Critical Thinking QuickLinks — January 2024

I question the inclusion of that article about gaslighting as an example of Critical Thinking.

The article provides this definition in the abstract: “Gaslighting is an understudied form of abuse wherein a sane and rational survivor is convinced of their own epistemic incompetence on false pretenses by a perpetrator.”

Disregarding the highly prejudicial terms “survivor” and “perpetrator”, at least this includes a couple of important tests:
– “false pretenses”, which would in legal terms be deliberate and knowing misrepresentation of a material past or existing fact made for the purpose of gain
– “epistemic (in)competence”, an (in)ability to grasp reality.

Both these key aspects are contingent on something outside of the “survivor”‘s experience, either in the mind of the “perpetrator” (knowing and intentional misrepresentation), or in the circumstances themselves (material facts or reality that surpass subjective perception).

However, the definition inviting the participants to give their experiences particularly excludes those external conditions:
“Gaslighting is when one person causes another to doubt their own thoughts, feelings, memories, and beliefs. Gaslighting can take many forms from outright calling someone crazy/irrational/oversensitive, to twisting the facts, refusing to talk about issues, or saying one thing while doing another.”

While the article says this definition is consistent with other academic publications, it is a pointless definition, merely that of an aggrieved state. Donald Trump, for example, can claim that others are attempting to cause him to doubt his own thoughts and beliefs, but that does not mean he is being gaslit by others who point out his falsehoods and cognitive distortions.

Unfortunately, we have to deal with the fact that there is no “immaculate perception” in humans. Cognitive science has revealed many cognitive and perceptual biases, the motivated reasoning that affects people all the more when they are under stress. I see this frequently in my work as a couples counsellor. While we strive to meet “survivors” with compassion, while we can give a suffering individual some benefit of the doubt, it is unreasonable to therefore take all claims of abuse as objectively accurate and complete evidence of perpetration, lest we encourage a race within conflicted dyads for the most aggrieved party.

Any deliberate manipulation or undermining of another person’s grasp on “reality” is indeed a deplorable practice, and I’m certain this occurs, and I feel for those who suffer from this. However, what I see much more often in cases of human discord is that the reality claimed by either side is malformed or at least incomplete. My concern is in providing either party in a dispute a handy pejorative label that carries an implied therapist’s stamp of legitimacy. It is too easily weaponized, used as a cudgel on the other party in an attempt to gain superiority, to cut any conversation short, to shame or shut down the other. This is only going to increase conflict, not help to resolve it.

The co-opting of psychotherapeutic terminology by the general public for self-justifying or other-accusing purposes is a great peril. Following Merriam-Webster awarding “gaslighting” as the 2022 Word of the Year, Time Magazine called it “perhaps the most often misconstrued word of the past few years….” The popularity of it derives from the ease with which it may be misused to complain of any act that’s insensitive, a lie, or simply a difference of opinion. This fuels and appears to validate any claims of abuse by purported victims.

Furthermore, such misuse of the term can dilute its meaning and cause desensitization to more “paradigmatic”, more objectively intentionally misrepresentative, more clearly harmful and destructive gaslighting. This reduces the clinical utility of the term and diminishes the experiences of greater victims.

Yet, the authors did not attempt to verify the validity of the participants’ claims of gaslighting as a behaviour, but rather relied on their self-identification as survivors of an experience they presume to be gaslighting. The authors even acknowledge that some participant experiences were other forms of abuse or relationship conflict that do not qualify as gaslighting. They note that some participants reported experiences that were less prototypical of gaslighting, that is, not being directly accused of epistemic incompetence or not feeling a loss of grip on reality, but which they nevertheless included in their analysis.

The authors state:
> We chose to rely on self-identification as a criterion for inclusion in this study for several reasons. Firstly, gaslighting is a subjective experience; it is not possible to objectively determine whether or not someone has been gaslighted. Secondly, gaslighting is a form of abuse that targets one’s sense of reality and rationality; thus, survivors’ own judgments of their experiences are particularly important and should not be dismissed or invalidated by researchers. Thirdly, gaslighting is an understudied phenomenon that lacks clear and consistent operational definitions; therefore, imposing strict criteria for inclusion may exclude relevant and informative cases of gaslighting.

Thus, while the analysis includes reports of many lamentable or even condemnable behaviours, they are not exclusively or directly determinative of gaslighting — as of the more rigorous opening definition, at least.

So this article is an exploratory muddle that provides mushy “evidence” of subjective experience. The use of a recognized grounded theory research approach does not make the study systematic and rigorous, if the participants are self-selecting members of an audience bombarded with mangled usage by a social media industry that thrives on selling victimhood.

Without diminishing the impact of the cited subjective experiences upon the participants, I can say that without independent observation and investigation into the actual interactions between people, the study risks being a one-sided and self-serving rehash of popular memes, not a demonstration of critical thinking.

Comments (2) on “Critical Thinking QuickLinks — January 2024”

Pingback: January 2024 Critical Links – Centre for Inquiry Canada
Andre Lampa says:

January 16, 2024 at 10:11 pm

I question the inclusion of that article about gaslighting as an example of Critical Thinking.

The article provides this definition in the abstract: “Gaslighting is an understudied form of abuse wherein a sane and rational survivor is convinced of their own epistemic incompetence on false pretenses by a perpetrator.”

Disregarding the highly prejudicial terms “survivor” and “perpetrator”, at least this includes a couple of important tests:
– “false pretenses”, which would in legal terms be deliberate and knowing misrepresentation of a material past or existing fact made for the purpose of gain
– “epistemic (in)competence”, an (in)ability to grasp reality.

Both these key aspects are contingent on something outside of the “survivor”‘s experience, either in the mind of the “perpetrator” (knowing and intentional misrepresentation), or in the circumstances themselves (material facts or reality that surpass subjective perception).

However, the definition inviting the participants to give their experiences particularly excludes those external conditions:
“Gaslighting is when one person causes another to doubt their own thoughts, feelings, memories, and beliefs. Gaslighting can take many forms from outright calling someone crazy/irrational/oversensitive, to twisting the facts, refusing to talk about issues, or saying one thing while doing another.”

While the article says this definition is consistent with other academic publications, it is a pointless definition, merely that of an aggrieved state. Donald Trump, for example, can claim that others are attempting to cause him to doubt his own thoughts and beliefs, but that does not mean he is being gaslit by others who point out his falsehoods and cognitive distortions.

Unfortunately, we have to deal with the fact that there is no “immaculate perception” in humans. Cognitive science has revealed many cognitive and perceptual biases, the motivated reasoning that affects people all the more when they are under stress. I see this frequently in my work as a couples counsellor. While we strive to meet “survivors” with compassion, while we can give a suffering individual some benefit of the doubt, it is unreasonable to therefore take all claims of abuse as objectively accurate and complete evidence of perpetration, lest we encourage a race within conflicted dyads for the most aggrieved party.

Any deliberate manipulation or undermining of another person’s grasp on “reality” is indeed a deplorable practice, and I’m certain this occurs, and I feel for those who suffer from this. However, what I see much more often in cases of human discord is that the reality claimed by either side is malformed or at least incomplete. My concern is in providing either party in a dispute a handy pejorative label that carries an implied therapist’s stamp of legitimacy. It is too easily weaponized, used as a cudgel on the other party in an attempt to gain superiority, to cut any conversation short, to shame or shut down the other. This is only going to increase conflict, not help to resolve it.

The co-opting of psychotherapeutic terminology by the general public for self-justifying or other-accusing purposes is a great peril. Following Merriam-Webster awarding “gaslighting” as the 2022 Word of the Year, Time Magazine called it “perhaps the most often misconstrued word of the past few years….” The popularity of it derives from the ease with which it may be misused to complain of any act that’s insensitive, a lie, or simply a difference of opinion. This fuels and appears to validate any claims of abuse by purported victims.

Furthermore, such misuse of the term can dilute its meaning and cause desensitization to more “paradigmatic”, more objectively intentionally misrepresentative, more clearly harmful and destructive gaslighting. This reduces the clinical utility of the term and diminishes the experiences of greater victims.

Yet, the authors did not attempt to verify the validity of the participants’ claims of gaslighting as a behaviour, but rather relied on their self-identification as survivors of an experience they presume to be gaslighting. The authors even acknowledge that some participant experiences were other forms of abuse or relationship conflict that do not qualify as gaslighting. They note that some participants reported experiences that were less prototypical of gaslighting, that is, not being directly accused of epistemic incompetence or not feeling a loss of grip on reality, but which they nevertheless included in their analysis.

The authors state:
> We chose to rely on self-identification as a criterion for inclusion in this study for several reasons. Firstly, gaslighting is a subjective experience; it is not possible to objectively determine whether or not someone has been gaslighted. Secondly, gaslighting is a form of abuse that targets one’s sense of reality and rationality; thus, survivors’ own judgments of their experiences are particularly important and should not be dismissed or invalidated by researchers. Thirdly, gaslighting is an understudied phenomenon that lacks clear and consistent operational definitions; therefore, imposing strict criteria for inclusion may exclude relevant and informative cases of gaslighting.

Thus, while the analysis includes reports of many lamentable or even condemnable behaviours, they are not exclusively or directly determinative of gaslighting — as of the more rigorous opening definition, at least.

So this article is an exploratory muddle that provides mushy “evidence” of subjective experience. The use of a recognized grounded theory research approach does not make the study systematic and rigorous, if the participants are self-selecting members of an audience bombarded with mangled usage by a social media industry that thrives on selling victimhood.

Without diminishing the impact of the cited subjective experiences upon the participants, I can say that without independent observation and investigation into the actual interactions between people, the study risks being a one-sided and self-serving rehash of popular memes, not a demonstration of critical thinking.

Comments are closed.