Epistemic dimensions of gaslighting: peer-disagreement, self-trust, and epistemic injustice

May combine two claims.

Gaslighting efforts can gain purchase only if the victim trusts the gaslighter, and an essential part of this trust must be epistemic.

“his gaslighting e ff orts can gain purchase only if the victim trusts him, and an essential part of this trust must, I argue, be epistemic.”

May combine two claims.

Abramson's focus on the gaslighter and on the moral wrongness of his actions leads her to downplay ways in which gaslighters nevertheless deploy genuinely epistemic strategies, and to devote less attention to the standpoint and reasoning processes of the victim.

“I argue that Abramson ' s focus on the gaslighter and on the moral wrongness of his actions leads her to downplay ways in which gaslighters nevertheless deploy genuinely epistemic strategies, and to devote less attention to the standpoint and reasoning processes of the victim”

• cites Abramson 2014 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Because the victim trusts both herself and her gaslighter, his challenge to her self-trust generates, from her standpoint, a situation of epistemic peer-disagreement where what she and her gaslighter disagree about is specifically her own epistemic standing, and so her entitlement to epistemic self-trust.

“Because the victim trusts both herself and her gaslighter, his challenge to her self-trust generates, from her standpoint, a situation of epistemic peerdisagreement where what she and her gaslighter disagree about is speci fi cally her own epistemic standing, and so her entitlement to epistemic selftrust.”

May combine two claims.

If the victim interprets the gaslighter's abrupt and aggressive behavior as indicative of some epistemic failure to properly see the situation on his part, rather than as arising from a failing of her own, then he may still be able to manipulate her behavior, but he will not be successful in actually changing her own assessment of herself, in gaslighting her.

“If the victim interprets the gaslighter ' s abrupt and aggressive behavior as indicative of some (ultimately epistemic) failure to properly see the situation on his part, rather than as arising from a failing of her own, then he may still be able to manipulate her behavior, but he will not be successful in actually changing her own assessment of herself , in gaslighting her.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Epistemic factors such as testimony, evidence, and reasons are equally essential to a complete understanding of gaslighting.

“I think, however, that these latter are equally essential to a complete understanding of the phenomenon.”

May combine two claims.

The gaslighter has a twofold project: an ongoing project of getting his victim to accept that she is not competent to make certain (or most) kinds of judgments and so should not trust herself, and an appeal to the results of this project as a premise to compel compliance or ward off critique on particular occasions.

“The gaslighter thus, arguably, has a twofold project. There is the ongoing project of getting his victim to accept that she is, in general, not competent to make certain (or most) kinds of judgments and so should not trust herself, and then there is the appeal to the results of this project as a sort of premise to compel compliance or ward o ff critique from the victim on particular occasions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

In gaslighting, destroying another person's standing to issue challenges specifically means bringing it about that the other person views herself as deficient or completely incompetent concerning her ability to understand, interpret situations, think, and choose for herself.

“what it means to ' destroy ' another person ' s standing to issue challenges, in the context of gaslighting, is speci fi cally to bring it about that the other person views herself as de fi cient or completely incompetent concerning her ability to understand, interpret situations, think, and choose for herself.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In the Gas Light example, it is because Paula trusts Gregory as a reliable judge of how things are, and because he then systematically manufactures plausible evidence that her faculties are untrustworthy, that she is brought to the point where she is no longer confident in her own judgments.

“It is because Paula trusts Gregory as a reliable judge of how things are, and because he then systematically manufactures plausible evidence that her faculties are untrustworthy, that she is brought to the point where she is no longer con fi dent in her own judgments.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The film cases (Gas Light and Pat and Mike) are genuine or paradigm examples of gaslighting.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Abramson's account focuses on the role of manipulation in gaslighting while downplaying epistemic factors such as testimony, evidence, and reasons.

“Abramson ' s account focuses on the role of manipulation in gaslighting while downplaying epistemic factors such as testimony, evidence, and reasons.”

• cites Abramson 2014 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

The gaslighter's attempt to undermine her own assessment of herself as a credible epistemic agent is an attempt to wrong her specifically in her capacity as a knower, and so is an epistemic injustice in Miranda Fricker's sense.

“his attempt to undermine her own assessment of herself as a credible epistemic agent surely is an attempt to wrong her ' speci fi cally in her capacity as a knower ' , and so is an epistemic injustice in Miranda Fricker ' s sense of this term (Fricker 2007, 20).”

• cites Fricker 2007, 20 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

May combine two claims.

Gaslighting at least can be about the epistemic status of the gaslighter and about giving the victim primarily epistemic reasons to distrust her own experience and judgment.

“it seems clear that gaslighting at least can be about the epistemic status of the gaslighter and about giving the victim primarily epistemic reasons to distrust her own experience and judgment.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The film cases (Gas Light and Pat and Mike) are genuine or paradigm examples of gaslighting.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

An agent should not accept defeat for her self-trust for prudential reasons, such as desiring to avoid negative personal or professional consequences, or the desire to maintain an intimate relationship or friendship.

“In particular, an agent should not accept defeat for her self-trust for prudential reasons, such as desiring to avoid negative personal or professional consequences, or the desire to maintain an intimate relationship or friendship.”

May combine two claims.

The account implies that at least some victims of gaslighting who capitulate to their gaslighters are to some degree responsible for this capitulation when two conditions are met: the victim must possess sufficient reasons that the epistemically reasonable thing is to retain self-trust, and the victim must be psychologically able to correctly recognize and process the reasons available to her.

“The account I have o ff ered here does imply that at least some victims of gaslighting who capitulate to their gaslighters are to some degree responsible for this capitulation. This will be so when two conditions are met. First, the victim must in fact be in possession of su ffi cient reasons concerning herself, her gaslighter, and their situation that the epistemically reasonable thing to do when”

May combine two claims.

From the standpoint of the victim, gaslighting is a profoundly epistemic phenomenon having to do both with questions of epistemic self-trust and with the issue of epistemic peer- or even authority-disagreement.

“Thus, from the standpoint of the victim of gaslighting, gaslighting is a profoundly epistemic phenomenon having to do both with questions of epistemic self-trust and with the issue of epistemic peer- or even authoritydisagreement.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Fourth epistemic dimension: self-trust is a fundamental epistemic value and the condition of all other meaningful epistemic agency, thus an agent should not accept defeat for her self-trust on anything but epistemic grounds.

“Fourth, and fi nally, self-trust is a fundamental epistemic value and the condition of all other meaningful epistemic agency, thus an agent should not accept defeat for her self-trust on anything but epistemic grounds.”

May combine two claims.

Epistemic self-trust is default and reflectively rational to have, but it is subject to defeat.

“Epistemic self-trust is, as discussed above, default and re fl ectively rational to have, but it is subject to defeat.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Gaslighting is distinct from mere silencing, from creating an environment where everyone else believes the victim is wrong, and from creating a situation where the victim has no choice but to acquiesce, even while not agreeing.

“Thus, gaslighting is distinct from mere silencing, from creating an environment where everyone else believes the victim is wrong, and also from creating a situation where the victim has no choice but to acquiesce, even while not agreeing.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Second epistemic dimension: in asserting that his victim lacks a clear grasp of the situation, the gaslighter is always at least tacitly asserting that he has a better grasp, which is a kind of claim to epistemic status or authority.

“Second, in asserting that his victim lacks a clear grasp of the situation, the gaslighter is always at least tacitly asserting that he has a better grasp, and this is a kind of claim to epistemic status or authority.”

May combine two claims.

The gaslighter begins the process of gaslighting by introducing cognitive dissonance into the relationship with his victim, dissonance that specifically requires the victim to decide between her own way of viewing things and that of the gaslighter, and the gaslighter then works directly or indirectly to ensure that the victim resolves the dissonance in his favor, specifically by downgrading hercon

“the gaslighter begins the process of gaslighting by introducing cognitive dissonance, often quite emotionally charged cognitive dissonance, into the relationship with his victim, dissonance that speci fi cally requires the victim to decide between her own way of viewing things and that of the gaslighter, and the gaslighter then works directly or indirectly to ensure that the victim resolves the”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The victim ought not concede her epistemic self-trust for anything but well-credentialed epistemic reasons.

“First, I have argued that the victim ought not concede her epistemic selftrust for anything but well-credentialed epistemic reasons.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The proposed epistemic norm applies primarily to a subject's global or total epistemic self-trust.

“An additional point to be noted here is that the epistemic norm I am proposing applies primarily to a subject ' s ' global ' or ' total ' epistemic selftrust.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Gaslighting involves the gaslighter pursuing this goal by means of a strategy of manipulation, fabrication, and deception.

“that the gaslighter (iii) pursues this goal by means of a strategy of manipulation, fabrication, and deception”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The gaslighter's goal is to completely neutralize his victim's conception of herself as an independent locus of thought and criticism.

“The gaslighter ' s goal is to completely neutralize his victim ' s conception of herself as an independent locus of thought and criticism.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Third epistemic dimension: from the standpoint of the victim, gaslighting always places her in a situation of epistemic peer disagreement with her gaslighter, where the point of disagreement is specifically whether her own cognitive faculties are reliable or not, and she must weigh her trust in the gaslighter and associated evidence against her own self-trust.

“Third, from the standpoint of the victim, gaslighting always places her in a situation of epistemic peer disagreement with her gaslighter, where the point of disagreement is speci fi cally whether her own cognitive faculties are reliable or not, and she must weigh her trust in the gaslighter and associated evidence for this against her own self-trust.”

May combine two claims.

If an agent accepts that her cognitive faculties, perceptions, judgments, and overall grasp of her own situation are all substantially deficient, then she is no longer in a position to endorse as rational her judgments and is no longer able to meaningfully go forward as an agent.

“If an agent accepts that her cognitive faculties, perceptions, judgments, and overall grasp of her own situation are all substantially de fi cient, then she is no longer in a position to endorse as rational, under any understanding of ' rational ' , the judgements she arrives at, and so is no longer able to meaningfully go forward as an agent.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

The victim who capitulates to the gaslighter and cedes her self-trust for any reasons other than legitimate epistemic ones, when not doing so is within her power, is violating a basic epistemic norm.

“Namely, the victim who capitulates to the gaslighter and cedes her self-trust for any reasons other than legitimate epistemic ones, when not doing so is within her power, is violating what I suggest is a basic epistemic norm.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

The gaslighter's goal is to convince his victim that her thoughts, perceptions, memories, judgments, and evaluations of the situation are so unreliable that she should put little or no credence in their deliverances, and should instead see things as he sees them.

“The gaslighter ' s goal is to convince his victim that her thoughts, perceptions, memories, judgments, and evaluations of the situation are so unreliable that she should put little or no credence in their deliverances, and should instead see things as he sees them.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Gaslighting involves the attempt by one person, the gaslighter, to undermine his victim's self-trust: her conception of herself as an autonomous locus of experience, thought, and judgment.

“The account on o ff er here suggests that Gaslighting involves (i) the attempt by one person, the gaslighter, to undermine his victim ' s self-trust: her conception of herself as an autonomous locus of experience, thought, and judgment;”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

The most distinctive feature of gaslighting is that it is not enough for the gaslighter simply to control his victim or have things go his way: it is essential to him that the victim herself actually come to agree with him.

“The most distinctive feature of gaslighting is that it is not enough for the gaslighter simply to control his victim or have things go his way: it is essential to him that the victim herself actually come to agree with him.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Gaslighting involves the gaslighter's motivation to gain or maintain control of his victim specifically by means of getting her to internalize a view of herself that both neutralizes her ability to criticize him and ensures her consent to his way of viewing things.

“that the gaslighter ' s (ii) motivation is to gain or maintain control of his victim speci fi cally by means of getting her to internalize a view of herself that both neutralizes her ability to criticize him and ensures her consent to his way of viewing things (speci fi cally with regard to issues relevant to the relationship, perhaps in general);”

May combine two claims.

There are cases of gaslighting where rational resistance of the sort described is simply not an option for the victim, and such cases are possible and likely quite frequent.

“Nor do I deny that there are cases of gaslighting where rational resistance of the sort I have been describing here is simply not an option for the victim. Indeed, I think such cases are possible and likely quite frequent.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Gaslighting centrally involves the gaslighter attempting to gain concessions from his victim by reducing her, by her own lights, to an epistemic inferior or dependent.

“I take this move to be a central element in gas-lighting: the gas-lighter attempts to gain concessions from his victim by reducing her, by her own lights, to an epistemic inferior or dependent.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Our epistemic agency, while fundamental, is fragile such that we are all, in principle, susceptible to gaslighting.

“but this just highlights the point that our epistemic agency, while fundamental, is also fragile such that we are all, in principle, susceptible to gaslighting.”