Do you know people with the gift of invalidation?

"The Gift of Invalidation" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

“The Gift of Invalidation” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

Basically, the underlying attitude is your experiences and conclusions are not to be trusted.

Instead, you’re expected to trust the experiences and conclusions of others.

(If you know what I’m talking about, come join the vibrant conversation at The Lasting Supper!)


You may also like...

13 Responses

  1. Caryn LeMur says:

    ROFL!!! Oh, so very true!

  2. Brigitte says:

    Isn’t the other guy invalidating the other guy, too? Esentially, this line of arguing is just a gag order. I will tell you how stupid you are, but you don’t get to say your part. If you don’t want a discussion, why pronounce it publically? Everyone is just supposed to stroke the ego? This is how we are getting this Orwellian climate.

  3. Brigitte says:

    I think you are invalidating my journey and interpretation…

    It comes to me, too, that when I have wanted to say something about some doctrinal subjects that again and again it has been ok, here, for people to raise the Nazi card. That is pretty rude and crude stuff. If someone calls me “sweetie”, that is “condescending” and against female honor,, and you put a stop to it. If Jordan and others fly with piles of ad hominems, it is ok. And other warriors trying to right and expose well know problems of past centuries and millennia (it is much harder to deal with problems on our doorstep), that is all admissible material for attacks. People losing jobs and right to conscience… Is all ok, but woe someone invalidates someone’s individual journey. How about the invalidation of those who disagree with you?

    As Sabio says, Jesus should not be your sock puppet. Make him say what you want but invalidate him by otherwise dismissing him and those who believe him. Making the “individual” journey the height of all truth, does not make for good discussion. I might make a good country song. (Ooh, my heart is broken, wine, wine, wine; how could you be so nasty, wine, wine. I will kick you in the balls… ) Yes, we feel, yes we talk about feelings, but many of our feelings are result of what we dwell upon in our mind. And what is in our mind can be discussed, explored, even debated.

  4. Brigitte… maybe just appreciate the cartoon as a valid expression of the experience of many who change their beliefs and religious behaviors. And I don’t believe the “backslider” is invalidating the believer’s at all. He’s just saying what he doesn’t believe or do anymore but the believer can’t hear it.

  5. Brigitte says:

    There is a time to say something and a time not to say anything. It can be hard to judge. It is like with grief. Should we say or not say something to the bereaved. There are so many ways to stick you foot in the mouth. But we do have a climate of muzzling those who think differently; some of it is expected human behaviour and some of it is off the chart. Threatening to kill those who fall away, is unacceptable, threatening to shun those who disagree is not acceptable, and ad hominems are just plain stupid. Bringing in attrocities of yesteryear are irrelevant if they are not connected to present ideology…

    The believer and the unbeliever in any system will have a gap or chasm between them. If one person says “I don’t want to discuss it”, you might let them be until they do wish to discuss it. But if they come out with their views, and tell you about it, you might tread gingerly, but you cannot be expected to say “wow, that’s all great and dandy”, if you don’t think so.– this is where the saying comes in that Sabio likes to quote and twist “I will make you enemies…”; you will end up disagreeing, and when the time comes, you will be expected to speak the truth in love, and it won’t be just about how you feel about it.

  6. Denise says:

    People tend to validate what they know, what fits in with their worldview. People develop their worldview in a variety of ways: based on what they read, hear, are taught, research, their own experiences, the experiences of others etc.

    For some persons, information is filtered and so their worldview may be limited to only what their religion teaches them about the Bible so when another person changes their beliefs and religious behaviours, the believer whose worldview is limited to the Bible and their religion’s eisegesis of it, can’t hear what the person whose belief system has changed is saying.

    The believer is only capable of processing what the changed person says through their believer filter/believer googles/believer blinkers.

  7. Brigitte says:

    Denise, the world has gotten a little bigger than that. But listening is a lost art to many, that is true. But maybe more so, now, where we have so many expressing and shouting opinions with such little knowledge and background in the post modern world view.

  8. Jordan says:

    Kinda funny when some people claim their views are being invalidated in the world today when, really, they just don’t know criticism when it hits them in the face.

    I pointed it out on tumblr (David can see the reblog as a note) but there’s PLENTY of invalidation happening in various religious communities. I was finding my complaints about white appropriation of various non-Christian mystical practices and philosophies invalidated by someone who decided to invoke the “well you’re not Jewish anyway so STFU” card. Turned out they weren’t Jewish themselves, either, but invalidation for disagreeing or realizing something’s up happens. A lot. Heck, I had my atheistic approach to religion invalidated by someone who was raised Jewish but is now a Hellenic polytheist (they’re a devotee to Ares and *PLEASE* no discussions about their spiritual path). “Oh, you won’t be an atheist forever.” W A T C H M E.

  9. Denise says:

    It was my experience when a former believer, that believers are subjected to information filtering and information control.

    This filtering and control of information is what handicaps/blindsides a believer and prevents him/her from being able to validate viewpoints and experiences outside of his/her limited/filtered believer worldview.

    You won’t be able to validate other viewpoints and experiences unless you do research, investigate and make use of your critical thinking skills and power of reasoning to question everything.

  10. Godfrey Rust says:

    Brigitte, I see where you’re coming from, but I think here you’re missing something essential. In each of the four exchanges the second person is giving a solution to the first without knowing the nature of the problem. “I don’t know why you don’t like church, but you’ll like mine!”. “I have no idea of your spiritual history but I’ll diagnose why you cant understand the Bible!”. “I don’t know your theological or philosophical difficulties about the divinity of Jesus, or whether you’ve ever claimed personal relationship with him, but the answer to those problems is to have a personal relationship with him!” “I don’t know which God you can’t believe in, but it can’t be the one I believe in!” All four can be summed up as “I don’t really know what you think and feel, you’re wrong because I have the answer!” And that level of disregard also means “I don’t really care what you think and feel, because I have the answer”. As for the first speaker invalidating the first, he is not: he is simply stating his thoughts and feelings: the second is telling the first what to think. All four of the first speaker’s statements use “I”, and speak of things “I” am unable to like or believe. All four of the second speaker’s use “You”, and speak of things that “you” should believe and /or like. There is absolutely no equivalence here, no playing of any Nazi card. David’s cartoon puts it much more succinctly, though.