Gaslighting / Confusion (distortion of reality)
Type of attack
Gaslighting / Confusion tries to make you doubt your perception to take over another person's version. It manifests as denial of previously stated claims, constantly moving the "bar" (exact limit), and frames like "you are too sensitive," which question your sanity rather than examine facts. Your response is simple and firm: disassemble reality (write it down), reflect specifics, ask for yes/no confirmations, and if distortion continues — disconnect or involve a neutral third party.
Goal: to make you doubt your perception to defeat their version.
Recognize: denial of previous statements, moving the bar, feelings presented as "evidence," "you are wrong remembering," "you are exaggerating."
Defense: Reality journal → Reflection of specifics → Yes/No confirmations → Documentation → Neutral withdrawal or escalation.
Scenarios: “Here is what was said [data]. Do you confirm?” • “I won’t continue if my reality is rejected.”
Prevention: written summaries, shared documents, decision journals.
5 min. practice: feet on the ground; write down 3 indisputable facts; breathing 4‑6; send the summary.
Tool ally: selenite (transparent field).
Contents
- 1. Why gaslighting/confusion works (and why writing cancels the effect)
- 2. Recognition: signals and assumptions
- 3. Important differences (Disagreement ≠ gaslighting)
- 4. Stories from practice (client, team, supplier, myself)
- 5. Defense protocol — Write ▶ Reflect ▶ Confirm ▶ Decide
- 6. Boundary scenarios (prepared for copying)
- 7. Five-minute reset: three facts and inspiration
- 8. Preventive structures (summaries, journals, shared truth)
- 9. Templates (summary, fact check, third-party invitation)
- 10. Indicators (reality hygiene summary)
- 11. Errors and borderline situations
- 12. Tool ally: selenite (transparent field)
- 13. Integrations with the manager
- 14. FAQ
- 15. Ending: clear eyes, firm steps
1. Why gaslighting/confusion works (and why writing cancels the effect)
Distortion of reality exploits the limits of memory and the tension of emotional speed. Human memory is reconstructive — under stress, it distorts. When the other party keeps everything "in the air," the truth cannot be "pinned down" to anything solid. The antidote is to transfer reality into writing: notes marked with timestamps, summaries, shared documents. When facts live outside the dispute, distortion loses its "oxygen."
2. Recognition: signals and assumptions
Frequent signals
- “I didn’t say that” — after prior agreement (without explanation of what changed).
- The bar is raised when you fulfill a previous request.
- Your feelings are turned into judgment: “You’re too sensitive,” “You’re imagining things.”
- Contradictions are silenced; no curiosity to verify evidence.
- You leave conversations confused and apologizing for things you didn’t do.
Typical assumptions
- No written summaries; all “agreements” scattered in conversations.
- “Friendly” calls with high risk, no notes or agenda.
- Selective quoting; screenshots without timestamps.
- Time pressure preventing verification.
3. Important differences (Disagreement ≠ gaslighting)
| Regularity | What is it | Distinguishing features | Healthy response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Honest disagreement | Two people see things differently. | Both sides consider the evidence; tone is respectful. | Compare [data]; agree on criteria; decide or part ways respectfully. |
| Different memory | Human memory varies. | Curiosity about records; desire to verify. | Extract records; write summary for alignment. |
| Gaslighting / Confusion | Intentional or repeated reality distortion. | Denies records; raises the bar; attacks your perception. | Move to writing; reflect specifics; ask yes/no; retreat / escalate. |
4. Stories from practice (client, team, supplier, myself)
Story A — Client: “You promised unlimited support.”
The client claims the practitioner promised 24/7 availability. Heart sinks. The practitioner inspires, marks Confusion, and replies: “Here’s our signed scope from June 12; working hours 10:00 to 17:00. Do you confirm?” The client relents: “I guess I thought so.” The summary becomes a permanent boundary reference.
Story B — Team: moving the bar
A team member demands “one more change” after approval. When reminded, they say: “We hadn’t agreed on the deadline.” The manager publishes meeting minutes with timestamps and asks: “Do you confirm this record?” The member admits oversight; the change is scheduled for the next sprint with a scope change form.
Story C — Supplier: missing estimate
The supplier raises the price after agreement, claiming the previous estimate “was not final.” You provide a PDF proposal (date, version) and ask: “Confirm which clause allows this change.” They stick to the original price. Documents dispel distortion.
Story D — Self-gaslighting: “Maybe I overdid it?”
After a tense call, you consider apologizing for boundary setting. Perform the Three Facts task and read last week's summary. The facts stand. You send a calm follow-up: “Here’s what we agreed; here’s what I can offer next.” Trust returns.
5. Defense protocol — Write ▶ Reflect ▶ Confirm ▶ Decide
- Name it: quietly mark: “This is Gaslighting/Confusion.”
- Externalize reality: collect timestamps, emails, documents; start a Reality Journal entry with date and fact points.
- Reflect specifics: return the exact statement and your record. E.g.: "You say X. My notes and this email show Y."
- Yes/No confirmations: ask closed questions: "Do you confirm the attached scope from [data]?"
-
Decide the next step:
- Continue if there is alignment and acknowledgment.
- Escalate neutrally to a third party if facts are still disputed.
- Exit if your perception is constantly attacked and the work becomes unsafe.
- Summary and storage: send a brief summary; log it.
6. Boundary scenarios (prepared for copying)
Reflection of facts
- "Here is what was said [data/laikas] ([nuoroda/ekrano vaizdas]). Do you confirm?"
- "I don't discuss perceptions. I align the record so we can decide."
Respect for reality
- "I won't continue if my reality is rejected. We can move forward when we agree on the facts."
- "Let's move to email to make the record clear."
Third-party invitation
- "We don't agree on the facts. I suggest a neutral mediator to review the documents and close the matter."
- "If we can't agree on the record, we'll take a break / exit respectfully."
7. Five-minute reset: three facts and inspiration
- Feet on the ground (20 s). Feel the weight, relax your jaw and shoulders.
- Breathing (90 s): inhale 4 s / exhale 6 s × 6 cycles.
- Three facts (90 s): write down 3 indisputable things (dates, amounts, signed scope).
- One mirror sentence (60 s): “You say ___. The recording shows ___ (added). Do you confirm?”
- Selenite touch (20 s): hold/look at the stone; imagine light washing away noise.
8. Preventive structures (summaries, journals, shared truth)
Summary discipline
- Summarize any decision-making call within 24 hours.
- Use numbered points with owners and deadlines.
- Keep summaries in a shared folder; add links forward.
Reality journal
- Date, topic, three facts, source links.
- Agreements and open questions.
- Another review date.
Shared documents
- Signed scope PDF; versioned documents.
- Policy page (working hours, boundaries, returns, consent).
- One source of truth for each project (not a scattered cluster of conversations).
9. Templates (summary, fact check, third-party invitation)
9.1 Post-call summary (24 hours)
Topic: Summary — [tema] — [data]
Thank you for today. Here's how I understood it:
Facts: (1) … (2) … (3) …
Decisions: …
Owners and deadlines: … until …
Open questions: …
Please provide corrections by [data/laikas]. Otherwise, I will proceed on this basis.
9.2 Request for fact verification
Tema: Quick record confirmation — [tema]
To avoid confusion, please confirm: [yes/no question related to the document] ([nuoroda/priedas]). Once confirmed, I will proceed to the next steps.
9.3 Invitation of a neutral third party
Tema: Mediated review to reconcile facts — [tema]
We do not agree on the record. I suggest a neutral mediator to review the documents and close the issue within [laikotarpis]. If this is unacceptable, we will properly pause / exit, protecting both parties.
10. Indicators (reality hygiene summary)
| Signal | Green | Yellow | Red |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calls with summary within 24 hours | ≥ 90% | 70–89% | < 70% |
| Disputes resolved by documents | ≥ 80% | 50–79% | < 50% |
| Times per week when after calls you feel "confused / apologetic" | 0–1 | 2–3 | ≥ 4 |
| Received yes/no confirmations | ≥ 75% | 50–74% | < 50% |
11. Errors and borderline situations
- Too quick "labeling": not every disagreement is gaslighting. Base labels on records.
- Private clinical / safety contexts: some information cannot be shared publicly. Keep a confidential record; escalate to professionals if needed.
- Endless debate cycles: when you have reflected and asked yes/no — set a decision point. If not confirmed — pause or exit.
- Self-gaslighting: do not dismiss your feelings. Record facts and body signals — both are important.
12. Tool ally: selenite (transparent field)
Selenite — a ritual reminder of clarity. Hold the wand or plate near the keyboard. Before sending summaries, swipe your palm and say: "I affirm simple truth." Use as an anchor — the true work is done by your structure.
Note: symbolic tools assist the practitioner; they do not replace legal, psychological, or safety recommendations.
13. Integrations with the manager
- Module 5 (Protective Protocols): before difficult conversations, perform 12 min. "Shield and Sweep."
- Module 8 (Communication): tone discipline, de-escalation, and "acknowledge → affirm → evidence."
- Module 9 (Resilient Activity): common documents, version control, policy pages, and a single source of truth.
14. FAQ
What to do if they refuse to answer yes/no questions?
This is [data]. Draw the line: “Without confirmation, we pause / leave.” If continuation is necessary, suggest mediation.
Is it allowed to record calls?
Follow local laws and obtain consent. If in doubt — take notes and send a summary for confirmation.
How to maintain relationships while being firm?
Be brief, neutral, and precise. Separate the person from the process: “To ensure quality and fairness, I rely on written confirmation.”
15. Ending: clear eyes, firm steps
Confusion disperses power. Clarity gathers it. Write down the truth, request confirmation, and move only on solid ground.
Gaslighting/Confusion loses momentum when your reality is externalized and respected. Keep journals. Reflect specifics. Demand yes/no. If the truth “does not fall,” let your boundary fall.
Quick reminder (copy and attach)
- Name it: “This is Gaslighting/Confusion.”
- Externalize: Reality journal (dates, facts, references).
- Reflect: “You say ___. The record shows ___ (added).”
- Confirm: yes/no questions linked to documents.
- Decide: continue • mediate • leave; then — summary.
- Scenarios: “Do you confirm?” • “I will not continue if my reality is denied.”
- Prevention: 24 h summaries • shared documents • one source of truth.
- 5 min. reset: three facts; breathing 4‑6; one mirror sentence.
- Tool ally: selenite (transparent field).
This is educational content. It does not replace professional legal, psychological, medical, or security advice. Practice within your competence and consult qualified specialists when needed.
↑ To top | ← Previous: 11.06 — Rushing / Coercion | Next: 11.08 — Entangled →