A large share of human suffering comes from a single private conviction: that you are the strange one.
Not sad, not stressed, not struggling. Strange. Defective in a way that other people are not, and would notice if they looked closely.
Almost nobody says this out loud, which is part of what keeps it in place. The belief is never tested against anyone else's experience, so it goes on looking like an observation rather than an assumption.
So much of what causes us suffering is a feeling of disconnection that arises from the sense that who I am, how I behave, how I feel is odd, that it is inhuman, that I am broken in some way. And that sense of separateness can be intensely painful.
The pain of that belief is not the same as the pain of the original problem. It is a second layer, and it is often the heavier one. A difficult week is survivable. A difficult week plus the conviction that a normal person would not be having it is a different experience entirely.
What validation is aimed at
Validation goes directly at that second layer. It is not primarily about the problem. It is about the separateness.
Validation is a really powerful form to facilitate connection, because what you are trying to do is to let them know, no, you are human. You are not broken. You are not bad. You are human, and I, as another human, see you.
Notice what the message is not. It is not, your problem is solvable. It is not, this will pass. It is not, here is what I would do. Those are all attempts at the first layer, and they are frequently unwelcome because they skip the thing the person actually needs addressed.
This is why well meant advice so often lands badly. The advice may be correct. But answering the first layer while the second one is active reads as a refusal to engage with what is actually happening.
You are not their therapist
One of the most common failure modes in trying to help someone is escalating into analysis. It comes from a good place. You care, you have context, you have noticed a pattern, and offering an explanation feels like offering something valuable.
It is not our job when we are validating to arrive for that person a conceptualization for why they are behaving a certain way. We are not trying to be anyone's therapist.
The problem with arriving at the explanation for someone is not that you might be wrong. Sometimes you are right, and it still does not help. Handing someone a formulation of themselves positions you as the one who sees clearly and them as the one being seen. That is not connection. That is assessment.
Making sense together
The alternative is joint rather than one sided.
I can understand your experience, and I want to try to understand your experience. So I want to help us both make sense why this makes sense.
Both. That word does real work. It means you are not arriving with the answer, you are sitting in the not knowing alongside them for a while. For a person who has been carrying a private sense of being defective, having someone willing to sit in the confusion with them is itself the message. It says the confusion is not disqualifying.
What this sounds like
A few examples of the difference, since the gap between these is small in words and large in effect.
- Instead of, you are probably reacting this way because of your job, try, something about this is hitting harder than usual, what do you think it is touching.
- Instead of, that is classic anxiety, try, that sounds exhausting to carry around all day.
- Instead of, anyone would feel that way, which flattens it, try, given everything going on, it makes sense that this is where you landed.
- Instead of, you should not feel bad about that, try, of course that stung.
The second version in each pair does the same job: it says you are not out of bounds, and I am here.
The third pair is the one people get wrong most often, because anyone would feel that way sounds like the most generous thing available. It is not. It removes the person from their own experience and replaces them with a generic figure, which is a quiet way of not looking at them.
Why this is worth learning deliberately
Most people assume they already do this. In practice, under stress, almost everyone defaults to either fixing or reassuring, both of which move past the person rather than toward them. Validation as a skill means being able to produce the connecting response when you are tired, irritated, or worried, which is precisely when it is hardest and most needed.
It is also, in DBT, one of the main routes to self compassion. The way you learn to speak to a friend in pain is eventually the way you learn to speak to yourself.
Where to go next
If the term itself is new, start with validation is not agreement, which clears up the misunderstanding that stops most people from trying it. Then curiosity and compassion in validation covers the tone that carries it.
Dr. Jesse Finkelstein works with validation in individual therapy and couples therapy at Axis Psychological Services in New York City. You can book a free consultation.
If you want to practice validation in your own relationships, learn about DBT therapy in NYC, or join the DBT skills group in NYC.
Common questions
What does it actually mean to validate someone?
To communicate that their reaction makes sense given where they are standing. Not that it is pleasant, not that it is correct, not that it is what you would feel. Validation is the act of finding the part of the response that is a reasonable output of the situation and saying it back to them. Most of the time that alone is enough for a person to stop bracing for an argument.
Is validation the same as being nice?
No, and the difference shows up quickly. Niceness is aimed at smoothing the moment. Validation is aimed at accuracy, and accurate is sometimes uncomfortable. Telling someone that of course they are furious, given what happened, is validating and not especially soothing. Reassurance that everything is fine is nice and often invalidating, because it quietly corrects what they just told you.
What if I do not understand why they feel that way?
Then say so, and keep asking. Curiosity is itself validating. I do not get it yet, tell me more, lands far better than a guess dressed up as understanding. Usually the reaction makes sense two or three questions in, once you learn the piece of context you were missing. People are good at detecting understanding that was faked.
Can I validate someone and still disagree with them?
Yes, and that is the normal case. You can tell your brother that his anger at your parents makes complete sense and still think the email he wants to send is a mistake. Validation addresses the emotion and the logic that produced it. It leaves your own position intact. Skipping it only means the disagreement starts with him already defending himself.
