Invalidation

Post Reply New Topic

Or a two hulled boat!?

Yeah...boats are cool, too!

What if you're trying to talk to them and they refuse to acknowledge you at all?
Especially if they're talking to you while you're right there?
I try not to take offence to things, but being ignored/talked over is one thing that bugs me so much. I can never tell if I'm overreacting to it.

I refuse to be talked down to. I'll get nasty and sarcastic with such a person.

I think a lot times strong identities correlate with stupidity. GW Bush was a great example of this. People incapable of knowing what they don't know have strength in always seeming certain of themselves. They can use this to manipulate masses of people equally stupid into thinking they're always right. Uncertainty is weakness. Stupidity is strength. That's the American Way (TM). The majority of people don't care about the truth so much as a well-told story. They are built to follow, and they disguise this as "strength" and "optimism". It's really BS. Okay. I'm done with my misanthropic rant.

If someone doesn't want to engage with me, either online or in person, I just have to move on.
Usually, the person is not critical to my pursuit of the topic that caused me to try to engage them.
Perhaps other people will be more receptive.
If all the people I try to engage react the same way, then I am probably the one taking an ineffective approach and should try a different one.

So the other person has to change the way they feel about how you* feel? Isn't that kind of hypocritical? What should I say if I don't agree with the other person's reaction at all? I find it hard to completely separate "feelings" and "reactions" because reactions are deeply rooted in feelings.

E.g. a guy gets cut off while driving and he gets out of his car to shoot the other driver to death at a red light. He did this because he was angry about being cut off. One cannot really dispute that he was angry (if he wasn't, then he wouldn't be about to shoot the other driver to death). Also, since the other driver was indeed in the wrong, most people would agree that being angry about it is fairly justified and valid. I think many of the "invalidating" phrases listed in the OP could be said to this guy before he does shoot, although I do not think most people would actually be disputing his feelings or even saying that he is wrong to be angry- truly they are disputing his reaction based on his feelings.
"You're overreacting, don't take things so personally, calm down, think of someone else's feelings for a change, he probably didn't mean to do it, etc." all come to mind to me to dissuade him, even though I would absolutely believe that he was angry and even has a right to be. I guess you could say "I understand that you're angry but shooting this person is a bad idea", but as soon as I try to explain why it's a bad idea, I get back to the "invalidating" phrases (mainly, "think about someone else's feelings").

Do you understand what I mean about feelings and reactions? I feel like this isn't quite as much a black and white issue as the website in the OP makes it out to be. What would you say to this angry guy?

*By "you" I don't mean you specifically.

I think it's impossible to not invalidate someone's feelings. There will always be someone who will make a big deal out of something than it really is, the cutting you off for example. Yes you have a right to be irritated and say "Jesus Christ, what an a**hole" and most people move on after it happens but someone may make a hug deal about it and go on and on about it and act like their day is ruined and you as the person in the car may be tired of hearing about it and don't want to see the drama from the person. Then finally you just tell them to shut up about it, stop being so mad about it because they didn't crash, there was no accident.

There is nothing wrong with not validating other people's thoughts and feelings.
I am not obligated to validate these if I think they are maladaptive, delusional, inaccurate, etc.

Like that one autist woman who claimed to be bullied in her home and from the business across the street. She lived on a main road so cars drove on it all the time and she lived across from an auto mechanic shop. She thought cars drove on it to harass her and that the business across the street made noise to harass her.

I wrote about changing intentions, not feelings.



I would rather not intend any harm to other people, no matter how I feel towards them. Do you find that hypocritical?



I think it's up to you to decide what you should say. You asked for suggestions and advice about how to handle the situation with your husband, but then when people responded you said something about people having their standards too high.

Yes I do find it hypocritical.
---
Most of the advice was practical stuff about anxiety, nothing to do with invalidation (don't get me wrong, answering machines and caller id are good ideas but still not to do with speaking in a validating fashion). Yours was about how I should tell him how I feel, which is on the list in the OP of what not to say. I can't be bothered to go back and quote it but you can look- something like "but what about my feelings". Indeed I often think that, but that's invalidating. At the beginning of this thread I agreed but having read through it I changed my mind. I was confused for a while because what's being said doesn't make sense to me and I thought it didn't make sense because I was too stupid to understand it, but actually I think I understand it but happen to disagree. I just came to that conclusion just now. Sorry about that.

I use the same MO, verbatim. This is how I keep anxiety at bay, and sustain a high level of enjoyment, while conversing here.

I think that it would be difficult to never invalidate another person, that would mean living your life for other people, instead of having a balance. How can one person care for another, if they do not resource themselves by caring about their own well-being too.

There are different ways people can consciously invalidate another person, and many ways to do it without intending to, but how to tell them apart? A pattern? A one off statement does not qualify, it has to happen with frequency.

I think if it is consistent, and the person seems uninterested in the consequences of their words/actions/inaction on another, then their conscious intent is clear, even if it is not malicious.

Best avoided.

Thank you for posting the list and for sharing your knowledge. I personally find it to be invaluable.

It's not invalidating to talk about your own feelings. It would be invalidating if you used it to discount someone else's feelings.