Talk:Gaslighting
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaslighting article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
in the eye of the victim
- Gaslighting is the subjective experience of having one's reality repeatedly questioned by another.
That's a strange way to put it. It would include debating religious beliefs, for example.
If a stranger on Reddit insists my anecdotes are false, or if I groundlessly believe someone is not taking me seriously, am I gaslit? I don't think so.
I'd be much happier with something like "Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse …" —Tamfang (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Gaslighting refers to the abusive act, not the perception of being abused. The way it is worded now is quite odd, as if to invalidate claims of gaslighting, which I guess is ironic. 2405:9800:B650:45C0:FC4D:3A59:5B09:CE64 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
An old version was Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment. What the darn heck was wrong with that? —Tamfang (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. DFlhb (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)- Old version did not take into account that reliable psychological sources define it as a colloquialism, rarely used in psychology. Not opposed to emphasizing its historical term which referred specifically to "manipulation so extreme as to induce mental illness or to justify commitment of the gaslighted person to a psychiatric institution" as the APA states, but the modern use of the colloquialism is broad, per sources. LemonberryPie (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Right;
sows seeds of doubt
andmaking [people] question their own [...] judgment
wouldn't just include extreme psychological manipulation, but also just banal interpersonal disagreements. I think we should avoid any definition that encompasses the latter. DFlhb (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)- Well then, maybe the definition ought to include the words psychological manipulation? —Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- The colloquial use doesn't distinguish gaslighting from simple lying or a difference of opinion. 72.182.48.15 (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- Right;
- There seems to be pretty good consensus against my version (up top).
- How about
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation occuring over a long period, aimed at making someone doubt their memory, perception of reality, or mental stability. According to psychologist Naomi Torres-Mackie, its three components are "manipulation, control and exploitation of trust".
— supported by the existing citations. LemonberryPie's criticism is still addressed by the last sentence of the lead, which notes that the term is often used more loosely. DFlhb (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)- I would propose including both the historical term (per the APA) and the contemporary term for clarity in the lead.
Gaslighting historically refers to extreme psychological manipulation with the intent to commit an individual to a psychiatric institution or cause mental illness by making them doubt their memory, perception of reality, or mental stability. In contemporary language, gaslighting is a colloquialism describing the subjective experience of having one’s reality repeatedly questioned by another.
I kept in part of your wording as well. LemonberryPie (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)- That works DFlhb (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- okay —Tamfang (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this is the proper approach. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- I would propose including both the historical term (per the APA) and the contemporary term for clarity in the lead.
Mental Health Discrimination
The paragraph under the heading of 'Learned Behaviour' seems problematic to say the least:
"Studies have shown that gaslighting is more prevalent in couples where one or both partners have maladaptive personality traits[26] such as traits associated with short-term mental illness (e.g., depression), substance-induced illness (e.g., alcoholism), mood disorders (e.g., bipolar disorder), anxiety disorders (e.g., PTSD), personality disorder(e.g., BPD, NPD, etc.), neurodevelopmental disorder (e.g., ADHD), or combination of the above (i.e., comorbidity) and are prone to and adept at convincing others to doubt their own perceptions.
[27]"
This appears to be saying that there are studies that show that people with depression, anxiety, PTSD, Bipolar and ADHD are prone to and adept at convincing others to doubt their own perceptions.
First, this doesn't pass the 'sniff-test'.
Second, the ideas in the first part of the sentence are attributed to one source and the ideas in the second part of the sentence to another source. If there are studies showing this surely the whole thing should be attributable to one source (or more) but not part to one source and part to another.
Third, I haven't been able to verify the source on Google Books. The book is "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha Stout Phd. The cited edition (March 2006) isn't searchable. I searched the current edition for anything resembling the Wikipedia entry but couldn't find anything close. There were mentions of the author's case studies in relation to the above mentioned mental health conditions but the excerpt provided was too short to tell if it was the relevant quote. I cannot find the relevant source text elsewhere on line but only checked the usual places.
It seems like the entry has got a bit mixed up and has ended up sounding defamatory to people with a number of different mental health issues.
Can anybody else find the source for this citation - in particular, what study is being referred to?
Thanks PenfoldBrown (talk) 05:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
When the term gained popularity ...
While the article does mention the 1938 play, it seems to state that the term was established by the 1944 film, but it is used in Preston Sturges' 1941 film "The Lady Eve" in a way that seems to indicate it was already an established term by then. Fisk0 (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
This page greatly downplays the significance of Gaslighting ...
... also ... page developer may find this timeline to be of interest ...
Post-Film Recognition (1940s-1950s): The film "Gaslight" was a commercial success and received critical acclaim, including several Academy Awards. As a result, it brought attention to the manipulation tactics used by the husband to deceive his wife. People who saw the film began to discuss the concept of making someone doubt their sanity or perception.
Psychology and Popular Culture (1960s-1970s): The concept of gaslighting started to appear in psychology literature and self-help books. Psychologists and therapists recognized it as a form of emotional abuse and manipulation, and it was discussed in the context of abusive relationships.
Feminist Movement (1970s): The feminist movement of the 1970s played a significant role in popularizing the term "gaslighting." Feminist literature and activists highlighted how gaslighting tactics were often used by men to control and manipulate women in relationships. This contributed to the term's visibility.
Broadened Usage (1980s-Present): Over time, the term expanded beyond its original context of abusive relationships and began to be used more broadly to describe any situation in which one person attempts to manipulate or deceive another person into doubting their own perception or reality. This broader usage has persisted into the present day.
Internet and Pop Culture (2000s-Present): With the rise of the internet and social media, terms and concepts spread rapidly. "Gaslighting" gained even more prominence as it became a common topic in discussions about relationships, psychology, and politics. It is frequently mentioned in online articles, forums, and social media discussions.
Today, "gaslighting" is widely recognized and used to describe various forms of psychological manipulation and emotional abuse in personal relationships, as well as in political and social contexts. Its evolution from a film title to a common expression illustrates how language can adapt and expand over time to describe complex psychological phenomena and social behaviors. 2601:19E:4181:5460:DD62:A7ED:6626:247B (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- B-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- B-Class Feminism articles
- Mid-importance Feminism articles
- WikiProject Feminism articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Systems articles
- Mid-importance Systems articles
- Systems articles in systems psychology
- WikiProject Systems articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages