The most annoying factors of those "validating responses" are
a) as you mention, they're sort of patronizing. They diminish you into the status of a child, a victim who needs comforting.
b) Sometimes a person who utters them isn't engaging with you, and quite possibly isn't interested in your anecdote, but is saying The Appropriate Phrase while not actually paying attention to what you are saying.
And of course you can't really force a person to care about something that bugs you.
Since I live in a pretty "streety" city environment, responses i would probably receive after explaining someone's annoying behaviors would likely be "That sucks" or (referring to the villain in my anecdote) "What a piece of sht!". Same difference, really, a validating response. Sometimes a person responding is genuinely engaging your story and other times they are validating you but not interested.
I have had a friend look down at me as if I was a victim and I know how bad it feels. You want a friend to treat you as an equal, not as if she's a parent and you're her child. After it was all said and done, she even admitted that was part of her issue. She was trying to mother me. I wanted a friend, not a mother at that stage. Condescension like that can ruin a relationship.
You are describing pity. Pity is not emotional validation because it isn't driven by empathy. It's a "near enemy" of empathy, meaning it looks like empathy but it in fact undermines empathy. Pity sets up a hierarchical dynamic where someone is looking down at you under the guise of "feeling bad for you". It sets up a feeling of separateness and distance from the person suffering. True emotional validation is driven by empathy, which has the quality of taking in and listening to someone's experience non-judgmentally, as an equal.
Thanks for this piece. When I learned about validation, I found it confusing and odd. It seemed to me that validating another’s emotions required the listener to somehow agree that the emotions were not only real but were somehow an appropriate, good, or meaningful response to a situation or circumstance. This affirmation didn’t seem like a good idea. I think that while someone’s emotions are real, the emotions may muddle or confuse another perspective and ultimately may make it difficult to understand reality. I also felt that this was also odd in the sense that the emotions that needed validation were often negative ones, so that led me to believe that its was strange that the person feeling “shitty” somehow got to dictate to the one not feeling shitty how to respond.
This is something I find hard to accept as appointing or good behavior for adults who want to flourish. I think emotional regulation is much better. Lord knows how many emotions cross my mind on a regular basis, some of which may be sick and dangerous to express, and is precisely why I don’t think I should express them. Feelings aren’t facts, and the feelings may betray things about me that I need to improve on or even suppress if I want a deep sense of meaningful happiness content.
I think that the examples of validation for children and for adults in certain situations are good.
I don’t think validation in most adult situations is good, or at least not in situations where you actually like or love the other person. I personally don’t need validation. Or even empathy; but sympathy, compassion, advice, and/or another perspective is much much much better. That actually requires at some level a respect for both me and for reality.
I often say, "That sounds really frustrating" which usually causes friend to open up and talk more about the incident. I do enjoy such discussions. So fascinating. I have a niece with troubles scheduling her husband's air conditioning installations. People often yell and demand. Arizona is so hot. The clients often don't understand or don't care that they live so far away it's not possible to fit them in the same day. So part of our discussion focuses on taking on too much responsibility for pleasing everyone. Even though my nieces is sounding angry and critical--she really feels a strain for "failing" to satisfy everybody. This desire to please also needs careful discussion. Chris Voss who wrote an excellent book on negotiating with terrorists "Never Split the Difference" has YouTube videos about "Tactical Empathy." He might approach a harassed customer service person saying, "Tough day, huh." Validation is not always demeaning. Having feelings acknowledged doesn't mean that world should automatically adjust to all frustrations.
Thank you. Your post explains the feelings I have with a long time friend. When we talk about my Substack, she thinks she is validating my success. But she treats me like a child…good girl, I knew you could do it, etc, but I didn’t understand why I was feeling uncomfortable with her ‘praise’. Now it makes perfect sense. 🦕
I hope for some clarification about the section where it says:
“De-escalating a situation. You cannot have a rational discussion when the other person is riled up. You need to help them cool off by validating their feelings and affirming their position, matching their tone and intensity. This works whether someone is in narcissistic rage, angry or agitated.”
I am puzzled by the, “matching their tone and intensity”. That sounds like saying one should meet rage with rage, hostility with hostility. That doesn’t work for me, and I don’t think I have seen it work for others, typically, so I suspect that I am misreading the section. Is there a different way to express this?
Great question which helped me realise I could have expressed this section more clearly. Growing Wild expressed it better - reflecting their tone and intensity, not their emotion.
I'll attempt to illustrate what I mean: You're supposed to meet someone and you're running late. You text them to let them know you'll be arriving 10 minutes later and you apologise for the delay. When you finally meet, they're a little cold and remind you that you're late. You apologise again and tell them you should have left earlier because you didn't anticipate the traffic/delays. They appear agitated and tell you that it's not ok to be late especially since they were careful to be on time. They have a busy life too and put some things off to meet with you. They rant about the importance of being on time while you listen silently. You might be thinking 'this person is overreacting' but you choose to validate them with: "You're absolutely right. Being on time is really important because punctuality shows respect. It is insulting when someone is late!"
You wouldn't say this in a calm soothing voice. You would be direct and speak at a similar pace and tone that conveys you are in agreement with them. If they're sarcastic, you wouldn't be sarcastic back. You would be direct and agreeable because you want them to know that you accept their experience and you are aiming to help them feel accepted.
You might have to go back and forth a few times slowing your pace and reducing your tone each time to help them regulate. They are less likely to escalate because they were able to vent their feelings (and the energy built up inside them) and receive respect in return.
I hope that I explained that sufficiently to see that didn't mean to match their emotion.
Okay, I think I understand better now. As you may have guessed, I have been dissatisfied with the way I have responded to people who I feel have irrationally overreacted. I have tried several different types of response. Fortunately, I rarely have occasion to practice my methods for dealing with that sort of situation.
I had the same thought. Maybe "reflecting" or mirroring their tone and intensity within your word choice, rather than actually getting loud and angry yourself (for example).
The internal locus of control vs the external locus of control.
Humans need a spiritual practice that emphasizes the internal locus. Whatever it is doesn’t really matter. Any true form of spirituality will drive one to the internal locus and proper humility and accountability.
Some key concepts of the cluster B mindset:
“Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you weaker”
“The world can be separated into good people and bad people” (I’m the arbiter of who is “bad”)
“Thinking about how I’m feeling about how I’m thinking” is a good way to frame it.
In the end it devolves in to dehumanizing. It’s both the self and the offending actor. It dehumanizes everyone involved.
Am with you, Willy…as project manager in Construction for 37 years, I never gave a second thought to or spending time validating someone’s opinion unless it came to how make the work better, specifically. I was not there to be popular with the crews I was working with, at the time. So unless, it was work-related, I listened. Otherwise, I did not give a shit about validating anyone’s opinion cos we all had work to do and execute in real time.
Yeah. Don’t let your feelings get in the way of a job. You can eat what comes out of a successful job but you can’t eat feelings.
Personality and opinion differences are a real thing everywhere. There’s an honest way to resolve them and a dishonest way (or ways) to attempt to resolve them.
We all of us have feelings and opinions. It’s just so we have the self awareness to deal with them honestly. That’s what this is all about. Old school guys on a job site would just have it out and be down with it. Last resort method if you can’t find common ground and it results in common ground (the hard way).
These things can be resolved without blows fairly quickly if there’s a willingness to be self accountable. Both sides must hold this tenet.
If not, you’re looking at becoming a “former employee”.
If it feels like someone is “repeating a memorized script” when they validate you, then they probably are. That’s not emotional validation, because the empathy piece is missing. Emotional validation is the process of learning about, understanding and expressing acceptance of another person’s emotional experience. The precursor to emotional validation is empathy. If that is missing, then the expression will feel disingenuous.
Needing validation does not mean you are a victim. It does not mean that you do not have “a strong sense of self”. I mean, yes, that can be true in some cases. It’s also true that empathy and validation are just part of how we connect emotionally as humans, and needing them isn’t a sign of weakness. It means you are seeking to be seen, heard and understood. Feeling seen, heard and understood is connected to our sense of belonging and we are wired to seek belonging and understanding. Our capacity for empathy is rooted in the theory of “embodied simulation”, which states that witnessing another individual's behavior or emotion triggers an empathetic response in our brain, and our brain then reacts as if we were experiencing it ourselves. This is enabled by specialized mirror neurons, which similarly fire both when we drop a brick on our toe and when we see someone else drop a brick on their toe. So the areas of the brain typically activated by our own emotions are also active when we observe another individual experiencing feelings or sensations. Mirror neuron help us understand WHY someone is behaving the way they behave, which facilitates greater emotional understanding and empathy. Interestingly, psychopaths (who are on a continuum with narcissists - they are an extreme form of narcissism) show low activation in their mirror neuron system (as well as in their emotional processing structures and areas associated with affective empathy).
Yes, we can all self validate, but labeling the need for external validation as “unnecessary and infantilizing” is overlooking the fact that we build human connection through empathy, and through the experience of feeling seen and understood by another person (mirror neurons at work!). Validation does not mean you agree with the person’s perspective, or behavior. Validating someone’s feelings doesn’t mean you automatically are not going to challenge their thought process. In fact, if you validate someone feelings, they are usually much more open to having their thinking process challenged because they feel seen and heard. Therapists, including me, use this technique frequently in session. It is also effective outside the therapy room, especially in conflicts. I am not sure where you got your information about how validation is not effective “in most therapeutic relationships”. Validation is how therapists initially build rapport with the client, along with “empathic resonance”, which is fancy way of saying being receptive and in tune with a person’s feelings and ideas without losing sight of our sense of ‘I’, and who is feeling what. We use validation regularly, but almost never exclusively. Emotional validation a tool that requires nuance. It’s saying, “Hey I am trying to understand, learn about and accept your emotional experience, but that does not mean you are “right” or that the behavior you displayed was ok with me.”
This process has nothing to do with being in a hierarchical relationship vs. a relationship between equals. I can see how if you conflate pity with emotional validation, that could feel true, but they are not the same. Pity sets up a separation between ourselves and others, and a sense of distance and remoteness towards another person’s suffering that is self gratifying. It is hierarchical because it looks down on the person suffering, and it’s often passive and does not involve helping the person. So if someone is pitying you, then yes, superiority is being asserted. But pity is not empathy. It’s the near enemy of empathy. It feels close to empathy but it actually undermines it.
Being able to express empathy and validation is essential to relationship repair, after a conflict. If you can’t empathize with and validate another person’s experience after a relationship rupture, that relationship has a strong chance of deteriorating and possible ending. You know who can’t do empathy and validation? Small children, because they have not learned yet, and narcissists because they have no empathy.
Acknowledgment is important, but it’s cognitive and skips over the emotional part. When you skip over the emotional part of someone’s experience, they tend to feel unheard. This creates more disconnect. The example you give as the “right “ way to do it actually has an element of emotional validation: “It sounds like this situation is annoying to you” is validating that person’s emotional experience. You are adding an element of self-reflection by pointing out that perhaps this is because of her expectations. But you lead with a validating statement. The exchange you go one to describe is also exactly how children are taught to manage their feelings (ideally) and it’s part of what a therapist might do in a session. Again, you validate the feelings but challenge the behaviors.
Yes, constantly validating someone’s emotional experience without challenging their behaviors is not helpful at all. And it builds brittle, rigid people, not resilient, emotionally flexible people. But that doesn’t make emotional validation the enemy. It’s a tool, like any other tool in relationships and it needs to be wielded skillfully. I disagree that validating someone’s feelings means that you are justifying their behaviors. I can see how it could be interpreted that way. But you are conflating the actual definition of emotional validation with toxic positivity and enabling, and they are not the same. To make a broad argument that feelings do not need to be validated is to say that ignoring or rejecting someone else’s emotional experience is ok, and that we do not need to work on building empathy, understanding, acceptance and tolerance for each other’s emotional experiences. And this is precisely how a person with strong narcissistic tendencies moves through the world.
To say that needing your feelings validated is a narcissistic trait is an interesting argument. Perhaps narcissists do require far more validation because they are energy vampires and in constant need of external validation. However, that doesn’t mean that if you need/want emotional validation, you are a narcissist. Or that excessively validating people’s emotions is turning us all into narcissists. In fact, because empathy precludes the ability to validate other people’s emotions, one could argue that the excessive amounts of emotional validation we are seeing point to a less narcissistic culture. Because the hallmark of a narcissistic personality disorder diagnosis is lack of empathy.
Thank you Claire for taking the time and effort to provide your perspectives on what I'd written. Where I think we differ is that you're speaking from the perspective of a highly skilled clinician and communicator. I'm speaking to a general audience who have an understanding of validation as a placating technique rather than one that demonstrates empathy such that the recipient experiences being empathised with and understood.
To distinguish between the infantalising version of validation from the emotional validation that you described, I described skills of acknowledging the other's experience which requires demonstrating skills of empathy such as attunement, empathic statements, open questions, summarising/paraphrasing etc.
We are also using different frames about narcissism and narcissistic traits in addition to our uses of the word validation, which is why I defined interpersonal narcissism at the top of the post to make my meaning clearer. I don't discuss NPD when I describe narcissistic traits on a behavioral spectrum. Because of this, our constructs about my meaning are going to seemingly disagree but if we were to sit down and have chat, I would imagine you and I would come to a shared understanding about what we mean.
Thank you for taking the time to read them! I think I understand better where you are coming from and now I VERY MUCH want to sit down and have a chat with you. How fun!
What is it that we want from the narcissist who has wounded us deeply? Are we looking for an acknowledgment or a validation of our feelings? I’ve heard therapists tell the narcissist to validate the wounded person’s feelings, but it sounds to me acknowledging is a better response while the validation can come across rehearsed and practiced. Thoughts?
You ask an important question that requires some consideration about what's realistic to expect from a narcissist. A textbook narcissist is incapable of the mentalising skills required to imagine another's experience because all experience is viewed through their own feelings. Acknowledging requires more sophisticated reflective and reasoning skills that can be learned but is not immediately available to someone who is mostly concerned about their own experience/feelings such as a highly narcissistic person. Expecting someone who is accountability averse to acknowledge their role in wounding you is not going to be a realistic expectation. Sometimes what's required is to accept that this person is as they are because they won't change no matter how much you'd like them to validate and consider your feelings.
It seems we should also not expect them to validate our feelings, opinions, experiences, etc. too. That also seems to be more sophisticated than they’re able to accomplish.
I subscribed after I started reading this post. I'm incentivized now to start rethinking my approach to dealing with "narcissistic" people. I get along fine with them--because I always validate. I may disagree--but I understand their vulnerability and don't care to shame them. I often end up racked with guilt or anxiety over confronting them. I'm lost in the quest to be the perfect supportive friend or colleague. NOTE: Not all people who get really angry at minor? disagreements are narcissists. I have a friend who threatened to cancel me if I express critical comments about Biden. No problem. I just keep them to myself. It would be interesting to explore why she feels so strongly--but I think our friendship might not survive. However, I think it's related to her feeling that Democracy is of utmost importance. Freedom to vote is so important--and Trump seems to threaten to abolish it. Thanks for helping me reduce my fear of disagreements. NOTE: I'm not going to go out and start confronting everyone. I am going to forgive myself for not always being the perfect validating person.
Thanks for saying that not all people who are angry about minor disagreements are narcissists because I think you are correct there. Everyone is angry about minor interactions at times and it probably means there's something deeper going on than the expressed reason (which by validating the person you might help them unpack and gratify your not-unjustified curiosity.).
Re Biden, I don't know why people have turned politicians into their saviors (as a Christian I think it's in part because people yearn for a savior and don't have one on the God plane so are searching elsewhere). Politicians are usually pretty flawed human beings I'm voting for Trump despite his flaws (overemphasized by the media) because...He is the Republican candidate and I prefer Republican policy ideas to Democrat ones. Even if Trump intended to eradicate democracy he has no power to do so.
Guess it depends on your definition of Democracy. The Biden supporters point to Trump's claims the election was stolen (Mark Crispin Miller a media professor at NYU believes it was) and his attempts to restore the accurate vote count. The Trump supporters point to the candidacy of Kamala Harris--whom nobody voted for--and violations of the first amendment. What do you prefer: Voting rights or first amendment rights?
Sorry about going off slightly on the whole topic of politics below. We are all primed for being annoyed on the topic now, but there's no time to talk about our various reasons for voting as we do so I'm sorry for venturing into the topic.
I enjoyed your post since half my friends are rabid Trump supporters while the other half are rabid Biden supporters while the illegal immigrants feel it's none of their business since they are not allowed to vote.
Thank you Diana for subscribing! Validating narcissistic people is effective and not rocking the boat in order to get things done. With friends, your ability to see their perspectives and desire to uncover what informs them makes you an excellent listener. This is a gift to anyone who has you as their listener. Sadly, it sounds as if some of those friends are unable or unwilling to do that with you and would prefer you agree with them than express how you truly feel. Que sera sera.
The most annoying factors of those "validating responses" are
a) as you mention, they're sort of patronizing. They diminish you into the status of a child, a victim who needs comforting.
b) Sometimes a person who utters them isn't engaging with you, and quite possibly isn't interested in your anecdote, but is saying The Appropriate Phrase while not actually paying attention to what you are saying.
And of course you can't really force a person to care about something that bugs you.
Since I live in a pretty "streety" city environment, responses i would probably receive after explaining someone's annoying behaviors would likely be "That sucks" or (referring to the villain in my anecdote) "What a piece of sht!". Same difference, really, a validating response. Sometimes a person responding is genuinely engaging your story and other times they are validating you but not interested.
I have had a friend look down at me as if I was a victim and I know how bad it feels. You want a friend to treat you as an equal, not as if she's a parent and you're her child. After it was all said and done, she even admitted that was part of her issue. She was trying to mother me. I wanted a friend, not a mother at that stage. Condescension like that can ruin a relationship.
You are describing pity. Pity is not emotional validation because it isn't driven by empathy. It's a "near enemy" of empathy, meaning it looks like empathy but it in fact undermines empathy. Pity sets up a hierarchical dynamic where someone is looking down at you under the guise of "feeling bad for you". It sets up a feeling of separateness and distance from the person suffering. True emotional validation is driven by empathy, which has the quality of taking in and listening to someone's experience non-judgmentally, as an equal.
Thanks for this piece. When I learned about validation, I found it confusing and odd. It seemed to me that validating another’s emotions required the listener to somehow agree that the emotions were not only real but were somehow an appropriate, good, or meaningful response to a situation or circumstance. This affirmation didn’t seem like a good idea. I think that while someone’s emotions are real, the emotions may muddle or confuse another perspective and ultimately may make it difficult to understand reality. I also felt that this was also odd in the sense that the emotions that needed validation were often negative ones, so that led me to believe that its was strange that the person feeling “shitty” somehow got to dictate to the one not feeling shitty how to respond.
This is something I find hard to accept as appointing or good behavior for adults who want to flourish. I think emotional regulation is much better. Lord knows how many emotions cross my mind on a regular basis, some of which may be sick and dangerous to express, and is precisely why I don’t think I should express them. Feelings aren’t facts, and the feelings may betray things about me that I need to improve on or even suppress if I want a deep sense of meaningful happiness content.
I think that the examples of validation for children and for adults in certain situations are good.
I don’t think validation in most adult situations is good, or at least not in situations where you actually like or love the other person. I personally don’t need validation. Or even empathy; but sympathy, compassion, advice, and/or another perspective is much much much better. That actually requires at some level a respect for both me and for reality.
I often say, "That sounds really frustrating" which usually causes friend to open up and talk more about the incident. I do enjoy such discussions. So fascinating. I have a niece with troubles scheduling her husband's air conditioning installations. People often yell and demand. Arizona is so hot. The clients often don't understand or don't care that they live so far away it's not possible to fit them in the same day. So part of our discussion focuses on taking on too much responsibility for pleasing everyone. Even though my nieces is sounding angry and critical--she really feels a strain for "failing" to satisfy everybody. This desire to please also needs careful discussion. Chris Voss who wrote an excellent book on negotiating with terrorists "Never Split the Difference" has YouTube videos about "Tactical Empathy." He might approach a harassed customer service person saying, "Tough day, huh." Validation is not always demeaning. Having feelings acknowledged doesn't mean that world should automatically adjust to all frustrations.
Thank you. Your post explains the feelings I have with a long time friend. When we talk about my Substack, she thinks she is validating my success. But she treats me like a child…good girl, I knew you could do it, etc, but I didn’t understand why I was feeling uncomfortable with her ‘praise’. Now it makes perfect sense. 🦕
This explains so much, thank you.
I hope for some clarification about the section where it says:
“De-escalating a situation. You cannot have a rational discussion when the other person is riled up. You need to help them cool off by validating their feelings and affirming their position, matching their tone and intensity. This works whether someone is in narcissistic rage, angry or agitated.”
I am puzzled by the, “matching their tone and intensity”. That sounds like saying one should meet rage with rage, hostility with hostility. That doesn’t work for me, and I don’t think I have seen it work for others, typically, so I suspect that I am misreading the section. Is there a different way to express this?
Great question which helped me realise I could have expressed this section more clearly. Growing Wild expressed it better - reflecting their tone and intensity, not their emotion.
I'll attempt to illustrate what I mean: You're supposed to meet someone and you're running late. You text them to let them know you'll be arriving 10 minutes later and you apologise for the delay. When you finally meet, they're a little cold and remind you that you're late. You apologise again and tell them you should have left earlier because you didn't anticipate the traffic/delays. They appear agitated and tell you that it's not ok to be late especially since they were careful to be on time. They have a busy life too and put some things off to meet with you. They rant about the importance of being on time while you listen silently. You might be thinking 'this person is overreacting' but you choose to validate them with: "You're absolutely right. Being on time is really important because punctuality shows respect. It is insulting when someone is late!"
You wouldn't say this in a calm soothing voice. You would be direct and speak at a similar pace and tone that conveys you are in agreement with them. If they're sarcastic, you wouldn't be sarcastic back. You would be direct and agreeable because you want them to know that you accept their experience and you are aiming to help them feel accepted.
You might have to go back and forth a few times slowing your pace and reducing your tone each time to help them regulate. They are less likely to escalate because they were able to vent their feelings (and the energy built up inside them) and receive respect in return.
I hope that I explained that sufficiently to see that didn't mean to match their emotion.
Okay, I think I understand better now. As you may have guessed, I have been dissatisfied with the way I have responded to people who I feel have irrationally overreacted. I have tried several different types of response. Fortunately, I rarely have occasion to practice my methods for dealing with that sort of situation.
Oh man, this is just not possible in a reality where there are power differentials or dynamics at play.
I had the same thought. Maybe "reflecting" or mirroring their tone and intensity within your word choice, rather than actually getting loud and angry yourself (for example).
Would like to see some examples of what is meant.
Yes, an example or two would help, I think.
Ewww Validation. I’ll never use that word again ☺️
Acknowledgement is way better.
Good one Doc.
Thanks Dee! There are exceptions of course making validation a valid strategy.
The internal locus of control vs the external locus of control.
Humans need a spiritual practice that emphasizes the internal locus. Whatever it is doesn’t really matter. Any true form of spirituality will drive one to the internal locus and proper humility and accountability.
Some key concepts of the cluster B mindset:
“Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you weaker”
“The world can be separated into good people and bad people” (I’m the arbiter of who is “bad”)
“Thinking about how I’m feeling about how I’m thinking” is a good way to frame it.
In the end it devolves in to dehumanizing. It’s both the self and the offending actor. It dehumanizes everyone involved.
No bueno.
Beautiful, thank you. It sounds like you've read The Coddling of the American Mind? I'm partway through.
I have not. I’ve been familiar with some of these terms for a while. I think that’s James Lindsay so I’m sure he does a good job of the whole thing.
I haven't read it, only reviews of it. It can be good to reflect on our relating styles from time to time!
Am with you, Willy…as project manager in Construction for 37 years, I never gave a second thought to or spending time validating someone’s opinion unless it came to how make the work better, specifically. I was not there to be popular with the crews I was working with, at the time. So unless, it was work-related, I listened. Otherwise, I did not give a shit about validating anyone’s opinion cos we all had work to do and execute in real time.
Yeah. Don’t let your feelings get in the way of a job. You can eat what comes out of a successful job but you can’t eat feelings.
Personality and opinion differences are a real thing everywhere. There’s an honest way to resolve them and a dishonest way (or ways) to attempt to resolve them.
We all of us have feelings and opinions. It’s just so we have the self awareness to deal with them honestly. That’s what this is all about. Old school guys on a job site would just have it out and be down with it. Last resort method if you can’t find common ground and it results in common ground (the hard way).
These things can be resolved without blows fairly quickly if there’s a willingness to be self accountable. Both sides must hold this tenet.
If not, you’re looking at becoming a “former employee”.
I hate it when people talk to me like this. I do not need your validation.
If it feels like someone is “repeating a memorized script” when they validate you, then they probably are. That’s not emotional validation, because the empathy piece is missing. Emotional validation is the process of learning about, understanding and expressing acceptance of another person’s emotional experience. The precursor to emotional validation is empathy. If that is missing, then the expression will feel disingenuous.
Needing validation does not mean you are a victim. It does not mean that you do not have “a strong sense of self”. I mean, yes, that can be true in some cases. It’s also true that empathy and validation are just part of how we connect emotionally as humans, and needing them isn’t a sign of weakness. It means you are seeking to be seen, heard and understood. Feeling seen, heard and understood is connected to our sense of belonging and we are wired to seek belonging and understanding. Our capacity for empathy is rooted in the theory of “embodied simulation”, which states that witnessing another individual's behavior or emotion triggers an empathetic response in our brain, and our brain then reacts as if we were experiencing it ourselves. This is enabled by specialized mirror neurons, which similarly fire both when we drop a brick on our toe and when we see someone else drop a brick on their toe. So the areas of the brain typically activated by our own emotions are also active when we observe another individual experiencing feelings or sensations. Mirror neuron help us understand WHY someone is behaving the way they behave, which facilitates greater emotional understanding and empathy. Interestingly, psychopaths (who are on a continuum with narcissists - they are an extreme form of narcissism) show low activation in their mirror neuron system (as well as in their emotional processing structures and areas associated with affective empathy).
Yes, we can all self validate, but labeling the need for external validation as “unnecessary and infantilizing” is overlooking the fact that we build human connection through empathy, and through the experience of feeling seen and understood by another person (mirror neurons at work!). Validation does not mean you agree with the person’s perspective, or behavior. Validating someone’s feelings doesn’t mean you automatically are not going to challenge their thought process. In fact, if you validate someone feelings, they are usually much more open to having their thinking process challenged because they feel seen and heard. Therapists, including me, use this technique frequently in session. It is also effective outside the therapy room, especially in conflicts. I am not sure where you got your information about how validation is not effective “in most therapeutic relationships”. Validation is how therapists initially build rapport with the client, along with “empathic resonance”, which is fancy way of saying being receptive and in tune with a person’s feelings and ideas without losing sight of our sense of ‘I’, and who is feeling what. We use validation regularly, but almost never exclusively. Emotional validation a tool that requires nuance. It’s saying, “Hey I am trying to understand, learn about and accept your emotional experience, but that does not mean you are “right” or that the behavior you displayed was ok with me.”
This process has nothing to do with being in a hierarchical relationship vs. a relationship between equals. I can see how if you conflate pity with emotional validation, that could feel true, but they are not the same. Pity sets up a separation between ourselves and others, and a sense of distance and remoteness towards another person’s suffering that is self gratifying. It is hierarchical because it looks down on the person suffering, and it’s often passive and does not involve helping the person. So if someone is pitying you, then yes, superiority is being asserted. But pity is not empathy. It’s the near enemy of empathy. It feels close to empathy but it actually undermines it.
Being able to express empathy and validation is essential to relationship repair, after a conflict. If you can’t empathize with and validate another person’s experience after a relationship rupture, that relationship has a strong chance of deteriorating and possible ending. You know who can’t do empathy and validation? Small children, because they have not learned yet, and narcissists because they have no empathy.
Acknowledgment is important, but it’s cognitive and skips over the emotional part. When you skip over the emotional part of someone’s experience, they tend to feel unheard. This creates more disconnect. The example you give as the “right “ way to do it actually has an element of emotional validation: “It sounds like this situation is annoying to you” is validating that person’s emotional experience. You are adding an element of self-reflection by pointing out that perhaps this is because of her expectations. But you lead with a validating statement. The exchange you go one to describe is also exactly how children are taught to manage their feelings (ideally) and it’s part of what a therapist might do in a session. Again, you validate the feelings but challenge the behaviors.
Yes, constantly validating someone’s emotional experience without challenging their behaviors is not helpful at all. And it builds brittle, rigid people, not resilient, emotionally flexible people. But that doesn’t make emotional validation the enemy. It’s a tool, like any other tool in relationships and it needs to be wielded skillfully. I disagree that validating someone’s feelings means that you are justifying their behaviors. I can see how it could be interpreted that way. But you are conflating the actual definition of emotional validation with toxic positivity and enabling, and they are not the same. To make a broad argument that feelings do not need to be validated is to say that ignoring or rejecting someone else’s emotional experience is ok, and that we do not need to work on building empathy, understanding, acceptance and tolerance for each other’s emotional experiences. And this is precisely how a person with strong narcissistic tendencies moves through the world.
To say that needing your feelings validated is a narcissistic trait is an interesting argument. Perhaps narcissists do require far more validation because they are energy vampires and in constant need of external validation. However, that doesn’t mean that if you need/want emotional validation, you are a narcissist. Or that excessively validating people’s emotions is turning us all into narcissists. In fact, because empathy precludes the ability to validate other people’s emotions, one could argue that the excessive amounts of emotional validation we are seeing point to a less narcissistic culture. Because the hallmark of a narcissistic personality disorder diagnosis is lack of empathy.
Thank you Claire for taking the time and effort to provide your perspectives on what I'd written. Where I think we differ is that you're speaking from the perspective of a highly skilled clinician and communicator. I'm speaking to a general audience who have an understanding of validation as a placating technique rather than one that demonstrates empathy such that the recipient experiences being empathised with and understood.
To distinguish between the infantalising version of validation from the emotional validation that you described, I described skills of acknowledging the other's experience which requires demonstrating skills of empathy such as attunement, empathic statements, open questions, summarising/paraphrasing etc.
We are also using different frames about narcissism and narcissistic traits in addition to our uses of the word validation, which is why I defined interpersonal narcissism at the top of the post to make my meaning clearer. I don't discuss NPD when I describe narcissistic traits on a behavioral spectrum. Because of this, our constructs about my meaning are going to seemingly disagree but if we were to sit down and have chat, I would imagine you and I would come to a shared understanding about what we mean.
Thank you again for your analysis and challenges!
Thank you for taking the time to read them! I think I understand better where you are coming from and now I VERY MUCH want to sit down and have a chat with you. How fun!
What is it that we want from the narcissist who has wounded us deeply? Are we looking for an acknowledgment or a validation of our feelings? I’ve heard therapists tell the narcissist to validate the wounded person’s feelings, but it sounds to me acknowledging is a better response while the validation can come across rehearsed and practiced. Thoughts?
You ask an important question that requires some consideration about what's realistic to expect from a narcissist. A textbook narcissist is incapable of the mentalising skills required to imagine another's experience because all experience is viewed through their own feelings. Acknowledging requires more sophisticated reflective and reasoning skills that can be learned but is not immediately available to someone who is mostly concerned about their own experience/feelings such as a highly narcissistic person. Expecting someone who is accountability averse to acknowledge their role in wounding you is not going to be a realistic expectation. Sometimes what's required is to accept that this person is as they are because they won't change no matter how much you'd like them to validate and consider your feelings.
It seems we should also not expect them to validate our feelings, opinions, experiences, etc. too. That also seems to be more sophisticated than they’re able to accomplish.
It’s a big ask for most people, let alone narcissists!
What does that say about humanity?
It says humanity has some maturing to do.
I subscribed after I started reading this post. I'm incentivized now to start rethinking my approach to dealing with "narcissistic" people. I get along fine with them--because I always validate. I may disagree--but I understand their vulnerability and don't care to shame them. I often end up racked with guilt or anxiety over confronting them. I'm lost in the quest to be the perfect supportive friend or colleague. NOTE: Not all people who get really angry at minor? disagreements are narcissists. I have a friend who threatened to cancel me if I express critical comments about Biden. No problem. I just keep them to myself. It would be interesting to explore why she feels so strongly--but I think our friendship might not survive. However, I think it's related to her feeling that Democracy is of utmost importance. Freedom to vote is so important--and Trump seems to threaten to abolish it. Thanks for helping me reduce my fear of disagreements. NOTE: I'm not going to go out and start confronting everyone. I am going to forgive myself for not always being the perfect validating person.
Thanks for saying that not all people who are angry about minor disagreements are narcissists because I think you are correct there. Everyone is angry about minor interactions at times and it probably means there's something deeper going on than the expressed reason (which by validating the person you might help them unpack and gratify your not-unjustified curiosity.).
Re Biden, I don't know why people have turned politicians into their saviors (as a Christian I think it's in part because people yearn for a savior and don't have one on the God plane so are searching elsewhere). Politicians are usually pretty flawed human beings I'm voting for Trump despite his flaws (overemphasized by the media) because...He is the Republican candidate and I prefer Republican policy ideas to Democrat ones. Even if Trump intended to eradicate democracy he has no power to do so.
Guess it depends on your definition of Democracy. The Biden supporters point to Trump's claims the election was stolen (Mark Crispin Miller a media professor at NYU believes it was) and his attempts to restore the accurate vote count. The Trump supporters point to the candidacy of Kamala Harris--whom nobody voted for--and violations of the first amendment. What do you prefer: Voting rights or first amendment rights?
Sorry about going off slightly on the whole topic of politics below. We are all primed for being annoyed on the topic now, but there's no time to talk about our various reasons for voting as we do so I'm sorry for venturing into the topic.
I enjoyed your post since half my friends are rabid Trump supporters while the other half are rabid Biden supporters while the illegal immigrants feel it's none of their business since they are not allowed to vote.
Thank you Diana for subscribing! Validating narcissistic people is effective and not rocking the boat in order to get things done. With friends, your ability to see their perspectives and desire to uncover what informs them makes you an excellent listener. This is a gift to anyone who has you as their listener. Sadly, it sounds as if some of those friends are unable or unwilling to do that with you and would prefer you agree with them than express how you truly feel. Que sera sera.