Perhaps you believe in God. You believe that global warming is happening and open to human agency. You believe that hard work pays off, that you are more valuable than at least some other people. Or perhaps not. Perhaps you believe that everyone else has their act together, and you do not. You believe that your spouse is cheating on you, and you believe that your boss is out to get you fired. You believe that music is soul, or that there is such a thing as a justified murder, or that vaccines are dangerous or unholy or life-saving. We could go on…and on, and on. We have beliefs about proper clothing, about racial groups, about inanimate objects. We have perceptions of belief that we hold as “true”; we have perceptions of belief that we hold as functionally “true” – that in the absence of the belief particular outcomes would not happen. For instance, if I believe that the child is capable, that belief makes future outcomes by the child more likely. Conversely, if I believe that the child is incapable, then my belief tilts the child’s behavior in a different direction. In both cases our belief would be “justified” and “true.” After all, I knew all along that child was no good, and look, she turned out that way!
This idea that our beliefs actively impact the world — that they reverberate outward and affect others — is not a new thing to psychologists. William James, who arguably was the father of U.S. psychology, wrote an essay entitled “The Will to Believe,” in which he allowed for unanchored belief. It’s a complex essay. One that requires a careful reading in order to unpack the many points that James is attempting to articulate. For instance here he is stating as obvious that everyone essentially believes in what is useful for them to believe (within the unique, specific needs or their life):
As a rule we disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use. Clifford’s cosmic emotions find no use for Christian feelings. Huxley belabors the bishops because there is no use for sacerdotalism in his scheme of life. Newman, on the contrary, goes over to Romanism, and finds all sorts of reasons good for staying there, because a priestly system is for him an organic need and delight. Why do so few ‘scientists’ even look at the evidence for telepathy, so called? Because they think, as a leading biologist, now dead, once said to me, that even if such a thing were true, scientists ought to band together to keep it suppressed and concealed. It would undo the uniformity of Nature and all sorts of other things without which scientists cannot carry on their pursuits.
Keep in mind that James is expressing his thoughts from a mind that did not know cars or television, and which had developed through a period of time in which the ghosts of hundreds of thousands of Americans, dead from the Civil War, haunted the social fabric that had been left behind. Within in that context James’ essay takes on a new urgency. Given the scars of those horrors, given the unrelenting “march of technology and industry” (and yes the sciences of which he was a part) what can be held on to? James’ answer is a generous and humble one. One that defends an individual’s unique feelings, as well as the careful accumulation of authoritative evidence. He writes:
A whole train of passengers (individually brave enough) will be looted by a few highwaymen, simply because the latter can count on one another, while each passenger fears that if he makes a movement of resistance, he will be shot before any one else backs him up. If we believed that the whole car-full would rise at once with us, we should each severally rise, and train-robbing would never even be attempted. There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming. And where faith in a fact can help create the fact, that would be an insane logic which should say that faith running ahead of scientific evidence is the ‘lowest kind of immorality ‘ into which a thinking being can fall.
Two Experiments
Whether one accepts James’ defense of “faith” is beside the point (and I wouldn’t term it a defense so much as an allowance). Psychologists have enough science behind them to show that beliefs are not neutral things. They actively impact and shape the world of not only our own perceptions but those of others, as well — ants and termites busily at work in a psyche’s foundations
Let me describe two classic examples.
The first used rats, but really it used undergraduate students. The students were in a psychology laboratory class, and as part of the class they were assigned the task of training rats to run a T-maze. In a T-maze, an animal scurries down a runway, and then is presented with a single choice: go to one arm (painted white) or go to the other (painted gray). One of these will contain food. Give the rat enough experience, and they’ll figure the choice out. In order to “know” that their rats were figuring out which choice led to food, the students tracked the number of “correct” responses the rats made and also the amount of time it took the rats to make their choices.
Notice how the average for the “Bright” rats is much better than for the “Dull” rats. Must be really smart rats, right?
The reason why this experiment is famous, though, is because the researchers, Rosenthal and Fode, introduced a very simple manipulation. The students were told at the start of the training that one set of rats were “maze bright.” These rats were “known” to solve mazes quickly. The students were also told that another set of rats were “maze dull,” i.e., had been bred such that they were slow learners in mazes. Sure enough, the average performance of the two groups showed clear differences. The only problem with these results is that there was no such thing as “maze bright” and “maze dull” rats. All of the rats had been selected at random, divided into two groups, which were labeled by Rosenthal and Fode (for the unwitting students) as “maze bright” and “maze dull.”
Now, its doubtful that the rats in the Rosenthal and Fode experiment came to see themselves as either “smart” or “dull.” All we can say is that instilling a belief in the trainer impacted the behavior of their subjects (rats). That said, psychologists do know that beliefs are directly shaped by experience, and we can point to many, many examples. For example, here is one that falls under the category of “false memories.”
False memories are subjective memories for events, objects, words, etc., that can objectively be shown to never have occurred. There are reasons to use the word “memory” rather than the word “belief,” but for our purposes I am going to conflate the two. A memory is a particular sort of belief about the past. To be more specific, let’s restrict ourselves to what are termed “declarative memories.” These are memories for events that we can verbally describe. Crudely, they are the normative memories that most people think of when they use the word “memories.” However, like I say, we can reasonably consider declarative memories as a belief about an event that took place in the past. It’s the classic “I know what I heard, because I’m the one that heard it.”
An Example of the Interaction Between Languageand Memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589. Notice how the words influence reported perception.
For this experiment, the researchers Loftus and Palmer had college-age subjects watch videos of traffic accidents. They were then asked to rate the speed of one of the cars when it __________ into the other car. The clever bit, or if you are a lawyer, the leading question bit, involved the word that was slotted into the blank. For some subjects the word was “hit.” For others it was “smashed.” For others it was “bumped.” And so on. All in all, Loftus and Palmer used five different words. What they found was that the word influenced the speed ratings. “I know what I saw, because I saw it!” Except in this case, it was more “I know what I saw, because you asked me to see it.”
Now, reporting different speeds based on particular questions isn’t necessarily evidence of a false memory. We’ve all had the experience of “going along” with another person’s opinion, even when our own opinion is different. “Doesn’t that sweater look good on him?” “Sure!” So, students asked to rate the speed of a car after a “crash” might rate the speed higher than after a “bump” merely to please the person asking the question – the authority figure / experimenter. In order to deal with this problem, Loftus and Palmer conducted another experiment.
Once again students watched a car accident. 1/3 of the student were asked how fast the cars were going when they “hit” each other. 1/3 were asked how fast the cars were going when they “crashed into” each other. 1/3 were not asked any questions at all. Finally, a week later, the students were brought back to the lab and asked 10 questions about the video they had watched the previous week. One question was “Did you see any broken glass? Yes or No” More subjects reported seeing broken glass when the cars had “crashed into” one another (16/50), rather than “hit” one another (7/43) or when no question had been asked (6/44). Just to complete the scene, in the objective reality of the actual video, there was no broken glass evident.
James was right, then. Beliefs are not neutral things that have been constructed by our history. Yes, they have been constructed. But, they also construct. They change the landscape of our experience, and in so doing, alter the potentials of that experience for both “good” or “bad.”
This post has been an especially long one, and believe it or not, we are just getting started on unpacking some of the currents – the river that William James called the “stream of consciousness.” There is just one more construct that I want to quickly introduce, though, because it actually pops up from time to time in the current cultural zeitgeist. It’s a construct that is deeply connected with the topic of beliefs: their origins and their shapings. The construct is gaslighting.
Gaslighting is a colloquial term that refers to a form of psychological manipulation in which a targeted victim is led to doubt their own perceptions and beliefs. Up becomes down. Down becomes up. Memory can’t be trusted. Previously trusted sources of information and validation are doubted or removed. The stress of uncertainty is alleviated by a “supplier” who just so happens to be the manipulator. In the end the victim is so hollowed of agency and psychological certitude that they spiral into despair, depression, and madness. That is the dramatic read, and it’s not a bad place to start because the term “gaslighting” originates from a stage play and then movie, “Gas Light.”
Gaslighting is not a joke for individuals who have experienced its effects. At the same time, it is important to be aware that from a certain perspective “gaslighting” is what the world does to all of us in the construction of our psyche. Illusions, false beliefs, emotional assumptions, phylogenetic beliefs (i.e., cognitive “reflexes”) sprout within all of us, vines planted and spreading like southern kudzu. These processes are normal, true, but we ignore the malleability of our beliefs at our own peril. Victims of gaslighting could be any of us, just as the victims of a scam could be any of us.
(modified from the original)
So, to wrap up this post, I’d simply like to point out three common techniques of gaslighting. I’m doing so in the same manner as Screwtape from C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters. Yes, do think about the current political situation in the U.S. with its proclamations of “fake news.” But also realize that we all engage in “manipulations” of belief so some small extent. Sometimes without realizing it. Sometimes with cause. Sometimes for selfish reasons. Sometimes for what we would like to think of as positive reasons. With that said, if you wanted to start upping your game into the political big leagues three guidelines from a “gaslighters handbook” might look something like this (and remember, there are many more than just three):
- Establish confusion as to what qualifies as evidence! Trusted sources of information must be discredited or at the very least established as no different from any other source of information. Yes, it’s a long-standing newspaper, but it’s run by a bunch of liberals. Yes, they are your priest, but haven’t you read that priests are pedophiles? By the way, your parents called to check in on you. Are they ever going to let you be your own adult? And, I don’t know, they just seem to have it in for me. Easy peasy. While you’re at it. Reify, reify, reify. A reaction is never a natural result of the environment you’ve created. It’s because they distrustful or prone to depression. Bonus points for turning that characterization into a fixed “personality trait” that your target begins to accept about themselves!
- Create distress, but do be sure to become the immediate solution to that distress. Chaos is your special sauce! Unpredictably trigger arguments! Publicly humiliate, if you have to. Just be sure to quickly follow this up with a way of releasing the stress that you’ve caused. Maybe it involves an abject “apology.” Maybe it involves producing a “plan” for both of you to fix the relationship. Maybe it involves wild “make-up sex.” Be creative! But be sure that you are central to the solution to the mess you’ve created, and bonus points if your “solution” subtly interacts with point number 1. “I hate that I get so angry, but maybe it has to do with the fact that I feel unwelcomed by your family. I think maybe it’s because I’m always so honest.”
- Make yourself the center of attention! You can’t have your target’s attention wandering out of your control. Attention is a limited resource, so fill that sucker up with your shenanigans. Remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity, when it comes to your target’s attentional audience. Text. Create a scene. Demand gifts. Act helpless. Show up on their doorstep. Call their parents. Your goal is that of any advertiser: crowd out all other brands! Like the hypnotist, you need their identity to be wearied out and replaced by your own. Good luck!!
