This is similar to "you can't change the past", which is a common Wayfer phrase.
I've frequently found myself arguing about the past, about the actual facts that happened, with Wayfers.
Looking at THIS article, I see the technique Wayfers employ is called "gaslighting". Another LINK.
This happens to me with Wayfers with some frequency, to an almost predictable level. It is maddening. . . . Or maybe it never happens . . . I dunno.
From one of your links, "The person being gaslighted will eventually become so insecure that they will fail to trust their own judgment, their intuition and find themselves unable to make decisions."
That's a key factor in cults. I don't need examples from actual experience, besides remembering personally dealing with this issue in twi, it's written all over the pages/forums and threads of GSC.
It happens. In TWI.
As an aside, another book you might find interesting, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), has tremendous insight that everybody who reads this forum will recognize... in themselves, in politicians, in preachers of all flavors, but especially in TWI.
From Amazon,
"In this terrifically insightful, engaging new book, renowned social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson take a compelling look into how the brain is wired for self-justification. When we make mistakes, we must calm the cognitive dissonance that jars our feelings of self-worth. And so we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility, restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right— a belief that often keeps us on a course that is dumb, immoral, and wrong. Backed by years of research, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) offers a fascinating explanation of self-deception—how it works, the harm it can cause, and how we can overcome it. Turn the page, but be advised: You will never be able to shun blame quite so casually again."
I've written about Wierwille having developed a set of doctrines/dogmas/beliefs that specifically were "self-justifying rationalizations." For example, the "lockbox."
The concept is universally human. We ALL engage in self-justification to cope with our mistakes and misjudgments, small or large.
I agree we all remember things differently, and have a personal bias toward memories. I believe there's a certain amount that's understandable and forgivable, or at least not necessary to be argued.
With Wayfers, whole events are completely forgotten. In recent years, I've often begun conversations with statements like, "Now, I know I'll have to repeat saying this tomorrow, just like I'm repeating yesterday's conversation, since you'll tell me it never happened." As a teenager I got a little more testy that that.
I've posted many times how Wayfers don't remember anything when it comes to events I was present for . . . that their minds have a "delete button", as if they are reset each morning . . . how can I trust accounts for events I wasn't present for?
We saw a good example of the creative rewriting here at the GSC.
There was one poster who did it so consistently, he was predictable.
I know because I predicted him.
He posted an easily-correctable error. I corrected it, and predicted
he would say it was never addressed, and that 6 months later he'd
repost the same error. Almost to the day, 6 months later,
he did exactly that. He got refuted on everything of substance he
ever posted, and got called on his refusal to get specific with
NEBULOUS comments that couldn't be discussed due to incredible vagueness.
After a few years of that, he described the ongoing process where he was
continuously refuted as where he posted things we were unable to answer
and address-which was pretty much the opposite of what happened.
I tended to think of it as a process he was doing intentionally.
In hindsight, it appears he had no idea he was doing it.
That does sound like a similar situation. It's nearly impossible, I'd think, to show if someone is intentionally doing it, or so distanced in mind they don't know they do it.
When your own memories, factual events, are in question by another's statements, that's torture. Recognizing it is something that is done, I think makes it easier. If that person has some sort of authority of you . . . that sucks . . . but at least that part of the crazy can now be addressed. If they have no authority then they can just be ignored.
Recommended Posts
Rocky
From one of your links, "The person being gaslighted will eventually become so insecure that they will fail to trust their own judgment, their intuition and find themselves unable to make decisions."
That's a key factor in cults. I don't need examples from actual experience, besides remembering personally dealing with this issue in twi, it's written all over the pages/forums and threads of GSC.
It happens. In TWI.
As an aside, another book you might find interesting, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), has tremendous insight that everybody who reads this forum will recognize... in themselves, in politicians, in preachers of all flavors, but especially in TWI.
From Amazon,
"In this terrifically insightful, engaging new book, renowned social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson take a compelling look into how the brain is wired for self-justification. When we make mistakes, we must calm the cognitive dissonance that jars our feelings of self-worth. And so we create fictions that absolve us of responsibility, restoring our belief that we are smart, moral, and right— a belief that often keeps us on a course that is dumb, immoral, and wrong. Backed by years of research, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) offers a fascinating explanation of self-deception—how it works, the harm it can cause, and how we can overcome it. Turn the page, but be advised: You will never be able to shun blame quite so casually again."
I've written about Wierwille having developed a set of doctrines/dogmas/beliefs that specifically were "self-justifying rationalizations." For example, the "lockbox."
The concept is universally human. We ALL engage in self-justification to cope with our mistakes and misjudgments, small or large.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I agree we all remember things differently, and have a personal bias toward memories. I believe there's a certain amount that's understandable and forgivable, or at least not necessary to be argued.
With Wayfers, whole events are completely forgotten. In recent years, I've often begun conversations with statements like, "Now, I know I'll have to repeat saying this tomorrow, just like I'm repeating yesterday's conversation, since you'll tell me it never happened." As a teenager I got a little more testy that that.
I've posted many times how Wayfers don't remember anything when it comes to events I was present for . . . that their minds have a "delete button", as if they are reset each morning . . . how can I trust accounts for events I wasn't present for?
Maybe "gaslighting" is what is happening.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think, in those cases, those people have been successful victims
of gaslighting.
I tend to think of it in the more narrow context of trying to make
someone look crazy, but the definition has expanded beyond that.
(As I can see.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
================
We saw a good example of the creative rewriting here at the GSC.
There was one poster who did it so consistently, he was predictable.
I know because I predicted him.
He posted an easily-correctable error. I corrected it, and predicted
he would say it was never addressed, and that 6 months later he'd
repost the same error. Almost to the day, 6 months later,
he did exactly that. He got refuted on everything of substance he
ever posted, and got called on his refusal to get specific with
NEBULOUS comments that couldn't be discussed due to incredible vagueness.
After a few years of that, he described the ongoing process where he was
continuously refuted as where he posted things we were unable to answer
and address-which was pretty much the opposite of what happened.
I tended to think of it as a process he was doing intentionally.
In hindsight, it appears he had no idea he was doing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That does sound like a similar situation. It's nearly impossible, I'd think, to show if someone is intentionally doing it, or so distanced in mind they don't know they do it.
When your own memories, factual events, are in question by another's statements, that's torture. Recognizing it is something that is done, I think makes it easier. If that person has some sort of authority of you . . . that sucks . . . but at least that part of the crazy can now be addressed. If they have no authority then they can just be ignored.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.