The perils of external validation
Validation: recognition or affirmation that a person or their feelings or opinions are valid or worthwhile.
Humans like validation. It’s part of being human. Who doesn’t like a pat on the shoulder for a job well done by someone who matters to them? It feels good. It releases dopamine and we feel the corresponding emotions.
But here’s the thing, relying on external validation could be a slippery slope to decreased performance and sense of self.
Let’s work through this with an example.
I post content weekly on LinkedIn. In the beginning, 3 years ago, I posted my content and analysed the statistics - how many likes and comments my posts got. They weren’t great but I wasn’t bothered so I kept posting.
Halfway into my posting journey, I learnt about the LinkedIn algorithm and ways to ‘hack’ it. I gathered a group of ‘partners’ (my friends) to ‘increase’ my viewership. To me, greater viewing was directly correlated to greater validation and sense of self! Going viral was the next step. Or so I thought!
Then last year, I decided this had to stop. I was ‘hacking’ the algorithm to MAKE myself feel better and it felt fake. And collusion took effort. I called my own bluff. I was deceiving myself and getting my ‘partners’ to help me. I didn’t need the vanity metrics.
After gaining this wisdom, I continued posting weekly without my collusion ‘partners’. My LinkedIn posts, at times, don’t get as great viewership as I used to BUT I DON’T CARE. Because I now know that people who like and comment are those who find my posts useful, and I am noticing themes of which posts resonate with my audience.
Which I couldn’t discern when I was hacking the algorithm. A HUGE learning for me. Am I a little disappointed when some posts tank? Of course, I am. But that just tells me that it may be a topic that is new or requires more clarity. I also know, from LinkedIn gurus, that if you have good statistics on a post, don’t expect similar (good) statistics on the next one. That’s algorithmic behaviour apparently, but who really knows?
If the algorithm is learning, so can I and that is the mindset I use when posting on LinkedIn.
Which is a growth mindset!
Carol Dweck, in her book Mindset, talks about Growth and Fixed Mindset. Her research shows that a growth mindset is far superior to a fixed mindset. But for this article, I want to focus on her research on external validation. How it can be more harmful in the long term.
But first the basic difference between a fixed and growth mindset. With a fixed mindset our reaction to a situation would typically be “I can’t…” whilst “I can’t, YET” would be a reaction with a growth mindset. You get the idea.
Back to external validation. Dweck says that praising people for their ability, “well done, you are smart” sets them up for failure because it defaults them to a fixed mindset in the long term. Whereas praising people for their effort, “well done, you worked hard at this” focuses on the process not the outcome thereby developing a growth mindset.
This is a high-level summary. There is more to this and her book is a fantastic read.
And this week I would like to conclude with a request to the women reading this article. Dweck’s research shows that women are especially influenced by other people’s opinions of them. Men are less impacted by others’ opinions even though research showed that boys got eight times more criticism than girls for their conduct at school. Boys/men learn to ‘let it go’ and women can fall on their sword for no valid reason besides a misplaced narrative.
What we, women (me included), need to do is to build our internal validation mechanism to anchor our sense of self. Perhaps, dare I say, by taking a leaf out of the male playbook to learn to ‘let it go’. Just as I ‘let go’ of the vanity metrics on LinkedIn. May require a shift in narrative, resolve and practise but with a growth mindset anything is possible!
It’s worth a try don’t you think?
As always, you can reach me at yoga@yoganesadurai.com