The Current Weaponization of Gaslighting: How to recognize and speak to propaganda

The term “gaslighting” originates from the title of a 1938 British play called Gas Light, written by Patrick Hamilton. The play was later adapted into films in 1940 and 1944. In the story, a husband manipulates his wife into believing she is losing her sanity by subtly altering elements of their environment, such as dimming the gas lights, and then denying that any change has occurred when she notices. His constant denial of her perceptions leads her to doubt her own reality, driving her to a nervous breakdown.

Over time, “gaslighting” evolved from its popular culture zeitgeist to describe a specific form of psychological manipulation. The American Psychological Association defines gaslighting as the manipulation of another person into doubting their perceptions, experiences, or understanding of events. In clinical literature, it is the manipulative tactics associated with antisocial narcissistic personality disorder. Narcissists use this to be the person in control of a “truth” they construct to manipulate, and it is a form of brainwashing.

There are four types of gaslighting:

• Lying: outright falsehoods, such as denying something happened even though there is proof that it did occur.

• Denial: refusal to acknowledge facts, events, or responsibilities. It takes the form of simply insisting their version of events is the truth.

• Trivializing: minimizing or dismissing a person’s feelings and experiences, often claiming the person is overreacting.

• Countering: questioning others’ memory, sanity, or cognitive ability.

Is this all starting to seem eerily familiar? It should. Propaganda techniques are described in literature in the following ways, not dissimilar from the four types of “gaslighting”:

• Persistent strategic patterns of lying and denial.

• Weaponized misinformation

• Attacking trusted sources to undermine the credibility of independent experts and information that challenges the propaganda. The goal is to isolate citizens from outside influences.

• Projection in which opponents are accused of the same deceptive tactics that the gaslighter is using to create more confusion.

• Wear-down effect, the strategy of “flooding the zone” that Steve Bannon has touted to repeat false or misleading information in volume to induce “gaslight fatigue”.

Gaslighting, used as a strategy for political manipulation and designed to mislead and create confusion, is propaganda. Propaganda weaponizes misinformation to make it harder to distinguish truth from fiction. It uses gaslighting techniques to rally people around an ideology or cause rooted in the consolidation of power.

Here’s the part where you acknowledge your experiences and reality, and the impacts of the “wear down effect”. You are NOT losing your mind. You don’t have faulty perceptions. This regime is using an active propaganda playbook. Social media algorithms amplify the strategy. The public has been conditioned only to consume, not evaluate. Information is presented in short sound bites, extricated from a larger context.

There is some neuroscience behind why gaslighting and propaganda work. We are hard-wired for collaboration in a process that Dr. Dan Siegel calls integration. Our minds seek ways to attune communication to foster trust. These same principles make people more susceptible to cult-like dynamics. Emphasizing attunement may limit skepticism or dissent, leading people to conform rather than challenge. When integration is framed as a moral or spiritual ideal, people might feel pressured to conform to the group’s definition of being integrated.

So, how do we help others seek some healthy skepticism and challenge the propaganda being weaponized against them? How do we evaluate information even when attuned to others who seem to have a healthy dose of skepticism and dissent with which we agree?

Here are some ways to put information through a filter to ask if it might be propaganda and suggest that others use the same evaluative measures:

• Is there a pattern of denial and dismissal of your experiences or visual confirmation of events?

• Is this part of a pattern of using one event or occurrence as a means of denying larger patterns that are not consistent with that one example?

• Are there potentially other details that have been left out of the narrative or explanation? Are there other explanations that haven’t been allowed to be considered?

• Does the information provided contain a lot of hyperbolic references without actual data, numbers, or qualifiers, such as “all”, “everyone”, “100%”, “No one”, “the whole world”?

• Does the message state or imply that if you disagree or want more information, there is something wrong with you?

• Does belief in a message, denial, or dismissal provide someone with power?

What protective practices can we implement to counter propaganda? The following are a few suggestions beyond a healthy dose of asking the probing questions that require data, detail, and context:

• Notice if your opinions or feelings are being silenced for the sake of “harmony”. . Maintain your own independent thought and critical thinking while connecting with others.

• Encourage questioning and reflection. Help others explore the details they may not be considering. Ask yourself to do this as well.

• Heighten awareness of power dynamics. Ask yourself and others to be attentive to transparency or the lack of it. Ask whether decisions and interpretations are open to group input, or centered on one “knowing” person?

• Ask how you or others might be isolated from others by buying into the propaganda.

• Seek and encourage communities that honor imperfection, nuance, and continual learning.

We all want to ensure we are evaluating information, not being gaslit. Yet so many are susceptible. Hopefully, this provides some ways to frame this for others to assess the quality of information they are receiving and the motivation of the messaging.