4 ms·

psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception

psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator Weird thoughts I've been having; for social harmony it's much more important to share a perception of reality, than it is for any individual to have an accurate perception of reality. Attempting to find an objective truth that conflicts with a shared vision of reality isn't something brave or admirable, it's weird and disruptive. Polite society will cast you out. I think this is hard wired to us. We want to be told what reality is by people or groups with clout, people who are cool and have prestige, and we're hard-wired to just believe it. I think this is why most people outside the overton window feel inherently unpleasant. To most normal, well adjusted people, threatening to tear down the social fabric of our shared reality is just plain disgusting. (Not to say that every (or even many!) people outside that window have an accurate perception of reality - but the veracity is almost irrelevant - what's abhorrent to us is that they're trying to destroy it in the first place. That's the real crime.)

jl6 4y ago
Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint and the “reality is a shared perception” folk are the ones being weird and disruptive, gaslighting people into questioning whether a spade is really a spade.
- selfhoster11 4y ago
  This. "Reality is a shared perception" works only for as long as reality is comfortable enough to indulge your misperception. You cannot wish yourself into having more money in your bank account, or out of an energy crisis. Reality will validate your perception, and if you fail that validation, you will be the one who will have to take the consequences for it.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Here's a concrete example - if you have a cursory knowledge of history you'll inevitably encounter various little facts that contradict the main "theme" that we as a society share. I'm not talking about revisionism. I mean stuff that's written plain as day on Wikipedia, will be mentioned in passing by any mainstream respected historian, etc etc. You're still a fucking weirdo if you bring it up.
  - jl6 4y ago
    I guess it depends how you bring it up. If you go in all guns blazing, abrasive and say ackchyually, yeah, people are going to hate it. But at the other end of the spectrum, the quiz show QI does misconception-busting counter-narratives all the time, and polite society loves it.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      They only love it because it's a safe, constrained, space, where they go for laughs (it's entertainment) and because it doesn't challenge any of their major beliefs.
    - LAC-Tech 4y ago
      Does QI do it about anything British people hold near and dear to their hearts? Trying to picture it now.. Klaxons sound "Actually Alan, our WWI blockade of foodstuffs going to Germany was legally a war crime and continued even after the armistice"
      - _djo_ 4y ago
        If that's the way you're sharing those claims, it's no wonder you're getting pushback. You're taking a nuanced and complicated subject and reducing it to a single misleading assertion. First, of course the blockade continued after the armistice, because that wasn't actually the end of the war. At the time, the leaders of the countries that had defeated Germany were worried that it would use it as a mere pause and continue fighting once the pressure had been relieved. Post-war exploration of German historical documents give this some credence, as it was the ongoing pressure of the blockade and the public's turning against the government that forced the German leadership to give up any hope of resuming hostilities and preserving their power structures. So it makes sense that only once Germany had signed the Treaty of Versailles and enough guarantees were put in place that hostilities would not resume could the blockade and other measures be lifted. As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention, and the way it was conducted was according to acceptable practice at the time. In a total war, forcing the compliance of the enemy through through deprivation of its population was considered legally and even morally acceptable, especially given the devastation occurring around the front lines. Thankfully our approach has mostly evolved since, and the kinds of actions that were legal and acceptable in the First World War are now illegal and unacceptable, and for the most part that's respected by major powers. Today we'd consider this an atrocity, one of many in a horrific war, but we know that because we've progressed since and therefore placing things in their historical context is important. I could give better examples that have been politely ignored though are increasingly getting more coverage, such as Britain's treatment of Kenyans during the Mai Mai uprising, where many of those involved knew they were doing wrong.
- wongarsu 4y ago
  So is a strawberry really a berry? But I think more importantly there's a distinction between the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity, and the objective truth about whether $current_war is justified, or about what exactly happened on 9/11. All three have an objective truth, but for only one of them pursuing that truth is encouraged by society
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity Ironic example given how many people conflate moral relativity and General Relativity.
- james4k 4y ago
  edit: nevermind, i misunderstood!
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    GP here. To be clear I wasn't trying to construct some narrative that we're all living in the matrix, and we're all mass deluded about everything. Just that the sharing of a perception is more important than the accuracy of it.
    - james4k 4y ago
      i thought the parent jumped in with an insinuation that mainstream viewpoints are somehow always objective which would be weird, but i misunderstood
- coldtea 4y ago
  That's not what mere observation shows... Try pushing objective truth anywhere were it disagrees with the mainstream reality, and see how far you go... Heck, would be as smooth a ride as pushing "hey, blacks are people too, they should get all rights" in 1850 South, or "hey, this religion origin story is just fiction" in most places in history.
- kortilla 4y ago
  > Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint No it’s not (at least not in the US). Look at how many different religions there are with major followings based on books filled with completely farcical stories treated as truth. Neo liberals exist in a completely different reality from AOC fans when it comes to the economy, and that’s just a split within the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is fractured between boot licking Trump and claiming he is the worst President ever. Pick any one of these groups and have them criticize how one of the others ignores “truth”. Then have them do it to their own group and you’ll quickly see how little they actually care about “objective truth”. It’s really depressing.
hnbad 4y ago
That's pretty much what MLK's famous words about the "white moderate" were about, so yes. Most people will prefer an unjust order over the chaos necessary to bring justice as long as the injustice doesn't personally affect them too much. You call it reality, I call it the systems that define our society. Factual claims only serve to justify those systems. Someone who believes that homosexuality is inherently sinful and sinful behavior stains the character and thus leads to other sinful behaviors, will not become a gay rights activist if you can find a study to debunk their factual claims about how homosexuality is detrimental in this or that scenario. In other words, I think what you call "perception of reality" is really just another way to say a word that has long fallen out of use in polite conversation because the end of history was supposed to have overcome it: ideology.
selfhoster11 4y ago
> To most normal, well adjusted people, threatening to tear down the social fabric of our shared reality is just plain disgusting. There are multiple crises beating down at our door that threaten to change the status quo forever for everyone (inside the US and outside). I suppose they are disgusting, but they ARE coming.
- coldtea 4y ago
  Yeah, but you can suffer a crisis and still not acknowledge the reality of it or its causes just fine...
eevilspock 4y ago
I don't think it's about "social harmony", nor is it controlled by "people or groups with clout, people who are cool and have prestige". It's a very self-serving. We tell ourselves pretty lies and avoid inconvenient truths constantly. Because doing otherwise has huge costs in terms of personal comfort, convenience, wealth, security and social standing. This becomes a group dynamic when we join social circles that maintain the same pretty lies and avoid the same inconvenient truths. And of course for this to work it has to be an unwritten, almost subconscious rule: Never express a thought or question a choice that will disturb the material and moral comfort of yourself or your social groups. Here's a way to observe/test this (two parts): The next time you have moral doubt (e.g. Why do I feel uncomfortable that all of the people serving us are brown people?), listen to your conscience rather than silencing it. (If you never have moral doubts I'd say it's because you've become very good at silencing it.) The more you listen, the more you follow through with honesty and integrity, the more you'll find that you'll have to give up something comfortable or nice in your lifestyle. Part two: Express moral questions about something your group does that, when examined honestly, actually goes against the groups purported values. Be prepared to lose friends.
throwaway4aday 4y ago
I think you've got it somewhat wrong. People need to agree on something foundational but they don't need to share all of the same views. Basically all that is needed is a starting point from which you can build. I disagree that most people want to be told what to think by authority, the number of people I've met where this is true after further probing is quite small and they generally have other problems that make them averse to educating themselves. I think the mistake here is that we (as in everyone broadly) have a perception problem. We don't actually know what other people are thinking, we can only judge by the face they present to the world. So there is a public presentation and then private thoughts behind that. This results in a prisoner's dilemma situation where the safest option is to defect to the side of whoever the perceived authority is since that is the only obvious signal. That defection is not a change of heart though, it's just going along to get along. Once a better option presents itself that aligns with the internal beliefs that are still held firmly, the individual will switch. From the outside this looks like a strongly imposed shared narrative is being effective at uniting people but what's actually happening is that you're simply cowing everyone into keeping their head down while resentment and discontent simmer under the surface. Just look at what's happening in China right now or Iran, seemingly out of no where you have protests and civil unrest. It's the same for any tightly controlled society, things appear ok until suddenly they aren't. Widespread disagreement and argument are actually signs of a healthy society where people feel free to speak their minds.
hellfish 4y ago
> I think this is hard wired to us. We want to be told what reality is by people or groups with clout, people who are cool and have prestige, and we're hard-wired to just believe it. I don't buy this. It isn't something that comes from a small group of people "with status" but is a collective tradition. The idea that a small group of people "with status" can just willy nilly describe what's "real" and what isn't is a fundamentally undemocratic way of seeing society The idea that some people have a right to manufacture "reality" out of thin air comes from the same set of lies that propped up the Catholic church. Compare this the idea that each person has a unique relationship with God and doesn't need a priestly class to "mediate" the relationship If the "social harmony" can't handle the light of day, then it is the one that will need to adjust

jl6 4y ago

Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint and the “reality is a shared perception” folk are the ones being weird and disruptive, gaslighting people into questioning whether a spade is really a spade.

selfhoster11 4y ago
This. "Reality is a shared perception" works only for as long as reality is comfortable enough to indulge your misperception. You cannot wish yourself into having more money in your bank account, or out of an energy crisis. Reality will validate your perception, and if you fail that validation, you will be the one who will have to take the consequences for it.
LAC-Tech 4y ago
Here's a concrete example - if you have a cursory knowledge of history you'll inevitably encounter various little facts that contradict the main "theme" that we as a society share. I'm not talking about revisionism. I mean stuff that's written plain as day on Wikipedia, will be mentioned in passing by any mainstream respected historian, etc etc. You're still a fucking weirdo if you bring it up.
- jl6 4y ago
  I guess it depends how you bring it up. If you go in all guns blazing, abrasive and say ackchyually, yeah, people are going to hate it. But at the other end of the spectrum, the quiz show QI does misconception-busting counter-narratives all the time, and polite society loves it.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    They only love it because it's a safe, constrained, space, where they go for laughs (it's entertainment) and because it doesn't challenge any of their major beliefs.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    Does QI do it about anything British people hold near and dear to their hearts? Trying to picture it now.. Klaxons sound "Actually Alan, our WWI blockade of foodstuffs going to Germany was legally a war crime and continued even after the armistice"
    - _djo_ 4y ago
      If that's the way you're sharing those claims, it's no wonder you're getting pushback. You're taking a nuanced and complicated subject and reducing it to a single misleading assertion. First, of course the blockade continued after the armistice, because that wasn't actually the end of the war. At the time, the leaders of the countries that had defeated Germany were worried that it would use it as a mere pause and continue fighting once the pressure had been relieved. Post-war exploration of German historical documents give this some credence, as it was the ongoing pressure of the blockade and the public's turning against the government that forced the German leadership to give up any hope of resuming hostilities and preserving their power structures. So it makes sense that only once Germany had signed the Treaty of Versailles and enough guarantees were put in place that hostilities would not resume could the blockade and other measures be lifted. As for being 'legally a war crime', that's inaccurate. The British blockade was entirely legal in line with the provisions of the 1909 Hague Convention, and the way it was conducted was according to acceptable practice at the time. In a total war, forcing the compliance of the enemy through through deprivation of its population was considered legally and even morally acceptable, especially given the devastation occurring around the front lines. Thankfully our approach has mostly evolved since, and the kinds of actions that were legal and acceptable in the First World War are now illegal and unacceptable, and for the most part that's respected by major powers. Today we'd consider this an atrocity, one of many in a horrific war, but we know that because we've progressed since and therefore placing things in their historical context is important. I could give better examples that have been politely ignored though are increasingly getting more coverage, such as Britain's treatment of Kenyans during the Mai Mai uprising, where many of those involved knew they were doing wrong.
wongarsu 4y ago
So is a strawberry really a berry? But I think more importantly there's a distinction between the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity, and the objective truth about whether $current_war is justified, or about what exactly happened on 9/11. All three have an objective truth, but for only one of them pursuing that truth is encouraged by society
- ben_w 4y ago
  > the objective truth about Newton's law of gravity Ironic example given how many people conflate moral relativity and General Relativity.
james4k 4y ago
edit: nevermind, i misunderstood!
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  GP here. To be clear I wasn't trying to construct some narrative that we're all living in the matrix, and we're all mass deluded about everything. Just that the sharing of a perception is more important than the accuracy of it.
  - james4k 4y ago
    i thought the parent jumped in with an insinuation that mainstream viewpoints are somehow always objective which would be weird, but i misunderstood
coldtea 4y ago
That's not what mere observation shows... Try pushing objective truth anywhere were it disagrees with the mainstream reality, and see how far you go... Heck, would be as smooth a ride as pushing "hey, blacks are people too, they should get all rights" in 1850 South, or "hey, this religion origin story is just fiction" in most places in history.
kortilla 4y ago
> Counterpoint: “objective truth” is the mainstream viewpoint No it’s not (at least not in the US). Look at how many different religions there are with major followings based on books filled with completely farcical stories treated as truth. Neo liberals exist in a completely different reality from AOC fans when it comes to the economy, and that’s just a split within the Democratic Party. The Republican Party is fractured between boot licking Trump and claiming he is the worst President ever. Pick any one of these groups and have them criticize how one of the others ignores “truth”. Then have them do it to their own group and you’ll quickly see how little they actually care about “objective truth”. It’s really depressing.

hnbad 4y ago

That's pretty much what MLK's famous words about the "white moderate" were about, so yes. Most people will prefer an unjust order over the chaos necessary to bring justice as long as the injustice doesn't personally affect them too much. You call it reality, I call it the systems that define our society. Factual claims only serve to justify those systems. Someone who believes that homosexuality is inherently sinful and sinful behavior stains the character and thus leads to other sinful behaviors, will not become a gay rights activist if you can find a study to debunk their factual claims about how homosexuality is detrimental in this or that scenario. In other words, I think what you call "perception of reality" is really just another way to say a word that has long fallen out of use in polite conversation because the end of history was supposed to have overcome it: ideology.

selfhoster11 4y ago

> To most normal, well adjusted people, threatening to tear down the social fabric of our shared reality is just plain disgusting. There are multiple crises beating down at our door that threaten to change the status quo forever for everyone (inside the US and outside). I suppose they are disgusting, but they ARE coming.

coldtea 4y ago
Yeah, but you can suffer a crisis and still not acknowledge the reality of it or its causes just fine...

eevilspock 4y ago

I don't think it's about "social harmony", nor is it controlled by "people or groups with clout, people who are cool and have prestige". It's a very self-serving. We tell ourselves pretty lies and avoid inconvenient truths constantly. Because doing otherwise has huge costs in terms of personal comfort, convenience, wealth, security and social standing. This becomes a group dynamic when we join social circles that maintain the same pretty lies and avoid the same inconvenient truths. And of course for this to work it has to be an unwritten, almost subconscious rule: Never express a thought or question a choice that will disturb the material and moral comfort of yourself or your social groups. Here's a way to observe/test this (two parts): The next time you have moral doubt (e.g. Why do I feel uncomfortable that all of the people serving us are brown people?), listen to your conscience rather than silencing it. (If you never have moral doubts I'd say it's because you've become very good at silencing it.) The more you listen, the more you follow through with honesty and integrity, the more you'll find that you'll have to give up something comfortable or nice in your lifestyle. Part two: Express moral questions about something your group does that, when examined honestly, actually goes against the groups purported values. Be prepared to lose friends.

throwaway4aday 4y ago

I think you've got it somewhat wrong. People need to agree on something foundational but they don't need to share all of the same views. Basically all that is needed is a starting point from which you can build. I disagree that most people want to be told what to think by authority, the number of people I've met where this is true after further probing is quite small and they generally have other problems that make them averse to educating themselves. I think the mistake here is that we (as in everyone broadly) have a perception problem. We don't actually know what other people are thinking, we can only judge by the face they present to the world. So there is a public presentation and then private thoughts behind that. This results in a prisoner's dilemma situation where the safest option is to defect to the side of whoever the perceived authority is since that is the only obvious signal. That defection is not a change of heart though, it's just going along to get along. Once a better option presents itself that aligns with the internal beliefs that are still held firmly, the individual will switch. From the outside this looks like a strongly imposed shared narrative is being effective at uniting people but what's actually happening is that you're simply cowing everyone into keeping their head down while resentment and discontent simmer under the surface. Just look at what's happening in China right now or Iran, seemingly out of no where you have protests and civil unrest. It's the same for any tightly controlled society, things appear ok until suddenly they aren't. Widespread disagreement and argument are actually signs of a healthy society where people feel free to speak their minds.

hellfish 4y ago

> I think this is hard wired to us. We want to be told what reality is by people or groups with clout, people who are cool and have prestige, and we're hard-wired to just believe it. I don't buy this. It isn't something that comes from a small group of people "with status" but is a collective tradition. The idea that a small group of people "with status" can just willy nilly describe what's "real" and what isn't is a fundamentally undemocratic way of seeing society The idea that some people have a right to manufacture "reality" out of thin air comes from the same set of lies that propped up the Catholic church. Compare this the idea that each person has a unique relationship with God and doesn't need a priestly class to "mediate" the relationship If the "social harmony" can't handle the light of day, then it is the one that will need to adjust