Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bias. Show all posts

6/7/22

Thought Control + Self-Gaslighting

The word “gaslighting” has gotten so absurdly popular, it feels like the pop-mental health community is gaslighting us into believing that’s a real scientific term. While the word certainly needs replacing, the idea behind this trendy manipulation tactic is absolutely intriguing. If you’re not familiar, gaslighting is essentially just trying to convince someone else that they aren’t perceiving reality correctly. It’s making someone feel like they’re “the crazy one”.

Here’s an example: A cheating husband is worried that his wife is getting suspicious about his affair because she found lipstick stains on his shirt. To make sure she doubts herself, he tells her that her eyesight must be going bad because there’s no stain on his shirt at all. The wife, who’s been through this song and dance before, is conditioned to question her own sanity (and eyesight) rather  than her loving husband’s motives. Such a catch, that one!

As you can imagine, this manipulative denial of reality is deeply damaging. It’s also the foundation of most abusive relationships. High-control religious groups are no exception. When someone in spiritual authority tells you that your eyesight must be going bad, that’s huge a red flag. If they've been indoctrinating you well, you'll be primed to trust their word over your own senses.

This common thought control tactic can get even more toxic when the gaslightee starts to self-gaslight. You've successfully devoted yourself to your faith when you start believing dogma instead of your own perceptions. With daily indoctrinations, the gaslightee adopts the high-control narrative that says, “Whatever my instincts tell me to do will get me in trouble, so I just need to never trust myself and keep following instructions." Makes perfect sense, right?

For millennia our species has been refining our talent of creating an appealing narrative that explains away the mental gymnastics we’re doing. But what often starts out as a genuine effort to understand a difficult topic slowly morphs into an elaborate farce that keeps us stuck and ashamed.

In this self-defeating cycle, pride and suffering create an ever-escalating series of expectations and failures. You’re never going to be good enough, but you can never stop trying. After endless reinforcement to disconnect from your intuition and overlook glaring contradictions, you’re finally a truly devoted follower. You can now be left to judge, accuse, and punish yourself using the words that you've heard your leaders use a thousand times before. To reinforce this even further, you’ll get all kinds of validation and encouragement from the other self-gaslighters who aspire to be as self-depricating as you are.

This is why I think self-gaslighting might be the best evidence we have of an oppressive belief system. When victims become their own oppressors, the system runs like a well oiled machine. The leaders get the benefits of their group's compliance, enjoying the "blessings" they're being been given. It's amazing how effective it is to train your recruits to gaslight themselves. Gotta respect a cult leader who knows how to work smarter, not harder.

Here's the big question though: If you were one of these misled self-gaslighters, how would you know? 

Self-gaslighting begins with brainwashing so most abuse victims are oblivious to the oppressive nature of their own beliefs. They're trained instead to defend it's harmful practices in the name of a wise diety who does not seem to be subject to the natural laws of equity and respect. 

How many times have you heard an earnest believer explain away atrocities with a platitudes? Some of my favorites are: "The Lord works in mysterious ways," or "Everything happens for a reason," or "That person will be brought to justice in the afterlife," or "An unconfessed sin must be the reason why God allowed this to happen." Each of these party lines are methods to convince followers that God is in charge and there's nothing they could have done differently. The followers are so desperate for answers, they'll accept these woefully inadequate explanations.

The more I learn about thought control patterns, the more I realize how much oppression, both of myself and of others, I was voluntarily participating in. That isn't an assignment of blame but an acknowledgment that I was groomed to be an accomplice in my own abuse and the systemic dehumanization of others. At the time I belived that my instincts, emotions, and desires were evil and my only path to truth was through obedience and comformity.

I'll never forget how difficult it was to take those first steps toward accepting the painful reality that I had been misled. I'm still not finished deprograming my brain from the self-doubt that plagued me for so long. So what can we do to assess our belief systems without falling into the self-gaslighting cycle? 

The solution to gaslighting is an unflinching commitment to reality. Reality should be the foundation of our beliefs, not clever coercion. Commiting to reality means going back to the raw facts, listening to opposing views, and searching for signs that we've been more committed to a belief than to reality itself.

Actively assessing for self-gaslighting requires non-judgmental curiosity. Think of yourself an unbiased detective who's job is gather the facts, not manipulate the outcome. Here are some self-reflection questions to get us started:

Do I ever feel like I can't trust my intuition, instincts, or emotions? Why?
Am I less likely to trust my own perceptions than my leader's? Why?
Do I ever hate my own emotional reactions or wish I could turn them off? Why?
Do I ever ignore the research on a topic because my leaders have told me it's false?
Does my belief system tell me to trust my leaders solely based on their spiritual authority?
Have I been taught to habitually repeat words/phrases from my belief system to override my doubts?
Do I feel ashamed of myself when my beleifs don't make sense to me? Why?
How do I determine what the truth is? Is it acceptable for me to challenge it?
What would the consequences be if I were to deeply question my beliefs?
What conflicts of interest might inhibit someone's critical thinking when it comes to their religious beliefs?
Would I be willing to accept reality even if it forced me rethink my beliefs?
What evidence would I be willing to accept as proof that my beliefs were false?
What ulterior motives might impact the advice I get from others?
Would I rather believe something false that's familiar or something true that would turn my world upside down?

3/28/22

Can't We All Be Empaths?

Translating ideas into words can be a frustrating task, especially if you grew up bilingual like I did. Sometimes I daydream about recreating language from the ground up, defining every new word explicitly without any past baggage. I don’t think miscommunications are the only thing that has been keeping us from Eutopia, but they sure have played a big part. 

When it comes to ideas that have been distorted by our imprecise language, empathy is near the top. For example, there has been a growing trend of identifying oneself as an “empath” and, I have to be honest, it’s not my favorite. As far as I understand, being “an empath” means you’re naturally equipped with greater empathetic abilities than the rest of the population, making you emotionally perceptive in a super special way (picture me giving you a thumbs up.)


No shade if you identify as an empath (well, maybe a little shade), but I find this idea to be quite unhelpful. It suggests that empathy is a trait that only a small group of people are good at, like being a speed reader or having a photographic memory. Apparently, if you’re not born with the empath chromosome, you’re out of luck (insert shrug emoji here). In reality, empathy is accessible to everyone, regardless of personality or aptitude. Even sociopaths.


Our “being an empath” language covertly and wrongly suggests that we shouldn’t ever have to try to have empathy. Despite its universal accessibility, authentic empathy can be absolutely counter-intuitive sometimes. If we’re thinking of empathy as an instinctual, automatic experience, we’re likely to give up on it the moment it doesn’t feel right. This is why intentional empathy, the kind that goes beyond our narrow comfort zones, requires a solid foundation of two things: non-judgment and curiosity. 


Since, as I mentioned earlier, miscommunications are the bane of my existence, it’s time to define these two terms. I know definitions may not be the juicy content you came here for, but it’s my blog, so...


Non-Judgment

When we make a judgment, we’re making a subjective determination of the validity or value of someone or something. It’s pretty egotistical if you think about it. Fortunately, judgments can be identified fairly easily by their broad categorical labels like “right”, “wrong”, “good”, “bad”, etc. They also tend to come with a false sense of certainty that has us constantly finding validation and getting more and more closed-minded to other perspectives.


Here’s an example of how judgment can work against empathy. As a card-carrying cat person who is allergic to dogs, I might find myself tempted to make the following judgment: “Anyone who likes dogs is stupid.” In addition to being insensitive, adopting this bias would mean that every time I meet a dog person I’ll automatically be looking for evidence that proves my judgment of them is correct.


False certainty, the closed-minded commitment to the correctness of our own judgments, robs us of neutrality. While it may be comfortable, insulated in our self-assurance, the confidence it offers is a delusion. The world is infinitely complex and each human has their own unique experience of it, so nearly all “certainty” is either premature or altogether false. #SorryReligion


If we want to use intentional empathy, the critical first step is adopting a stance of neutral non-judgment. When we encounter someone new, instead of slapping our judgmental labels on them, we need to consciously call out our biases and guard against them. Why bother? Non-judgment allows us to gather data for empathy without arriving at a foregone conclusion. Now let’s talk about how we gather that data. 


Curiosity

Just like judgment undermines empathy, false confidence in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of our data can sabotage it. Whenever a therapy client of mine tells me about a frustration they're having with someone, they hear this simple mantra: “What questions do we need to ask?” Before forming any opinions, we try to ask as many relevant questions as we can to understand the situation from all angles. This requires curiosity.


If you’re a scientist and your goal is to determine if being a dog person is indeed “stupid” or not, your first step will be to gather data without making premature judgments. That’s no guarantee of an accurate result though. The way you gather your data makes a major difference. If the only people you survey are cat people, no matter how non-judgmental you are, you’ll still come to the false conclusion that dog people are stupid.


The purpose of curiosity is to remind ourselves that there is always information that we don’t know. By approaching empathy with an attitude of curiosity, we can fill in the blind spots that we didn’t even know we had, learning what we didn’t know we didn’t know. Recognizing the limits of our knowledge makes it much easier to reserve judgment. It also hopefully keeps us from acting like arrogant know-it-alls.


TLDR; Time for a recap.


Intentional empathy sounds like this: “Even if empathy feels counter-intuitive, I can still get there with a stance of non-judgment and curiosity.”


A stance of non-judgment sounds like this: “Since I know that I have biases, I’m going to be on the lookout for any automatic judgments that may not be accurate or relevant.”


A stance of curiosity sounds like this: “Since I know that I don’t know everything, I’m going to ask as many questions as I can so that I can see the bigger picture.”


Once we settle into this stance, we’re ready to move on to actually doing the empathy. For now, I’ll leave you with the wise words of Adam Grant from his book, Think Again, “Thinking like a scientist involves more than just reacting with an open mind. It means being actively open-minded. It requires searching for reasons why we might be wrong—not for reasons why we must be right—and revising our views based on what we learn.”