Let’s consider how this might work in a conflict context, when a practitioner is reflecting back to a client how they are feeling. Many clients do not explain their emotions with much nuance or emotional granularity. For example, they state that they were “angry” or “furious” but without further elaboration, or they simply imply an emotional experience by their words, tone of voice, body language or facial expression. In this situation, there is considerable room for misunderstanding.
For example, I might reflect back to a client “It seems like you were really angry”. However, it’s quite likely that my personal experience of anger (even in a similar situation) is quite different from that of my client. Every individual’s experience of emotion varies significantly based on their personality, upbringing, history, culture, context, and many other factors.
When I say something like “Sounds like you are really angry”, my client may interpret this to mean “I understand that you are angry, and I understand how anger feels to you and how you experience it, and what lead you to experience anger in this situation”. However, this is clearly overstating what I actually understand about my client’s experience.