BPDRecovery.com: Forums

If validation is being used with the same definition of empathy, person B could provide effective validation by not trying to change person A's feelings/opinion.

"B: I understand you're upset about that. Looking at it from the perspective of her being stupid or wrong, it's completely understandable that you're upset." This statement is validating. Continuing w/..."perhaps if you shifted your perspective" is not.

Chaos, isn't the "shift of perspective" one of the core aspects of recovery-focused work though? Isn't change the essence of why we're here? Does saying "perhaps if..." actually negate / remove all traces of the validation prior to it? Isn't the "it's understandable..." piece still validation in and of itself though?

Oops, posted too soon.

If the validation is there but someone isn't ready to hear the "perhaps if" piece, doesn't that mean that they're looking for a pity party of sorts? They're not ready to change, they just want to whine & moan for a while and feel comforted by the fact that other people understand, have been there, are feeling sorry for / sympathy for the hell they're gonig through.

So if (going back to the thread's topic) isn't just the "it's understandable" piece without the "perhaps if" part a form of validating the victim mentality? It doesn't seem to provide much in the way of growth or forward movement. It seems (IMO, of course) to perpetuate "yes, stay right there, we understand, you needn't move, we'll come to you, you poor dear."

Hyperbole to make the point notwithstanding, the question remains: are the things people claim as invalidating really invalidation or is it really validation with a recovery focus/nudge?

Imo, Ash -

you've just addresed a huge part of the issue right here. These words are from your own post:



That's what I mean about asking for clarification !!

Based on what you are saying the person B is as much of a victim of their own ways/stubbornness, as person A - depends on who is hearing what and if you are person A or person B

So looking at the example we're discussing - not past altercations, misunderstandings, disagreements - in this particular example, where/how is reality being dictated and by whom?

That's the difference in my veiw of validation vs. indulging the victim.

Person B does acknowledge person A is upset. That is validation to me. No where does person B say "It's dumb for you to be upset." That would be invalidating to me.

I dont get your exercise. I havent seen anything like that take place and I dont see things like that take place. guess if the example were truer to what I've experienced I could continue to participate.

So, without understanding this, you are building a case for something that I dont see is reality based (yes my reality, I admit it)

Will watch to see how others respond, but I think your example is loaded on one side.. so.. whats the point ?

Please provide your own generic example of what you've seen happen.

I also saw that there was validation there - maybe I'm not so terrible at validating after all (even though I fail to do it sometimes). I think in my mind, the process of validation was sugar-coating, but it doesn't have to be that way.

It depends entirely on timing. Some people do wish to have engraved invitations to a pity party, some need to vent, some simply want to be understood and some are asking for help. However, until person A feels validated, the liklihood of his/her being open to change is limited.

In your example, person B validates then immediately attempts to change person A's mind/feelings. That is invalidating, IMO.

IF person A had said "Blah,blah, and I really want help with this," the immediacy might not be a problem.

Seems to me B is jumping in with fixing the problem too soon. B should stop before the "Perhaps..." and let A talk again.

Like, when a woman has just been raped, she's not ready to hear what she could have done differently to not be in the situation where she got raped.

Sometimes, people need to hear and understand that they aren't resposible for what the other person did before they can understand what they can do, or how they can shift their perspective.

Now, message board conversations are different than fact to face conversations. A little different dynamic. Although, still, I do recall once asking someone if they were ready to hear suggestions (or whatever exactly it was) rather than jumping in.

I'll take a stab at this.

A: I hate her! Make her stop being mean to me! I can't take it anymore, I just want to kick her in the shins!

B: Wow, based on what you just told me, it sounds like you're really angry and frustrated with this person's behavior. When I believe someone's being mean to me, I tend to feel pretty much the same way. Do you think she'll stop what she's doing if you kick her in the shins?

A: She was wrong! There's no other way to look at it, period! I hate her!

B: I don't blame you one bit for being angry and frustrated. When I think someone's been mean to me, I'm not likely to think very kindly of that person. The thing is, neither of us can make her do anything, so maybe we can come up with a way for you to deal with her behavior. What if you deleted her messages without reading them?

A: You're an asshat because you're not validating what I'm saying! You're completely missing my point. It's not about me, it's about how wrong she was!

B: Well, I certainly don't mean to come across as an asshat. I assumed we were discussing this situation because you don't want to feel angry for the rest of your life. If this person continues to behave in a way that frustrates you, what can you do to protect yourself? I'm thinking that kicking her in the shins might not be the best idea . . .

A: Dammit, what's wrong with you? Why aren't you listening to me??

B: What I hear you saying is that you're angry and frustrated because this person is being mean to you. Is that an accurate assessment of the situation?

EmJay

Well, that should be message board conversations versus instant conversations -- which would include telephone and instant messaging as well as face to face.

I don't think that example is terribly unrealistic - I've been Person A AND Person B at various points past.

I can "validate" that someone feels upset. I can "validate" that I can see why they might have that reaction. But I quite often disagree with the perception and response others may have to various people, places and things.

People I talk with ask me "What can I do about my mother-in-law/exhusband/brother/neighbor? They've got this problem that really disturbs me, and they won't quit! How can I make them quit?" Oooohh, that's a hard one because the answer is NOTHING. As long as they base their inner peace on somebody else's behavior, there IS no peace.

To me, that is the definition of The "Professional" Victim. I can't say I don't do it, haven't done it - I have. And there was just no relief for me. As long as I was turning my well-being over to the hands of another, I was guaranteed to feel powerless. Only through willingness to make my own changes have I been able to be free. Blaming my misery on others just highlights how little I was willing to take responsibility for myself...

something like this actually happened today in my life

I know two friends, I'll call them A and B. I am friends with B. I know A as an acquaintance. A and B had a bad argument this morning, and both of them were really heated up...I did not witness the argument, I wasn't there, but I heard about it from a few people (the argument happened in public)

I ran into B later that day, and she told me what A said and did, and she told me how she was feeling, and B said, "I just want to kill A!"

I nodded my head and said 'yeah' and 'oh' and just listened to her. She was feeling angry, hurt, frustrated and needed to vent, and that was obvious to me. I know she would never actually harm A in anyway...I know that B says some pretty wild stuff when she is feeling angry and frustrated, but that she never actually does anything harmful. She told me what happened, and how she was feeling, in private, so it wasn't public gossip or anything like that.

when I left, B thanked for me listening and letting her vent...and she thanked me for not trying to 'fix' her or the situation with A

is this the sort of thing that is being talked about?

something else I am thinking about here is that validation online and validation in person is just so different

in person, simply listening and making eye contact, or offering a hug, or even a warm smile, can be validating

online, we have to rely on words and emoticons...and the message we send may be very, very different from the message received

I think it's important to note that you can validate someone's feelings without agreeing with them.

I think this is an important point, so I'm quoting it again.

sometimes no matter what we say or do, a person won't feel validated anyway

:ditto

Knowing we all have our own filters and backgrounds and perceptions, knowing that we're all unique, knowing that people are different everywhere we look, if we're seeking validation, do we have any responsibility to look for it?

Are we in a better frame of mind if we head into a conversation with the optimism that people want to validate rather than pessimisitically assume they won't?

If we're truly looking for validation, do we hold any responsibility in forcing ourselves to take a second look and keep our eyes peeled for validation that looks like a zebra instead of the horse form we expect validation to embody?

seeking validation from within works better for me most of the time

sometimes I feel confused about a situation, and will talk with someone who I trust, to get another perspective

if I need outside (external) validation, I'll usually choose to talk with someone who I know has been through the stuff I've been through, and who knows me fairly well

Knowing we all have our own filters and backgrounds and perceptions, knowing that we're all unique, knowing that people are different everywhere we look, if we're seeking validation, do we have any responsibility to look for it? I think so. If I'm pro-choice, I'm not going to go to a pro-life rally, expecting people to validate my feelings.

Are we in a better frame of mind if we head into a conversation with the optimism that people want to validate rather than pessimisitically assume they won't? Yes, but this is an area where we can easily self-sabotage.

If we're truly looking for validation, do we hold any responsibility in forcing ourselves to take a second look and keep our eyes peeled for validation that looks like a zebra instead of the horse form we expect validation to embody? A noble ambition. However, if I've just stepped on a nail, I'm going to want validation that my foot hurts like blazes and, at THAT moment, don't want to hear "If you'd been wearing shoes..." A simple example, no doubt. So many other factors are at play; vulnerability, trust, acuteness of the emotion; the less highly-emotionally charged I am, the better I am at seeing validation in zebra's clothing.

As we get to know people, through the resolution of some of the misunderstandings along the way, don't we come to "learn their style" a little bit?

My husband is pretty gruff, resolution oriented, quick to place blame (sound like anyone you might know who would be typing this post?) and after eight years together, I know his shorthand.

If we expect a horse in general but someone keeps coming up with zebras, are we really giving them the credit they deserve? Have we accepted them as they are, for who they really are? If I had told my husband "Dammit, when I'm pissed, I expect you to give me empathy and sympathy instead of trying to come up with solutions" I doubt I'd be celebrating my fifth wedding anniversary in a couple of weeks. I wouldn't have honored who he was. I would have spent the last years expecting him to change, to become a horse when he's really a zebra.

In his eyes, he wouldn't waste his time on trying to think of a reasonable solution to whatever it is that has me upset if he didn't care, didn't empathize, didn't sympathize. He sees me hurting and understands how that feels so he wants to offer what he can to make the pain stop: a solution. That's his way of providing validation.

There are also times when he just looks at me and says "Why do you even bother?" (usually in reference to this place) because he doesn't sympathize, empathize, understand and doesn't really have an interest in validating me. Okay, cool - I'll take this to someone else who can help me out, no problem.

I digress. Back to Denim's initial inquiry about victim mentality, validation and moving straight to the problem-solving phase ... which is something I tend to do, she said she does, my husband does, most men I know do ... I think this is a fairly common practice in the real world. Since we've often said that BPDR is a micrcosm of the real world, is it reasonable to expect that such "straight to problem solving" approaches should be outlawed here? Can they really be outlawed in 3D?

To go further along with what appears to be Denim's train of thought in terms of "validating psychobabble = feeding victim mentality," if someone posts "Oh crap, this sucks" and gets three "I feel your pain, I empathize, that totally makes sense" why do the fourth and fifth posts have to be along the same vein? What I'm getting at is: if there's some horse-type validation by 1, 2 and 3, is 4 really "required" to provide horse-type validation as well for the problem-solving approach to be accepted?

If the person is looking for validation and gets it from however many sources, why can't there be one source that skips over that, knowing that the validation was already provided by others?

How does validation relate to being (or feeling) vulnerable? Are we looking for someone to say "It's okay to feel upset by this" to give us the A-OK sign that being vulnerable was alright or socially acceptable?

Denim, when I read your post here, I had snippets of my own childhood come to mind. (Must be part of that "connection" thing!) Oh, wait - I can paste in stuff from the book!


I suppose maybe part of me thinks "As long as I don't parrot my mother, that's enough validation." Perhaps part of me identifies with the male problem-solving focus too much (if "too much" is possible or even "valid"!)

As for some of the specifics you raised, Denim ...

What's the worst case scenario in being vulnerable on a message board? You've shared what the worst case was when you were a kid. Do those same consequences still hold true? Are the players even the same?

If the consequences are different (snotty comments instead of mortal danger) and the players are different (people around the world you've never met instead of a violent man in your home waiting to beat you), does it help to accept a certain level of vulnerability? Does it feel a little more safe now than it did during childhood?

As for the way others see you, I'd draw your attention to the reference to "someone on the 'other' side." I take this to mean that you find their thought patterns to be as foreign to you as yours (and mine) are to them. Close? So if there's a basic inability to think similarly, how does logic apply to them seeing you as a victim? If they use the word abuse for things you wouldn't classify as abuse, doesn't the same / reverse hold true when you start to think abouut victim mentality? That is, if you think they might be thinking you're in a victim mentality, but the two realms of thought patterns are so far polar opposite, what indication or proof do you have that your assumpting "they think I'm playing victim" is accurate?

This brings me back, again, to "So what if they think I'm playing victim? What's the worst that could happen?" Even if by some remote obscure chance in a million you were right about what they were thinking and they really did think of you as being in victim mentality, so what? How does that impact you, your daily life, your goals? Does them thinking it make it true? Who defines reality for you? You? Them? What you think they're thinking?

I hope that helps, somewhat. (And I hope one of the nuggets somewhere in there makes up for the wild hijack I took things on earlier! I'm sorry about that.)

Chaos, I like your stepping on a nail example.

In addition to in person and a message board being different (and phone and instant messaging each being again different), this being a recovery focused message board comes into play.

Someone may first need to hear, "What X did was abusive", or, "Yeah, I understand having a hard time dealing with that situation" first. That may be the recovery step they need right then. Some of us need to learn what's normal and what isn't. Like, it isn't a matter of needing to shift one's perspective, but rather needing to learn first, and then, with the new information, have a new perspective.

On a recovery focused message board, we can assume the person is here for recovery and we can be more direct and forceful, I think, with our recovery message. But we still need to take into account (best we can) where that person is at, what the next step for them is.


That said, a non message board example from real life. By telephone conversation. On the telephone, I find sometimes I'll say "yeah" or such as a sign that I'm listening. Anyway, the story. I'll make up names.

My friend Alice was upset with Bill, a mutual acquaintance. She didn't like how he handled a situation with her, what he said to her. She read me the email he sent. Me, I listened to her. A few "mm hm"'s to show I was listening. I gave agreement where I could do so honestly. I was always honest. I also shared my own perspective about Bill, from knowing him. I said, truthfully, that I have sometimes found Bill frustrating. I also shared my insight into what he's like. As in, to help her perhaps see his perspective, in a way that was neutral, not taking side. Not, though, in that first conversation, but in a later conversation. By sharing my viewpoint, I offered an outside perspective. What she does with that is up to her. I did encourage her not to avoid a situation where she might run into him, but not in a pushy way. Rather, in a way that was accepting of whatever choice she made.

I present that simply as one example.

Well, I think sometimes the person may need to know that 4 is coming from a place of understanding before 4 gives a problem solving approach. Depends on the person, and also on that person's relationship with and previous experiences with 4.

I guess what I'm saying is it depends on trust. Will the person trust that 4 is coming from a place of caring and trying to help.