Invalidation

Post Reply New Topic

I've come to the conclusion that it's pretty much impossible to avoid invalidation in the real world, especially from people you don't know. The truth is most people don't understand my issues and I can't really expect them to. I just try my best to avoid bringing up topics that are going to lead to invalidation. Whenever I do bring up something sensitive I try to pre-emptively explain it so I don't draw a response I don't want, but sometimes this backfires as people don't understand why I'm going into so much detail and say something like "don't be so hard on yourself". Of course, being "hard on myself" wasn't what I was doing (I was just explaining the facts). At that point it's better to just drop it. Being mistaken for being "hard on myself" is far less invalidating than some of the other things listed. Some people are good listeners and validaters, others can't help not understanding what I go through. I can't expect most people to understand. All I really need is one or two people who do and know how to listen. If I have that I don't need to be bothered by everyone that has an invalidating opinion.

Oh yeah I've gotten that one a lot...and it makes no sense to me that people come to that conclusion, but yeah I've found it's best to drop the subject at that point. It's kind of like talking to a wall.

I think people just hand out these bland sort of platitudes, because they really don't want to listen or understand. Sometimes I don't really expect that much anyway and I would rather have someone just tell me straight up that they can't relate to what I'm talking about, or don't have time to listen, or whatever.

But I think instead people feel obligated to pretend to understand, and then say something "nice". And then according to the unspoken social contract I guess I am supposed to be appreciative and not tell them honestly how irrelevant their response is. It feels like a checkmate, and it leaves me feeling more bottled up and frustrated than I did before the conversation started.

I think sometimes people actually use some of these nice-sounding, but invalidating statements as strategies to passively shut down a conversation.

My problem is I don't want people to care or sympathize so much as I want them to understand. Even just understanding intellectually is better than nothing. Then I at least feel respected. If someone says something completely off base and keeps insisting they're right they aren't friend material. It's as simple as that. I refuse to waste time with toxic people for whom I have to put all my effort into refraining from punching them in the face. If that eliminates 80% of people, so be it. The majority of people simply aren't worth knowing.

I have tried to watch the logic operations at work behind these kinds of behaviors during interactions.
The operations happen in the subconscious, within the self-assembled algorithms that I call the hive-mind, and what makes up the identity for most normal people. Being so, the person doing the invalidating is not aware of the logic operations and would remain convinced that their intent was not to invalidate at all, but to help the other person.
Their identity automatically filters their own actions with the bias that fits into what that person believes to be their identity, and self-judges to have the best of intentions.

The invalidator is most often NOT consciously aware of what is really happening.
What is really happening is a logical confrontation that I call a "software war" between competing algorithms.

The most common goals of the algorithms have to do with negotiating social hierarchies.
An invalidator's logic operations would be subconsciously arranged with the goal of displacing the other person from a position in hierarchy relative to their own position. The invalidator either puts themselves at a higher position, or puts the target at a lower position. The assumption that the other person (the target) needs help automatically places them in a position of weakness, and subject to outside control. The exchanges attempt to adjust positions in hierarchy for the purpose of power and control.
Some people describe this as simply emotional manipulation.

The logical operations behind it all are highly evolved, self-selecting for speed, deceptiveness, and/or aggression.
They are designed to go under the target's radar, bypass defenses, or neutralize defenses.

It can be "disarming", and that's not always a bad thing to have happen, but unfortunately it can be.
Manipulating someone's emotions without addressing any real problems (actual information) that may have been troubling them is unlikely to result in a real solution, long or short-term.

Some of these dynamics can be seen illustrated in some videos I posted in this thread:

Games people play


I agree that the intent of the other person is an important factor, but it's also extremely difficult to determine for several reasons. When communication is between different neurotypes the situation is even more clouded with uncertainty.

Since this thread started I have struggled to watch the news and as for adverts on the TV and radio, well they're all full of these examples of invalidation.


Also, I still don't know how to convey most messages without using such invalidation! The given example was to identify / patronise with, before using invalidating statements.

Any other examples of not invalidating, i.e. can you rewrite each of these statements?
http://eqi.org/invalid.htm#Examples%20o ... xpressions.

The invalidation way of life seems a really tiring way to live.
I think it is more freeing and productive to take people's casual messages less seriously and less in they are psychologically attacking me direction.
This may be hard to achieve with low self-esteem, but self-esteem can be improved and probably more likely if one starts letting go of focusing on others attacking self and how nasty others are.
If not, it is like a constant cycle of perceiving invalidation and pushing negative feelings out to others instead of owning them and dealing with them in a way that moves forward.

TBH I was thinking of writing an app to give examples of how not to invalidate with a look up based on what want / normally say... Thought it may help parents and some therapists???

I however am at a loss on many of the examples at what to say instead, e.g. "Cheer up", even smiling at them could be taken wrong!?

I feel the same way. I don't want to be friends with people who don't understand me well. It's just too frustrating to talk to someone who doesn't "get it." Even if the other person doesn't really understand, they need to respect that it's my life, not theirs, and let it be.

+2

Understanding is essential.

invalidating comments and behaviors come from an intent to change, influence, control, fix, direct, manipulate, etc. the other person (which is why invalidation is so prevalent in advertising and other media). The underlying intent is what has to change. When the intent changes, the language naturally will change with it.

When the intent is simply to accept the other person, the comments might be more neutral and observational...ex. instead of "Don't look so angry" a person might say "You seem very upset."

When the intent is to listen..."You seem very upset, would you like to talk about it?"

When the intent is to validate, it might mean saying things like "I understand why that bothered you..." or "I would feel the same way if it happened to me."

These are just starting points and really basic examples of how the language might look different. The comments really can't be scripted, because it would defeat the purpose of saying them, which is to be present in the moment and be accepting of where the other person is in that moment.

This is exactly what I shoot for as far as non-invalidating language is concerned.

My intent is to understand and assist, not to change somebody.

I don't want to change--why should I expect other people to?

That's profound. I don't think many people see the world that way, I like it though.

The system out there (the hive) DOES want you to change.
For example, corporations in the economic system want you to change how you feel about yourself, so that you feel lesser of your status, and more need for buying their product/service.
I could go on in other areas, but you get the idea.

Basically you are needed to feel less of yourself, less secure, and less certain.
At the core it's often fear that is tapped within the individual, generating an anxiety, that then generates the wanted behavior, such as spending more money on things you don't really need.

We have been so immersed in this type of language that most people don't even notice it.

EXACTLY. Well said.

I've seen this in the company I work for, which is a global corporation. They have a different spin though, they don't try to generate anxiety, instead they rely on unfounded optimism and excess positivity. They dismiss any anxieties, concerns, worries, etc. as having no basis in reality. No one ever wants to hear about, much less try to solve any problems. They actually want us to tell customers how they are supposed to feel about our programs, even, or perhaps especially, when those programs inevitably don't pan out logistically like they are supposed to. We're also told how we're supposed to feel as employees...don't even let me get started...lol

Is it a form of invalidation to be ignored? Talked over? Is that another way to try to get someone to "conform" to the hivemind?

I've been thinking about an interaction I had recently on another site where I posted about something that happened in Canada, and I got a few people who jumped in and only talked about things that happen in the US and took shots at me, but then proceeded to ignore everything I said and only talked to other posters in my thread. This sort of thing happens all the time to me, and I can't tell if it's deliberate or if it's just something that happens.