![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
on gaslighting
(this is an edited version of a comment I made on one of Fayanora's posts a few years back. Figured it deserved wider distribution:
"There’s a form of mental torture called “gaslighting,” its name taken from a play in which a man..." http://t.co/bMtUp2LccQ
Abuse survivors deal with this a lot, and even more so when they are still being abused.
It's due to a major disconnect most folks have.
They (wrongly) believe that *intent* matters. So if it wasn't intended as abuse, it's not actually abusive.
But in reality, intent *doesn't* matter. You can do something with the best of intentions and still hurt someone if they are wired that way.
A good example is allergies. I don't care *how* much care and love you put into that dish of X. If I'm allergic to something in it, you'll put me in the hospital (or the morgue) by making me eat it.
Same thing applies to abusive behavior. Even the racial stuff and GLBT stuff.
But people will fight bitterly to avoid acknowledging this. Because if they do, it means they have to accept several things that they don't want to.
That good intentions don't matter. That other people are not like them, and thus don't react like they do. And worst of all, that being different that way is *not* wrong.
And that last is why so many reactions to getting called on stuff boil down to "you're doing this just to be contrary" (because they *literally* can't conceive of someone actually being/thinking "that" way)
I blame the golden rule for a lot of this. It *inherently assumes* that other people are just like you. The allergy example I used above points out the problems with that.
And gee, ever notice how many people don't *really* believe that allergies exist, they think that they are just people being unreasonably "picky".
Funny how that looks like the folks who claim that they aren't being insensitive/abusive.
The version of the "golden rule" used in metalaw works better but people really hate it:
Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
People immediately jump to "but they can abuse that for all sorts of things". Which says a lot about how they think...
"There’s a form of mental torture called “gaslighting,” its name taken from a play in which a man..." http://t.co/bMtUp2LccQ
Abuse survivors deal with this a lot, and even more so when they are still being abused.
It's due to a major disconnect most folks have.
They (wrongly) believe that *intent* matters. So if it wasn't intended as abuse, it's not actually abusive.
But in reality, intent *doesn't* matter. You can do something with the best of intentions and still hurt someone if they are wired that way.
A good example is allergies. I don't care *how* much care and love you put into that dish of X. If I'm allergic to something in it, you'll put me in the hospital (or the morgue) by making me eat it.
Same thing applies to abusive behavior. Even the racial stuff and GLBT stuff.
But people will fight bitterly to avoid acknowledging this. Because if they do, it means they have to accept several things that they don't want to.
That good intentions don't matter. That other people are not like them, and thus don't react like they do. And worst of all, that being different that way is *not* wrong.
And that last is why so many reactions to getting called on stuff boil down to "you're doing this just to be contrary" (because they *literally* can't conceive of someone actually being/thinking "that" way)
I blame the golden rule for a lot of this. It *inherently assumes* that other people are just like you. The allergy example I used above points out the problems with that.
And gee, ever notice how many people don't *really* believe that allergies exist, they think that they are just people being unreasonably "picky".
Funny how that looks like the folks who claim that they aren't being insensitive/abusive.
The version of the "golden rule" used in metalaw works better but people really hate it:
Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
People immediately jump to "but they can abuse that for all sorts of things". Which says a lot about how they think...
no subject
FWIW, the Jewish version of the Golden Rule seems to me to be very nearly the most sensible way to approach things: “That which you find hateful, do not do unto others.”. The consequent is cast in the negative, which creates an obligation not to act if the test is passed, but also creates no obligation to act if the test is failed. In other words, the default action is no action.
Furthermore, the test is also a “negative”, so that a positive obligation to act cannot be created by a failure of the test, unless you have chosen to make the test entirely too specific.
For example - and I choose my example with malice aforethought, as it often seems to be the context in which it most often comes up:
Cast this way, if OP followed the Jewish interpretation of the Golden Rule, xi would not witness to me. But more often, it’s interpreted like this:
Here, OP would not find it objectionable to be witnessed to about BwCU, and so has no obligation not to witness to me. However, there is still no obligation to witness to me. BUT...
When cast in the more common formulation, and with the more specific formulation of the test, since OP (being already an adherent of BwCU) would want to know about the Goodness Of The Horn, xi therefore has a positive obligation to witness to me about it.
Which creates an obligation for positive action on my part to avoid the witnessing. And that’s where the problem is with that formulation of the Rule, because I shouldn’t have to run away just because I want to be left the $^%$^ alone.
no subject
This still has the "deadly" assumption that others are like you.
A typical extrovert (and people who are "used to" extroverts) will find being left alone for long periods "hateful" (or at least expect it to be).
But if they are interacting with an introvert, their well meaning attempts to "include" the introvert in things will rapidly go from annoying to "hateful".
True your formulation doesn't *require* trying to include the introvert, but it doesn't offer a clue that you will be in "harming" him if you do.
no subject
True, but you’ve sorta fallen into the trap of overspecifying the action. If I know that the other person is (or tends toward) an introvert, then “that which I find hateful” is not “being left alone”, but “being brought into social contexts that are against my nature”. Compare the two examples in my original reply; I hold that the first style is the correct one to use, whereas you are treating the second as the ‘default’.
A rephrasing
If I intend well by you, and I know you are allergic to an ingredient of my "X", I will seek to create a version of the recipe that does not contain that ingredient before seeking to serve it to you.
This would at first seem to be a rather limited intention, and an easy one to fulfill. trying to complicate it to prove a more subtle point:
Let's say you're allergic to onions, and that I know this. This also suggests you *might* be allergic to the entire Allium family, since some onion allergies are actually more general. If I intend well by you, and I want to make you an otherwise-nice food that includes garlic, in order to fulfill my intentions I should ask you how far your allergy extends, and amend my intention as to what food to make for you if you tell me it *does* include garlic.
I agree with your point that intentions aren't enough in and of themselves; they require to be demonstrated in behavior. This is in my view vastly different than intentions being meaningless.
Re: A rephrasing
Bad intentions, on the other hand, are sufficient to make you [can't think of the right word, not responsible, maybe liable?] even if the results were good.
That has actually *happens* btw, I recall hearing about a number of instances where someone's bad intentions lead them to do something that turned out to *help* the victim.
no subject
Yeah, I got a lot of that from my family as a kid. They kept trying to force me to be "normal," even physically.
My younger sister used to harass me for "chewing too much." She and my parents would all tell me to stop popping my jaw when I chewed. (Tell how and I will.) Turns out I had malocclusion. (Why could I spell that right the first try when "harass" took three tries? :-)