I'm addicted to being useful

I agree that I should understand the other person and take them seriously, and to convey this to the other person. However, sometimes verbal reflection serves the purpose of blind affirmation. I don't think the verbal component, construed this way, is so productive for empathy.

First off, my heart goes out to you. Thinking that you chose to be a bystander must have cut really core to your sense of identity. It's been difficult to reconcile being a good person and choosing to do nothing for you, and I don't wish that kind of doubt and angst on anyone. I'm sorry that it's affecting you now in ways you are worried can be counterproductive.

Second, I want to offer an unsolicited perspective that may help you. I read your linked post about Lowtax's death and how it went down for you. You're blaming the 2021 version of yourself for not making the right choice, but what I read wasn't selfishness or cowardice stopping you from speaking up - it was an assessment of your ability to make a difference. I'm not saying you should never speak up when you feel something is off, or demonstrate concern, but that person in 2021 understood the many, many barriers to saving Lowtax: the unpredictability of his response, the ambiguity of the message, the concern that it wasn't your place, the large possibility you were overreacting. What would you have done? What would you have said? How would you have been able to reach them that closer friends, family, and others would not? You are telling yourself you somehow had the knowledge, therefore the responsibility and power, but in reality you had no power and only the barest hint of knowledge. You had no idea if what you were doing was right or not, how it would be taken, how it would have been perceived, or what the consequences were. You are only _guessing_ that by taking some miraculous action you could have averted the outcome, but in truth no action might have been good enough - you could have spent a year and three months getting them the resources they need, and still they could have done this.

When someone takes their life, it isn't the fault of the lone stranger who wanted to say hello. You did not choose to be a bystander - rather, by taking their life, they made you a bystander. You have to separate your sense of moral esteem from the consequences of someone else's choices. Yes, anyone could have done something, said something - and for all you know people did!

Inaction by itself is not a moral hazard. Inaction when armed with the facts, the ability to make a difference, the understanding that the difference made will be significant or material, and where the action is scoped enough to not jeopardize the situation - this is the real hazard. In 2021, you did not have the facts or the ability to make a meaningful difference - only the slim possibility that a message in the dark might have ruined nothing and saved life. But that is fantasy talking, not genuine pragmatism.

I hope this gives you some permission and at least a framework to measure your "overhelping" against. Therapy has been helpful for me in the past when dealing with complicated emotions.

> Any time you're "validating emotions" in the real world, there is going to be some degree of implicit endorsement that the reaction was valid.

Hard no.

In the real world, when I emotionally validate my friends or partners it looks like slowing down and being there, with them, with their emotions. Being present with their emotions then often addresses the underlying emotional need: for example, to feel heard, or to acknowledge their feelings to themselves, to feel cared for and accepted, to feel like someone has their back, etc.

None of this requires that I accept their interpretation of events. And almost always, there will be space at some point for me to disagree with their interpretation. It is much much much more effective to tease apart that interpretation once their emotions have calmed down.

TL;DR: addressing someone's emotional needs (aka "validating") doesn't imply that you agree with them about their interpretation of what happened

> To be honest, I'm growing even more distaste for the "validating emotions" academic concept after reading some of the mental gymnastics people are doing in this thread.

(chiming in)

It's not academic, but practical. For me, these skills have been immensely helpful for navigating both my own emotions and those of others. My relationships improved quite a bit once I started using these skills. I'm closer to more people, I can get to depth more quickly and more safely with new people, and me and those close to me are all growing/healing more quickly because we can meet our emotional needs while also gradually working to reshape those needs.

To me, "validation" is about addressing someone's actual underlying emotional needs. But it still leaves space for disagreeing with the interpretation/perception of what happened. My own saying is that we should "accept our emotions, but not always accept the story they are telling us".

> as well as all the different and conflicting definitions of "validate emotions"

What mental gymnastics do you see?

This resonated a lot with me. I am also addicted to being useful and find that off days where my output and usefulness isn't where I'd like it to be really tank my self esteem.

I do think it can be a double-edged sword that often leads to burnout. Respecting your limits and occasional therapy seem to help, as does ensuring you're in as stable and supportive environment as possible so your efforts are sustainable and "heroics" don't get normalized in your org. I wish I had a full solution but have yet to find one in my career that works :)