New look at gaslighting as a defence of the internal narrative.
Gaslighting #
Matthias J Barker said: “When a person grows up in an environment where their sense of reality is frequently dismissed or invalidated, they might start to think that reality isn’t something that’s fixed, that it can be manipulated to create a version that makes THEM feel safe or in control. So, when they say things like, “I was on time” when they were clearly late, or “I never said that!” when you clearly remember the conversation, they’re not just lying — they’re rewriting reality to fit their internal narrative, to feel safe.” Your comment, please? #
Matthias J. Barker’s observation offers a nuanced perspective on the psychological mechanisms underlying certain behaviors often dismissed as mere dishonesty. This conceptualization aligns with several theories in psychology that explore the impact of early environmental influences on cognitive and emotional development.
When an individual’s sense of reality is consistently invalidated or dismissed, particularly in formative years, it can lead to a maladaptive coping strategy where the person learns to reconstruct their reality to align with their emotional needs. This is not simply a matter of conscious deception but a deeper psychological adjustment aimed at achieving a sense of control and safety.
This phenomenon can be understood through the lens of several psychological theories:
Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Proposed by Leon Festinger, this theory posits that individuals experience psychological discomfort (dissonance) when they hold two conflicting cognitions. To alleviate this discomfort, they may alter one of the cognitions to achieve consonance. In the context described by Barker, the individual may alter their perception of reality to resolve the dissonance between their internal state and external reality.
Attachment Theory: John Bowlby’s work on attachment suggests that early interactions with caregivers shape one’s expectations and responses to relationships and the world. Inconsistent or dismissive caregiving can lead to an insecure attachment style, where the individual might develop a distorted sense of reality as a protective mechanism.
Gaslighting and Emotional Abuse: Chronic invalidation is a form of emotional abuse known as gaslighting, where the abuser manipulates the victim into doubting their own perceptions and reality. Over time, victims may internalize this behavior, leading them to unconsciously adopt similar strategies as a means of self-preservation.
Constructivist Epistemology: This philosophical approach posits that knowledge and understanding are constructed rather than discovered. In an environment where one’s reality is persistently challenged, an individual may come to view reality as malleable, leading to a subjective construction of facts and events to maintain psychological stability.
Narrative Psychology: This branch of psychology focuses on the stories people construct about their lives. A person whose reality has been frequently dismissed might develop narratives that better align with their need for validation and control, even if these narratives diverge from objective facts.
Barker’s statement highlights the importance of understanding these behaviors within their psychological context rather than merely labeling them as dishonest. It underscores the significance of addressing the root causes, such as the need for safety and control, which drive these reality-altering behaviors. Therapeutic approaches might focus on validating the individual’s experiences and helping them develop healthier coping mechanisms that do not rely on distorting reality.
In essence, Barker’s insight calls for a compassionate and psychologically informed approach to dealing with individuals who exhibit these behaviors, recognizing the complex interplay of early experiences, cognitive processes, and emotional needs that contribute to their construction of reality.
How can one distinguish delusion from dishonesty in this context? #
Distinguishing between delusion and dishonesty in the context of an individual who frequently rewrites reality to fit their internal narrative requires careful consideration of psychological, behavioral, and contextual factors. Here are some key points to guide this distinction:
Characteristics of Delusion:
Consistency with Internal Belief: Delusions are firmly held beliefs that are resistant to contrary evidence. An individual with delusions genuinely believes in the altered reality they present.
Lack of Intent to Deceive: Delusional individuals do not intend to deceive others. Their statements and behaviors are congruent with their internal reality.
Psychotic Features: Delusions often occur within the context of psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder with psychotic features. These might be accompanied by other symptoms like hallucinations, disorganized thinking, or significant mood disturbances.
Impairment in Functioning: Delusions typically lead to significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Reaction to Contradiction: When presented with contradictory evidence, individuals with delusions often react with confusion, frustration, or even hostility, as the contradiction threatens their deeply held beliefs.
*Characteristics of Dishonesty:
Awareness of Reality: Dishonest individuals are aware of the true reality but choose to present an altered version for personal gain or to avoid negative consequences.
Intent to Deceive: The primary motivation behind dishonesty is to manipulate others’ perceptions or actions. This intent to deceive differentiates it from delusional thinking.
Behavioral Flexibility: Dishonest individuals may change their story or behavior when it suits their needs. They are often more adaptive to new information if it helps maintain their deception.
Situational and Goal-Oriented: Dishonesty is often situational and aimed at achieving specific goals, such as evading responsibility, gaining advantage, or avoiding punishment.
Reaction to Contradiction: When confronted with contradictory evidence, dishonest individuals might try to cover up, rationalize, or shift their narrative to maintain the deception.
Approaches to Differentiation:
Contextual Analysis: Examine the context in which the statements or behaviors occur. If the altered reality serves a clear, situational purpose, it might indicate dishonesty. If it is pervasive and not clearly beneficial, delusion is more likely.
Pattern Recognition: Look for patterns in behavior over time. Consistent, unchanging beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary suggest delusion. Variable stories that shift according to circumstances suggest dishonesty.
Psychological Evaluation: A comprehensive psychological assessment by a trained mental health professional can help identify underlying conditions, such as psychosis or personality disorders, that may contribute to delusional thinking.
Collateral Information: Gathering information from other sources can help verify the individual’s statements. Discrepancies between the individual’s version of events and others’ accounts can provide clues.
Interview Techniques: Skilled interviewers can use specific techniques to elicit truthful responses. For example, asking open-ended questions and observing non-verbal cues can provide insights into the individual’s state of mind.
Practical Examples:
Delusion: An individual consistently insists that they are a famous celebrity despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They may become distressed or hostile when their belief is challenged and show no flexibility in their conviction.
Dishonesty: A person claims they were on time for an appointment to avoid repercussions, even though they know they were late. When confronted with evidence, they might change their excuse or attempt to justify their behavior.
Distinguishing between delusion and dishonesty involves understanding the individual’s motivations, the consistency of their beliefs, and their reactions to contradictory evidence. It requires a nuanced approach that considers psychological, contextual, and behavioral factors. Professional evaluation is often necessary to make a definitive distinction, especially in complex cases.
Which of the two possibilities is more probable when facing a gaslighter? #
When dealing with a gaslighter, dishonesty is generally more probable than delusion. Gaslighting, by its nature, involves deliberate manipulation of another person’s perception of reality to gain control or power. Here’s a detailed breakdown of why dishonesty is more likely in the context of gaslighting:
Nature of Gaslighting:
Intentional Manipulation: Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where the perpetrator intentionally distorts facts, denies previous statements, and uses misinformation to make the victim doubt their own memory, perception, and sanity.
Control and Power: The primary goal of gaslighting is to undermine the victim’s confidence and autonomy, making them more dependent on the gaslighter and easier to control.
Conscious Strategy: Gaslighters are typically aware of their actions and the impact they have on their victims. They use these tactics deliberately to create confusion and instability in the victim’s mind.
Characteristics of Dishonesty in Gaslighting:
Awareness of Reality: Gaslighters are usually aware of the true reality but choose to distort it to serve their purposes. This contrasts with delusional individuals, who genuinely believe in their altered reality.
Pattern of Behavior: Gaslighters often display a consistent pattern of manipulative behavior, adapting their tactics to maintain control over the victim. This adaptability and strategic approach are indicative of conscious dishonesty rather than delusion.
Reactive to Exposure: When gaslighters are confronted with evidence of their manipulation, they often react by further manipulation, denial, or shifting blame, rather than showing confusion or distress typical of delusional individuals.
Comparison with Delusion:
Delusional Thinking: Delusions are rigid, fixed beliefs that are not amenable to contradictory evidence. Delusional individuals are not typically manipulating others deliberately; rather, they are acting in accordance with their distorted perception of reality.
Psychological Impairment: Delusions often occur within the context of severe psychological disorders and result in significant impairment in the individual’s ability to function. Gaslighters, on the other hand, may function well in other areas of their lives and exhibit targeted manipulative behavior.
Psychological and Behavioral Indicators:
Consistency and Purpose: Gaslighters’ behavior is consistently aimed at disorienting the victim and establishing dominance. This consistency and clear purpose are hallmarks of dishonesty.
Emotional Response: Gaslighters typically show a calculated emotional response, often using charm, aggression, or feigned innocence to manipulate the situation. Delusional individuals may exhibit more genuine emotional responses based on their distorted beliefs.
Evidence Handling: When presented with evidence of their manipulation, gaslighters often double down on their tactics, use deflection, or outright deny the facts. This strategic handling of evidence points to conscious deceit rather than an unintentional delusion.
Practical Implications:
Intervention Strategies: Dealing with a gaslighter involves recognizing the manipulative patterns and setting firm boundaries. Therapy for victims focuses on rebuilding self-trust and autonomy. Addressing delusional individuals requires a different approach, often involving psychiatric intervention and treatment of the underlying disorder.
Detection and Response: Understanding the signs of gaslighting (e.g., frequent contradictions, denial of obvious facts, shifting blame) can help in identifying the manipulative behavior early. Responding effectively involves documenting interactions, seeking support, and avoiding engagement in the manipulative dialogue.
Given the strategic, intentional nature of gaslighting, dishonesty is more likely than delusion in these scenarios. Gaslighters are typically aware of their true reality and use manipulation as a deliberate tool to exert control over their victims. Recognizing this distinction is crucial for appropriately addressing the manipulative behavior and supporting the victim in reclaiming their sense of reality.