Something about the first tip (or the examples of it) arouses questions in me... On one level I think I understand the importance of "stepping in" with them, instead of talking from a distance. Still, the idea of blending into another's perspective (losing the viewpoint from our own center) comes to mind. In a way we are standing "outside" (in our own reality) looking into another person's reality. It doesn't have to feel distanced, we can build bridges... But if I step "too deep" into their world, I start to lose touch with my own, in a way lessening my access to the bigger picture. If I fully step into their perspective / story, I can start to feel bound by their framing of the issue. So I feel some sort of boundary is necessary here. I guess this is where a kind of dual awareness comes into a very helpful role. Maintaining both realities at once, and then building a synthesis from them. I feel this also ties in with what you shared in the part 1 (Episode 3) about validating even when you don't agree. I think it's very important to not take a triggered story or perspective as full reality, while also not denying it's validity. I feel this is somewhat of a tricky line to balance on. Also I'm wondering how this all ties into (NOT) enabling a victim mentality... I'm curious what are your thought about these matters! Thanks for the great podcast!
Thank you-your thoughts and observations are spot on. It is important to still hold on to our own perspective, thoughts, and opinions while empathizing and validating, not just because our own opinion and experience matter, but because oftentimes, once we use validation to help people out of a difficult headspace, we can help them see alternate perspectives or approaches. It can be tricky indeed, which is where I feel empathy and validation almost becomes more of an “art” than simply a skill.
