How do you judge good advice from someone you dislike?

You are not required to confide in everyone who might understand. If sharing would expose you to ridicule, gossip or pressure, protect the details. Ask a narrower question, describe a made-up version of the situation, or seek another person. The ability to give useful advice does not create a right to enter your private life.

Suppose you decide to share only the part you can safely discuss. The person says, “You keep asking whether they meant to hurt you. Decide instead what their repeated action is doing.” The sentence irritates you because of who said it. It may still reveal a question you have avoided.

Now the speaker matters in a different way. Their knowledge tells you what they may be able to see. Their habits tell you how safely you can continue the conversation. Their motives may change how much you disclose. None of those facts can decide the worth of the sentence by itself.

Carry the sentence away from the conversation. Does it describe something that has actually happened? Does it expose a choice you control? Would it remain useful if a trusted friend had said it? If so, you can use it without reopening the door to the person who delivered it.

The reverse is also possible. A person you admire may offer comfort that fits their preferences rather than your situation. Trust may justify a longer conversation; it cannot make the advice true.

Keep the two judgments separate. Decide who receives your confidence by the safety of the relationship. Decide what advice is worth by what it helps you see. A person may fail the first test and still say one thing worth carrying away.