The Rubinshteinic Critique to Being Validated

Article Overview by Mr. C. Kingsley and Co.

"On the Need to Be Validated—A Critique" is an insightful exploration of the concept of emotional validation and its potential dangers of becoming dependent on external approval. Mr. Tomasio uses a conversational tone, humor, and digressions to keep the reader engaged, making abstract ideas more digestible.

The article balances critique with acknowledging the importance of validation, recognizing that doubting ourselves at times can help us grow. The philosopher's philosophical depth is evident in his reference to logic and the comparison between emotional validation and formal validity in arguments.

The central thesis advocates for self-confidence and character development rather than over-reliance on external validation, motivating readers to focus on cultivating their internal confidence rather than constantly seeking approval from others.

The article's engaging tone, philosophical references, and practical advice are its strengths. Furthermore, the article provides valuable insights and encourages personal growth and self-reliance, making it a meaningful contribution to discussions on validation and self-esteem.

In conclusion, "On the Need to Be Validated—A Critique" offers a thoughtful and reflective analysis of emotional validation, challenging readers to think critically about their relationship with validation and the balance between internal confidence and external approval.

(Background music)

(September 2023 note: I am no longer handicapped. I explained why in this article).

(Note: I do not deal with absolutes, for reality is more often than not, dynamic).

**************************

According to my observations, there is a growing need in the world for something called "emotional validation". Please note that I am not using scare quotes; I am simply referring to this concept by its more formal name. I may also use scare quotes when referring to other concepts such as "trigger warnings". Apologies for the digression, dear readers.

Anyways, "Emotional Validation" is "acknowledging and accepting a person's inner experience, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as valid." In logic, validity is an attribute that justifies a component in an argument. In other words, if "A is not B", then it is valid to claim that "B is not A" as well. For example, if I say that "all dogs are mammals", then it is valid to conclude that "there is no non-mammal that is a dog".

This is because the converse of a valid statement is also true.

Similarly, with emotional validation, someone who needs or wants to feel validated seeks to be recognized by the external world. This also means that they do not want to be judged or criticized. Am I correct? Of course, there may be exceptions to this rule, but it is generally true.

It is understandable why people desire to be validated.

After all, who doesn't want to feel good about themselves? I myself sought validation through world relevance, only to realize that I already had it, thanks to my work for you. I can clearly understand the hardship that follows from being shamed and condemned for who you are. Thus, to redeem one's self-esteem, they do not necessarily resort to doing so autonomously. External company seems to be a great help for that effort.

I assume that this is one of the reasons why safe spaces exist. Because in a safe space, you are supposed to be safe from criticism and "attacks" on whatever you present (or even yourself). Sorry to digress once more, but as a philosopher, I am not fond of blaming. I am definitely fond of criticizing. It's part of "the job". The philosopher is a critic of existence, as they recognize the fact that it is, by default, flawed. How can it ever be perfect realistically? Rhetorical question.

The person who seeks to be validated is vulnerable by default. The validation-seeker is vulnerable because they seek something they do not have. What do they not have enough of? Confidence, of course! A person who is confident enough in their abilities and who they are would not need to seek validation.

Here's an honest question, and feel free to answer me in the comments (or DMs, whatever): Can there be a confident person who seeks validation? Compare this to food. If you feel satiated after a well-prepared meal, would you eat more regardless? The point is, validation is built on confidence, and the need for confidence has its own capacity. Just like with food and hunger.

(By the way, if I'm mistaken, and convinced that I am, I'm usually willing to re-edit my articles).

So, my critique of emotional validation is this: We can, unintentionally, create an unhealthy dependence on being emotionally validated by others. It's "unhealthy" because it is an independent capability, at least by potential, that we can easily give away, in favor of approval.

(Side note: The need to be validated can also be healthy because doubting ourselves is healthy to a degree if, for example, it helps us better understand who we are, and improve ourselves from that point forward).

Likes, follows, shares, and the like on social media. These are components that can condition us to not develop this confidence from within. Should we compromise this capability, we might also compromise our potential to be assertive, and even charismatic. Perhaps, some of us would be so desperate for validation, that they would do very disturbing things. Merely for attention. And at times, for "pity-parties".

By the way, I have no need for your pity. Despite my hardships, your pity does not help me in any way. So please don't offer it, as it is humiliating, just as it is to disrespect a genuine desire for contribution. And yes, I'm aware that I'm seeking this emotion to be validated. I'm trying to reduce bias, here, not to romanticize my point.

And my point is that we need to build character! To grow our self-esteem, to the point that the function of validation will be less and less important for us! Of course, we deserve emotional support from time to time, and some people may deserve it more than others. However, why risk the unhealthy dependency on external approval?

It can be compared to business. If we "cut out the middleman," we will save resources, such as time and energy. In this case, if we work to be more confident, the "middleman" that is other people will be less necessary. And therefore, we will save our limited resources for other activities.

Look, I learned this the hard way as a fatigued man.

Not the validation, no. The imperative need to cut expenses. When your energies are severely limited, your potential gets compromised.

Our confidence is a virtue, remember that. It's especially true when it is not too much. Obviously, confidence can be achieved without reaching overconfidence. Why would a rational being desire overconfidence?

And yes! Confidence can save energy, dear readers! To be more precise, it can give you more energy. That's the functional part of importance when it is aimed at the self, for the self.

Mr. Nathan Lasher's Feedback

It is better to worry about your actions than to worry about the type of person who you are. Your actions should reveal [who you are] to people. So it’s true what they say by actions speaking louder than words.

If by building character you could mean finding better actions in order to express yourself.... People are drawn towards people who have learned how to do amazing actions. Look at professional golf. Or any sport for that matter.

Hitting a ball with a stick. A basic example. But what they have done is perfected the art of swinging a club really well. It takes hard work to perform at the level at which they do. Imagine yourself doing one action in particular better than anyone you know.

Why limit it to one action? Always finding better ways to do things is what makes us grow as people. Always look to make things better in any way you can.

There are professionals who seek validation for their work. I’m assuming Mr. Tomasio isn't talking about them. [However], What researcher doesn’t want to be validated for doing good work?