It seems people are disagreeing with this -- I would love it if you can comment to explain why & help me learn what I may be missing. Thanks in advance for your consideration.
sneaky indeed, I need to work on my reading comprehension ;) thank you!
they’ll need to feel seen before anything else works. And it’s very hard to make such a person feel seen without at least somewhat endorsing whatever idiocy their emotions are claiming.
I think the way of making someone feel seen, without needing to endorse what their emotions are claiming, is to reflect / validate / normalize the emotions themselves, rather than their assumed causes.
"That sounds really frustrating, it makes sense that you're upset" (as a small random example) I imagine would make someone feel seen, without needing to endorse, or even discuss, the idiocy their emotions may be claiming.
I'm curious what comes up for you in reading that? Please let me know if I'm missing something :)
In fact I do now have the freedom to get ice cream in the middle of the day, and I generally do not feel trapped, so that’s an update toward my longing’s claim being true.
I love this article & the premise!!
Small note on this section: It seems to me that this is attributing causality to your freedom to get ice cream in the middle of the day. If there were something else causing you to not feel trapped -- for example, you enjoy your work more than you enjoyed school -- couldn't it still be that your longing's claim was false?
If you hated your job, and didn't have better alternatives for income, your ability to get ice cream may not relieve your feeling of being trapped.
Please let me know if I'm missing something :)
thank you John, that's helpful & I see what you mean. I could have chosen a better example.
How about "I see that you're really frustrated right now." To me that's just reflecting their emotional state and having them feel seen / heard, without endorsing their claim.
Do you agree? or have another suggestion on how to achieve that goal?