What is it when someone accuses you of gas lighting them, but what you were doing was merely disagreeing with them? To me, this almost feels like reverse gas lighting or actually just gas lighting itself. My understanding of the term “gas lighting” is that it is a tactic used to undermine someone’s self-esteem and confidence. It is saying something that is a known lie, exaggeration or manipulation of the truth that the person saying it knows is untrue or manipulative. They are saying it expressly as an attempt to hurt the other person, to escape accountability, or redirect/deflect their own feelings. The key point here is that they know that what they are saying is not the truth. They are intentionally lying in order to hurt someone. I wonder if the term getting so much media attention has started people thinking that anytime someone disagrees with you, they are doing it intentionally knowing you are right. I am sure that is not true, actually. What I think is possible is that if someone feels very confident in their version of something be the truth, they might start to feel like the other person disagreeing is an attempt to lie about it, either as true gas lighting or some other reason.
Here is the thing though, perception is not reality. There is no such thing as truth or reality from a memory. That is the only truth that I know. I have known since I ran experiments in college for my professor, that were on memory manipulation, that memory is not truth. Memory is easily manipulated and not at all reliable. The terms eidetic memory and photographic memory are not only scientifically proven to not exist long-term, they are also sometimes noted to be fallible in the short-term. Humans’ memories are affected by perception, emotion, previous experiences, and anything accompanying the memory that exists from the 5 senses. In truth, most studies prove that memories are merely perceptions of events, not actually facts about what happened. Even if we agree on what happened, that does not make our memories facts. It just means we agree on a perception of something. I found this out in college as I was doing that study to prove that very thing. I was just an undergraduate student doing the tasks. I did not write the study or publish anything on it. I also found that children’s memories were less manipulatable than adults, which is fascinating. The point here is that two people discussing their “memories” of an event will, neither one, remember it correctly, accurately, or know the truth of what happened. Each will have their own individual interpretations of the event. Even if they watch a video recording of the event, they are both in, their interpretation of that event will not always be the same. Neither is correct, and neither is incorrect. No one is gas lighting by saying what they think happened. If they are stating what they believe to be the truth of what they remember, they are simply stating their perception or their personal truth. That is not gas lighting. It is having a disagreement. It is called different interpretations and perceptions. It is human.
I believe that two people entering into a discussion about something that happened in the past, even if it was 5 minutes ago, would benefit from coming to an agreement up front that neither one of them knows the truth of what happened. Each of them can only speak to their personal experience of the event, their own thoughts, perceptions, interpretations and feelings of it. If they can agree that each of them only has their own truth and trusts the other person to speak only their own truth, then they might reach an understanding about the event in question. If either person decides that they know the truth, or that their interpretation, especially their interpretation of the other person’s thoughts, feelings, interpretations or intentions, is the truth. If further, they question the other person’s statements are true because what the other person is saying is different from what they believe, and now they think that they are lying, well, nothing good can come from that. I think it might be good for people to be clear about needing that expectation up front. Each person stating, “I know myself and my thoughts, feelings, and intentions, and I can speak to them. I will not try to speak to yours. I will listen to yours fully and trust you to know yourself.” This requires each person to speak carefully using I statements, “I thought that you were trying to . . . and that made me feel . . .” Rather than saying, “You were trying to . . . and you made me feel . . .” The first statement is their truth. The second statement is the person trying to tell someone else what their truth was.
This agreement requires us to trust other people to speak authentically and honestly about their thoughts, feelings and intentions, but what if they don’t? What if someone is gas lighting on purpose? What if we agree that we trust each other to be truthful about our own experiences, thoughts, feelings, intentions etc. but one person is not honest or authentic? What if one of the people was in the past or is in the moment attempting to manipulate, control, harm or even destroy someone with their denial of the other person’s truth?
I do know people like that. People who have expressed pride in how they made another person feel bad or were hurt by what they did. I have interacted with people who knowingly lie about their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs on purpose, with the rationale that they are entitled to think what they want regardless of who it hurts. These are not my interpretations or guesses at what these people have done or said, they were direct with me about their pride and intentions to harm others. They said, “I am proud that hurt that person. I am entitled to say what I want no matter who it hurts.” We also see people in the media saying things like that, and on social media we totally see unfiltered humans saying whatever the hell they want without a care about who it might hurt. So, it is reasonable that we might fear trusting another person to be authentic in this way, because, what if they aren’t?
What do we have to lose if we trust another person to discuss something authentically and honestly, and they say they are, but they are not? We do our part to be authentic and honest, but they lie on purpose to mislead us or misdirect us. Whatever their motives are, to harm us, escape accountability, shift blame, escape uncomfortable feelings, whatever it is, they are the ones who are losing out. If I vow to be authentic, and the other person does not show up the same way, I am not the fool for believing in them. They are the fool for not trusting themselves and me. We cannot reach an understanding. We cannot support each other. We cannot show up and be there for one another if we can’t trust each other. If I put myself out there and trust you, but you do not trust me or yourself enough to also be authentic. We both miss out on the chance to have a positive outcome and chance to build our relationship, but the inauthentic person misses out more. The person who is being authentic and trusting other people is adhering to their core values of authenticity and trust. They are building integrity and practicing daring and brave communications. The authentic person will grow individually regardless. The inauthentic person will also miss out on individual growth when they do not show up as themselves and in authentic honesty.
I get it. It is hard to trust people. It can be hard to be real, be honest, and also disagree with people who are very confident and sure of themselves. I get that. I also know that if you hold back, do not speak your truth, don’t advocate for yourself, you miss out. It is just as inauthentic to not state your truth and not disagree with others when you actually do. It is just as inauthentic to let others speak your truth for you, let them tell you what you think, feel and should do. I propose we each take on that job for ourselves.
This is not stubbornly sticking to your perceptions though. I am not saying that you should speak your truth and then stand by it no matter what the other person has to say. In fact, I am hoping for the exact opposite. The first part of the agreement is, we will each stick to speaking our own truth only, not tell each other how we think the other should or does feel or think. It also includes really listening to and hearing another person’s perspective and trusting in its authenticity. It includes, I trust you are being authentic, and I listen to you as though you are speaking your truth. If we both speak from our own experiences, and trust the other to do the same, and we both listen with that faith and trust in our hearts, we have an opportunity to alter our own perceptions and include the information coming from the other person. We do not need to change what we believe to that of the other person, but we can use what they say to enhance our own perceptions to include that information. In this, if we both do that, we can reach an agreement. If we both do this, we can support each other better, improve our relationship, and grow as individuals. We can both do this if we both agree to speak only for ourselves, be authentic, trust each other, and listen fully to one another. It requires taking a risk, being open and vulnerable, and it can be a challenge.
I am practicing this every day in my work and personal life. It is hard. I have a defensive streak from repeatedly being lied to, and what I believe was gas lighting from both childhood and in adult relationships. I am defensive, that is my biggest weakness and character flaw. I am open to knowing that it clouds my ability to trust other people and not shut out what they have to say. The first part of that agreement, I can honor and achieve pretty consistently. I can be authentic. Most often I can also stick to speaking from my own experience, though sometimes when I am defensive, I lose that skill sometimes. The last part, trusting others to also be authentic, and speak honestly is harder. I have been lied to regularly, on purpose, for the intention of causing harm to me. I know this to be true for me, whether those perpetrating this agree or not, since it is my perception, it is true from my perception, and it is what clouds my ability to be trusting. Since I know this, I watch myself and I try my best to stop and step back when I feel this defense coming on. Then I examine myself and try to replay what I was hearing in different ways and start to see what I can hear better. Then I can return to the conversation with less defensiveness and hear better in real time. It is hard. It takes practice, and I am doing better every day.
For you, what is your barrier to having authentic and trusting conversations with others? What keeps you from either speaking your truth, allowing others to speak theirs or believing that they are speaking it? What keeps you from listening well and being able to hear what others are saying?
Next time maybe we dig into this a bit more. What are the skills required to speak from your own experience, let others speak to their own, and trust them to do that, then to listen to them openly?
Until then,
Namaste