Category: Relationships

• When we validate another’s emotion, we validate them; we communicate that their perspective is valuable and important and as such they are valuable and important to us
• The experience of repeatedly having your emotions validated helps bolster self-esteem and self-worth. It teaches us to trust ourselves; that others trust us; and that we are knowable, relatable, and understandable. 
• Validation is affirming someone’s perspective or reaction as understandable and legitimate. You can accept someone’s reaction, empathize with it, and still not agree with it.
• It’s important that we learn how to validate others while maintaining our limits, and honoring our perspective.  We can validate someone’s emotions and perspective and still challenge them and hold our boundaries.
• Validation involves a degree of acceptance; acceptance of a perspective, and acceptance that feelings and reactions are what they are, whether you like them, think they’re justified, or not.
• When we ourselves don’t share the perspective of a person, when we’re confused by what they’re feeling, or it feels irrational to us we are more likely to invalidate.
• When we invalidate, we deny someone’s experience and teach them not to trust themselves or their intuition. Invalidation communicates that what they feel, or how they understand something is wrong.
• Maybe sometimes you feel someone’s reaction is wrong. Remember: A reaction can be disproportionate to a situation, and still a valid reaction, given the cumulative experience of one’s life. At any time we are reacting to more than just the moment we are in.
• Repeated invalidation can cause someone to question their capacity to hold a valid perspective on the world, can heighten anxiety and depression, and can have devastating impacts on someone’s sense of worth.
• We can further this troublesome cycle by invalidating our feelings and our perspective, which can leave us alienated from our emotional world and constantly looking for external validation and approval.

Validation is a powerful and important part of parenting, being in a relationship, and working with others. When we validate, we communicate to someone, “I understand you, and I understand your feelings in the context of your experiences”. Validating does not have to mean that we agree with or share the feelings (or perspective) being communicated, but it does mean that we treat their take on a situation as reasonable in the context of their current and prior experiences.

Sometimes, in our efforts to cope or help another cope with an overwhelming situation we can accidentally invalidate by trying to reassure another (and ourselves). Saying “you’re ok” and “It’s not that bad” are examples of how we can accidentally invalidate by expressing our desire for someone (or ourselves) not to struggle. Other times, we can overtly invalidate; we deny the expressed experience of another person for the experience we believe they “should” be having, or the experience we want them to be having.

For many of us, if we ourselves wouldn’t have the reaction a person is having it becomes tough for us to validate their perspective or emotions. This can be made easier by working to trust that feelings arise for a reason, and that at any given point in time all people are responding to both the situation they are in, and the situations that preceded it (that inform how they understand what is happening). If we can accept all emotions as valid, we can still work to challenge perspectives without alienating (and invalidating) another or ourselves.

Many of us think invalidation is necessary when we don’t agree or need to hold a boundary. We can validate AND challenge. Our emotions can be a valid response to our current read on a situation, AND we can validate someone’s emotional experience while offering a different perspective. This is often a FAR more useful way of getting through to someone, and it allows us to support someone’s sense of self while sharing a different perspective.

See notes for further information on how to accept other’s perspectives, and for examples of how to validate while challenging and holding boundaries.

Notes:

1. Read more about how our difficulties facing the pain of something can lead us to react in ways that try and keep our sense of safety intact, but can alienate others and reduce connection.
2. Invalidating the facts as someone sees and understands them, especially facts about the difference between what they experience and what is told to them about what is happening is called gaslighting. It causes you to undermine your ability to trust yourself, your reality, and your ability to perceive reality in manner consistent with what is happening in the external world.
3. It can be helpful to think of our knowledge of why someone reacts the way they do like an iceberg – consider that what you think of as “too much” or “too big” is based only on what you know of a situation. Try and trust that there is probably much more beneath the surface of a “big reaction” that you don’t know about. This can be true of both others reactions and our own. A reaction can still be disproportionate to a situation, and a valid reaction, given the cumulative experience of one’s life.
4. Do you find you often question the validity of someone else’s reactions? Or you often find yourself feeling like others around you are over’-reacting? See this post to help  you think through it. 
5. I mention in the post we are all, in some ways, responding to both the present situation and past situations that inform how we perceive the current one. Sometimes how heavily the past “weighs in” can be disproportionate. Learn more about this here.
6. If you find that you are often effected heavily by the past informing your current reactions grounding and mindfulness can help you reduce that tendency and stay more in the present.
7. Ways to validate while holding a boundary, “I hear you, and I know. You’re really upset by this and I get it. We’re still not going to change our plans”; “You are really angry, this is not what you wanted to be happening right now. If it were up to you this isn’t what we would be doing, but this is what I’ve decided and I know you don’t like it”.
8. Ways to validate while challenging someone (and remember that your tone matters), “it sounds like you’re not comfortable with this situation. I get that, if I weren’t comfortable with something I wouldn’t want to proceed either. Though, in all honesty I don’t share your perspective. I see it this way ___”; “Wow. Ok, so it sounds like you feel really strongly that _____ is a problem. When I think about that same situation I see it really differently”
9. If you struggle with chronic low self-esteem or low self-worth, consider your prior experiences with emotional validation, there may be a history of invalidation. that has effected your ability to trust yourself.
10. If you’re a parent and you’re struggling to validate your children Big Little Feelings offers online courses on this, as does Dr. Becky at Good Inside.

• “You create your own reality.”  Often meant to be empowering, for many it can feel hugely invalidating
• A constructive way to consider this concept is accepting that our expectations (which are informed by our prior experiences) often lead us to behave in ways that increase the likelihood that what we expect will be what we experience 
• This can keep us locked in a cycle where what we expect (even if it’s not what we want) is likely to be what we experience again and again.
• Paul Wachtel’s “Cyclical Psychodynamic Model” explains how this can happen. In short, the past teaches us what to expect, we engage with the present based on those expectations, and how we engage effects others and influences the outcomes we experience.
• Broken down further: our expectations of how a situation will go influences how direct, open, vulnerable, friendly, trusting, and collaborative we are with any given person or at any given time. 
• Others then responds to the presence (or absence) of those dynamics in a way that often leads to the outcome we expected.
• An example: imagine you expect someone to be dismissive of your perspective. You may approach them with tentativeness and apprehension trying not “ask too much” or irritate them. This may make it more difficult for you to be clear, direct, and open about the topic at hand.  
• As a result of how you approached the topic, they may not understand you (leaving you feeling dismissed and unheard), or become irritated by their confusion / your vagueness (confirming your sense that they wouldn’t want to hear it). 
• In this way, we can all inadvertently participate in shaping the outcomes of any given situation or dynamic based on the intersection of how our past experience informs our expectations and current behavior. 
• More on this (including further examples and what to do about it) in today’s post and notes.

Chances are you’ve heard some version of the phrase “we create our own reality”. For many, this statement is confusing and invalidating, especially for those who have experienced trauma, systemic failures, or an inadequate developmental landscape. Paul Wachtel, a leading scholar in the world of psychotherapy, explains how we all participate in “creating our own reality”. 

Per Wachtel, we learn from our relationships and experiences what we can expect from others and how others tend to perceive us. Based on what’s happened in our past, we come to expect certain behaviors, dynamics, and outcomes from people / situations. We carry those expectations with us into new relationships / situations and those expectations influence how we behave and interact. Our behavior and way of being with others then influences how others are with us, often in a way that continues to provide the experiences or dynamics we expected. 

We can get locked in cycles where perhaps we don’t want an outcome, but expect it, and participate in our interactions in a way that makes it more likely the outcome will come to reality. The trouble is, many of us are often acting on expectations that are so hard wired we may not be aware just how powerful they are in influencing our behavior and relationships.
For us to constructively participate in “creating” our own reality in line with the life we want to lead we need to accept our prior experiences and expectations tend to lead us to behave in ways that increase the likelihood that what we expect will be what we experience.  If we want to change our lives and start having different experiences we may need to work to override our “automatic” and “intuitive” ways of being.

If you find yourself experiencing the same dynamic or patterns with others, start with yourself.  You may need to work to identify how you think others see you, what you expect of others, your sense of what others expect of you, and how all of that informs how you are in your interactions. Therapy, a mindfulness practice (which increases our ability for objectivity), reflective work, and feedback from trusted others can help us uncover these dynamics and work towards changing them.

Notes:

1. The theory I’ve outlined is from Paul Wachtel’s book, “Relational Theory and the practice of Psychotherapy”, specifically chapter six’s discussion of the Cyclical Psychodynamic Model. Full Citation: Wachtel, P. L. (2008). Relational theory and the practice of psychotherapy. Guilford Press.
2. Wachtel (pages 104-105) provides an example of two children to help us further understand how this dynamic can occur. He asks us to imagine one child who is friendly, outgoing, and open.  This child will likely evoke friendliness in others and learn from those interactions that others are eager to interact with him. Another child is more shy, withdrawn, and hesitant to approach others. He will not be as likely to experience as much engagement as the first child, because he is not initiating as much or as openly friendly. The example of the children goes further, to explain how even the same situation can be participated in very differently, and in ways that continue to reinforce whatever the child’s natural tendencies are. He encourages us to consider how each child might interact with someone who is grumpy. For the child who is more prone to friendliness and openness that expectation that people are largely friendly and interested may help her engage with that person in a way that eventually does lead to a positive social interaction (like a smile). For the child who is more weary to interact he may be more likely to take someone’s grumpiness as a sign to back away, further reinforcing his beliefs about how interested others are in him. 
3. This perspective *does not* hold that we have complete control over outcomes in our life. This is more about the subtle ways in which our expectations inform our behavior, and that influences those around us. So no, this does not mean it’s your fault that some situations have turned out the way they have, but it may mean it’s worth considering how you participated, especially if you find yourself in a pattern that keeps repeating.
4. A thought provoking quote from the book to help you reflect on how this happens, “In a host of ways, many of them not easy to identify or notice, each of us repeatedly induces others to behave in ways that are likely to maintain the pattern between us”. (page 105)
5. Wachtel wrote portions of this chapter for therapists, to help them accept that we do a disservice to our clients if we ONLY help them identify and process through how the past effected them. He explains we also need to help our clients see how the past continues to inform the present, and how our behavior and the behavior of those around us are an interplay. Without addressing all aspects of this, and helping to build insight into both how and why the pattern developed and how it currently plays out we leave our clients struggles insufficiently addressed.
6. If you are doing the work of changing cyclical patterns in your life, this means you are also changing how you are in relationships. It’s important to know that others have gotten used to your cyclical patterns too, and that they may need some time to catch up and adjust. See this post for further discussion.  
7. I further outline how we use our past to learn and make connections that effect our present day in this post.

• The way we fight can effect the stability of our relationship.
• When we have a disagreement in a close relationship we want to make sure we move through conflict productively
• The Gottman Institute has identified four dynamics, that left unchanged, lead to the demise of many relationships.
• Or, they leave couples “together” but unhappy and disconnected
• Criticism – attacking your partner. Instead, address a specific problem.
• Contempt – treating your partner as less than you. Instead, work towards mutuality and respect.
• Defensiveness – not looking at or accepting how we have contributed to a problem. Instead, work towards listening openly to the other perspective and taking accountability when and where it’s due.
• Stonewalling – Shutting down or not engaging with a topic. Instead, don’t resolve a conflict prematurely, take breaks, and return to topics repeatedly as needed. 
  

The Gottman Institute has spent decades conducting research on couples, communication, and connection. The “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” are four dynamics they have identified that can lead to the demise of connection, trust, mutual admiration, love, and even the relationship itself.

Below are summaries of each dynamic and suggested changes. See the comments for where to learn more. 

Criticism – when you express how you are upset by attacking your partner’s personality and character.
Contempt – This is when one partner sees themselves as better than the other and makes attempts to diminish the other partner through words or gestures. This comes out in communication that is disrespectful, including (but not limited to) mocking, name-calling, and eye-rolling.
Defensiveness – This is when one partner struggles to admit how they’ve participated in a situation and often times blames, denies, rationalizes, and deflects.
Stonewalling – this is when one party (or both) stops truly engaging with the problem(s) at hand. This can be silence, shutting down, giving in when we don’t genuinely want to but just want the conversation to end, or compromising in ways that don’t actually work for us, but just end the conflict for right now.

These are complex dynamics, but there is help. 

Criticism – work towards bringing up one issue at a time (and one issue only). Focus on the problem rather than the character of the person. Try and work together against the problem, rather than treating the person as the problem.
Contempt – Eliminate disrespectful communication from conflict (this takes practice and sometimes taking a break). Try and actively remind yourself of your partner’s strengths even in a disagreement so you will be less prone to diminishing their value.
Defensiveness – work towards trying to understand how you have participated in the problem being discussed. While it can be helpful to share your intentions, work towards understanding the impact of your actions and taking accountability.
Stonewalling – Take pauses and return to conversations as needed. Don’t make compromises you aren’t genuinely comfortable accepting. 

Notes:

1. There is an *excellent* youtube cartoon based video on this from the Gottman Institute called “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” (dated 12/15/2014) which includes suggestions for how to change these dynamics. 
2. Seeing a Gottman trained therapist can also help you and your partner make these changes. To find a Gottman trained therapist, and resources from the Gottman Institute see their hompage.

• Too often we are advised to set a boundary in a way that can feel like it hyper-prioritizes what we want to say, but may not give enough consideration to how we come across or what feels “right” to us personally
• Alternately, often times we come to believe that to take care of a relationship we can’t speak in a way that is authentic and honest
• If you’re struggling to figure out how to say something, or in relationships more generally work towards identifying your priority between your sense of self-respect, how you want the other person to feel, and your goals for any given interaction.
• Further explanation in post below. Numbered examples beneath it

When Relationships are going well we are regularly balancing taking care of ourselves and the relationship. Marsha Linehan developed the following strategy in DBT and I’d like to give you my take on it while explaining her ideas.

The basic premise is for our relationships to go well we need to feel good about ourselves; be authentic about our limits, needs, and preferences; treat one another with consideration and respect, and (assuming it’s not in conflict with what I just mentioned) at times prioritize what someone else wants or needs over what we would prefer. And yes, we need to do ALL of these things MOST of the time.

Our relationships can run into trouble when we are not giving enough consideration to the needs of the relationship, our sense of self-respect, and our objectives (goals) for any given interaction. I like to envision these as points on a triangle – connected, but distinct.

When our priority is an Objective, we want to focus on the specific outcome we want in a situation (asking a favor, saying yes, saying no, etc). When our priority is the Relationship, we want to prioritize how the other person will feel about us when the interaction ends (which may include focusing on their request, emotional needs, perspective, concerns, etc). When our priority is Self-Respect we want to prioritize our integrity and how we feel about ourselves (how much we share, what our values are, etc).

So, whether the Objective, the Relationship, or our sense of Self-Respect is our priority at any given moment in time, we still want to say things in a way that takes care of the other two points. You may find some priorities and values change day to day and / or over time – this is normal! One size does not fit all.

If you can’t figure out how to say something, or are finding yourself repeatedly struggling in relationships, it can help to think of this triangle, rank order your priorities between the three corners of the triangle, and develop what you will say or how you will act with consideration to the priority and the other 2 corners. And yes, you MUST rank them. This can be the hardest part.

See examples below. There is no one right way.

1. For the sake of the examples listed below let’s come up with some ideas for how to effectively say no to a request to attend a party ( assuming it’s non-covid times) – AND – things to avoid saying / doing. Let’s assume you like the person, want to remain #friends, but just aren’t a party person.

2. Objective is to: not go. Relationship: You want the friendship to grow. Self-Respect: You don’t want to reveal the rationale for not going.Objective is priority, relationship is second, self respect is third: Consider saying “Thank you for inviting me. I’m not up for it, but I hope you have a great time”

3. Relationship is priority, objective is second, self-respect is third: Consider saying “I really appreciate this invitation. I was so happy you included me. I hope we can get together another time, but I’m not up for it this time around. Thanks”

4. Self-respect is priority, relationship is second, objective is third: Consider saying, “Because I care about you and our relationship I want to let you know that I’m not really a party person. I’m going to decline, but I hope you know it’s not because I don’t want to spend time with you. I’d love for us to get together another time in a smaller group, or one-on-one”.

5. Things to avoid saying: “Not this time, but let me know about the next one!” If you’re really not a party person, you’re just setting yourself up to be invited again and it will probably not care for the relationship to have someone continue to extend themselves only for you to turn them down repeatedly.

6. Things to avoid saying: “No” (and only no) While “#no” is not inappropriate, it may not be enough context to care for the relationship and is not likely to communicate that you want to see this person again, just not in this context. Similarly, ignoring the request / not acknowledging it doesn’t give enough consideration to the relationship, as the other party may interpret that as you not being interested in them as opposed to not being interested in the party.

7. Things to avoid saying: “I don’t go to parties because _______”. While it’s OK to provide context, we don’t want you feeling like you NEED to rationalize or contextualize your boundaries to set them. Maybe with some close folks you loop them in, but this isn’t necessary.  You get to have your boundaries and keep your rationale to them private unless you WANT to share them. IF you want to, then by all means share! That sharing (vulnerability)  can improve connections and relationships.

• This advice can put pressure on couples to resolve conflict prematurely.
• Sometimes one or both parties “give up and give in” rather than truly work something through. This leaves the partnership vulnerable to the same disagreement time and again, or disconnection through shutting down.
• For our partnerships and relationships to be healthy, we can’t cut corners.
• Don’t be afraid to pause a conversation, difficult conversations shouldn’t last hours.
• How to do it: Either party can request a pause. Both parties hold responsibility for bringing a topic back up. Repeat the cycle. Avoid avoiding (see post below for further details)

You’ve probably heard this advice before, that when you’re in a relationship you shouldn’t go to bed angry. As a couple’s therapist, I (largely) disagree.

My concern with this advice, which I think in a non-literal way means “don’t hold onto anger”, is that it can encourage premature resolution of a difficult topic; it can create anxiety about strong negative feelings, like “it will hurt our relationship if we don’t fix it right now”; and it can put pressure on resolving an issue quickly rather than effectively.

Often times, in my experience, couples interpret this advice to mean “you have to resolve any and all conflict before you fall asleep” or “once we start a fight we finish it, even if it takes hours of talking”.

While we don’t want to have a disagreement, stop verbally communicating, but then go on fuming internally (this is called amplifying our emotions). It can actually be *hugely* helpful to give ourselves and our partner some space when we’ve had a difficult discussion, disagreement, or fight. Though it may be tempting to “get it all out” we want to make sure you’re equipped to resolve the issues at hand, and overwhelming ourselves or the other party can have the opposite effect.

In therapist language there is something called the window of tolerance (this could be a whole other post), but the short summary of it is we all have breaking points – times when we’re too tired, too grumpy, too burnt out to keep talking through something in a productive way. In these moments one of the most helpful things you can do to take care of yourself and your partnership is take a step back, pause the conversation, and agree to return to it.

How to do it: Either party can request a pause when they feel it’s needed and the other party should respect that boundary. The pause is just that – a pause – and both parties should make a commitment to bringing up the topic again after some time (at least a few hours but can be days or weeks). Returning to the topic is essential, otherwise it’s avoidance. Also avoidance: refusing to really grapple with the topic. Sometimes we need to go through the cycle multiple times. That’s ok! Give it a try.