Such a thing as too much validation.

When good intentions stifle authenticity

As with everything I write, take what works for you and leave the rest.

The era of active listening and mainstream therapy has brought us many blessings. It has become more normalized to talk about our feelings and to openly share about formerly taboo topics. Generally speaking, most of us are better listeners; not as quick to offer unsolicited advice or center our own stories.

Enter validation.

These cultural shifts have also brought noticeable pressure to validate what our peers say — the peers in the communities that we consider ourselves a part of or that hold similar ideals, that is. It is relatively common to think that we can’t disagree with someone’s personal experience and therefore must accept what they say as being true. The idea is that since we don’t live in someone else’s body, we can’t possibly understand or relate to what they’re going through.

While this idea is true in a broad sense, in practice it has created different problems. Seeking to always affirm someone’s reality can mean that we miss out on genuinely connecting with them. The fear of gaslighting or causing harm is real, and can shrink our own capacity to show up authentically.

Understanding that we can’t know exactly what another person is feeling (because we are not them) should not bar us from trying to relate or connect. We can listen actively to people and also offer our actual (normal) responses. We can validate their feelings if needed, while also recognizing that the conversation should not end there.

Validation as a comma, not a period.

External validation certainly has its place. It might allow you to accept something you’re struggling with, or reorient how you perceive a situation. It can be nice to hear an affirmation of our competence or an “of course you feel this way.” It’s ok to need external validation sometimes, and ideally, you can supplement it with internal validation.

And, validation can sometimes come across as patronizing. This makes sense — the instagram infographics that instruct us how to ‘offer support’ often translate to weird, stilted language that feels, well, like bad therapy. “I hear that you’re feeling this way. I see you, I see you. I am sitting in your corner. How can I help you move through this heavy moment.”

I’m commenting on a cultural pattern, not any one person. I include myself in this conversation, too, having experienced intense pressure to speak flawlessly and use all the correct words. I have plenty of notes listing out ‘ways to say no’ and frameworks for having hard conversations. My shelves are stacked with books on nonviolent communication and how to talk so kids will listen.

But real life is not a script, and we can’t always pull out our bullet points on what to say when a person is in distress. Platitudes aren’t really the demonstration of friendship most people are looking for, I’d guess.

Instead, maybe we can practice listening empathically without fixating on proving ourselves. We can practice trusting that we will know what to say and how to respond by being our normal beautiful selves.

Just like, be real.

Carl Rogers, the American psychologist who wrote the book Active Listening, spoke at length about how therapists can move away from the blank-slate approach that Freud championed. Rogers posited that therapists are better able to serve their clients through being honest and real instead of being a neutral, emotionless ‘blank-slate’. This practice is called congruence — when the therapist acts in an open way that is congruent with who they really are.

The purpose of Rogers’ person-centered therapy is not only to affirm the experience of the client, but to actually help them move through difficulty or improve their wellbeing.

The point of validation should be to get to the next step.

Support does not stop at validation.

Sometimes we do not need validation, we need help. If the validation we’re offering or receiving affirms what is incorrect or serves to accommodate what’s actually unhealthy, it’s worth considering a new approach.

I didn’t need validation when I was convinced that I was getting lead poisoning by living in an old building. I needed someone to tell me no, unless you drill through the walls and eat a bowl of paint dust every day, you’re literally fine. 

Supporting someone usually requires more than just validation. If we are genuinely alarmed by something someone says or does, that’s not a sign to swallow and say “I can see that’s really hard for you right now.” Tara Mcgowan-Ross wrote this the other day, that “sometimes you are just wrong…other times you are just correct, and ceding rhetorical ground would be socially, intellectually, or materially irresponsible.”

Sometimes supporting requires us to intervene, to say hold up that’s actually not healthy, I think you’re missing some information, I don’t think this story is accurate…True care comes with honesty, even if it runs the risk of making someone temporarily upset or disagreeable.

If my therapist were to have validated the disordered voices in my head, I wouldn’t have ever recovered. If she hadn’t challenged my incorrect beliefs about what I thought my body looked like or needed in terms of sustenance, I wouldn’t be here.

Validation has its place. But the point remains — validation can be overemphasized, sometimes at the expense of making a real connection or offering needed support. Validation can be an important stepping stone, but let’s not get stuck here. There is more life to live.

It’s ok to be who you are as you are. It’s ok to say the wrong thing sometimes.

You don’t have to have the perfect language to be a good friend, and sometimes being a good friend means not validating them.

xx, maggie

p.s. I wrote about Carl Rogers a while ago if you want a refresher on Unconditional Positive Regard. Or listen to him speak on empathic listening.

1. Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357