EQI.org Home | Main Page on Invalidation
Email
on Invalidation with Responses
The email: (Oct 12, 2009)
Hi,
I have found some very interesting information on
your site but have an important question:
What if the person whom we are dealing with is
emotionally abusive? How can we not invalidate their
feelings?
For example, the abuser says, I want your
entire world to revolve around me and I want you to
spend all of your free time with me and to have the
same values, goals, and dreams that I have.
This would fall under abusive expectations, and in my
opinion it would have to be invalidated (although not
cruelly). You would almost need to invalidate
unrealistic and abusive feelings,
expectations
that another has. What if
youre dealing with borderline personality
disorder?
I often have experienced the invalidation you spoke
of, but at times have used it defensively. If a
person just wants control over you, how can you not
invalidate their unrealistic expectations and
feelings? To give you an extreme example, assume a
physically abusive man believes and feels that women
should be beat. Shouldnt his feelings be
invalidated?
I suppose it is a sticky scenario, but I dont
understand how invalidation can be all
bad
arent there necessary uses of it?
Thanks,
J.
|
Core Components of EQI.org
Respect | Empathy
Caring | Listening
Understanding
|
Steve's Reply:
hi
well i remember one thing that i learned.. that u can
accept someone's feelings but not their behavior..
like i could say im feeling homicidal, and u could
say "i
understand", yet u dont have to sit back and
watch them kill
someone.
so maybe u could say u undestand, and actually try to
understand and to show understanding, but say,
something
like, "im sorry but what u need and want to do
doesnt work
for me..." (or for others..)
i like to think of things as a conflict of needs. it
helps
me be less judgmental etc.
what do u think?
steve
|
|
Tim's Response:
It seems kind of strange how J. says feelings at the end
of that email; it makes me think that feelings and
thoughts are connected in that situation, therefore we
should invalidate that person's feelings. I don't think
under any circumstances feelings need to be invalidated.
A person's feelings may be blown out of
"normal" proportions at some point, but you
should always show that you understand by statements such
as "I see" or "I get what you mean"
or "yeah, that makes sense" and then you should
ask questions. Overall this will bring things to a level
in which the person can start to begin to understand why
they are having motives for things, because of the
questions and understanding the person received.
Anyway, when it comes to those situations where someone
demands something from you irrationally, you don't have
to invalidate their feelings to change the situation; in
fact, the situation could get worse if you were to do so,
and you may even mess up the relationship you have with
that person, if it isn't already sort of messed up. I
think asking questions is the best way to come to the
real motives and purposes for things. There are, however,
situations in which you cannot change with rational
conflict resolution like this. In these situations it's
best to somehow stop associating with that person;
invalidating the person's feeling won't make things
better for you, and possibly just worse.
But back to that situation where there is a man who
believes women should be beat. I think you can pretty
much say you understand how he feels and then ask
questions. It's actually a little bit hard to know what
will happen after that. If it's a rational person who was
raised up to think that, there is hope. But there really
are people who don't want to change their ideals because
it gives them advantages. At this point, again, there's
no point in invalidating the person since it won't solve
anything. However, I'm unsure what will change this
person's opinion if they won't change it after you reason
with them and say why this or this is wrong and validate
their feelings and ask questions. I'd say time would
solve it after spending much time with you and seeing
your viewpoint completely, or maybe a certain respected
figure of his would be able to convince him.
I can honestly say it's really hard to predict what is
best to do in every single situation, but I believe it
isn't beneficial to ever invalidate someone's feelings.
You can do things to allow this person to see the other
person's viewpoint; that is, explain it to them and try
to make it so it's easy to sympathize or empathize with
that individual who is the target for abuse.
To finally look at the analysis of invalidating someone's
feelings who has irrational expectations and goals, it
will possibly stop the current situation, but it will not
be beneficial for the long term. And of course it won't
be the most efficient thing to do in the short term
either.
|
|
Steph's Response
First off, I think
I understand what J. is trying to say: How we should
invalidate those who are emotionally and physically
abusive to us? Invalidation on dictionary.com is
basically to discredit. Steve defines emotional
invalidation as "to reject, ignore, mock, tease,
judge, or diminish someone's feelings." which is
more specific and feelings-centered. So I think what J.
means is to discredit them not in a way that is emotional
abuse, but to set a line so the other individual cannot
control you. This is basically what Steve said. Whereas
if J. told this to me, I would've said "everyone
deserves to be understood" which is kind of basic
(even if it's true), but Steve pretty much said it in a
way that seperates ones' actions one can invalidate, or
discredit, from one's feelings one can invalidate, or not
take into consideration.
Also, when he mentions borderline personality disorder...
I have to wonder if someone diagnosed with this had been
invalidated before he started abusing others with things
like expectations. It inspires and encourages me to want
to know more about disorders, like I've been thinking
recently... I don't know all the 'science' behind what
goes on in the head for one to diagnose people with
disorders. I want to reaffirm, to myself, that
'disorders' are caused by emotional abuse and lack of
understanding and listening...
|
|
Tim's and Steph's
convo about the responses: Steph: you don't have to invalidate
their feelings to change the situation; in fact, the
situation could get worse if you were to do so, and you
may even mess up the relationship you have with that
person, if it isn't already sort of messed up.
And you know what's sad? Is most of the time, both people
don't know how to understand or talk about feelings so
the person being irrational can upset the other, and the
other would react angrily or not in a calm, yet assertive
manner.
Tim: yeah, so nothing gets solved
it is sad, i agree
Steph: I like it. How you give a solution, and if that
solution doesn't work, for the wellbeing of the person,
stop associating with them.
Steph: but yeah
I like your style of writing..
I admire yours and Steve's
like I was telling Steve and you'll see it in my email
how he just says the right things, like I'll have an idea
but he'll like.. write or say what I'm thinking of but
more detailed.
apply concepts to things I guess
seperating behavior from feelings like he did
Tim: hahaha
u do that also
with certain things u write
it really depends on what we are all writing about
but we all cover something that wasn't covered by the
other i think
tell me what u think of those last 2 paragraphs i sent u
Steph: that's what's awesome about collaborating
Well I like how you pointed out how it's not worth it to
invalidate feelings, seeing things from their
perspective, but also empathize the person who is the
target. Rereading it, it's kind of like being a mediator.
Steph: and the part about how time or respected figures
being able to change them.
Tim: haha, thanks
Steph: "But there really are people who don't want
to change their ideals because it gives them
advantages." they're able to justify their ideals
and able to feel... in control
or empowered
emotionally fulfilled too of course
Tim: yeah
Steph: what'd you think about my email?
Tim: almost done reading it
hmm, i really liked what u said
i didn't realize that J. could have been using invalidate
in a different way
Steph: but I guess my idea of using this convo plus the
emails was just to show us bounce ideas back off of each
other. like collab
Tim: yeah lol
Steph: btw I really liked yours too
I think we learned from each of the responses we wrote
did you notice that?
Tim: yeah haha
Steph: I gave you another perspective and you to me too
Tim: yeah
that's so cool
we are getting the most rational, logical view by talking
about it all
i think everyone should strive for this
those who are in religions who don't look at an atheist's
viewpoint and every argument in favor of both sides don't
have justified views in my opinion
Steph: that's why by Steve asking us for responses, gives
people a good influence to question everything. =D
Tim: however, if they had and still have the same views,
i would respect them and say their views are justified,
whether they are atheist or theist or anything around
there
lol yep
it was kind of unexpected for steve to ask something of
us like this all of a sudden
but im glad he did
ok, im gonna combine everything together now
unless there's something else we want to add here and u
want in the htm
Steph: nah, that's about it.
you should add the bit
about logical, rational
I like that comment
|
|