire in conflicts.

▲

funkyfiddler69 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> they're actually trying to process those feelings

Exactly, help exploring their problem, maybe direct them into one nook or the other, support a proper perspective from different angles (to a small extent within the context and constraints they provided!!!), but don't solve the riddle for them. They might not even know how they really feel about it all, yet.

▲

lazide 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Be careful you don’t end up with people who have constant emotional problems that need fixing - or that you’re 100% sure that you’ll never need to say ‘no’. Speaking from experience.

Some people really don’t like ‘no’, especially when they have emotional problems.

▲

Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Another pitfall with this approach is when someone has constant emotional but irrational reactions to everything. Being the person who validates their emotions becomes harmful if they’re over-reacting or developing harmful emotional reactions and you’re always there to validate them.

	▲	Cthulhu_ an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If it becomes damaging to you (the person that is expected to be emotional support), "grey rocking" is the next step. Acknowledge, but don't respond. "uh huh" instead of "I am so sorry" or whatever. Don't take advice from me though.

▲

n4r9 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I've heard that's true; compassion and empathy can be a draw for highly insecure people. You need to balance it with assertiveness and self-regulation, which are also part of emotional intelligence.