4 ms·

I would call that gaslighting yes. Basically you're declaring their judgement incapacitated in some way and try to convince them to abandon their views or chang

by Lutger 4y ago

I would call that gaslighting yes. Basically you're declaring their judgement incapacitated in some way and try to convince them to abandon their views or change their behavior by distrusting their own sanity. You may think you are right in this, but it is still gaslighting. An alternative approach would be to just point out the facts and use arguments, and counter their falsehoods, which implicitly recognizes their ability for sound reasoning. That is not gaslighting, but merely debate. I doubt there is ever a really good reason to gaslight someone.

gyulai 4y ago
> I doubt there is ever a really good reason to gaslight someone. Manipulating others is pretty much the activity most highly rewarded by our economy. It's deeply immoral but someone with no morals clearly does have very good reason to engage in gaslighting or other forms of manipulation. So it's a good thing if there's a growing awareness on the part of victims.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Is all advertising gaslighting?
throw310822 4y ago
> I doubt there is ever a really good reason to gaslight someone. "gaslighting" is defined as a form of manipulation that an abuser uses to sow self-doubt in a victim. But telling someone that they're dead wrong- while it might not the most effective way of convincing- is not necessarily a form of manipulation, nor the person on the receiving end must be considered a victim. If you're trying to convince someone to leave a cult, or to abandon conspiratorial thinking, or to reject the propaganda that they've heard all their life, or to stop blaming their parents or partners for everything that's wrong in their lives.. you might face a point in which you have to tell that person that they're wrong and their biases are corrupting their vision of reality. The attempt however is not manipulative nor the person on the other end is a victim- quite the contrary.
- Lutger 4y ago
  > "gaslighting" is defined as a form of manipulation that an abuser uses to sow self-doubt in a victim. But telling someone that they're dead wrong- while it might not the most effective way of convincing- is not necessarily a form of manipulation, nor the person on the receiving end must be considered a victim. Well put and this is exactly my point > ... you might face a point in which you have to tell that person that they're wrong and their biases are corrupting their vision of reality. I think you make a mistake here by conflating two different things. This is what I reacted to: > they're basically called insane every day even in the media. Would you call that gaslighting? There's a big difference between telling someone they are wrong and telling them they are insane. Or making them doubt about their capacity for judgement by convincing them their biases are corrupting their vision of reality, thus losing confidence in not only their views, but their ability for independent thinking, and yielding to your relentless argumentation. The first one is not gaslighting but the second one does kinda fit your definition. It needs an intent to change something in their behavior (manipulation), which I assume exists here. In reality, gaslighting is often sufficiently subtle to disempower otherwise intelligent people. The fact that you think you are doing something noble and true by attempting to get someone out of a cult does not alter the equation. It can even end up being abusive. For example, fundamentalist christians trying to 'heal' people from their homosexuality. They think they are dispelling the corruptive influence of sin, and the people who enter therapy are often convinced of this as well. But, in fact, these christians are widely recognized as abusive and the people they target as victims.
  - throw310822 4y ago
    I think I understand your point. Telling someone that they have a distorted view or reality can definitely be manipulative and abusive- no question about it. The problem though is that being told that your view of reality is distorted doesn't per se constitute an attempt at manipulation or abuse; framing all such interactions as manipulative is wrong. It ends up being used to affirm the consequent: that someone who is told that their vision of reality is wrong is victim of some abuse.
    - 4y ago

by Lutger 4y ago

gyulai 4y ago

> I doubt there is ever a really good reason to gaslight someone. Manipulating others is pretty much the activity most highly rewarded by our economy. It's deeply immoral but someone with no morals clearly does have very good reason to engage in gaslighting or other forms of manipulation. So it's a good thing if there's a growing awareness on the part of victims.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Is all advertising gaslighting?

throw310822 4y ago

> I doubt there is ever a really good reason to gaslight someone. "gaslighting" is defined as a form of manipulation that an abuser uses to sow self-doubt in a victim. But telling someone that they're dead wrong- while it might not the most effective way of convincing- is not necessarily a form of manipulation, nor the person on the receiving end must be considered a victim. If you're trying to convince someone to leave a cult, or to abandon conspiratorial thinking, or to reject the propaganda that they've heard all their life, or to stop blaming their parents or partners for everything that's wrong in their lives.. you might face a point in which you have to tell that person that they're wrong and their biases are corrupting their vision of reality. The attempt however is not manipulative nor the person on the other end is a victim- quite the contrary.

Lutger 4y ago
> "gaslighting" is defined as a form of manipulation that an abuser uses to sow self-doubt in a victim. But telling someone that they're dead wrong- while it might not the most effective way of convincing- is not necessarily a form of manipulation, nor the person on the receiving end must be considered a victim. Well put and this is exactly my point > ... you might face a point in which you have to tell that person that they're wrong and their biases are corrupting their vision of reality. I think you make a mistake here by conflating two different things. This is what I reacted to: > they're basically called insane every day even in the media. Would you call that gaslighting? There's a big difference between telling someone they are wrong and telling them they are insane. Or making them doubt about their capacity for judgement by convincing them their biases are corrupting their vision of reality, thus losing confidence in not only their views, but their ability for independent thinking, and yielding to your relentless argumentation. The first one is not gaslighting but the second one does kinda fit your definition. It needs an intent to change something in their behavior (manipulation), which I assume exists here. In reality, gaslighting is often sufficiently subtle to disempower otherwise intelligent people. The fact that you think you are doing something noble and true by attempting to get someone out of a cult does not alter the equation. It can even end up being abusive. For example, fundamentalist christians trying to 'heal' people from their homosexuality. They think they are dispelling the corruptive influence of sin, and the people who enter therapy are often convinced of this as well. But, in fact, these christians are widely recognized as abusive and the people they target as victims.
- throw310822 4y ago
  I think I understand your point. Telling someone that they have a distorted view or reality can definitely be manipulative and abusive- no question about it. The problem though is that being told that your view of reality is distorted doesn't per se constitute an attempt at manipulation or abuse; framing all such interactions as manipulative is wrong. It ends up being used to affirm the consequent: that someone who is told that their vision of reality is wrong is victim of some abuse.
  - 4y ago