3 ms·

Well, isn't there some boundary at which a belief is completely unreasonable?

everdrive 5y ago
In the original definition, a "gaslighter" would have to know and agree on the same facts as the victim, and then intentionally lie about them to sew doubt in the victim's mind. In your scenario, the "jerk" (for lack of a better term here, since he is not a classical gaslighter) honestly believes that the victim is incorrect, and is arguing from good faith. Good faith arguments can certainly be wrong, and can certainly be awful. [edit] I suppose I take such a hard line on this because it's childish to think that people will always empathize with you, and agree with your take on things. Quite often, the opposite will happen. This is a regular occurrence, and does not constitute abuse. Sometimes when no one agrees with you, it means you're in the wrong and you need to rethink your take on the situation. Other times, an individual can be in the right while others are wrong. This sort of conflict will be a normal part of someone's life. Further, some situations do not have a strictly "wrong" or "right," and simply constitute competing values and perspectives.
- derbOac 5y ago
  I actually think this is an interesting exchange, as I think this issue -- the boundaries of real versus perceived reality -- and the use of the term "gaslighting" reveal a lot about the psychology of the parties involved. I was going to say something similar to you, that correctly or incorrectly, I do feel like there's this increase over time in people (maybe generational, maybe not) treating their perceptions as real. It's like there's no room for a Rashomon effect or something, and there's this lack of recognition societally that self-identified victims can sometimes have false recollections. In that case, if you and another person strongly disagree over what happened, in a factual sense, the only room for explanation, if you thought you were a victim, is that the other person is gaslighting you by denying the "reality" of what happened, or lying outright, or has a false memory. FWIW, I agree the meaning of the term gaslighting has shifted over time, in that I think originally there was more of a connotation that the victim didn't question what was happening, until maybe after everything was so blatantly obvious, and, as has been pointed out, the perpetrator either knew what was happening at some level, or at least didn't truly believe it themselves.
Robotbeat 5y ago
Yes, but that doesn’t make it gaslighting.

In the original definition, a "gaslighter" would have to know and agree on the same facts as the victim, and then intentionally lie about them to sew doubt in the victim's mind. In your scenario, the "jerk" (for lack of a better term here, since he is not a classical gaslighter) honestly believes that the victim is incorrect, and is arguing from good faith. Good faith arguments can certainly be wrong, and can certainly be awful. [edit] I suppose I take such a hard line on this because it's childish to think that people will always empathize with you, and agree with your take on things. Quite often, the opposite will happen. This is a regular occurrence, and does not constitute abuse. Sometimes when no one agrees with you, it means you're in the wrong and you need to rethink your take on the situation. Other times, an individual can be in the right while others are wrong. This sort of conflict will be a normal part of someone's life. Further, some situations do not have a strictly "wrong" or "right," and simply constitute competing values and perspectives.

derbOac 5y ago
I actually think this is an interesting exchange, as I think this issue -- the boundaries of real versus perceived reality -- and the use of the term "gaslighting" reveal a lot about the psychology of the parties involved. I was going to say something similar to you, that correctly or incorrectly, I do feel like there's this increase over time in people (maybe generational, maybe not) treating their perceptions as real. It's like there's no room for a Rashomon effect or something, and there's this lack of recognition societally that self-identified victims can sometimes have false recollections. In that case, if you and another person strongly disagree over what happened, in a factual sense, the only room for explanation, if you thought you were a victim, is that the other person is gaslighting you by denying the "reality" of what happened, or lying outright, or has a false memory. FWIW, I agree the meaning of the term gaslighting has shifted over time, in that I think originally there was more of a connotation that the victim didn't question what was happening, until maybe after everything was so blatantly obvious, and, as has been pointed out, the perpetrator either knew what was happening at some level, or at least didn't truly believe it themselves.

Robotbeat 5y ago

Yes, but that doesn’t make it gaslighting.