It also fits in a handful of bytes or kilobytes what would take half a gigabyte to communicate in a video - sometimes making the difference if you have limited bandwidth or a cap on monthly traffic.
It's also ridiculously easy to cache (download a book in 9 seconds, board a transoceanic flight - no problem)
It also doesn't require the right sound and lighting conditions to see and understand a video (either those conditions, or good noise cancelling headphones - and now you're unaware of your surroundings)
It's also the only viable option on insanely low power devices which get months of battery life per charge.
It's also something you can read at an incredibly speedy pace if you are good at it and practice - though occasionally a decent audio/video player will be of use with this.
It's also something you can fall asleep while consuming, and tomorrow you won't have much trouble finding exactly where you left off.
It's also the only medium where semantic reasoning and indexing at scale makes financial sense. I can run RAG over millions of text rows in Postgres for pennies, but the compute costs to process and embed video content are still prohibitive if you care about margins.
Amen. It's one real "downside" in this day and age is that it requires fairly undivided attention to be used... that aside, it's without question my favorite way to interact with information.
On that note, a big thank you to whoever added "read this page" to Safari on iOS! Being able to turn long form articles into ad-hoc podcasts has been a game changer for me.
> Text is searchable, skippable, scrollable, compact, transmissible, and accessible in a way that audio and video have never managed to be.
That's just a very long way of saying it's difficult to monetise; it's why audio and video are preferred by producers of content.
Few people are interested in disseminating an idea, a concept, anything... they are interested in levelling up their fame and followers. Text is typically no good for that.
Video keeps blowing up because people want to connect with humans, and life is making that harder than it needs to be, so people are settling for these weird parasocial echo chambers. With the rise of AI, all text is suspect, and authenticity is king.
True, but it's a lot harder to sneak those things than text. I've seen convincing Yanis Varifakis and Neil DeGrasse Tyson fakes, but even those don't survive any scrutiny. I'm sure that will change, and people will find new ways to signal authenticity in videos (leaving in fuckups is already in style).
Same thing if you swap "text" and "video". That's the point of different media - they differ along those dimensions. For example, "a picture is worth a thousand words" means that for some information it will be less compact to describe all the details of a video with words
Obviously there are some pieces of information that can be conveyed better with a picture or diagram - network connections, block graphs, etc. But as a general rule text is far more efficient for knowledge transfer.
If I have a text file and an audio file of the Great Gatsby, and I want do any of the following, then I'm going to use the text file:
* Find a particular quote
* Determine the number of times the word "Gatsby" is used
* Go back a few pages to remember exactly how something/someone was described
* Intermittently stop and compare with a supplementary file and/or write notes
* Find exactly where I was just before I fell asleep
* Get through it in 3 hours without rushing or missing bits
* Store it on a portable device along with thousands of other books
There is no such general rule, and humanity has always used various media, and for every biased test you come up with (frequency of a word in a text) you can just as well come up with a test that benefits the other medium (frequency of some sound in the audio book)
* Go back a few pages to remember exactly how something/someone was described
Or you don't forget how someone looks because a visual illustration is easier to remember
* Find exactly where I was just before I fell asleep
You can't, the book closed when you fell asleep and you forgot the bookmark . But when the phone fell it disconnected your headphones which stopped the playback.
While this is our course a good point, one extremely good part about text is that unless there given text is quite literally just plain text data, it's a lot easier to embed things like videos, pictures, audio, etc. into a textual medium especially when compared the other way around -- that is the fact that text in videos and pictures and so on tends to be quite limited when compared with the kind of "rich text" with the more audiovisual content added between blocks of text.
So one can use the thousand words of pictures while most content is textual, whereas the other way is significantly worse, since it of course lacks all the searchability et al.
You're discussing a mixed content document format, the original point was about some mythical benefits of text, explicitly vs video, which removes all the embeds from your document
Video to a lot of people is way more engaging than text. Also video is much more information dense. You can’t teach people to do things over purely text but show them a video and a 1000 different indescribables become instantly apparent.
That being said I love a good book over its movie version anyway. Because text is cheap there is so much more detail you can include. There is no way text can compete with the information density of a video.
What if the project involves trying one approach for a week, then assessing whether that approach still looks viable vs moving onto a different approach? This happens a lot with challenging projects, you basically just keep trying different things until one works.
Then you know that it's going to take at least, say two weeks, one week for the first implementation and a week to finish it if it works.
On the high end, could it take more than 2 years? 1 year? 6 months? Stop when you are 80% confident that it won't take longer than some period.
So your estimate might be between two weeks and six months. Is that an acceptable estimate for the "buyer"? If not, is it worth expending effort to narrow the estimate?
Yes, this is basically what happens. Except sometimes there's no realistic way to narrow the estimate. In research-focused teams you don't "scrap" a project that you can't break down. Instead you need to have a way to manage wide estimate windows.
Because, for whatever psychological reason, estimating in time leads to a false sense of accuracy, people pointlessly argue over whether something will take 5 days vs. 6, and people tend not to be overly optimistic and forget to account for things like sickness, meetings, etc.
Estimating in points that are basically a Fibonacci sequence keep estimation precision limited and avoids implying false guarantees. Yes, in the end the chosen stories are based on summing to a number of points that is roughly equivalent to what the team has achieved per-sprint in the recent past, so in that sense it is ultimately estimating days in the end. But again, for whatever psychological reason, people seem to be more realistic about the variance in actual delivered points per sprint, as opposed to when you try to measure things in hours or days. The points imply more of an estimated goal than a deadline guarantee, which helps keep both team expectations and management expectations more reasonable.
Can't you do that by just limiting the precision? You can only vote 1, 2, 3, 5 or 8 days. Not sure what "points" are adding. As far as I can tell, it's an attempt to account for estimation difficulties by introducing a "velocity" concept. But I think it makes things more complex without actually solving the issue.
> and people tend not to be overly optimistic and forget to account for things like sickness, meetings, etc.
> But again, for whatever psychological reason, people seem to be more realistic about the variance in actual delivered points per sprint, as opposed to when you try to measure things in hours or days. The points imply more of an estimated goal than a deadline guarantee, which helps keep both team expectations and management expectations more reasonable.
> and people tend not to be overly optimistic and forget to account for things like sickness, meetings, etc.
> people seem to be more realistic about the variance in actual delivered points per sprint, as opposed to when you try to measure things in hours or days
Okay I think I'm with you. In my team, the PM pre-calculates the number of available days in the sprint per developer before taking any estimates, factoring in planned holidays and estimates of sickness and meeting time, and adjusting for seniority. I guess points are kind of a crude way of doing the same thing.
> I guess points are kind of a crude way of doing the same thing.
Right. But you sound awfully judgmental in saying "crude". I'd call it robust, and not trying to produce some kind of false over-precision. In other words, appropriate to the task at hand.
I have a two year old and often worry that I'll teach him some intuitive arithmetic technique, then school will later force a different method and mark him down despite getting the right answer. What if it ends up making him hate school, maths, or both?
I experienced this. Only made me hate school, but maybe because I had game programming at home to appreciate math with
Just expose them to everyday math so they aren't one of those people who think math has no practical uses. My father isn't great with math, but would raise questions like how wide a river was (solvable from one side with trig, using 30 degree angles for easy math). Napkin math makes things much more fun than strict classroom math with one right answer
Commonly school is teaching a method. "Getting the right answer" is just a byproduct of applying the method. If you tell your kid that they should just learn the methods you teach and be dismissive or angry about school trying to teach them other techniques, that's probably going to cause some issues downstream.
Techniques of an "intuitive" character often lack or have formal underpinnings that are hard to understand, which means they do not to the same extent implicitly teach analytical methods that might later be a requirement for formal deduction.
I hope that I wouldn't be dismissive or angry. My worry is that my son will feel dejected because he (correctly) thinks he understands something but is told he's wrong. I also worry about him getting external validation from following a method, and will value that over genuine understanding and flexible thinking. But I see your point that it's my responsibility to help him work through that and engage with the syllabus.
You can prove Noether's Theorem in a mathematical sense, but you cannot conclusively prove that a specific physical force is conservative or that a specific physical symmetry of action is continuous.
Likewise, we assume at an operational level that temperature and barometric pressure are continuous functions (as assumed in Borsuk-Ulam), but it's not something you can conclusively prove aobut reality.
Sure but that doesn’t matter for my examples. The parent of my comment said “science never proves a positive” and I gave a couple of examples of proving implications. Proving “If A then certainly B” is definitively proving a positive whether or not we can prove A.
I guess this comes down to what you mean by "science". Some would say that science is the process of testing hypotheses about reality. Mathematical facts exist in an abstract sense apart from reality, and so mathematics is not really science to those people.
There's an argument that you are still doing science if you construct a logical proof showing that "if the world is like X, then it will behave like Y". A lot of theoretical physics is like this, and people call that science. But I think there's truth to what OP is saying in that science does not conclusively positively prove things about reality.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
You’re making a reasonable point, but I think you’re arguing against a somewhat strawmanned version of emotional validation.
You’re treating “validation” as synonymous with “agreeing the emotional response was proportionate and correct.” But that’s not really what validation means in a therapeutic or even colloquial sense. Validating someone’s emotions typically means acknowledging that the emotion is real and understandable given how that person perceived the situation. It doesn’t require you to endorse their perception as accurate.
You can say “I get why you’d feel terrified if you believed X was happening” while also gently probing whether X is actually happening. That’s still validation. What you’re describing as helpful for your family member isn’t really “invalidation” so much as reality-testing, which is a different thing and can coexist with emotional validation.
Your anecdote is doing a lot of work here. We don’t know what “constantly validated” actually looked like in practice, or what the “level headed” person was doing differently. It’s possible the first partner was just conflict-avoidant and agreeing with distorted interpretations of events, which isn’t validation so much as enabling. And the second partner may have been effective not because they said “your reaction isn’t valid” but because they offered a stable outside perspective while still being emotionally supportive.
Your broader point about reinforcement is worth taking seriously though. There are absolutely cases where excessive reassurance-seeking gets reinforced by certain responses. But the solution isn’t to tell people their feelings are wrong. It’s to validate the feeling while not automatically validating the catastrophic interpretation driving it.
I disagree. I think the overly academic isolation of "validating emotions" into something that happens without endorsing the response isn't how real people communicate.
Any time you're "validating emotions" in the real world, there is going to be some degree of implicit endorsement that the reaction was valid.
The idea of "validating emotions" being synonymous with saying "I agree that you feel that way" is rather infantile. Nobody needs someone to agree that the emotion they experienced is the emotion they experienced.
My partner and I have been through this cycle. Something happens, she interprets it a certain, very specific, way and then has an adverse emotional reaction.
In the early days of our relationship I would try to explain to her why her emotion doesn't 'make sense'. That just made things worse. Much worse. When she helped me understand that she needed me to validate that what she was feeling was legitimate - based on her interpretation of the events - she was able to let go and consider other interpretations.
Note that this "letting go" almost never happened in the moment, but only after the emotions abated and she had time to process the entire situation. We're talking hours, not minutes.
You’re collapsing two distinct claims. The first, that real-world communication is messier than clinical frameworks, is obviously true but doesn’t do the work you need it to. The second, that acknowledging someone’s emotional experience is “infantile” because “nobody needs someone to agree that the emotion they experienced is the emotion they experienced,” is empirically false.
People frequently do need that. That’s basically what dismissive attachment styles and invalidating environments produce: people who aren’t sure their own internal states are real or legitimate. “I can see why that hurt” lands very differently than “that shouldn’t have hurt.” The former isn’t agreeing the other party was wrong or the reaction was proportionate. It’s communicating “your inner experience makes sense to me.”
The implicit endorsement concern is real but overstated. Skilled communicators navigate this constantly. “That sounds really frustrating. What do you think was actually going on there?” validates the frustration while opening space for reexamination. The failure mode you’re pointing at is when someone only validates and never probes, which is just conflict avoidance.
The “overly academic” framing is doing some rhetorical work here. These distinctions come from observing what actually helps people versus what entrenches them. Therapists, mediators, and anyone who’s gotten good at difficult conversations know the difference intuitively. It’s not academic. It’s practical.
> Any time you're "validating emotions" in the real world, there is going to be some degree of implicit endorsement that the reaction was valid.
Hard no.
In the real world, when I emotionally validate my friends or partners it looks like slowing down and being there, with them, with their emotions. Being present with their emotions then often addresses the underlying emotional need: for example, to feel heard, or to acknowledge their feelings to themselves, to feel cared for and accepted, to feel like someone has their back, etc.
None of this requires that I accept their interpretation of events. And almost always, there will be space at some point for me to disagree with their interpretation. It is much much much more effective to tease apart that interpretation once their emotions have calmed down.
TL;DR: addressing someone's emotional needs (aka "validating") doesn't imply that you agree with them about their interpretation of what happened
> 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.
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.
I understand the academic concept, but the word "necessarily" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that definition.
In real human conversation, when someone is expressing an emotion they aren't looking for other people to confirm that they are indeed experiencing that emotion. That's not even a question up for debate. They're looking for people to share in that anger, sadness, or frustration and confirm that it's a valid response to the situation.
The overly academic definition doesn't reflect how people communicate in the real world.
There's also a factor of consistency over time: It's no big deal to go along with someone venting from time to time, but when someone you're close to is overreacting to everything and having unreasonable emotional reactions all the time, validating those emotions consistently is going to be viewed as an implicit endorsement.
> 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.
The emotional world is vast. From what I hear here, there is a collapsing of a couple things all under 'validation'.
Emotional processing, in my experience, is completely separate from action. I hear that your family member had her actions validated - what she decided to do.
An emotion itself can be complex, scary and counter-intuitive. In my experience, always valid - but that doesn't mean you have the right reasons. It's often very difficult to get the right environment to actively explore where an emotion is coming from - purely because of the reactions in other people - which try to suppress, deflect, minimize, etc.
Strangely, simply agreeing or validating someone's outcome is actually a way of minimizing or deflecting the scary expression. Let's not go deeper, let's not figure out where this is coming from - you just go with your gut and act.
Getting to the root of an emotion can come in waves and many iterations. It can be incredibly useful to try and completely unhook action from it.
I've had very strong emotions from events that were almost always "right emotion, wrong reason/story" and I've slowly corrected the 'why' multiple times over.
A lot of those corrections took removing people from my life that made it hard to feel or have access to those difficult emotions.
I wonder if you value that family member or just the idea of them. Value them only when they're 'stable'? Want to get in the muck with them to find where instability comes from? It's okay to not. It's less okay IMO to stay connected to someone you require change from. If you don't like behavior, say it and leave/create much space. Give them agency to choose, agency to fail, agency to be someone you don't like, agency to not be okay.
> I hear that your family member had her actions validated - what she decided to do.
A lot of people in this comment thread are trying to rewrite this situation. That's not what happened.
The problem was that she would have a strong emotional reaction to something and her partner would go along with it: Validate her emotions, offer comfort, not question the validity of responding that way.
This is the problem with the overly abstract notion of validating emotions without endorsing them. If you consistently "validate" the way someone is feeling even when it's obviously harming them, you're not actually helping. You're implicitly agreeing and condoning.
> Validate her emotions, offer comfort, not question the validity of responding that way.
IDK if anything here counts as a good container for emotion.
'validate' is very ambiguous.
'comfort' is very different from presence. It can actually be a way of invalidating funnily enough.
'not question' has a lot going on.
I definitely hear a lot of enablement in your example. It sounds like she is better off without that.
> This is the problem with the overly abstract notion of validating emotions without endorsing them. If you consistently "validate" the way someone is feeling even when it's obviously harming them, you're not actually helping. You're implicitly agreeing and condoning.
I agree here. Validate itself is a loaded term, especially in the tech world. It sounds like it implies correctness. Maybe I'm onboard with just a need for 'emotional presence' over 'validation'.
Validation can slide into enablement. Challenge can slide into invalidation. Presence is the impossible one. Having someone you can openly explore an emotion, even just say it all without evoking a fear or anger response, a validation or invalidation response from. Let's it just hang in the air without reaction. Let's it exist without adding distance or withdrawing connection. Have endless curiosity.
I do think I am onboard with validation being a more dangerous term. I get its origin/concept - maybe trying to combat the amount of invalidation in the world but it's ironic to see how invalidating the wrong kind of validation can be.
I've clearly struck a nerve with how many people arrived in this comment thread to project different scenarios on to the situation, as well as all the different and conflicting definitions of "validate emotions"
To be honest, I'm growing even more distaste for the "validating emotions" academic concept after reading some of the mental gymnastics people are doing in this thread.
But in other instances in this thread I am not so sure each time you mention her emotions you are talking about her feelings, distinct from her actions or interpretations. There is a difference between anger (the emotion), aggression (waving hands, loud voice etc), and physical contact (undirected against objects, directed at objects, against self, against others). Maybe you are “striking nerves” since it’s not always clear which one you are referring to in terms of her “validation”. And these distinctions are not academic.
> To be honest, I'm growing even more distaste for the "validating emotions" academic concept after reading some of the mental gymnastics people are doing in this thread.
(chiming in)
It's not academic, but practical. For me, these skills have been immensely helpful for navigating both my own emotions and those of others. My relationships improved quite a bit once I started using these skills. I'm closer to more people, I can get to depth more quickly and more safely with new people, and me and those close to me are all growing/healing more quickly because we can meet our emotional needs while also gradually working to reshape those needs.
To me, "validation" is about addressing someone's actual underlying emotional needs. But it still leaves space for disagreeing with the interpretation/perception of what happened. My own saying is that we should "accept our emotions, but not always accept the story they are telling us".
> as well as all the different and conflicting definitions of "validate emotions"
> confirm that they are indeed experiencing that emotion
This is not emotional validation; nobody wants to be told something they can decide for themselves. Instead, they want to hear that it is okay to feel said emotion. When venting to someone, one doesn't want to hear "I understand that you feel that way", they want to hear "I understand why you feel that way". The former is a dismissal (taking the guise of a validation) and the latter is a validation. "I don't get why you feel $EMOTION about this" is the ultimate emotional sucker punch of invalidation from an active listener even though it necessarily implies said confirmation that they feel $EMOTION.
> They're looking for people to share in that anger, sadness, or frustration and confirm that it's a valid response to the situation.
Notably, "sharing" the emotions is not the only way to validate them; I do not have to feel (or even understand) one's sadness for their sadness to be valid. The second part is the only thing they're looking for and it is very unlikely to be false given the appropriate context. From another comment, "the emotional response was valid for the circumstances" is accurate when one understands "the circumstances" to include the life experiences that cause them to have such an emotional response from something that doesn't trigger the same emotions in oneself.
> overreacting to everything and having unreasonable emotional reactions all the time
There are healthy avenues for expressing such emotions as well as unhealthy ones. Validating the emotional response to something is precisely what will allow the person feeling the emotions to calm down and decide on actions that will benefit their situation. If they are invalidated, they will instead spend effort seeking that validation.
> Just going along with it.
Well, if "it" is referring to behaviors and attitudes, then there's an obvious problem (in all likelihood) but that's also distinct from emotional validation. As I said in my other comment in this thread, one can logically say "it's okay to feel that way but you shouldn't think that". I strongly doubt that is the likes of the validation being complained about here. The negatives of the situation being described do not seem likely caused merely from emotional validation. And I would bet with near certainty that the partner they met who got them to choose healthy behaviors did so by first validating their emotions.
> Instead, they want to hear that it is okay to feel said emotion.
That's not the definition the others are using, but this seems to be a game of whack-a-mole with everyone's different ideas about what it means.
That said, I think your definition highlights the problem: By telling someone it's okay to feel the emotion, you've implicitly endorsed the response.
The situations I'm speaking about involve people developing inappropriate emotional reactions that lead to self-harm. When they surround themselves with people who do this "validate emotions" game, they're implicitly gathering consensus that it's okay to react that way. The cycle continues.
It's clear that a lot of people have picked up this idea of "validating emotions" being virtuous and good, but some times what people need is for people around them to explain that their reaction is not actually appropriate or okay.
> That said, I think your definition highlights the problem: By telling someone it's okay to feel the emotion, you've implicitly endorsed the response.
This tells me that you've not understood my meaning. One is not condoning or endorsing any behavioral response when they say the emotional response (which motivated the behavior) is valid and natural. They are distinct things and one does not necessarily follow or precede the other.
> their reaction is not actually appropriate or okay
I suspect we are talking past each other here. If "their reaction" refers to their emotions, that is not your concern; to think otherwise is wildly antisocial. If it instead refers to their actions and/or behaviors, you simply are not bemoaning emotional validation.
>> emotional response (which motivated the behavior) is valid and natural.
This is obviously nonsense. If an old woman falls over and breaks her knee, and one's emotional response is happiness - they have real problems - it's not natural or valid to feel that. If the idea of choking women to death makes one feel excited - no it's not natural or valid to feel that emotion, they have serious problems. One could go on.
Maybe you haven't met any really bad people in life - when you do you will often find they have very strange emotional responses to things.
I guess I should make explicit my general assumption that we are not talking about psychopaths given the overwhelming odds that a given individual is not a psychopath. That said...
> If the idea of choking women to death makes one feel excited - no it's not natural or valid to feel that emotion, they have serious problems.
I disagree. That is surely a natural and valid emotional response for whatever reason this hypotheticals individual feels it. Yes, they also surely have serious problems but I contend that said problems are obviously what lead to this "very strange" emotional response. Their problems are also valid, regardless of the personal damage (read: devoid of outward violence) they cause.
In this case, the response might affect their behavior such that they actually do it and that would obviously be tragic; that behavior is not valid regardless of the emotions (or lack thereof) which motivate it. Otherwise, speaking of their emotional response, I don't see a reason to condemn them for a reaction they have such little control over.
> You keep talking in circles around a definition of valid.
We could decide on a similar word to use if you prefer. Perhaps "acceptable" from a sibling comment. Replace "valid" with "acceptable" and "validation" with "acceptance" in all of my comments and the meaning is still true; that seems to suggest I've been consistent with my use of "valid".
> You are just wrong on this.
What you mean is that we are of different minds. You try to make yours the objective one in spite of the glaringly obvious fact that opinions are not necessarily shared between differing minds.
> You want to seem sophisticated and understanding
Genuinely, what a compliment! I was just writing about my perspective. My goal with the writing was primarily to espouse my understanding of this subject while secondarily avoiding "you" statements in my comments. If you think the result sounds sophisticated and understanding, I am more than willing to believe you. If you don't think that, well, you might want to consider where those words came from because I sure noticed. (It might also help to consider that you have no means of discovering my motivation; you must have made an assumption and expressed said assumption using your own words.)
The fact of the matter is that I spent the first three decades or so of my life being extremely emotionally unstable until I (at least somewhat) learned to manage that. I suspect this "sophisticated and understanding" sense you get from my writing on this topic comes from the care with which I write about a subject so dear to me.
I think their definition of valid is consistently aligning with the meaning of "acknowledging and accepting someone's internal experience".
As soon as you start trying to apply normative judgements to someone's feelings, as opposed to their behaviour, you inevitably end up drawing an arbitrary and cutlurally informed line between what you or socirty think is okay and what's not. It's only a problem if I feel excited by someone else's pain if my consequent behaviour actually leads to the other person suffering. I have no direct control over my emotions, but I can control my reaction to them. You just telling me it's wrong to feel excited is futile and potentially counter-productive.
If you have cancer, you have a serious problem. It's not "wrong", but it's a serious problem to be dealt with. If you are excited by the idea of an old woman hurting herself or choking a woman to death, you have serious problems to deal with.
> They're looking for people to share in that anger, sadness, or frustration and confirm that it's a valid response to the situation.
Which is what the whole "empathy movement" of recent years seems to emphasize. The problem is that when empathy is unmoored from the objective good, this can become scandalous (not in the sense that it causes outrage, but in the older sense that it encourages evil). Not every response is a valid response. You must be able to identify whether something is good, you must refrain from actively enabling things that are bad, but you must discern whether to correct, and if so, how to correct. Not every problem is yours to correct. Busybodies think they are.
(N.b. the Catholic Church, drawing on ethical distinctions, makes distinctions between moral principle, the objectively moral status of particular acts in light of moral principles, and the pastoral needs of particular persons. So, e.g., while prostitution as a practice is roundly condemned as a matter of principle, particular prostitutes may be treated gently. This is especially true if he/she expresses remorse for the way he/she has lived his/her life (the parable of the prodigal son comes to mind).)
> 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.
So many people are trying to project onto this anecdote or substitute their own reality.
The reality is simpler: It was basically "Yeah it sucks that <minor annoyance> happened at work, but sulking about it for 3 days is not a good way to handle that"
Whereas the "validating emotions" guy would just jump in and be a sounding board for 3 days straight
Feeling a little upset over minor annoyances is valid. Having your emotional state crumble at the slightest breeze is not. Having someone around who basically validates the latter is not good.
> So many people are trying to project onto this anecdote
For what it's worth, I imagined a scenario very similar to the one you described in this comment.
> Yeah it sucks that <minor annoyance> happened at work
This is emotional validation.
> sulking about it for 3 days is not a good way to handle that
This has nothing to do with emotional validation. It can be said before, after, or without said validation.
> Whereas the "validating emotions" guy would just jump in and be a sounding board for 3 days straight
It sounds like the "validating emotions" person was validating the sulking behaviors (whether in addition to validating the related emotions or not) and saying that they were only validating the emotions.
Anyway, the purpose for my replies is not to get you to agree with that person or to change your mind about the anecdote, but to offer a more meaningful distinction of what's being discussed.
The good kind of "valid" is about whether (a) your process of measuring reality might be broken to your detriment. And by extension (b) whether your communications channel with the person you are talking to is working.
Chris Voss's mirroring is basically TCP ACKs.
Then there are the people who say that they lack validation and are just narcissists looking for yes-men. Big difference on how much of your time is being wasted.
Other people have given good insights, so I'll instead describe one of my pet theories.
Given by how we talk about emotions, I think they are "rational", but operate under a different set of rules than we normally apply to "rational" thinking. In fact, feelings are deeply intertwined with our supposedly "rational" thinking, to the point where I don't think there is a significant boundary. The lack of information is prevalent when feelings are in play, and I believe the same is true in general. Even physics feels far different than pure mathematics, after all. Instead of deferring to conventions in how to act when feelings are involved, as if they belong to a wholly different and mysterious world, we can make sense of the entire world. But of course, empathy, kindness, and good judgement are not exempt. None of this conflicts with what you're saying, but I think a subtle shift in mindset will be fruitful in applying it.
Yes, I'd agree with that. The way I think of it is that emotions are somewhat "mechanistic". I don't directly control them, but they follow certain principles. For example, fear often arises in response to a perceived threat (physical or otherwise). My boss calling me to an unexpected meeting might make me panic. And even once the peak of the fear subsides, I am more vulnerable to experiencing it again for some time. E.g. I get home and my wife's car is gone, then suddenly I'm scared that she's been in an accident or something. None of this is a rational response. There are some hand-wavey evolutionary-psychology arguments for why they operate that way. But the main thing is that there are principles that make sense out of it, and those principles are (perhaps) surprisingly consistent across humans.
They're heuristics! Or "heuristical", if that makes sense. Simplified ways of processing the world, present even in creatures with significantly less cognitive capability and complexity, and bestowed to us via that ancestry.
And because they are very-simplified ways of processing information and provoking action, they often get things 'wrong'.
Indeed, the more strong the feeling, the less rational it can become, even though the feeling is there for good reasons. A pure rational solution won't help, pure empathy as well not.
Being able to separate these situations out is part of ‘emotional problem solving’. Just like any problem solving, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for all cases.
I think the important bit is to recognize that emotions are separate from (although related to) the situation itself. The problem many people have is approaching emotional problems as simply symptoms of the underlying practical problem, and that the way to solve the emotional problem is to simply go directly to solving the underlying practical problem.
Now, sometimes this is the correct approach. However, many times it isn’t. Sometimes the practical problem is not solvable by you or the person you are talking to. Sometimes the practical problem is actually not really a problem and is simply triggering something else. Sometimes you just need someone to share some pain, or some joy, or just need a connection with someone.
A good emotional problem solver can navigate all of these situations.
> 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.
In the end, you can validate someone's feelings without validating what they're feeling those about, by just saying "that sucks".
I agree with your descriptions of the terms, but I think there's often a divergence between empathy (which I find great) and reflecting people's feelings (which I find good with caution). I want people to understand and help each other. But in some situations, reflecting people's feelings encourages them to make poor decisions. I should always provide a space for people to speak without scorn and with understanding, but I don't want to give a false impression of my concerns. Acknowledging that someone's life sucks is subtly different from acknowledging it aloud, and sometimes the subtlety is crucial.
Sympathy means expressing pity or sorrow at someone's plight. Reflecting feelings is more like a form of empathy. It's clarifying and/or paraphrasing the feelings so that the other person feels like they're heard and taken seriously. They're orthogonal behaviours - you can do one or the other or both.
I agree that I should understand the other person and take them seriously, and to convey this to the other person. However, sometimes verbal reflection serves the purpose of blind affirmation. I don't think the verbal component, construed this way, is so productive for empathy.
To me the confusion is the word "validate". Sounds like what you're talking about is more acknowledgement than validate. I hear / see how you're feeling and I empathize.
Dictionary definition of validate are things like:
- check or prove the validity or accuracy of (something).
- demonstrate or support the truth or value of.
Which don't seem like the intent of "validating" the emotion in this context.
> In the end, you can validate someone's feelings without validating what they're feeling those about, by just saying "that sucks".
If you say "that sucks" the other person is going to assume you're agreeing with them that the thing they're angry about sucks. They're not going to think you're saying "that sucks" that they have an emotion, as an isolated feeling that happened for no reason.
This is where the overly academic concept of "validating emotions without endorsing them" falls apart in the real world.
In actual human interaction, people don't debate if the other person actual feels an emotion. Angry people don't need other people to agree that they feel angry. They share the emotion because they want other people to agree that the emotion is right and justified.
Nobody actually says "I agree that you are feeling that emotion but I neither endorse it nor disagree with it" (in less formal wording). If you're going along with someone else's emotions, you're implicitly endorsing their reaction as justified.
You described one of my misgivings better than I could (I made a sibling reply to parent), but I don't agree with this in all cases. Anger is easy to perpetuate blindly, but I think introspective feelings sometimes can die out if they aren't affirmed. Someone struggling with an internal conflict may reject a feeling that seems to resolve the conflict, and not take time to properly deal with the feeling. Affirming the feeling should affirm that the person may have felt and be justified in the feeling, without assuring that the feeling is definitely justified. Maybe taking that road is indeed foolish, but it would be too hasty to dismiss doing so just because it feels foolish.
> Nobody actually says "I agree that you are feeling that emotion but I neither endorse it nor disagree with it" (in less formal wording). If you're going along with someone else's emotions, you're implicitly endorsing their reaction as justified.
Yes, actually, lots of people have healthy partnerships where they disagree with how their partner got into the situation, but can still recognize that the partner's feelings about that situation is valid, regardless, since it's an emotion their feeling, it doesn't have to be rational or logical and it's certainly not up to you to decide if it is/was neither.
This is what emotional support is, not validating their actions, but validating the emotions they're feeling, regardless of why. And not seeing some emotions as more "correct and valid" than others, they're all valid and correct, since we're humans after all.
> They share the emotion because they want other people to agree that the emotion is right and justified.
This, in your words "falls apart in the real world", because people don't speak with others always with the same intention, sometimes people want to vent, sometimes people want to manipulate, sometimes people are looking for help, and a whole other rooster of reasons. Most of the time, people speak with others about their feelings because they want connection.
I think you're stuck in trying to separate "valid, rational and logical emotions" from "the rest of emotions" while that distinction matters less than you think, and you'll be seen as very emotionally cold/distant if you aren't able to accept people's emotion because they aren't "rational" (or whatever reason you use).
> since it's an emotion their feeling, it doesn't have to be rational or logical and it's certainly not up to you to decide if it is/was neither.
I think some of you have never had to deal with a person who had harmful emotional over reactions to even small inconveniences. It's an extremely self-harmful spiral.
Having someone who validates any emotions as if they exist in a vacuum is like adding fuel to the fire. It's implicit encouragement.
Emotional reactions aren't de facto good. Working with young children is another good way to observe that not every emotional reaction is acceptable. It's also a good way to see how people can learn how to manage their emotions, but it's hard to get to that point if they've surrounded themselves with people who will rush to validate their emotions and ignore the obvious harm it's causing.
> Working with young children is another good way to observe that not every emotional reaction is acceptable.
I have a two year old son and disagree with this. I wonder if you're using the phrase "overreaction" to mean both the emotion and the associated behaviour? I make sure to demonstrate that my son's emotions - sadness, anger, happiness - are always "acceptable" in the sense that it's okay for him to have those feelings. I never want him to feel like his feelings are not accepted, because that can easily leads to him hiding, avoiding, or suppressing feelings rather than acknowledging and learning how to process and regulate them. This is what basically all modern parenting books say and has accorded with my experience so far. But his behaviour can be unacceptable. It's okay for him to feel angry, but it is not ok for him to respond to that by hitting, biting, snatching etc. He needs me to help label and contextualise his feelings, and to show him how to divert those feelings into a healthier physical response.
This is super important. I'd argue that a huge part of learning to process feelings healthily is being and able to tell the difference between how one feels (which is an involuntary reaction that isn't controllable) and the actions taken as a result of that feeling (which require explicit choice to take). It seems obvious in the abstract, but I think it's almost a universal human condition for the line between them to get blurred. People will often say something like "I'm sorry I got mad" as if being angry is something that can be controlled, when what they should instead be apologizing for is the actions they took while mad (e.g. "I'm sorry for yelling"). There's a reason that "anger management" is a known term rather than "anger prevention", after all. If someone asks why you did something, "because I was mad" is not a healthy explanation; it removes your choice from the equation and paints yourself as a helpless victim of your emotions rather than someone with agency and the ability to act better even in the face of extinuating circumstances.
While it might seem like these are just linguistic quibbles, I've seen so many cases of people genuinely thinking that trying to suppress their emotions is the correct way to handle tough situations, and I don't think that ever works well in the long run. At most, it's sometimes beneficial to avoid expressing strong negative emotions immediately in certain situations, but that's only a short term tradeoff to avoid exacerbating whatever is currently going on, not a long term solution to avoid consequences of taking actions under the duress of heavy emotions. I believe that people would learn to act better by mentally framing their emotions separately from their choices and allowing themselves to feel them fully and ideally express them in a healthy way. Venting to a sympathetic family member or friend can be a good way of doing this, but that's also why therapy is something that would be benefit pretty much everyone in my opinion; having a trained, neutral professional to be able to talk through emotions without having to worry about overburdening them or worrying about having to interact with them in any other part of life is hard to beat in terms of a strategy for dealing with tough emotions in a healthy way.
> 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).
“Don’t just do something, stand there!” - I love this quote. Standing there or being there for someone is amazingly helpful and it’s a skill to do it, congrats on working on this.
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.
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.
> someone has constant emotional but irrational reactions to everything
What are "emotions" if not "irrational chemical reactions in our brains"? Seems really strange to decide what it or isn't "irrational emotions" for someone else to have.
I, just like you I presume, see myself as a rational and logical person (maybe you're also a programmer), but I also realize that humans are humans, and having irrational emotions is very much part of being a humans, and emotions in general is such a subjective experience.
Everything in your body is a "chemical reaction". Pulling the trigger of a gun is a lot of chemical reactions. That doesn't mean the person isn't guilty.
In fact, it's problematic when people start thinking of their emotions as a chemical process that happens to them, outside of their control. A large part of getting people back on track in therapy is getting them to accept that they do have some control over how they react to situations in the world.
A lot of TikTok or Reddit style therapyspeak does the opposite: It goes to extreme lengths to try to separate the emotions or negative responses from the person, as if they're an outside force victimizing them. It's comforting to think that, because things that happen to us outside of our control seem like they can't be changed. Getting people to acknowledge that they can and should exert some emotional control over themselves is part of breaking that cycle.
You use the word "react" in an ambiguous way; I'm never sure if you mean the emotional response, the subsequent thoughts, or the subsequent behaviour. The latter two we have much more control over, whilst the first must be trained indirectly over a long period of time.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> I frame it not as turning a dial down, but as switching channel from practical problem-solver to emotional problem-solver.
This perspective was a good stepping stone for me, but then I realized I needed bigger changes to keep growing. However I defined the problem to be solved, I was still setting up a dynamic that was arrogant. I thought I was air traffic control when others were looking for a copilot. Somebody along for the ride with them, not just requesting information about them and offering commentary from the ground.
One potential answer is that this tests more heavily for the ability to memorise, as opposed to understanding. My last exams were over ten years ago and I was always good at them because I have a good medium-term memory for names and numbers. But it's not clearly useful to test for this, as most names and numbers can just be looked up.
When I was studying at university there was a rumour that one of the dons had scraped through their fourth-year exams despite barely attending lectures, because he had a photographic memory and just so happened to leaf through a book containing a required proof, the night before the exam. That gave him enough points despite not necessarily understanding what he was writing.
Obviously very few students have that sort of memory, but it's not necessarily fair to give advantage to those like me who can simply remember things more easily.
Have you ever seen a programmer who really understands C going to stackoverflow every time they have to use an fopen()? Memorization is part of understanding. You cannot understand something without it being readily available in your head
Right, and a lot of them probably got that understanding by going to stackoverflow every time they needed to use fopen() until they eventually didn’t need to anymore.
In the book days, I sometimes got to where I knew exactly where on a page I would find my answer without remembering what that answer was. Nowadays I remember the search query I used to find an answer without remembering what that answer was.
I wrote a long answer, but I realised that even advanced C users are unlikely to have memorised every possible value of errno and what they all mean when fopen errors. There's just no point as you can easily look it up. You can understand that there is a maximum allowable number of opened files without remembering what exact value errno will have in this case.
Yes, I have. I do it too, even some basic functions, I would look up on SO.
You really just need to know that there's a way to open files in C.
I don't think you can reach any sort of scale of breadth or depth if you try to memorize things. Programmers have to glue together a million things, it's just not realistic for them to know all the details of all of them.
It's unfortunate for the guy who has memorized all of K&R, but we have tools now to bring us these details based on some keywords, and we should use them.
I dunno, I went to a high school reunion last year, and a dude seemed to know people's phone numbers from 30 years ago.
If he could remember that sort of thing, I can believe there are people who can remember steps of a proof, which is a much less random thing that you can feel your way around, given a few queues from memory.
Plus, realistically, how closely does an examiner read a proof? They have a stack of dozens of almost the same thing, I bet they get pretty tired of it and use a heuristic.
I think many people who grew up before cell phones remember phone numbers from the past. I just thought about it and can list the phone numbers of 3 houses that were on my childhood street in the early 2000s + another 5 that were friends in the area. I remember at least a handful of cell phone numbers from the mid to late 2000s as friends started to get those; some of them are still current. On the other hand, I don't know the number of anyone I've met in the last 15 years besides my wife, and haven't tried to.
When I was in university, in my program, the most common format was that you were allowed to bring in a single page of notes (which you prepared ahead of time based on your understanding of what topics were likely to come up). That seemed to work fine for everyone.
My students then often ask me to do the same, to permit them to bring one page of notes as he does.
Then I would say: just assume you're writing the exam with him and work on your one-pager of notes, optimize your notes by copying and re-writing them a few times. Now, the only difference between my exam and his exam is that the night before, you memorize your one-pager (if you re-wrote it a few times you should be able to recreate it purely from memory from that practice alone).
I believe having had all material in your memory at the same time, at least once for a short while, gives students higher self-confidence; they may forget stuff again, but they hopefully remember the feeling of mastering it.
reply