I've learned that people hardly ever want advice. Mostly, they want you to tell them that everything is okay.

The hard thing to square is, if you really care about someone, and you really think you have some input that could help them, you need to figure out how to communicate that without annoying them / hurting their feelings.

It's also important not to have an ego when giving advice / input. It's likely that you're not perfectly correct.

At least for me, I would love advice that perfectly solves all my problems. But probably this advice doesn't exist, because if it did, I would have figured it out already. I often have conversations that go like this -

Me: I have this problem that sucks.

Other person: Have you tried A?

Me: No, I thought about that already. A isn't a good idea because of B.

Other person: Well, what about C?

Me: No, I thought about that too. C isn't a good idea because of D.

Other person: (Angrily) Well, I don't know how to help you then.

And so now in addition to having to deal with a hard problem to solve, I have to deal with making other people angry about how they can not solve my hard problems.

I've been on both sides of this. When somebody will try and help me in a situation like that, once they suggest one thing to me i've thought of or tried, i'll usually give a quick rundown of what I have tried and thought of. Doing it that way still validates them and at that point i'll usually say something like so 'I dunno what do you think, any ideas?'. Then they might give another suggestion I have or haven't thought of. If it's something I have thought of and realized won't work, instead of saying I already thought of that, i'll pretend to think about it, then give them my reason I thought of before for not using that option, but pretend I just thought of it.

People get angry, because they want to feel helpful and useful. When they can't help with something they feel frustrated and when you tell them you've already thought of everything, they feel stupid. By doing it the other way, they still feel like they've helped you. I'll usually try and be light hearted about it and laugh about how it really is a difficult problem or something like that. When you do it that way, it puts the problem into perspective for them and they don't feel stupid for trying to help, they feel like it's something difficult you're both trying to solve. Then they inevitably get bored and go do something else and leave you amicably to work on your problem. At least in my experience.

Sorry for the unsolicited advice.

The other thing is tailoring it to the individual. All of this is easier if there’s less ego on both sides. I try to operate that way generally, but everyone has their triggers. There’s no one size fits all solution.

I'm a different person then. When I talk about my problems, I do want advice, because if I'd have already figured out a solution, I wouldn't be talking about it in the first place!

I just don't understand this humanoid need for seeking emotional validation by pretending to ask for advice. A lot of my friends and acquaintances do that, and I know how to handle it, but myself, I just can't do that.

I don't think pretending to ask for advice is a fair description of what's happening. usually when people tell me about their problems, it comes in the form of declarative sentences. clearly venting, not asking for advice. sometimes they'll say something like "I don't know what I'm gonna do" or "what am I gonna do?" which almost sounds like asking for advice, but really isn't.

now if someone describes a problem and asks "what should I do?", that is a clear solicitation for advice. if they get mad at you for trying to help solve the problem, that's totally on them.

Very often, there is no perfect solution. Even if somebody has some idea what they can do about the problem, that doesn't mean they can just do it and everything is great. Say, if your marriage is falling apart, you can either stick with it and try to improve things or get divorced. Those are your options, and they're both painful.

This is covered in the book «games people play» (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_People_Play_(book)) under the name «why don’t you? yes, but...»

In some cases People aren’t looking for the advice/solution, as much as the recognition that they have a problem... person A tells a problem, person B suggests ways to resolve the problem, to which person A has to give/come up with a reason why that solution won’t do. We then repeat this until a stalemate is reached, and everybody can acknowledge that person A is justified in their feelings about having a problem...

So on the flip side; your example seems to be a misinterpretation of this game. I.e. some person who’s played this game, and learned that this is what to do, meets a frustration where you’re not playing along with it... (maybe)

Short order solution; don’t play that game with people who don’t have a healthy relationship with frustrating problems.

Bernian games are situations where the initiator is looking for a pay-off (eg. validation). The parent's comment is not about such a situation.

- If I talk to someone about a problem and he gives me a suggestion. I know that he is trying to help. getting mad at him is unfair because he means well. In fact what's natural is to be happy that someone values me enough that he's spending effort to help me.

- If someone talks to me about a problem that I can't solve. I'll try to help, if I don't know the answer. that's normal. I don't know everything.

- If I try a solution to a problem and It doesn't work, I get frustrated not at the asker, but because It didn't work.

If everybody acts this way, The situation gets easier for everybody, problem are solved if possible and no bad feeling are had,if not.

In fact this behaviour follows directly from already well established moral values: giving others the benefit of the doubt, not being vain ( needing others to validate/compliment you), humility, "I know that I know nothing", Thirst for learning.

I don't understand why autistic people are assumed to be wrong/inferrior in scoial contexts even when their behaviour is the right thing to do.

Another example is trashtalking people behind their back. I always feel compelled to either say a nicething about that person, defend him/play the devil, stop the conversation. People don't like it when I do that, although I'm sure that they, as well as I, would appreciate if someone defends them when they are not there.

> I don't understand why autistic people are assumed to be wrong/inferrior in scoial contexts even when their behaviour is the right thing to do.

The world would be a better place if you ever found an answer to that question.

It's not a fair comparison[0], but I tend to internally categorize people as logical or emotional. It usually helps keep things running more smoothly to treat the two groups how they prefer.

The trick is to not make the distinction a value judgement. I'm usually pretty good at that, but sometimes I slip up.

[0]: Because both groups display traits of the other, and it's not a hard line distinction. Ever seen someone on the spectrum throw a tantrum? It might (might) be logic that started it, but emotions take over nearly immediately.

Well you kind of led them down a path to failure/wasted effort. One of the best ways to prevent these kinds of unhappy conversational paths is pre-emption. If you've already considered A, B, and C, then you can assume that someone else might think of them, and you should mention them in your initial problem statement. "I tried A but then realized it wouldn't work because of B." Now you've communicated the same information and skipped the part where you ask them for ideas and instantly reject them. They may still be equally unable to offer a solution, but at least they haven't gotten frustrated and given up before understanding the true problem.

are you positive that B and D are rule out A and C?

maybe a slight more productive way to have these conversations would be

"I thought about A, it didn't seem like a good idea to me because of B, what do you think? Am I thinking about this wrong? Is there some reason why B doesn't prevent A from being a good idea?"

subtle difference, but it signals that you value their input and ideas, and leaves open the possibility of you learning new things about your problem

(if you don't value their input and ideas, perhaps you shouldn't share your problems with them)

There are two reasons someone might come to you for help. (1) For advice. Simply put, to get problem solving input. This is the less common case, however. (2) To get emotional courage to face whatever difficulty they have. This is the more common one.

Most people feel the best when THEY manage or solve their problems. But this is really hard. Often one's emotions get in the way. By sharing them with other people, you can sometimes release a pressure valve which makes someone feel more capable of dealing with their problem.

It's a key distinction.

What I've found is people usually want to be validated. That they exist; and they are important enough to be listened to. That's all. If they ask for more, fine. But usually, listening is the Gift they are asking you for.

Often it's useful to mentally frame this as that the problem is that the speaker feels unheard, not that they're speaking about a problem.

And that more often than not, the speaker already knows potential solutions and next steps, they just want you to agree that it sucks. Too often, solutions driven people try to solve venters' problems rather than simply listening to what they are.

Those ideas aren't mutually exclusive.

Sometimes people are more receptive about suggested solutions after you've expressed some solidarity.

"Yeah that does suck"

"That situation happened to me, it was a pain in the ass, I tried to do X, it didn't work that well, then I tried to do Y, it seemed to work ok, if I'm in that situation again, I'll probably go with Y"

>Too often, solutions driven people try to solve venters' problems rather than simply listening to what they are.

If you don't want actionable answers to a problem, save it to your personal life or therapist.

Your colleagues have a duty to behave decently towards you but they are not paid to be your emotional dumpster.

You're talking about colleagues, who you don't have any duty to be emotionally available for, but the parent poster is talking about friends and family.

The top comment even mentioned strangers!

Even if you have no contractual obligation to listen to your coworkers, in general many people enjoy, and potentially expect, to become closer with their coworkers which is generally accomplished through sharing personal details and emotions. It's totally fine if you don't want to participate, (and it's possible for people to over-rely on others for emotional labor) but I think many other people are more productive when they're more than just acquaintances with their coworkers.

You may not feel an emotion connection to people you've spend thousands of hours around but that is unusual. Most people do. You can't really expect people who spend 1/3 to 1/2 of their waking hours in close proximity to one another for years to not become friends and confidants who are able to talk about serious, non-work things together. It's normal.

I'm quite certain everyone else knows we're talking about personal lives, not colleagues.

Some colleagues you spend a lot of time with and and there is still a bond even if you are not real friends that would spend time together outside of work.

Sometimes my colleague needs to went about a project that is going bad or a person that is making their life difficult and sometimes I might do that as well. You listen and sometimes you discuss solutions but sometimes it just venting about a situation you both know is shitty.

Just don't become they guy/girl who is always negative or talking shit about people though.

The discussion started even mentioning strangers.

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree 100%. When I find myself in this situation however I find it hard to be authentically sympathetic. And if it's not authentic I have trouble doing it at all. Am I broken? Is there anyway to work on this?

The focus is on the person, not the problem they are describing. So the question is what they need as evidenced by their choice to talk about the problem, not what they need as evidenced by the existence of the problem itself.

In other words, a choice to talk about a problem can be fueled by several possible impulses - the need to solve the problem, the need to connect with their friend, the need to share the interesting complexity of the problem, etc.

> If you’re unsure, ask first.

Good advice. Sometimes people clarify situations by talking about them, and simple active listening can provide what's needed.

If sympathy is what they want, and you start offering solutions, they will be tempted to argue back about why the solutions won't work, and then (as the saying goes) you have two problems.