Holding Our Humanness

I’m going to describe how we can hold another person’s human experience (through the interactive process of validation, reassurance, and action), but this can also be applied to how we show up for our own inner-world and connect with ourselves (self-regulation).

Also, assume the partner that “caused the pain” (in the examples below) is self-regulating so that they can stay present and engaged with their partner’s pain...otherwise, their prefrontal cortex and reasoning would be offline too and this process wouldn’t work.

Validation

We’re going to misread each other and cause unintentional harm. It’s unavoidable. This is because, at the very least, we all have two things in common: we all see things differently from our unique perspectives, and we’re all inherently imperfect. So, as a human in a human relationship, we’ll inevitably mess up, our emotions will run wild, and we’ll need to find ways back to each other.

When we’re in one of those human moments together, and we see our partner flooded with emotion, we need to know that their prefrontal cortex (logical/reasoning part of our brain) is most likely offline.

Their emotional experience may sound irrational, but “bringing them back to reality” with our own logic most likely won’t work (and, it’s typically best to pause our attempts at logic when someone’s in pain anyway).

Validation is key here. We need to find a way to lean into genuine curiosity about their experience until we can visualize it from their eyes. Once their experience makes more sense to us and we try expressing that, it may sound something like:

“I think I’d pull away too if I were the one on the other side of my anger and hurtful words. From your side, it really looked like I didn’t care at all. I can see I wasn’t there for you then…but I do want to be here for you now as we talk about this.”

When their invisible experience feels fully seen by us, their emotions can safely land and find relief, which’ll bring their logical brain back online so they can look around with clarity again.

Reassurance

Sometimes we move on to reassurance too soon, which can make them feel dismissed. If that happens, it’s a sign that validation and learning more is needed again (in highly triggering situations, it may even take hours or days for the validation to settle in). Once they feel that relief within their nervous system, it’s time to reassure.

Reassurance isn’t a fluffy lie like, “it’ll be okay,” nor is it a dismissive deflection like, “oh come on, you know I love you.” True reassurance grounds a valid, human experience into a broader reality. With gentle confrontation, this reality check redirects the lone, painful story and consensually reframes it within the multi-layered context of the present moment.

“I know how bad it hurts when I get angry with you like that. Could I share what was happening on my end?”

“Yes.”

“I totally get how it looks like I didn’t care in that moment. I was so overwhelmed, and my anger scared you out of the way so I could get out of that claustrophobic feeling. Even though it wasn’t my intent to hurt you, I know my behavior showed you I didn’t care about you. I want to show you that I’m on your side next time, even when I need space for a bit.”

Action

Just as we can rush into reassurance, we can also rush into solutions too, which can feel like pressure. When this happens, we need to loop back to validation.

Action is where we get productive. This is where we find solutions to more fully soothe the harm and prevent it from happening again. We made some promises when we reassured them, and this is where we do our best to honor those promises.

“This is a similar moment to last time when I got angry. I’m actually feeling overwhelmed again, and I don’t want to pour that onto you like I did last time. I’m gonna take 10 minutes, and I’ll be back.”

Action transforms the temporary emotional safety and closeness built during validation and reassurance, and solidifies it into long-term security and reliability.

Wrap Up

Starting with validation isn’t easy. It forces us to sit in the discomfort of a reality we may not like or agree with. It can feel easier to leap straight to reassurance or fixing.

But, we can’t think our way out of a flooded state, nor can we force growth from a place of defense. Our nervous system doesn’t work that way. True connection and growth require us to courageously and compassionately face the reality of what is happening inside and outside of us before we can naturally move anywhere else.

Carl Rogers once said:

“The curious paradox is that when I accept myself just as I am, then I can change.”

By validating first, we stop running from the inevitable friction of being human. And, with compassion, we can safely be direct and vulnerable with each other until we transform our mistakes into the foundation of our relationship’s security.

A Final Example

An easier way to understand this concept is an example of how we show up for our physical needs:

“I’m feeling rushed and off right now. I’m going to slow down.

...

What am I noticing?

...

I’m tired. Really tired. That makes sense actually. I didn’t sleep a ton last night.”

“Body, I get it. I’m going to take care of us. We have a few more meetings today that are very important, and then I promise, we’ll get home, relax, and then go to sleep earlier tonight.”

“I just got invited to watch the game with my friends down the street, and I really want to go.

...

...

I can tell I’m excited. That makes sense. I love hanging with them. But, in the grand scheme of my life, there will be plenty of games to watch together. I made a promise, and trusting myself is more important in the long-term. I’m bummed, but I feel empowered and secure showing up for me.”

Description of Research (Validation Section)

(Siegel, 2012): this describes how intense emotional arousal causes the limbic system (the amygdala) to overpower the prefrontal cortex, essentially “flipping the lid.” Validation acts as an interpersonal neurobiological brake, sending signals of safety that help bring the prefrontal cortex back online so a person can reason and look around with clarity again.

(Lieberman et al., 2007): this fMRI study provides the empirical proof for Siegel’s model. It shows that affect labeling (putting feelings into words through validation) physically dampens amygdala reactivity and increases activity in the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex.

(Johnson, 2008): Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) describes that in moments of relational distress, people naturally lead with Secondary Emotions (the armor: anger, criticism, reactive defense, or icy withdrawal). Underneath lies the Primary Emotions (the truth: attachment panic, fear of rejection, and loneliness). The patient back-and-forth of validation is required to melt the secondary armor so the primary truth can be safely expressed.

(Shahar, 2020): this tracks the empirical efficacy of emotional processing, confirming that structurally guiding an individual from secondary reactive states to primary adaptive emotions is a robust predictor of physiological regulation and secure therapeutic/relational outcomes.

Description of Research (Reassurance Section)

(Porges, 2011): this Introduces neuroception: the subconscious way our nervous system scans for threat or safety. Reassurance is the deliberate projection of safety through a calm vocal tone, accountable language, and grounding context. This stimulates the ventral vagal complex (the social engagement system), shifting a partner out of a defensive fight/flight storm. Explicit signals of safety allow two distinct human nervous systems to achieve mutual, biological co-regulation.

Description of Research (Action Section)

(Gottman, 1999): long-term security is built when verbal alignment turns into behavioral predictability. He highlights the absolute necessity of Repair Attempts: any statement or action that prevents an emotional conflict from escalating out of control. Taking a self-directed, time-bound break when feeling overwhelmed is a primary behavioral action step to prevent physiological flooding.

(Gottman, 1989 and 1992): these are landmark longitudinal studies proving that the long-term stability and health of a relationship rely directly on a couple’s ability to implement concrete, actionable boundaries and structural repairs to de-escalate physiological distress.

References

Gottman, J. M. (1999). The Marriage Clinic: A Scientifically Based Marital Therapy. W. W. Norton & Company.

Gottman, J. M., & Krokoff, L. J. (1989). Marital interaction and satisfaction: A longitudinal view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.57.1.47

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 222–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221

Johnson, S. M. (2008). Hold Me Tight: Seven Conversations for a Lifetime of Love. Little, Brown and Company.

Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting Feelings Into Words. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.x

Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Houghton Mifflin.

Shahar, B. (2020). New Developments in Emotion-Focused Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(9), 2918. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9092918

Siegel, D. J. (2012). The Developing Mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.