This is a pattern I call validate or calibrate. This pattern comes into play you're not sure about a feeling you have, especially about something sensitive, for example toxic workplace politics, a particularly damaging manager, or anything generally outside of your control that negatively impacts you. This is when you talk to a colleague whom you trust, to either validate your perspective, or to have it callibrated by a different perspective you trust.

The goal of the conversation is simple. One of two outcomes:

• your uncertain feeling is validated by the shared experience of someone else (helps you cope, can sometimes be the catalyst to finding a solution)
• someone you trust helps you calibrate your understanding of the situation and your feelings (re-calibrating is important, and helps you stay within likely-correct bounds).

I've been on both ends of these conversations. I recommend only validating when you truly agree and have a shared take on the situation. It is okay to console if you are not able to validate. Consolation is different from validation. Validation produces new knowledge. It is another data point that indicates "maybe it isn't just me". Consolation is merely a treatment of the symptoms.

The dual to this is: If someone comes to you with an issue and your viewpoint is different, it's probably worth having that callibrating discussion. They should listen to you. After all, they came to you.