- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Stephen on W&T did an interesting post on gaslighting in which he explains that this term is used on the internet differently than it is generally used IRL. Specifically he says that gaslighting can mean that your arguments begin to sound incompetent by association or because of the medium of the internet (as opposed to a person deliberately manipulating reality to make you think you are crazy – the usual definition of gaslighting from the Boyer/Bergman film). Here’s his post: http://www.wheatandtares.org/17229/gaslighting-and-you/ This sent me looking for another source on his new definition (which I didn’t find), but I did find this list of symptoms that people who are being gaslit experience, and it sure sounded a lot like what people in FC report that they experience:
Quote:1. You are constantly second-guessing yourself
2. You ask yourself, “Am I too sensitive?” a dozen times a day.
3. You often feel confused and even crazy at work.
4. You’re always apologizing to your mother, father, boyfriend,, boss.
5. You can’t understand why, with so many apparently good things in your life, you aren’t happier.
6. You frequently make excuses for your partner’s behavior to friends and family.
7. You find yourself withholding information from friends and family so you don’t have to explain or make excuses.
8. You know something is terribly wrong, but you can never quite express what it is, even to yourself.
9. You start lying to avoid the put downs and reality twists.
10. You have trouble making simple decisions.
11. You have the sense that you used to be a very different person – more confident, more fun-loving, more relaxed.
12. You feel hopeless and joyless.
13. You feel as though you can’t do anything right.
14. You wonder if you are a “good enough” girlfriend/ wife/employee/ friend; daughter.
15. You find yourself withholding information from friends and family so you don’t have to explain or make excuses.
I suppose any time you believe your version of reality isn’t the “norm” or the accepted version of reality, you are stuck in a loop of trying to determine which reality is right. If you are perceiving things incorrectly (doubt your doubts?), then you are the one lacking competence. If the “norm” is wrong (per the Asch experiment Stephen cites), then you are right, and they are making a false representation of reality, sometimes intentionally, but more likely out of conformity and peer pressure.
His notes on one’s on-line competence being questioned due to the prevalence of cranks was important to note as well. Much as too many Mormons irritate me, so do too many disaffected Mormons. I’d rather have a comfortably diverse group than any echo chamber, but many people don’t like the insecurity and vulnerability of having to stand on their own without a group to cling to and hide behind.
I’m all too familiar with being gaslit, the list is very accurate. In most cases I think people don’t gaslight others on purpose, people just present their reality… which can be
verydifferent from other people’s reality. The person that finds themselves second guessing the reality that the majority holds to be “true” can start to experience those symptoms you listed. Very insightful, thanks for sharing. I’ve thought for some time that my self doubt might be related to cognitive dissonance, but I’m going to think about this article and if this isn’t another explanation. i know nibbler knows very well about this subject, unfortunately. Gaslighting from the film and used in psychology is typically about being manipulated and controlled, and how it leads to codependence to the manipulator for the view of reality, since self-doubt in the person being gaslit leads to doubts they can trust their own perceptions.
For church…it would be relinquishing the belief in personal revelation from being told it is always wrong, and so depending on the priesthood revelation for all interpretations since there is self-doubt they can know things for themselves.
But the church doesn’t do it manipulatively like that. If any priesthood holder does, it is unrighteous dominion of that individual.
I’m not sure it is gaslighting if the person just has such low self esteem they give up their perceptions of reality to others. Gaslighting would be more around manipulation by a sick and twisted control freak (which exist in and out of church).
I have been reading a book (several books) on manipulation tactics. This one sounds like a technique where the receiver of manipulation indicates they are not happy with the manipulator’s behavior. The manipulator responds that the receiver is oversensitive, or is responding to their behavior in a dysfunctional way, or that the receiver’s assertiveness is a evidence of the receivers’ deep inadequacy. If the receiver has low self-esteem, this may lead to the receiver to get down on themselves, to question their view of reality etcetera.
Unfortunately, I’ve never seen an appropriate response is to this form of manipulation that isn’t any more than one-uppance.
However, as a general strategy with manipulators I am considering using the pattern below — if this kind of manipulation ever happens to me again.
When the manipulator points out the receiver’s inferiority, the receiver identifies and labels the technique, and the implications for your relationship. The receiver could reply:
Quote:
Whether you consciously intended to do this or not, you just used a technique called gaslighting. Rather than address my concerns, you targeted my view of the world as somehow dysfunctional.This amounts to furthering your position by playing on people’s emotions , rather than by addressing the issue I just raised
The manipulator will likely object at this point, reasserting how your objection indicates how incredibly inadequate you are. To which the receiver could reply.
Quote:
The way I see the world is NOT dysfunctional or invalid, and when you [insert manipulators behavior here] you hurt our relationship. I would rather you [insert positive behavior you would like to see]Also, a couple books I have read indicate that
revealing others’ patterns of behavioris useful for convincing the manipulator they might need to alter their behavior. The authors recommend actually documenting the behavior pattern so you can remember and bring it up later. The other approach I used indirectly once is to ask this question:
Quote:How interested are you in a positive relationship with me?
Most people will respond that they are interested in a positive relationship At which point, you uncover the gaslighting technique and its impact on your relationship. Help the manipulator see what they need to do in order to maintain a healthy relationship, and that may mean altering the pattern of behavior you’ve observed.
They will likely respond that what they are doing is normal, and that you should have thicker skin. In which case the receiver might respond.
Quote:No — the average, healthy-minded person doesn’t like to be reminded of their weaknesses over and over again. Remember this is the fourth time in three weeks you’ve [insert behavior here]. The first time it didn’t bother me, the second time, I wondered if it was a pattern for you, the third time I realized it was recurring. And this time, I’m telling you the impact on our relationship, and ability to work together if it continues
I did have ONE person, who responded that they weren’t interested in a good relationship with me. It was a tenant of mine who responded “the law doesn’t say you have to have a good relationship with your landlord”. I was at a loss as to what to say, but in the future, would indicate “Good relationships are at the heart of successful business transactions, and a happy life. So, if you’re telling me you don’t really care about our relationship, even though we live in the same house, then [insert consequence here]”.
Last one — I was in a conflict with a very vindictive woman who didn’t like something normal that I did. She refused to believe my motives for what I did, or that what I did was not meant to hurt her in any way. You’ll have to trust me that she was clearly in the wrong about her assumptions about my motives. I replied:
Quote:Listen, if we are going to work together, you are going to HAVE to believe me when I say my intentions were solely to do the right thing, and not to hurt you in any way
The fact that I was willing to quit the business relationship was the turning point in the conversation.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.