You See Only What You Want To See - In General, You Are The Problematic One

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

There is a very popular idea that a person sees only what he wants to see. Moreover, it is based on a completely reliable fact about the selectivity of our attention, noticed at the end of the 19th century by the American psychologist and philosopher William James (he called it, if my memory serves me, "the relevance of the internal content and observed external phenomena"). However, having hit the masses, this fact - as is always the case in such cases - was simplified to the extreme and acquired a completely primitive form, reflected in the title. The key word is "only".

If everything were that simple, then learning would be impossible. And the perception of the new too. And admitting mistakes and correcting them, too. And the very phenomenon of awareness of something (which implies the ability to look at a situation from a new point of view) - too. After all, we see ONLY what we want to see, right? In general, if you see dirt somewhere - well, you understand, "a pig will find dirt everywhere." And the subject of discussion will not be dirt (facts, processes, phenomena …). And the pig, that is, you.

A little surprising for me is that this idea was loved not only by manipulators of all kinds (about them - just below), but also by psychologists. True, psychologists, as people are sometimes "advanced", use more sophisticated forms than about a pig. For example, in my own Facebook, in response to comments about the prevailing atmosphere of hatred in modern Russia, I received two comments from colleagues:

Yes, there is no such atmosphere, you need to watch less TV

Regarding the "atmosphere around" I would venture to remind you that a person sees around him what he wants and can see. It is even naturally attracted to him and huddles around him. So, I think, the first thing a person should do when "feeling the atmosphere" is to look closely and as impartially as possible at himself.

Both comments - with varying degrees of grace - deny the adequacy of the author's perception, and transfer the conversation to his personality traits (of course, bad traits). There is one very important point here that separates manipulation from simple disagreement (after all, anyone can be wrong and wrong in their perception). With a simple disagreement, they say: “I do not agree with you, I have a different vision of the situation / feeling of the atmosphere” - it is about myself, about my world and my vision. Contact between two people becomes possible, or at least the acquaintance of two pictures of the world. When “look closely at yourself” contact of two equal “I” is impossible, one of them, according to the conditions of the situation, is inadequate.

Another great comment in the same style. If you come across on LJ or any social network on insults or any things that you clearly do not like, and talk about it, then you may well get something like this:

I wonder what kind of virtual slums you have to climb in order to stumble upon these insults. I don’t bump into them, they slip past the attention, or maybe they don’t. But I admit, but I do not feel the emotions of righteous anger at the offending ones J) maybe it is worth looking for slops to have a full rage too? J)

In general, the idea is clear: if you are talking about something that does not see, does not want to see or which does not attach importance to another, then this indicates not a difference of views, but that something is wrong with you personally … This idea (and the corresponding manipulations) has already been given a specific name - "gaslighting". I really do not like the name, starting with the fact that even its translation from English will not give you anything in terms of understanding the phenomenon (unlike another much-disliked term "victimblaming"). This word comes from the name of the Hollywood movie, "Gaslight", which depicts this manipulation. On the Internet, it is found in rather mild versions, but in real interpersonal relationships it often turns life into hell.

The two main features of gaslighting are this is a) doubt about the adequacy of the interlocutor

b) denial of what is important to the interlocutor (facts or feelings).

Often it comes down to the idea that the interlocutor is mentally abnormal. I have encountered situations in which parents, in response to the attempts of their children to convey their claims to them, directly began to doubt their mental state. "Mom, you hit me!" “It didn't happen. You're making it up. " Children, driven to despair by their parents' complete denial of their cruelty, inattention, and ignorance, may begin to get angry and even shout, and immediately the manipulators turn on the second part: “Listen, your condition frightens me. You're crazy. Go check with a psychiatrist."

There are two main shapes in gaslighting: "Adequate" ("Normal") and "Abnormal" ("Inadequate"). “Adequate”, instead of listening to the words of “Abnormal” (it is not necessary to agree, by the way), rejects them from the start - well, what worthwhile can this “hysterical”, “abnormal” and so on say? Very often men play this game in relation to a woman. If a man is afraid of strong emotions, then those who express them are often automatically recorded in "Inadequate". I remember the words of one young man heard in the minibus, loudly spoken into a mobile phone: “Now, if you hadn't freaked out, there would have been no problem. Control yourself, that's all - and then everything will be fine. " It seems that in the picture of this young man there is only a "freaking friend", and the reasons for her "psychosis" are solely in herself, and not in ignoring him.

“There was no such thing”, “you are inventing”, “you understand everything wrong” - these are frequent words in the arsenal of “Adequate”, which has a monopoly on “correct understanding”. Psychologically "savvy" like to rush "these are all your projections" (that projections can be adequate, they are completely forgotten) or "these are your emotions due to the fact that you have not sufficiently worked out your problems with a psychologist" (that even "Excessive" emotional reaction does not mean the absence of the problem that causes it - it is also forgotten). Sometimes there is a complete lack of reaction to the words of another. I just listened - that's all. I got up and went about my business.

Ultimately, a person assigned to the role of "Abnormal" may actually begin to think that something is wrong with him, feel annoying, hysterical, too arrogant, and so on. I have had situations when clients constantly asked me "is this my reaction - is it generally normal?" or “daughter, drink some valerian, otherwise you’re getting nervous” (“daughter” just found out that her mother gave all her own money to her lover). “Adequate” does not have to be harshly ignorant, he can be “understanding”, “sympathetic” - for example, in response to the dissatisfaction of his wife, answer “I understand you, you are depressed, that's why you say so. Please rest and see a psychiatrist, I am ready to pay any expenses."

There are several typical options for discount and ignore that are used in gaslighting

- "It worries you - it's up to you to decide." The problem is with the one who started talking about the problem. Him / her and understand. If everything suits me personally, I will not do anything. The sheriff does not care about the problems of the Indians.

- "Always out of place." Whenever a partner is not suitable for a heart-to-heart conversation, it always turns out to be inappropriate, inappropriate and “not now”.

- "I took note of." In response to a long emotional message and address - a short “ok, I'll think about”, “took note” or “good”. And that's all - after that, no consequences.

- "A real man / woman does not behave like that." That is, if you were better / different, there would be no problem at all. Work on yourself, grow!

- "I understand how bad you are." Instead of discussing specific issues - uninvited pity and sympathy, ignoring what was said. Men like to blame all women's discontent on PMS.

- "You see only what you want to see." In essence, this is a counter-accusation, transferring the conversation from the subject to personal flaws.

"Do you want to jeopardize our relationship?" A hint that attempts to clarify something will lead to a deterioration of what is now. At the same time, the culprit / culprit has already been identified, "I warned you!"

There is a softened version of gaslighting, which is even more common: "Well, there is something, but you are clearly exaggerating everything because you have …".

What to do in such situations if you are clearly recorded in the "Abnormal"? To begin with: if you, in a permanent relationship with someone, begin to feel “wrong”, hysterical, torn apart (against the background of dazzlingly shining “Adequates”), you are drawn into this manipulation, the essence of which is to whitewash the manipulator, to project all his shortcomings on you …

It is important to remember a few more points.

There is a difference between ignoring with depreciation and argued disagreement. The other person has every right not to share our vision of a relationship or situation, but not linking our vision to our flaws.

There is a difference between situational disregard and systematic disregard. Neither we nor our partners are perfect, and there may be ignorance and reluctance to discuss anything at a particular moment in time. The difference is that during gaslighting, this condition is the norm, a constant background, and not a rare episode.

The inability to "reach out" to the other may be related both to the way we do it and to the personality traits of the other and ourselves. But definitely not ONLY with us. Even if we do something “wrong” (for example, we select such a form of expression of our feelings in which we do not want to enter into a conversation at all), another person who sincerely wants to solve the problem that has arisen will try to make counter steps in the form of questions, clarifications, expressing your own feelings. With gaslighting, all this is absent, the efforts are made exclusively by the "Abnormal".

Gaslighting is not necessarily carried out deliberately or with malicious intent. It is based on powerful shame, and, as a result, unwillingness to admit one's own imperfection and one's own contribution to the problem. If strangers on the Internet start to question our adequacy - well, this is the usual narcissistic arrogance.

What to do? In short and simple - then get out of a relationship in which there is no place for you, your feelings and thoughts. To regain a sense of self-worth, which inevitably suffers in a problem-in-you situation. It is useless to play by the rules of the "Adequate", because the only condition that will allow him to recognize you as "Adequate" is complete surrender and rejection of all uncomfortable for "Normal" experiences and needs. Even the declaration of divorce - when it comes to a married couple - will be interpreted as "well, I told you that he / she has a brain on one side."

And one more thing: we really see what we want to see. But, firstly, this fact does not mean that we see ONLY this. And secondly … This does not mean that what we see does not exist.