“Validity” is defined (usually) as something along the lines of the following
“The quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency” -
“The state of being legally or officially binding or acceptable”
Lots of the “feelings” people have about things are not factual, logical, sound or cogent. They simply exist. What exactly does “validity” mean or supposed to mean in the aforesaid contexts. It seems to be a way of demanding some sort of authoritative affirmation and respect for your feelings simply because they exist.
This is going to turn into a definition battle on what “valid” means, but I will argue that - no, feelings are not valid just because we feel them. Otherwise we get into a real slippery slope where a 9/11 conspiracy theorist’s “feelings” that the US government orchestrated 9/11 is a “valid” feeling, that people who think the Earth is flat have “valid” feelings, etc.
Now, are these feelings genuinely, sincerely felt? Perhaps. If a Flat-Earther genuinely, sincerely believes that the Earth is flat, then he or she genuinely feels it - the fact that he or she *feels *it is beyond dispute. But is it valid? No.
I’d argue from the standpoint that feelings themselves are not right or wrong. In that sense, they are valid. It’s what we do with the feelings that is either right or wrong.
Too many people feel great shame and guilt for having feelings. Wanting to smack their kid, stab someone through the neck, steal, cheat, etc. Knowing it’s okay to have said feelings can be very liberating.
Acting on them, not so much. That’s where some folks need therapy to learn to change the feeling, or at least not act on it.
Hey, trigger warning! You’re crowding my safe space by implying my feelings are unimportant!
Just thought I’d get that out of the way.
Feelings and thoughts and moods are always “valid” to the person experiencing them. The real question is whether they have any validity, or context, or even meaning to any second person.
I may understand why Mrs. B. is mad at me (which of course never happens), but whether it’s because of something I objectively did to warrant being the target of anger is different from her being mad because it’s transferred from some other object or because of a misunderstanding.
Her feeling is valid - to her. It’s only valid to me or anyone else if it references something objective in my perceptions.
There’s more than enough room for misunderstanding when people fail to realize or fail to accept that feelings and opinions are not the same thing. In my dictionary a feeling is the subset of opinions that apply only to myself. I feel hot. I feel cold. Happy, sad, whatever. Those are perfectly valid. ‘I feel that vaccines cause autism’ is an opinion misstated as a feeling. It’s valid up to the moment that someone presents solid scientific evidence that disproves it. Then it’s just more flatulence brought on by whatever intestinal parasite inspired the feeling in the first place.
Are all feelings normal? No. It is not normal to be afraid of walking across a quiet street because most people wouldn’t feel this emotion.
Are all feelings healthy? No. It is not healthy to fall into a deep depression every time you make a mistake, because you’re likely going to have a difficult time coping with the normal vagaries of life if you are that fragile.
But are all feelings valid? Yes. If you believe that streets are inherently dangerous, then it makes perfect sense to be afraid of them. If you believe that your self-worth hinges on not making any mistakes, then it makes perfect sense why you’d be depressed after screwing up on the job.
Are all beliefs valid? No. You can disprove a belief. You can argue someone of a particular belief. You can’t argue someone out of a feeling.
Nothing gets me het up more than when a person tries to shame someone else for feeling a certain way, especially when that someone already knows that their feelings aren’t normal or healthy. IMHO, attacking feelings is what simple-minded idiots do.
I think the point is sometimes made in (say) couples counseling that we should communicate our own feelings, and that a good first step to better communication is to acknowledge the “validity” of the other person’s feelings. I think the sense is just that they are genuinely feeling these things, leading to a non-judgmental exploration of the reasons behind those feelings.
But I tend to agree that this use of the word “valid” can be misleading. We may experience genuine feelings that people are plotting to kill us, but if they are paranoid delusions it’s surely misleading to describe those feelings as valid.
And, of course, the same applies to opinions. It’s a common and rather preposterous misconception that the fact that we all have a right to hold whatever opinions we choose makes all opinions equally valid.
Feelings may be valid in the sense that they are sincerely held. But just because a feeling is sincerely held doesn’t mean it has a basis in reality. In that sense not all feelings are valid.
I don’t disagree, but I think there’s an argument to made that the term “valid” can be misleading, and that perhaps “genuine” might be better. Ideally, one wants to be sensitive in acknowledging that a persons truly feels the way they say they do, but without perhaps “enabling” misguided underlying beliefs by implying that the beliefs are justified.
This is an example of a statement that validates an emotion without validating a belief:
“I totally understand why you feel the way you do, but I don’t think what you believe is true.”
I was recently introduced to the term “gas light”. A person gas lights another person when they pretend to act like they don’t understand the hurt feelings they have caused and in doing so attempts to make the other person be the “bad guy”. Like, say you have a friend who hasn’t answered your texts or emails for a whole week. And then when you tell them their cold shoulder has been bothering you, they act like your feelings are crazy and totally inexplicable. That would suck, right?
But what if your friend was to say: “I can see how my silence would hurt your feelings and I’m very sorry. But please understand I wasn’t intentionally ignoring you. I’ve just been very very busy this week.”
This response validates your feelings while not validating your belief.
Feelings qua feelings might not be right or wrong. But if a feeling is about something external to you – like a person or a situation – then it can be right or wrong, or it can be useful or harmful.
I often find myself in the throes of a bad feeling, and often I can analyze it myself, and it can go something like this:
Bad feeling overtakes me.
Conscious recognition of feeling bad.
Why am I feeling this? What is the cause or origin of this feeling? When did it start? What triggered it?
Is it a valid feeling? Does the cause or origin justify my feeling bad?
Is there something I can do to change the cause of this bad feeling?
If there’s something I can do right now, is it feasible or worth it – on balance – to do that thing to stop the feeling?
If there’s nothing I can do now, but there’s something I can do in the future, is it feasible or worth it – on balance – for me to plan to do that thing?
Would doing something about it negatively affect me or the people around me in an unnecessary way?
If there’s nothing I can do about it, and I am not lacking in my immediate needs – I’m not hungry, I’m not unclothed, I’m not exposed, I’m not unsafe – then can I just reject that feeling?
Is there a point to my continuing to feel bad?
Is there something else that can occupy my attention right now that is productive, distracting, or fun?
The end result of this process is often – bye-bye feeling.
Yup, I don’t know if you’re aware, but the term originates from a 1944 movie of that name. I’ve only seen it used to describe more deliberate and sinister attempts at manipulation, but the extension of meaning makes sense.
I think that ‘valid’ was a bad word choice for the concept - someone’s feelings clearly exist, and acknowledging that they do is an important part of communicating and forming a relationship. But the feelings are not always there for a legitimate reason (“I’m angry because I dreamed you cheated on me”), and the ‘valid’ implies that you’re supposed to treat the feeling as something objectively real and not just something in the other person’s head.
My favorite experience with this expression was an ex- who felt that HER feelings always needed to be heavily validated, and that even “I totally understand why you feel the way you do, but I don’t think what you believe is true” would count as invalidating applied to her. Once she was shocked that I didn’t excuse her shouting at me because she was feeling angry because I had to work late instead of doing the dishes while she was at home playing on the internet and watching Netflix all day, by not accepting that shouting I was invalidating her feelings. OTOH, when it came to my feelings, I actually had this exchange one time: “I feel very disrespected by what you did…” “THAT’S NOT A FEELING.”
Kinda nonsense. Ever lost your temper? Ever know that you’ve lost your temper, and that you’re being a jerk, even as it’s happening? Ever think, “Jeez, I’m being a jerk,” right in the middle of being a jerk? Ever think, “I shouldn’t have said that?”
We have lots of completely invalid feelings, and the way you can tell they’re invalid is that you know they’re wrong, even as you’re having them. (Or, in many cases, a short time afterward.)
But “being a jerk” is not the same thing as being angry. You can be angry without losing your temper. Just as you can be sad without being histrionic and you can be happy without dancing on a tabletop.
All feelings are “valid,” but not all feelings are “truthy.”
When I was going through a horrible, lengthy depression a few years ago I found a great therapist who taught me that all emotions are valid, but not all perceptions the feelings create are. She taught me that we all feel what we feel and it’s of no great use to fight emotions, but to examine how they ultimately influence/skew our perception is important.