4 ms·
I have learned to be cautious with two very different types of people (this is not a scientific exercise, take with a grain of salt): - One is people who are c
by keenmaster 7y ago
I have learned to be cautious with two very different types of people (this is not a scientific exercise, take with a grain of salt):
- One is people who are constantly negative and cast stones everywhere, but offset that negativity with charm. They can accrue a network of Stockholm-esque followers that would say "he's not an asshole, he's actually a really sweet person." When they perceive a threat from you, or they find that you are indifferent to their charm-aura, you can get on their s*list pretty quickly. They can subtly isolate you from their followers, and be as useless as possible if you have to depend on them for anything. If they lash out at you, it's actually not out of character because they lash out at everything. They're just being themselves, right? Much of their venom is hidden behind sardonic humor, which gives them plausible deniability. They are not beholden to social norms, and everyone around you has accepted that. In lieu of social norms, they create impenetrable, arbitrary standards that only they and their followers can meet.
- Another type of person I'm initially careful of is someone who doesn't give any "tells." They always go with the flow, and laugh at everyone's jokes. The only overtly interesting thing about them is how social they are (they only open up in trivial ways). They listen very deeply, asking follow-up question after follow-up question, but they're likely to go and spill your secrets over drinks "I heard X said Y....ya I know, interesting." They don't waste an opportunity to gain social currency, spanning all social groups in order to trade between them. They rarely challenge people, and seem above the fray, but they're as political as anyone.
- loopz 7y agoFor 1 alot of info on "gaslighting" online. For 2, there needs to be reciprocity and honesty (even silent). We shouldn't regard ourselves as below/above, but may be ingrained and diminishing.
- kaffeemitsahne 7y agoHas there been a deflation of the word "gaslighting" recently? I used to understand it as "making person X or others believe person X is crazy (in order to discredit them)" but I see it used much more widely nowadays and I don't really see what it has to do with the scenario in question.
- gowld 7y ago"Gaslighting" now means having a different perspective and asserting it's the correct one or a valid one.
- jaxn 7y agoWhich is inline with making someone feel they are crazy. Making person x second guess their own perspective.
- loopz 7y agoSetting different standards for themselves, setting other people up, even boasting of sabotaging others openly, surrounded by gullible and oblivious people, limiting number of marks, snide remarks, running in packs and claiming all authority while victimizing themselves. Gaslighting is rare but part of the toolset.
- kraigie 7y agoSo if you say the world is flat is the correct perspective and I'm wrong. While I say the world is round is the correct perspective. Are we gas lighting each other?
- friendlybus 7y agoIt lost it's subtle manipulation element too. Gas lighting was causing doubt to spread, using manipulation tools the abuser thought were flying under the radar of the victim. The victim fell oblivious to the changes in worldview. It lost all connection to psychotherapy when it became a politicized term.
- loopz 7y agoHumans are complex and social systems.
- gowld 7y agoDo you live on the set of Mean Girls? But me, most people are spending their energy trying to get by, with no time for junior high school drama conspiracies. Maybe I'm too useless to be socially manipulated.
- tomc1985 7y agoI agree with this. It's like classifying by alpha/beta/gamma personalities -- a false comfort, as people are rarely so simple
- keenmaster 7y agoPeople are indeed complex. The first type of person described specifically is rare, but what is more common is a dangerous combination of aggressiveness and charm. Tying back to the OP, I think an internal monologue is valuable. If you don’t have one, that’s out of your control. However, I think it encourages pro-social behavior on the margins. Using your internal voice is quite literally introspection. It can make you feel bad about a potential course of action, preventing you from doing it. It can also make you feel worse about something bad you did, by replaying it in your head. Too much of that can bog you down, but I think it’s an important part of the self-policing toolset. I believe reflective people are more trustworthy (not that internal voice = reflection).
- rangibaby 7y agoAbusive people won’t bother you if they don’t see you as a mark for their games.
- locusofself 7y agoafter reading those personality profiles your comment cracked me up
- dkarl 7y agoI hear you about the people who use their charisma to assemble followers and mark you down as an enemy if they can’t bring you into that fold. It’s very disappointing that you can’t have a normal working relationship with them.