You Have to Validate to Cooperate

For a month’s worth of posts, I (Scott) am critiquing my own past blog posts. I’m viewing this as an experiment in being willing to admit when I’m wrong, change my mind, and to do so publicly.

From yesterday:   How do we draw accurate conclusions about what has taken place during a fight?

If both parties are at least a bit wrong in every confrontation, then that means the truth of the situation does not exist on the side of either person but, instead, somewhere in the middle.  

In order to draw accurate conclusions about a fight both parties must be committed to an ongoing dialogue and both parties must remain legitimately open to what the other party has to say.  The only way to find truth is to cooperatively navigate through the filth of what transpired.  

If one side or the other is not committed to the process, both will be abandoned to guesswork and confusion.  Neither of these serves a relationship well.  

Looking back from the future:

One thing I would say with some additional time and perspective is that it just isn’t that important to get at the exact facts of an argument. It is critical that each person’s concern is heard, that each person’s feelings are validated, and that there is a spirit of cooperation in seeking a solution.

Remember, validation is not about agreement- it’s acknowledging what’s there without judgment. I don’t always agree with Brittany’s reasons for being upset with me- but it’s absolutely crucial that I get to a place where I can say, “I hear you’re upset, and it’s okay to be upset.” It’s only once both people have been heard that you can really cooperate on a solution.