Talk:Gaslighting/Archive 2

And / Or

"...making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying..."

I just wonder whether this should read, "or sanity" and "or lying"...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mecandes (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

-It would probably be "or lying". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.92.59.67 (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dbaechle, Cynthiahamidi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

a quibble about the plot

The play's title alludes to how the abusive husband slowly dims the gas lights in their home, while pretending nothing has changed, in an effort to make his wife doubt her own perceptions.

As I remember the movies, the husband does not intentionally manipulate the lights at all. They go dimmer while he secretly searches the attic, because he uses gas up there and thus lowers the pressure in the house lines. The behavior of the lamps is a mystery to the wife because she believes she is alone in the house. —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it's delibrate. He is aware of how his noises and dimming the gaslight is affecting her. He is also using the lights to search at the same time. He delibrately tells her she is imagining the noises and lights during the scene where she tells him how frightened she is in the house. Everything he does to her is delibrate. He is messing with the lights, even if he has two reasons for doing so. Colliric (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

According to Kate Abramson, ...

"According to Kate Abramson, ..." Are these widespread views among experts in this field, or is Kate Abramson in the minority? Are there dissenting views that should be mentioned? It would be good to substantiate this section further. —DIV (1.129.108.196 (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC))

Some context: Kate Abramson is a professional philosopher who teaches at Indiana University in one of the top-ranked departments for philosophy of science, and her 2014 article "Turning up the lights on gaslighting" is one of the most-cited articles on gaslighting in Google Scholar, perhaps even the single most-cited article. So her arguments in that article are noteworthy. I have not verified whether the quotations from her in this Wikipedia article accurately and completely represent her arguments, nor whether there are noteworthy dissenting responses to her arguments. Biogeographist (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Relative likelihood

I still think it should be stated somewhere in the Article that the likelihood of actually suffering from a mental disorder (and consequently being told by other people) is much higher than to actually meet someone who invests time and energy in "gaslighting". The prevalence of mental disorders is well understood and documented, see (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_mental_disorders), the likelihood of actual "gaslighting" happening is comparatively small. Its like "having a kid with an illness" vs. "having a healthy kid but a mother with munchhausen syndrom". Note there is yet no accepted definition of "gaslighting" in the literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.65.231 (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That is interesting reasoning, but the lack of reliable sources means that it is original research and can't go in the article. And consider this objection: What if gaslighting itself is a sign of some degree of mental disorder in the perpetrator, as one might conclude from a reading of the literature on morality and mental health (e.g., Mike W. Martin's 2006 book From Morality to Mental Health and Duff Waring's 2016 book The Healing Virtues: Character Ethics in Psychotherapy)? Then gaslighting becomes part of the prevalence of mental disorders, which complicates if not destroys your argument. Biogeographist (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't deny the possibility of the perpetrator having a mental disorder herself. As with the Munchhausen syndrome: It is known there are mothers who are mentally ill and poisen their own kids to get attention. And yet it is also known there are kids who actually get sick. The probability of the latter is by far higher then the former. So if I suspect somebody to use gaslighting on me, I should seriously consider if the person in question is not maybe right. In this sense the term gaslighting leads to self immunisation, it is hard enough to get people with mental disporders to see a professional, even without this claim that people are out to get them 137.120.191.219 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, the issue of reliable sources is an important concern regarding what you're saying. Someone could falsely suspect gaslighting, and that's an interesting scenario, and similar investigative questions apply as in any situation of suspicion, but that scenario can't go in the article without a reliable source discussing that scenario. That scenario seems related to paranoia: perhaps paranoia is like the opposite of gaslighting? There seems to be a complementarity: real paranoia is to falsely accused gaslighting as falsely accused paranoia is to real gaslighting. The topic of gaslighting raises many interesting epistemic issues; philosophers have addressed some of the issues but much more research could be done. Biogeographist (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Research on gaslighting is still in infancy. My experience is the exact opposite of what IP claims here. Gaslighting is, in my experience, a pervasive phenomenon that happens in covert ways. Most often the victimizer is not even conscious of doing it (this is mentioned in the article), and neither is the victim particularly aware of its onset (unless it is overt). Gaslighting is one of the key fundamental ways in which humans influence one another at a profound level of affect. The usual giveaway is the experience of distress; then self-awareness can be employed by the victim to clearly see the ongoing introjection of victimizer's psyche. If I was a social psychologist, this would be my study area. Roostnerve (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

I thought of a way to address part of the original commenter's concern above about the specific likelihood of gaslighting by mental health professionals. Dorpat's 1996 book notes that gaslighting by clinicians is associated with authoritarian attitudes on the part of clinicians, and the last chapter of the book is about promoting more non-directive and egalitarian attitudes and methods by clinicians as a remedy for such professional abuse. (I just added a sentence about this to the article.) Dorpat noted (p. xiii) that Rogerian therapy (and its descendants) has promoted such non-directive and egalitarian attitudes and methods for a long time, but not all mental health professionals have been influenced by approaches like that of Carl Rogers. In other words, the likelihood of being gaslighted by a clinician depends in part on how the clinician has been trained. Biogeographist (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

You also claimed that there is no accepted definition of gaslighting in the literature, but that claim also needs support from reliable sources. Do you have examples of published definitions of gaslighting (in scholarly sources) that are radically different from the intention and range of behavior described in the lead of this article, which is: seeking "to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group" through behavior that "may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorientating the victim"? Biogeographist (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Order of presentation

It seems to me that the section on the use of gaslighting in romantic relationships ought to precede the section on politics, as the use of gaslighting in romantic relationships seems far more prevalent and damaging to individuals' actual psychological and emotional stability than its use in the realm of politics. Anguselus (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good enough reason, so I moved the section as requested. Biogeographist (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

People trying to introduce double negatives into the lede

The lede has a sentence that says:

Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

Evidently some people think this is ambiguous or they find it hard to understand. There have been a number of recent attempts to "correct" it:

1. [1] Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents never occurred to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.
2. [2] Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents did not occur to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim.

In the original, the abuser is denying that the incidents occurred. i.e. the abuser is saying, no, they did not happen.

1. In this version, the abuser is denying that the incidents never occurred. i.e. the abuser is saying, yes, they did happen.
2. In this version, the abuser is denying that the incidents did not occur. i.e. the abuser is saying, yes, they did happen.

In both cases, the editors are trying to introduce a double negative either in the belief that that was what must be meant, or that it did not change the meaning. This seems very strange to me because I only really understand European English. This is the version of English used in Europe (including the British Isles), in which double negatives cancel one another and produce an affirmative. Toddy1 (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Toddy1: It appears that the issue started when someone (who apparently didn't quite understand the word "ever") wrongly changed the word "ever" to "never". I think Philip Cross resolved the issue by removing the word "ever", which was just for emphasis and isn't necessary. The point is that the gaslighter is being covertly abusive; for the abuse to be covert, the gaslighter has to deny the abuse. Biogeographist (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Reference to play and films

"The play's title alludes to how the abusive husband slowly dims the gas lights in their home, while pretending nothing has changed"

This is incorrect, and actually gets the plot turned backwards. The abuser is searching for jewels, which he believes are in the attic of the building they are in. Each night he goes out, but sneaks back in to search the attic. When he turns on the gaslight in the attic, the lights dim throughout the house. When his wife notices this, and hears footsteps (in an apparently empty house) he starts to create other distractions and subterfuges, so she would believe it is her imagination and she is losing her mind.

The dimming of the gas light was not the gaslighting. The gaslighting was made necessary by the fact the wife noticed the gas light dimming on a regular basis, as he searched the attic.

This is the case with both the original play and the two films: Gas Light § Synopsis and Gaslight (1944 film) § Plot.

If folk don't mind, I'll let someone else rewrite this, as this article is about the behaviour, and I am likely to go on too much about the play and films. Perhaps it would be easier simply to delete this sentance? ChrisMalme (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisMalme: If your only objection is to the quoted sentence, why not just rewrite that single sentence? Biogeographist (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Gaslighting Picard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Star Trek NG fans will readily recognize this to be a clear instance of gaslighting. Here[3] is better source, although it doesn't directly state it:

"Dream House as Five Lights" is a chapter that looks at psychological trauma through the lens of Picard’s torture at the hands of the Cardassians on Star Trek: The Next Generation. "Dream House as 9 Thornton Square" takes its title from a location in the film Gaslight and explains how the movie gave gaslighting its name.

This one[4] however is more direct:

In “Chain of Command, Pt. II,” Picard is taken prisoner by an enemy alien race, the Cardassians, and interrogated for secret military plans by Gul Madred (David Warner) ... Madred’s gaslighting technique ....

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iikigaii (talk • contribs) 02:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This strongly appears to be WP:BE. An unblocked editor should start a fresh discussion with better sources. Finding one source which uses the term in passing is wholly insufficient to meet WP:IPC guidelines. We are not interested in attempting to catalog every single use of the term by sources. Grayfell (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gender Neutral Language in Descriptive Sections.

As the article describes, Gaslighting often occurs within the context of a relationship and is used with frequency by both male and female parties to the relationship. Using gendered language in descriptive sections of the article introduces additional factors that are not essential characteristics of the phenomenon being described.

The second paragraph of the Characteristics section begins with a quote from Dorpat's Gaslighting, the Double Whammy, Interrogation, and Other Methods of Covert Control in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis that uses male pronouns in its descriptive:

Gaslighting depends on "first convincing the victim that his thinking is distorted and secondly persuading him that the victimizer's ideas are the correct and true ones".

I propose changing the quoted text from its present form to the following:

Gaslighting depends on "first convincing the victim that [their] thinking is distorted and secondly persuading [them] that the victimizer's ideas are the correct and true ones."

Replacing "his" with "their," "him" with "them," and bracketing each word to indicate the variation from the quoted source. Also, moved the period from outside to inside the quotes for gramatical reasons.

Thank you for your consideration. ( Citationsaurus (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC) )

A 1974 Reference in The Six Million Dollar Man

I was advised that I have to come here for consensus, which tells me that this is a dead-end, since I have never seen a consensus actually form in a talk page on this site, but what the heck, I'll try anything once...

In the episode, "The Seven Million Dollar Man," Steve Austin (the hero) runs into another bionic man, but his boss (and friend) Oscar Goldman, his doctor (and friend) Rudy Wells, and his nurse (and friend) Carla Peterson all deny the existence of anyone else with bionics, and tell him he's been imagining it. When he finally gets proof and confronts Goldman, Goldman again tells Steve that he's imagining things, but Steve cuts him off with "Well, what I'm starting to imagine is that the three people I trust most in the world are gaslighting me!"

The Fandom site for "The Six Million Dollar Man" has this reference: https://bionic.fandom.com/wiki/The_Seven_Million_Dollar_Man#Quotes

And so does IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0702124/quotes/?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu

Either of those should be enough of a reference for something as simple as this, but both together is a slam dunk. I don't know what else you want, other than perhaps an article in the New York Times about the quote, and I think that's taking things just a little too far. This is just a reference to gaslighting about 40 years before we really started hearing it these days and about 30 years after the term first appeared. DeeJaye6 (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Both Fandom and IMDb are user-generated (see WP:UGC) and can't really be used as sources. I'm not usually a fan of IPC sections, but if we have to have them, this example would otherwise probably be worth including since it demonstrates that the show's writer(s) were explicitly making reference to the term and is a much earlier example than the others listed. However, the sourcing concerns still need to be addressed first. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that until six days ago a similar pop culture reference from an October 1968 episode of The Doris Day Show was in the article but it too was deleted (and not by me) for lack of a secondary source, citing WP:IPCV (not a policy, but a good reason): "However, passing mentions of the subject in books, television or film dialogue, or song lyrics should be included only when the significance of that mention is itself demonstrated with secondary sources." Biogeographist (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

You gentlemen are allowing minutiae to get in the way of references that can help to peg when the phrase was used. As it currently stands, a person reading this article would think that the movie came out, and then 60 years later, people started using the phrase in popular culture. Further, it is extraordinarily difficult, if not flat-out impossible, to cite the kinds of sources you are demanding for references like the Six Million Dollar Man or for the Doris Day Show. Those are very old shows that are not part of the current zeitgeist, and only archival sites like IMDb or fan sites (like FanDom) will actually have references like this. I could also point out that the DVDs of the show are also references, but I have no doubt that you would claim that is original research. As it stands, I cannot see how to satisfy this ridiculously constraining requirement and yet, Deacon Vorbis also said that the earlier examples would "probably be worth including," and gave good reasons for why. All Biogeographist seems to care about are that the Rules Are Followed.DeeJaye6 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Then use books and (if available) old periodicals. You can use books published at the time. Or you can use recently-published books that look back at those times - for example, I bought a book that talked about the impact on Dnepropetrovsk of Western [mainly British] pop music and music videos during the 1960s, 70s and 80s, called Rock and Roll in the Rocket City.

Some old periodicals have scanned - for example The Engineer and the R.U.S.I. Journal - though you may have to obtain access through a subscription or a library.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Biogeographist, the reference I made was not a "passing mention" in that episode. The other characters, for the first 15 minutes of the show, had been engaging in gaslighting behavior, made all the more obvious when the main character realized it and called them on it. As such, your claim that this needs more than the IMDb or FanDom references is flawed. DeeJaye6 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The two sources you have cited are not generally reliable. Fandom and IMDB are both WP:UGC. Wikipedia favors secondary sources for both accuracy and also for establishing due weight. One episode of a TV show, which has many other episodes, is not a useful reference for this content. Grayfell (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell, it is your opinion that it is "not a useful reference." The reference takes up roughly 1/3 of an episode (which was only 50 minutes long due to commercial breaks), and there were only 99 episodes. Look at the other references and do the math. The Steely Dan song is only 1 of about 81 songs they produced, and the Days of Our Lives reference is to only 2 months out of over 600 months of the show's run. I maintain that the references, in addition to the actual DVDs themselves, are reliable enough to put this reference back in, to establish that at least one reference was made in popular culture prior to 2000. The 1968 Doris Day Show reference was an actual "passing reference" as it really had little to do with the rest of the episode. Such cannot be said about the Six Million Dollar Man episode I am referencing. DeeJaye6 (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

It is reasons like above expressed by Grayfell is why Wikipedia lacks any substantive credibility. How many songs or episodes produced by a TV show or band is irrelevant to whether the reference was made as such a reference establishes that the term was in use by the time the episode was produced, which is the point in establishing the word's etymological chronology. Wikipedia editors just make up their own rules. This is why it is still not considered a valid academic reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E48B:B600:70BB:C242:2E5D:AF9A (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Americanism?

Earlier in the year, having become interested in the term, and aware that for many years I have been saturated in English language usage and not come across it until very recently, I checked in a number of dictionaries and found that it did not appear in the English and Scottish ones, coming to the conclusion that this was a longstanding US usage which had only recently become widely current in the UK. I amended this article to this effect, and was surprised to find the edit immediately reversed by Biogeographer, on the grounds that I cited insufficient proof.

The evidence I cited was good, so far as it went, and I think that Biogeographer sets the bar of proof too high here. Nor I think is my observation sufficiently significant to be classed as original research. I am not going to waste my time in edit wars with Biogeographer, but if other editors have other relevant evidence they might want to bring it forward. Deipnosophista (talk) 17:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the evidence you cited wasn't good. Take a look at a couple of early publications about the subject in the clinical literature:

• Barton, Russell; Whitehead, J. A. (June 1969). "The gas-light phenomenon". The Lancet (London, England). 293 (7608): 1258–1260. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(69)92133-3. PMID 4182427. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Smith, Charles G.; Sinanan, Kenneth (June 1972). "The 'gaslight phenomenon' reappears: a modification of the Ganser syndrome". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 120 (559): 685–686. doi:10.1192/bjp.120.559.685. PMID 5043219. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Both publications were published in the UK and written by physicians from Severalls Hospital, Colchester (Barton); Prestwich Hospital, Manchester (Whitehead); and St. Patrick's Hospital, Dublin (Smith & Sinanan). This proves that the term was being used in the UK and Ireland in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and decimates your claim that the term was not used there until the 2010s. As I said in my edit summary reverting your claim, from the 1960s the term was used in books that presumably were read internationally. Plus there is the fact that the term was based on a work by an English playwright, Patrick Hamilton, and the British film version preceded the American remake, so the UK would have had every reason to adopt the term. Biogeographist (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Politics section POV tag

An IP prefaced the politics section bottom (text about Trump) “The following are examples of gaslighting due to the use of partisan citations.“ and appended “(non-partisan citations needed)”. For better form, I have replaced that with a POV dispute tag on the section.

I also think there are two reasonable concerns here.

First, the content differs in that it is dealing with current events in a LABEL way, more a POV claim about President Trump than a descriptive about the topic, while the others are long-past that help understand what ‘gaslighting’ is. So the IP asserts the section is itself gaslighting.

Second, the complaint is that of POV (or perhaps cherry-picked) citations and the IP said non-partisan cites are needed. I doubt there really *are* many non-partisan sources these days, but yes the Washington Post and New York Times and CNN have an adversarial history with President Trump so that this label may be more an reflection of that than anything different about his gaslighting than of others, and yes there is no cite to Epoch Times or any RS noted as pro-Trump or right-wing.

I think the section appears unnecessary and not adding anything about the TOPIC, just a digression of noting an individual and current-politics attack. Unless something is technically unique about the gaslighting of President Trump (I.e. excluding simple allegations that he does it or accusations of ‘worst’ or ‘frequent’), it seems best to just delete the paragraph as unnecessary addition. Alternatively this could follow NPOV by adding other significant views in DUE proportion, but I don’t see any topical example or new flavour of gaslighting offered so that seems still unnecessary. Finally, this could BALANCE by offering remarks of Biden gaslighting — but that just seems adding more POV of the other form, and I’d rather eliminate the POV disput.

Preferences ? Thought ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Balance" isn't necessary to maintain a neutral point of view. Neither, in fact, is citing to unbiased or "non-partisan" sources (CNN, NYT, etc. are biased, as every single media institution in human history has been, but they're not outlets for the DNC; they are not "partisan" to begin with). What matters are due weight and the reliability of the sources we cite. CNN, NYT, et al., while being considered by Wikipedia as reliable in general, are all perfectly reliable sources for the assertion that Trump's behavior has been widely described as "gaslighting". Whether or not one considers what he does to be "gaslighting" is entirely beside the point, as Wikipedia doesn't make that assertion in its own voice; we only report what sources are saying, and a lot of sources are saying this. Deleting the section when there is clearly a surge of the use of the term in politics (or at least American political reporting) would itself lend to another agenda: that of keeping any mention of the widespread use of the term in relation to Trump out of the article.

If you can find good sources that describe what Biden (or anyone else, for that matter) has done as "gaslighting", hey, feel free to add that to the article – giving them, as you say, only their due weight – but as the section stands (as of this revision), I don't think this dispute is being made in good faith, and the tag should be removed. It's not Wikipedia's fault that "gaslighting" is most commonly used to describe what Trump is doing. WP Ludicer (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Improvements to the article, and the lead

I found that the article did not explain gaslighting all that well. So I have been improving it. In particular, take a look at the "Characteristics" section which should give an overview of the subject. Given these changes I propose that we revamp the lead as well. BecomeFree (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

In general, I agree that your changes were improvements, although I made a few alterations. Biogeographist (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate the changes. I've made a few of mine as well. Take a look. If there is any disagreement, we can discuss it here. BecomeFree (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

I added a bit to the lead and removed {{Lead rewrite}}. Take a look and see what you think. Biogeographist (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I see that you added "in popular culture", but the lead is otherwise unchanged. I proposed a rewrite of the lead (the first paragraph), based on the new 'Characteristics' section. These are some problems with the current lead: a) "seeds of doubt" doesn't quite capture the covert "transfer", b) "memory, perception and sanity" seems odd to me (especially sanity, as gaslighting can be covert/subtle); I'd use "thinking, perception and reality", just as it is described in Characteristics section, because it is more general. c) No mention of the immediate effects (low self-esteem, and cognitive dissonance) or potential consequences (anxiety, depression), d) I can't quite put why but the second sentence (referring lying, etc.) seems to be against the 'conscious or unconscious' characterization as it gives the impression that gaslighting is mostly conscious. BecomeFree (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

I would avoid the psychoanalytic explanation in the lead, including the related "psychic transfer" rhetoric. Psychoanalytic explanations are not uncontroversial (see Psychoanalysis § Criticism, Resistance (psychoanalysis) § Criticisms, etc.). The lead should just focus on the overt behavior and the more theoretically-neutral cognitive aspects. For this reason, "sows seeds of doubt" (or some phrase like that) is better than the "transfer" metaphor from psychoanalytic theory. The writer of Gas Light could address the phenomenon without psychoanalytic theory, and the lead should too. I changed "lying" to "falsity" to address your concern above. Biogeographist (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think "memory, perception and sanity" is basically equivalent to "thinking, perception and reality", and I see no need to repeat the latter terms word-for-word. There's a book titled Reasoning as Memory (Psychology Press, 2015) that highlights the interdependence of memory and thinking. The "sanity" (mental sanity) issue is particularly salient in the fictional dramas from which the term derives. Also, I just checked the source to which "thinking, perception and reality" is referenced, and the term in the source is "reality testing", so I changed the text accordingly. As the Reality testing article states, "Limited reality testing capabilities can sometimes be a function of a mental disorder." The strategy of making a victim question their reality-testing ability is tantamount to making them question their mental sanity, hence there is no problem with the phrase "making them question their own memory, perception, or sanity" in the lead. Biogeographist (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC) and 19:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I was carried with away it, but upon reflection I see your point of keeping psychoanalytic explanation away from the lead. It makes sense to keep things simple there. Good find, re: "reality testing" (I had never heard of this before). And I think I'm starting to see the role of "memory" as well. "Sanity" ... I'm not sure, it sounds rather clinical rather than something that applies to people in everyday walk of life (and as lay reader reading "sanity" gives me an indication that gaslighting is probably limited to people with mental disorders, but of course it is not). Anyway that's my impression.

So far, so good. There is just one more change I'd like to make: "sows seeds of doubt" doesn't sound great to me (it suggests a conscious act), so I'd propose that we phrase it as: [...] a form of psychological manipulation, that can be conscious or unconscious, in which a person or a group covertly attempts to influence the mental functioning of a targeted individual by causing the latter to question their judgments, memory, perceptions and/or reality testing. This is in fact mostly straight from Theodore L. Dorpat's book, page 6.[5] BecomeFree (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

Remember that Dorpat's book is a professional book written by a psychiatrist for other clinicians. So the language is much more technical than the lead of this article should be. Your proposed text attempts to influence the mental functioning of a targeted individual sounds too technical to me. I also find a form of psychological manipulation, that can be conscious or unconscious to be ambiguous, since it may not be exactly clear to the reader whether can be conscious or unconscious applies to the victimizer or the victim. Ideally it should be clear that gaslighting can be conscious or unconscious for the victimizer, but I'm not sure how to make that clear.

Regarding "sanity", I consider that to be a commonly used lay term for mental health, but I'm not sure how I would prove that beyond pointing to the dictionary. Personally I prefer to use the term "mental sanity" instead, since etymologically sanity just means "health". I don't see how anyone who read the first sentence carefully could come away with the impression that gaslighting victims are limited to people with mental disorders. Biogeographist (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

After thinking about it a little more, I am thinking that the clause that can be conscious or unconscious should be excluded from the lead. Do we need to get into the gaslighter's motives and to what degree those motives are conscious? There are potentially infinite motives and a range of degrees of self-awareness of those motives. Biogeographist (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, regarding keeping it less technical. About 'sanity', I can see that too (English is not my first language). I've removed "conscious or unconscious" from the lead, and made a couple more adjustments. At this point, I'm satisfied with the article. BecomeFree (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

Cognitive dissonance

So about this change[6] the source refers to "cognitive dyscontrol". We don't have a Wikipedia article on that, and I figured it must be an alias to cognitive dissonance. Too bad, the source doesn't say it clearly. But based on my understanding of the subject, and observing of real-world examples, I'd say cognitive dissonance does play a vital role in it.

Here's one source: Gaslighting results in cognitive dissonance and a feeling of insecurity, not knowing what is true and what isn’t.[7]

I think it would be useful to include this connection in one form or the other.

BecomeFree (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

Cognitive dyscontrol just means cognitive lack of control, that is, not being cognitively in control of oneself or not being cognitively self-possessed, being "out of control", etc. Dorpat's use of that term is congruent with his emphasis on gaslighting as a form of interpersonal control by the victimizer of the victim.

Cognitive dissonance/coherence is a nearly omnipresent phenomenon in human cognition, and I doubt that mentioning it helps explain gaslighting.

Anyway, the source you cited above is not a good source: it's a blog that cites Wikipedia for its definition of cognitive dissonance, which is close to being a WP:CIRCULAR reference. Biogeographist (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a normal human experiences cognitive dissonance all that often; only during certain events like when being gaslighted, or generally when coming across facts that contradict their perception. I think cognitive dissonance plays a critical role in gaslighting, and given the fact that it has a substantially lengthy article on Wikipedia (see cognitive dissonance) - if reliable academic sources mention it, we should use it in the article. It sends a clear message to readers that cognitive dissonance is a part of gaslighting, and curious readers can read that article as well in order to gain a more thorough understanding of the subject.

Now that I have some time, I found a few good sources that do mention it:

a) the gaslighter begins the process of gaslighting by introducing cognitive dissonance, often quite emotionally charged cognitive dissonance, into the relationship with his victim, dissonance that specifically requires the victim to decide between her own way of viewing things and that of the gaslighter, and the gaslighter then works directly or indirectly to ensure that the victim resolves the dissonance in his favor, specifically by downgrading her conception of herself as a locus of independent thought and judgment relative to him.

b) In whistle-blower gaslighting, the gaslighter creates cognitive dissonance in the whistle-blower by pronouncing that her distress at reprisals and stonewalling are merely irrational responses to minor, isolated bureaucratic irritations.(PDF),

c) Stephanie Moulton Sarkis: It takes a certain amount of cognitive dissonance to remain connected to a gaslighter[...]. Cognitive dissonance occurs when you have information about the gaslighter that is completely contradictory to your beliefs, values, and what you thought you knew about that person.

BecomeFree (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

OK, you've convinced me that cognitive dissonance can be mentioned in the lead, but I stand by what I said about cognitive dissonance/coherence being a nearly omnipresent phenomenon in human cognition. I could explain theoretically why this is so, but instead I'll just mention some numbers. When I search for "cognitive dissonance" in my own personal digital library, about 1,500 documents are returned in all kinds of subjects. A search for "cognitive dissonance" on PsycINFO returns 3,576 results in a wide range of subjects. A search for "cognitive dissonance" on Google Scholar returns 152,000 results in an incredible range of subjects. Biogeographist (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I thought you meant omnipresent in day to day life, but really you are talking of being omnipresent in academic research. It doesn't come across as surprise to me that cognitive dissonance features quite often in human cognition, inasmuch as my understanding is that affect (which itself is pervasive; see core affect in particular) underlies cognitive dissonance. Incidentally, affect happens to be my area of interest as far as psychology is concerned. BecomeFree (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

References

destabilize and delegitimize

gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs - I'm curious from where in the body can one infer this description in the lead, especially the words destabilize and delegitimize? Curious to understand, and also curious to figure out if this a suboptimal way of describing ... BecomeFree (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

delegitimize the victim's beliefs: Gaslighting depends on "first convincing the victim that his thinking is distorted and secondly persuading him that the victimizer's ideas are the correct and true ones".

destabilize the victim: After the victim loses confidence in their mental capacities, they become more susceptible to the victimizer's control.

I didn't write destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's beliefs, but I think it sounds good—nice grammatical parallelism and alliteration. Still, I would be open to considering alternatives. Biogeographist (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Role of authority, gullibility and confabulation

When there is a chance, I'd like to study and see if something can be said in the article linking gaslighting to these concepts. So far it doesn't seem like a great deal of research has been done on these connections. cf.[8] BecomeFree (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

As you may know, philosopher Andrew Spear, one of whose articles is already cited, wrote another recent article on gaslighting and confabulation: Spear, Andrew D. (February 2020). "Gaslighting, confabulation, and epistemic innocence". Topoi. 39 (1): 229–241. doi:10.1007/s11245-018-9611-z. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Biogeographist (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Misdirection

The first paragraph of the article refers to "misdirection" but it is not clear to me in what (psychological) sense is this word being used here. The body of the article does not seem to talk about it either. The word is usually used in the context of magic tricks, and perhaps we can glean some ways of elaborating on it using this reference. Roostnerve (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

Perhaps we could create a new article Misdirection (psychology) and link to it from here. I might just do that! Roostnerve (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

I don't think the term "misdirection" is being used in a special psychological sense, if there is such a sense. It's just a straightforward description of a behavior, described in the dictionary definition (my dictionary gives more definitions than Wiktionary does, but the Wiktionary definition is apt here). Biogeographist (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. English not being my native language I observe that I have never used this word before in my life (though it is a useful one). Roostnerve (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

References

Gap in characteristics

Gaslighting depends on "first convincing the victim that his thinking is distorted and secondly persuading him that the victimizer's ideas are the correct and true ones". Gaslighting induces cognitive dissonance in the victim, "often quite emotionally charged cognitive dissonance" - Okay, so I think there is a substantial gap in this flow. Specifically what happens right before the cognitive dissonance is induced? What methods exactly are employed (consciously or otherwise) by the victimizer to evoke the dissonance? I thought the 'signs and methods' section talked about it, but it does so in a more specialized context (relationships), so I think we would need something similar but more general (applying to all contexts). Perhaps we could elaborate on how exactly things like "misdirection", "contradiction", etc (in lead) psychologically function? Assuming psychological research has caught up to that level of granularity that is, of course. Roostnerve (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCK

Well, what happens right before the cognitive dissonance is induced is that the gaslighter's (verbal or other) behavior clashes with what the victim knows. Which behaviors would successfully induce cognitive dissonance would depend on characteristics of the situation and the people involved.

I doubt that anyone has complied a rigorous taxonomy of gaslighting tactics/behaviors based on a large quantity of case studies. There has not been much psychological research on gaslighting, as can be seen in a search for the term in PsycINFO and PubMed. The sourcing of this article, in my opinion, is generally poor, but the sourcing of this article reflects fairly well the current state of available sources. I just looked at a 2017 dissertation titled "An exploratory study of personality factors related to psychological abuse and gaslighting", and in its section titled "Gaslighting tactics", its author cited the same kind of psychoanalytic and pop psychology sources that are cited in this article, likely for lack of better sources. Biogeographist (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kenidevlin. Peer reviewers: Rsrour.