>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.

> 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?

> 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.

> 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!"

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.

>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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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'

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.

>> 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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

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...

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.

>>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!

> 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!

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

> There's a problem to be solved

"valid"

[dead]

As an aside, this worked for 2/3 of our children. For one of them if we gave them choices like that they would just scream back "NONE". We never really found what worked for her, usually we just let her cry it out a bit then offer a metaphorical olive branch (oftentimes our oldest would let her play with one of her toys, which tended to make her happy, but only if you let her be upset for a long enough period of time first... otherwise she would just reject/throw it).

Anyways, kids are people. Try different things.

^ This is the real advice. Approach a conflict as a choice the child needs to make, and the options the parents need to give. Be flexible but hard where it counts.

Children need grounding. "I need to win arguments with my own kids" is a vanity, that gives up a lot of the ground kids need for growing up.

That’s a good short term solution but long term you just screw your kid up.

There’s some things you simply cannot do, and nothing else can be done about it. You have to learn the lesson that sometimes you lose a conflict and that’s it. You don’t get anything else. Sucks? Yea welcome to life.

Yeah very often it’s about feeling like they have some control. Consider their day to day they are constantly being told where to go and what to do. They’re still people and do want to feel like they have some agency. Of course we can’t let them choose to do whatever they want. But by giving them options they now feel like they’re included in the decision making process.

Not always appropriate but very useful in many situations. And if used proactively, possibly limit episode occurrence when not under your control.

This is known as the "red pants, blue pants" strategy, and it's employed in places like customer support as well. Basically, instead of telling your toddler "you have to wear pants!", you give them the option of choosing between red pants and blue pants.

We might be saying the same thing, but one reason toddlers act so ridiculously is because they are emotionally responding just as an adult might, if they were treated like a toddler. Ie, “because I don’t think you have a valid internal POV, I’m going to just decide for you with no explanation”

This perspective comes from the book “how to talk so kids will listen and listen so kids will talk,” which is one of my favorite parenting books of all time.

It's a different approach for us (am parent of a 5 and 3 year-old). Every type of food is equal, nothing gets put on a pedestal. Candies, snacks, ice creams, vegetables, fruits, legumes, meats, seafood - it's just "food". We highlight that you shouldn't eat too much of one thing all the time because your body likes a good variety, but that's about all the pressure we put on them. They're learning about sugar, for instance, in their preschool and we've talked about it in that context.

If they don't like something, fine. Totally cool, we don't care. The second you pressure a kid to eat a vegetable or a fruit, it becomes a fight and they will dig their heels in. Just keep serving whatever you cook, and either they'll come around or they won't. After all, they're human just like we are - we all have foods we like and dislike, and that's OK. No point in striking a deal, just keep exposing them to a wide variety of stuff and eventually they'll try it all - if they like it, great, if they don't, oh well, at least they like other stuff.

I can't speak for any other parents but myself, but this approach has worked wonders for us. Our kids definitely do shun certain foods or look away, but they eat a very wide variety of food. We don't have to bring a PBJ with us to a restaurant, or chicken nuggets to a friend's house, because they'll usually eat most of what is served. We've had grandparents bring "treats" over - we'll put them on their dinner plate with the rest of their food and, hand to god, last night my 5yo ate half her candy bar and left it there while asking for multiple helpings of peas and devouring her entire turkey burger. Only thing left on the plate was the candy.

Everyone's mileage may vary, obviously.

/shrug

I made too many deals and am now weaning us off (greatly reduced) of deals, the danger is everything becomes transactional.

It is also important to set norms around expectations that don't have a tangible reward.

I think there's an additional step of "Find out what they want" that was left out of the original comment because the desires of actual toddlers are (usually) not fundamentally evil.

Do they want to exterminate your loved ones? Do they want to ship dissenters off to concentration camps? Do they want to simply profit off of the people in power who are doing those things? If so, the whole process has an early return case that's more along the lines of "Antifa rally at Omaha Beach."