Validation is surprisingly easy to overlook when learning non-judgement!

I kept getting told collusion can be really dangerous in anonymous support, now I get why.

Anonymity means as a listener I have to navigate lack of culpability! Collusion has to be consciously resisted or else I can do harm. When I first started I often sounded like a robot because I didn’t understand the difference between collusion and validation, so they both got cut.

We can validate without colluding and keep it simple: observe events and validate emotions.

With ‘context’, observe like a dispassionate scientist.

The scientist hears a story and observes different parts without judging or putting themselves ‘in’ the story.

The scientist knows one side is never the full story. But the scientist is confident because it doesn’t matter if the story is incomplete. What matters in crisis support is the person’s perceived reality. We’re not here to doubt or give opinions, just to listen.

The scientist in me would see a story about death and observe: somebody is no longer there, roles, dynamics and responsibilities will shift, thoughts and emotions disrupt disrupt daily life, lots of social appearances like funerals, expectations placed on them and more.

With ‘impact’, reflect like a caring friend.

The scientist talks about ‘events’ while the friend validates ‘impact’ of events.

As a caring friend I focus on feelings.

I’ll recognise the immensity of their loss. I’ll listen to the subtle parts as well as the loud ones. Yes, of course there’s grief, and that is devastating. But there’s bitterness too, and even a sense of confusion about that bitterness. The friend listens deeply.

A caring friend will validate the impact of crisis: intense, confusing emotions, self destructive coping mechanisms… a caring friend helps someone feel accepted.