Talk:Gaslighting

Reference in pop culture (House MD)

Well, since I heard about gaslighting I have found the term being used everywhere lately (as is often the case.) In the new episode of House MD (season 7 episode 12 "You Must Remember This") Doctor Gregory House is upset about his friend Wilson buying a cat, as he sees it as Wilson's way of quitting the dating scene. House decides to hide ragweed in Wilson's house so Wilson would attribute his allergies to the cat. Wilson knows that House is somehow involved and says to him "I am not allergic to cats, you are gaslighting me." House admits this to be true. I thought it was a good example, and since the word is actually used, I thought maybe it could make it in the main article. Thanks Wikipedia for getting me through college by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.178.15 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 17 February 2011

"Shoot" and "Work"

The article contains the line "Popular XM radio show 'Ron_and_Fez' provides a daily example of gas lighting, between the hosts and to the listeners. The entirety of the show is designed as a work on the audience and some cases a shoot presented as a work." Shoot? Work? I don't understand these terms in this context. KASchmidt (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are terms used in the professional wrestling business. A "shoot" is (allegedly) real, and a "work" is faked. (That's a very rough explanation) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinetingler (talk • contribs) 03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Archers

Excellent storyline illustrating this has been going on in the long running BBC radio serial The Archers http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/mar/27/the-archers-george-osborne-a-nation-shudders-over-gaslighting-fact-and-fiction.

This has been a chilling portrayal as Helen,s (the victim) world has slowly shrunk as Rob (the perpetrator) slowly isolates her from family and friends and has her doubting her own perceptions.Stainless316 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Who in the world dropped a new Cold War 2.0 propaganda point in this article?

Hi, i haven't entered any discussion in wikipedia before but was extremely horrified to see a piece of political pov about Russia (specifically from an Adam Curtis film based on the writings of think-tanker Peter Pomerantsev). There is absolutely no reason for something like to be on a wikipedia page for a serious form of psychological abuse. I don't know what the protocol here is (sorry) but I thought I would bring that to the attention of whoever manages this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8403:B1C0:F485:6CB7:3518:E18F (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

                                                                                         I changed the psychotherapy section

                                                                                                  Original

Psychotherapy and psychiatry are thought, by many[who?], to be forms of gaslighting wherein the therapist or psychiatrist is characterized, by the patient, to be of a more sound, all-knowing mind (i.e. an expert). This can potentially create a conflict where the patient is unable to trust their immediate sense of their feelings and surroundings in favor of the interpretations offered by the therapist. Those interpretations will often come in the form of doubt or skepticism at the patient's appraisals and perceptions of their world.[11] Furthermore, gaslighting has been observed between patients and staff in inpatient psychiatric facilities.[12]

I might rework this if someone doesn't add more sources or simplify it. The bolded bit in particular looks very speculative. I checked the sources. "All knowing" seems silly frankly. Doubt too many deceived patients actually see their doctor as "all knowing". Perhaps some do. The second sentence isn't supported by [11] that I can see. [11] Memory creation {from} the source is more about presenting possibilities ideas and using imagination than people being authoritatively "told" to have a memory; "interpreted" as having a memory if you will. The last sentence is supported by [12]. [11] doesn't mention the term "gaslight" or "gaslighting" once. Its about planting memories. While the source identifies instances of probable planting of false memories its unclear from the article whether an attempt to make the patient doubt sanity or perception is part of memory planting in it. In any case "trusting" the interpretation of a therapist over "immediate sense" is-more often than not-not gas lighting (somewhat of an assumption there I know). Perception is often unreliable and trusting a therapist in this regard can be reasonable as well as not a form of manipulation. It looks like the sources main focus is suggestion and there is already an article on that. The Heck I'll just revise it now if that's alright.

                                                                                                Changed to

Gaslighting can occur in psychiatry, psychotherapy, and therapy. There have been instances of psychiatrists being sued for planting memories. [11] It is reported that hypnosis and suggestive techniques were the mechanism in these cases [11]. Elizabeth F. Loftus found in her research that both exposing a subject to a familiar narrative or encouraging a person to imagine a scenario can create memory confabulation. This process commonly occurs unintentionally but can be used to deliberately manipulation despite the mechanisms not being entirely known. Some people are particularly vulnerable to gas-lighting such as interrogated suspects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestive_question) and the mentally ill. Gaslighting has been observed between patients and staff in inpatient psychiatric facilities.[12] The Dr. Patient relationship as well as illness (the main case study in source [12] is an elderly paranoid woman) makes patients in general more susceptible to abuse.

I could only access the abstract of [12]. I read [11]. My paragraph could certainly use more work but I feel its more relevant to the source [11]. My last sentence is speculative. I don't know if I should have added it. I'm mulling it over. From what I read [11] didn't discuss doctors proffering interpretations or even using their authority/expert status to manipulate. That may have been the case in the instances listed in the article but it didn't say (at least that I saw). Although I think what I wrote is better supported by the source it seems a little off topic. I think I might be in favor of removing the section altogether or using better supportive sources.

I think there's might be some questionable sections of the article but I think I'll leave it alone. In particular the sociopathy section appears to be conflating gasslighting with the more general concepts of lying or deception by focusing on effect (doubting a percetpion). Even habitual/regular lying isn't gaslighting per-se nor is doubt (even of perception) indicative of gas lighting. What I got from the 2nd source (listed by definition provided by the first source) was that gas lighting involves actually attempting to undermining anthers confidence in their ability to accurately perceive, reason, or judge (the) situation(s). In that context I wonder if source [11] is germane to the topic at all. Maybe I"m reading source 2 wrong. Oh well, I'm done with edits on this article and will probably stay away from editing wikipedia for a good long while. Last time I did an edit was years ago. ~BGL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.7.253 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump section

Section was removed again... the text in question is as follows:

Donald Trump has been criticized for use of gaslighting techniques during the 2016 presidential campaign, both regarding his own behavior during the election as well as past behavior of allegedly assaulting over ten different women.

@Willondon: your assertion that all three sources' authors don't understand gaslighting seems absurd. I fear the problem is that you're understanding of the term doesn't match the sources' coverage of it FWIW, this happens to me often with terms like "racism" as my understanding of it is at odds with the dictionary and other mainstream RS. We have two good sources and one mediocre one (the everydayfeminims one). A number of sources have covered Trump vis-a-vis gaslighting and I don't quite see why it shouldn't be in this article about the topic. I can find more sources if you like. We can remove the details about the allegations if that would help (as they aren't directly related to the topic of gaslighting).

Also pinging The Anome as they raised concerns about the paragraph as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

My sole reason for removing the para was weak sourcing for a controversial assertion. The sourcing is now much improved. The NYT is definitely a WP:RS, Salon is good too, but I'm not sure about the status of Everday Feminism as a WP:RS. Can you find a better source than this. or justify why Everyday Feminism should be considered a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense of the term? -- The Anome (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with The Anome that NYT is good and Salon is probably ok too, but the Everyday Feminism website is probably not a good source to reference for controversial political content such as this. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

In the interim, I'm going to remove the Everyday Feminism cite from the para, until we have consensus that it meets WP:RS. NYT and Salon should suffice for the moment, and I don't think the EF cite currently helps anything. I've also removed the direct mention of allegations, as that would appear to be a WP:COATRACK. -- The Anome (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

That works for me! EvergreenFir (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with the New York Times. The paragraph seems a bit current affairsy for a general article on gaslighting, though. Anyway, I'm happy to have had my say, and to see how things turn out. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is undue prominence--yes, people accuse Trump of gaslighting, but lots of politicians and public figures are accused similarly. (I could give a long list of people saying that Hillary Clinton engages in gaslighting behavior.) So yes, while we can certainly verify that these accusations are made, I think it's inappropriate/unnecessary to highlight just the accusations against one politician. I won't go in and remove it on my own, but count this as another vote for removing this ref. — Narsil (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It reads a bit too flavor-of-the-month-esque. Trump may be gaslighting, and we have assertions, but is it relevant specifically to the topic at hand, or simply shoe-horned in due to recent occurrences? I would argue the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.238.97.203 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The material has been removed until clear consensus for inclusion is reached. --68.228.149.115 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

References

See also section

Can this section please be reduced or eliminated. Thank you, --68.228.149.115 (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)