I'd argue that by solving their problem, you are agreeing with their feeling that whatever was happening was a problem worth fixing. So in essense, validating it.
I can't really think of what #2 would look like (solve but not validate)
I can't really think of what #2 would look like (solve but not validate)
1. The desire to have a working computer, which was validated and solved
2. The desire to be connected to the process and the people they're working with, which was neither validated nor solved
Validating but not solving the second would include some sort of message saying that you know they'd rather a call but it helps you serve more tickets this way, or something to that regard.
Some would draw the conclusion that the person doing this is deliberately maintaining high dependence. That may be paranoid (The tech person may just be overworked and find social explanations harder than fixing computers) but some do draw that conclusion.
I guess it doesn't agree that it's something you should be feeling, just that you are feeling it.
Maybe its a definions thing, idk which of the two validation is supposed to refer to
In this context, it's the former. If I say, "It's dumb that you feel that way but here's you're stupid gloves," to a toddler, I solved their problem but I also likely made them feel like their problem is somehow not a "valid" one. Especially when this happens repeatedly to children is when they grow up with particularly anti-social behaviors, for fear of others abusing them similarly.