I had a conversation where the person and I had opposing viewpoints. Now, this was a relationship, so the viewpoints were representations of how we feel within the relationship. This is different than differing political, religious, cultural views, because it is rooted deeper in our sense of identity and the need for validation. It makes it very complicated. We were stuck in a very painful loop, and I discovered two very important things: (1) Trying to get validation by explaining does not work; and (2) Something in me felt compelled to keep trying anyway.
To resolve, I want to breakdown the conversation into two separate problems: (1) How to deal with the person; and (2) How to deal the insecurity that pulls one into over-explaining and debating.
First, what is actually happening in the conversation? I feel like the person is not listening and is only arguing their position, while not taking accountability for what I am saying. The issue is that I am trying to move the conversation into truth, and the person is operating in self-protection. The reality, in this case, demands that I be accountable for doing the exact same thing to that person.
Here is a reality: When a person, or in this case people, are in self-protection mode the truth is irrelevant. You cannot reason someone into validation when they feel emotionally threatened. Facts turn into an attack. Objectivity feels like control. The need to be seen feels like pressure. The more accurate you are the more entrenched the other person becomes.
This is not a signal that I, or that person, are wrong. It means that the arena for the conversation is wrong. What I needed to be aware of is that the concept of wanting to be understood or validated shifted into a need for the other person to admit I am right so I can feel OK. This is the trap. Once my stability rests on the other person I have lost my foundation.
In a sense, over-explaining is not a communication problem. It is a self-trust problem. At some point, I learned that if I don’t make my argument airtight, then I will be misunderstood, dismissed, or erased. Explaining and debating is a survival strategy. This is not a matter of arrogance. It is a matter of fear. It is an attempt to borrow certainty from someone else, and that never works. It is asking from someone something that only you can stabilize internally.
So, let’s recap what doesn’t work: debating facts, reframing again and again, pointing out logical inconsistencies, and asking for acknowledgment when the other person is defensive. All of this is just a power struggle.
So, what works?
First, stop arguing for validation and say less, not because you are wrong, but because your worth does not require agreement. Exercise a sense of internal authority, and shift from seeking permission to owning your position.
Second, validate your feelings without conceding reality. This is subtle, but crucial. Validation is not agreement. I can understand and validate the other person, and still hold on to what I believe to be true. If the other person requires you to collapse your reality into theirs, then that is not connection. That is control born from fear.
Third, know when to disengage. The moment you are trying to convince the conversation is already over. This is not meant to be, and should not be, punishment. It is self-protection.
Fourth, work with your insecurity instead of fighting it. The urge to over-explain is not something to eliminate, rather it is something to outgrow. No shame. No suppression. No rationalizing. Just name the feeling in reality by acknowledging that you are trying to secure yourself based on their reaction, and then ask the right question: Not “How do I make them understand?,” instead “What am I afraid will happen if I stop explaining?” The answer here is emotional: abandonment, mischaracterization, being unseen, being alone. This step requires a sense of self-validation. Not affirmations or personal hype, but reality based, not on the person’s admission and validation, rather your known, lived experience that has been weighed against an unbiased reality.
At some point, you may have to accept that the other person may never validate your perspective that way you want. That does not make them evil. It means they have defenses, just like you have defenses. They have limits and you have limits. The real danger is not in that they won’t validate you, but that you will keep abandoning yourself trying to earn it.
The truth is that validation feels good. Self-trust feels stable. The former is external and temporary, while the latter is internal and permanent. No one is wrong for wanting to be understood, but growth is learning how to stand even when you’re not understood.