'Gaslighting' Is Merriam-Webster's Word of the Year For 2022 (apnews.com) 76
"Gaslighting" -- behavior that's mind manipulating, grossly misleading, downright deceitful -- is Merriam-Webster's word of the year. The Associated Press reports: Lookups for the word on merriam-webster.com increased 1,740% in 2022 over the year before. But something else happened. There wasn't a single event that drove significant spikes in curiosity, as it usually goes with the chosen word of the year. The gaslighting was pervasive.
Merriam-Webster's top definition for gaslighting is the psychological manipulation of a person, usually over an extended period of time, that "causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator." More broadly, the dictionary defines the word thusly: "The act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage."
Despite its relatively recent prominence -- including "Gaslighter," The Chicks' 2020 album featuring the rousingly angry titular single -- the word was brought to life more than 80 years ago with "Gas Light," a 1938 play by Patrick Hamilton. It birthed two film adaptations in the 1940s. One, George Cukor's "Gaslight" in 1944, starred Ingrid Bergman as Paula Alquist and Charles Boyer as Gregory Anton. The two marry after a whirlwind romance and Gregory turns out to be a champion gaslighter. Among other instances, he insists her complaints over the constant dimming of their London townhouse's gaslights is a figment of her troubled mind. It wasn't. "It's a word that has risen so quickly in the English language, and especially in the last four years, that it actually came as a surprise to me and to many of us," said Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster's editor at large. "It was a word looked up frequently every single day of the year," he said.
Merriam-Webster chooses its word of the year based solely on data. Rounding out this year's Top 10 are: "Oligarch," "Omicron," "Codify," "Queen consort," "Raid," "Sentient," "Cancel culture," "LGBTQIA," and "Loamy." Last year's pick was "vaccine."
Merriam-Webster's top definition for gaslighting is the psychological manipulation of a person, usually over an extended period of time, that "causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator." More broadly, the dictionary defines the word thusly: "The act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage."
Despite its relatively recent prominence -- including "Gaslighter," The Chicks' 2020 album featuring the rousingly angry titular single -- the word was brought to life more than 80 years ago with "Gas Light," a 1938 play by Patrick Hamilton. It birthed two film adaptations in the 1940s. One, George Cukor's "Gaslight" in 1944, starred Ingrid Bergman as Paula Alquist and Charles Boyer as Gregory Anton. The two marry after a whirlwind romance and Gregory turns out to be a champion gaslighter. Among other instances, he insists her complaints over the constant dimming of their London townhouse's gaslights is a figment of her troubled mind. It wasn't. "It's a word that has risen so quickly in the English language, and especially in the last four years, that it actually came as a surprise to me and to many of us," said Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster's editor at large. "It was a word looked up frequently every single day of the year," he said.
Merriam-Webster chooses its word of the year based solely on data. Rounding out this year's Top 10 are: "Oligarch," "Omicron," "Codify," "Queen consort," "Raid," "Sentient," "Cancel culture," "LGBTQIA," and "Loamy." Last year's pick was "vaccine."
gaslighting us all (Score:5, Insightful)
gaslighting all of us into thinking every time we dispute someone's blatant stupidity, we're either gaslighting them or mansplaining.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:gaslighting us all (Score:5, Insightful)
Imho, this divisiveness is the result of the hyper growth in news/media uptake that occurred due to the covid shutdowns.
People were generally pretty frantic, trying to figure out wtf was actually going on, when workplaces started taking unusual response measures (closures, behavior mandates, etc). This sort of stuff never happened in recent past -- not for ebola, bird flu, swine flu, sars, mers. This was the first time many adults witnessed the country taking a widespread response action like this, so they naturally became information sponges, desperately looking for any potentially useful datasource.
Simultaneously, major mainstream media outlets were in need of a serious bump in viewership. And they noticed that they had a solid hold of the public attention, and the FCC was doing nothing to curb sensationalism. So they did what any desperate business would do - they took that free ball and ran as far and wide as they could imagine. So now we have hyper partisan news outlets desperately trying to maintain their grip on eyeballs by shouting outlandish headlines, gossip, and opinion pieces that pander to emotions rather than useful facts.
Real journalism is effectively dead. It's nearly all National Enquirer at this point, no matter what channel you turn on or website you load. I find almost none of it is trustworthy anymore. There are still a few journalists out there that value integrity over insanity, but it's very difficult to find them
Re: (Score:3)
> desperately looking for any potentially useful datasource.
Not potentially useful. Those sources aligning with their confirmation bias, no matter how (literally) incredible.
Re:gaslighting us all (Score:4, Interesting)
This sort of stuff never happened in recent past -- not for ebola, bird flu, swine flu, sars, mers.
Clearly you don't remember history. However, neither avian flu or swine are readily transmissible to humans, and those who do contract are interacting with the animals in close quarters so there's no need to do anything. [nytimes.com]
As for SARS, the last worldwide outbreak was in 2003 [cdc.gov]. You know what we did when that happened? We put people in quarantine [cdc.gov] to stop the spread despite limited infections in the country. MERS was even less of an issue because of so little of it being found in the world.
But thank you for giving a shining example of gaslighting, especially the part about not trusting "news".
Re: (Score:2)
My workplace didn't close for ebola, or do anything special for it. Hell, I barely even noticed it happened at all.
However, it's very interesting to read a 2014 article with some of the same major players. Fauci has a few quotes that aren't irrational. NYT isn't pumping it up beyond reason. There's a bit where a source mentions a paranoid neighbor putting on a face mask, which they quickly dismiss as an over-reaction.
Feels quite different from how covid went, in many respects.
Paywall bypass if anyone wants
Re: (Score:3)
Feels quite different from how covid went, in many respects.
Of course it was different. Given the way you compare these viral outbreaks suggest to me that you don't understand the basics of viral outbreaks. The nature of the spread is completely, utterly different between covid and ebola.
Instead of reading the news i would suggest reading some basic biology textbooks.
Re: (Score:2)
My workplace didn't close for ebola, or do anything special for it. Hell, I barely even noticed it happened at all.
Because ebola never really spread into western cities so there was no reason to do anything. Your workplace didn't close with COVID until there was a massive outbreak in NYC with many people dying. As well ebola spreads through bodily fluids so there were good reasons to think it wouldn't transmit as easily in nations with good healthcare systems.
There's a bit where a source mentions a paranoid neighbor putting on a face mask, which they quickly dismiss as an over-reaction.
Again, ebola wasn't in the US and ebola spreads through bodily fluids, so yes, an overreaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, ebola wasn't in the US and ebola spreads through bodily fluids, so yes, an overreaction.
Sorry (not sorry), but false. Ebola was definitely within the US borders.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previ... [cdc.gov]
Again, I'm just saying that the tone of news coverage, and national level response, was vastly different this time around.
I just think, if we have such public outrage to cast, we're currently casting it in the wrong direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, ebola wasn't in the US and ebola spreads through bodily fluids, so yes, an overreaction.
Sorry (not sorry), but false. Ebola was definitely within the US borders.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previ... [cdc.gov]
Ok, let me be more specific. There was never an outbreak of Ebola in the US, just a literal handful of people who got sick overseas and came to the US and two nurses who got sick treating one of them.
Again, I'm just saying that the tone of news coverage, and national level response, was vastly different this time around.
I just think, if we have such public outrage to cast, we're currently casting it in the wrong direction.
I agree, vastly different [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. Yep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:gaslighting us all (Score:5, Interesting)
Real journalism is effectively dead. It's nearly all National Enquirer at this point, no matter what channel you turn on or website you load. I find almost none of it is trustworthy anymore. There are still a few journalists out there that value integrity over insanity, but it's very difficult to find them
Has been, for quite a while. To the point that it was mercilessly mocked in Airplane 2. Check out this bit https://youtu.be/mMZOQZz4-qc [youtu.be]
Those headlines sound plausible today. And the real savage bit is at https://youtu.be/mMZOQZz4-qc?t... [youtu.be]
That's what NPR sounds like now. This was satire, in 1982, and is reality now.
Imho, this divisiveness is the result of the hyper growth in news/media uptake that occurred due to the covid shutdowns.
I think it started with CNN in 1980, the need to fill a 24-hour news cycle with what is realistically 5 minutes of worthy news *a day*, and I do mean world-wide! 40 years later there's still not enough news to fill a 24 hour slot without some serious editorializing, opinionating and bloviating
Pulizter and Hearst lied through their teeth to sell papers and spark the Spanish-American War, but they are bloody amateurs compared to what is being done now. The newspaper guys didn't have the instant megaphone with worldwide reach the way social media is. Not with the speed and uh.. multimedia-ness?
There is no trust-worthy news source. Not the AP, not Reuters, not any of them anymore. In order of ditching, i've ditched CNN, MSNBC, all the airwave broadcast news, then ditched FOX and the rest, then RT and Al-Jazeera, because both of those also have their own anti-US agenda. I literally have no news source, anywhere in the world, I can trust. Not one. Not even the BBC.
And no one will accept a crowd-sourced news / intel operation without demanding utter control over it -- that is, "moderation" and outright overt censorship.. so i'll part with an old saw from an old author:
"If you don't read the papers, you're uninformed. If you do read the papers, you're misinformed." --Mark Twain (attr.)
Re: (Score:2)
Airplane 2 link checks out - savage bit seems particularly relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Imho, this divisiveness is the result of the hyper growth in news/media uptake that occurred due to the covid shutdowns.
That's patented bullshit. For instance, take a look at the US. Trump was elected before covid was a thing and if anyone has been actively bringing divisiveness into politics then its trump and the further eroding value system of the republicans. His divisiveness was obvious before he was elected and way before covid.
And media haven't really grown during covid, they were already present and being actively abused to create synthetic divisiveness.
Don't blame covid for planned, manmade political bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi friend. I didn't say covid was planned, so let's just ignore that one. What I did say was that the media took a "free ball" and ran with it beyond any respectable borders, because the FCC no longer cares to enforce Program Content Regulations as they used to, prior to 2000 -- you can find the current rules for those here: https://www.fcc.gov/media/prog... [fcc.gov]
And yes, those rules are lax as fuck today, but this wasn't how was even just 10 years ago, let alone 20. Back when I was growing up, there was a mandat
Re: (Score:2)
Imho, this divisiveness is the result of the hyper growth in news/media uptake that occurred due to the covid shutdowns.
You see the moment that the accelerator was hit. I see all the moments leading up to it, from 9/11, probably long before onward. The United States has been looking for someone to blame almost from the moment it existed. We don't even care what we're blaming them for, just so long as someone's to blame.
Our version of introspection, as a country, is to decide with group to vilify next for all our sins and stop at nothing to tear them down. Native Americans (who we abused), people of Chinese descent (who we us
Re: (Score:2)
> I mho, this divisiveness is the result of the hyper
> growth in news/media uptake that occurred due to
> the covid shutdowns.
So far as I can tell, it actually started a few years before that, in 2015. That was when, as part of the lead-up to the 2016 election, the republicans weaponized social media as part of their campaign strategy to demonize wrongthink and those of us who might engage in it. Before then, Facebook and the like were mostly places for friends to keep in touch if we were physical
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's new, it's just that the issues keep changing and people get older.
A lot of people regard themselves as fairly progressive when they are young. Maybe they were behind the civil rights movement and rejected the old racist ideas.
Now things have moved on and they find themselves on the wrong side of some new issues, like the treatment of trans and non-binary people. The youth of today are progressive on those issues, but some of the older people feel like things have gone too far or that the
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I have to explain this to you using simple words because you didn't do any STEM courses at college and basic scientific concepts are beyond you.
I am not trying to drive you crazy, your woke hatred of people with other opinions has actually made you crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just other opinions. Literally, the experience and knowledge of others that have both more experience and knowledge.
Re: (Score:1)
M&W Does Enjoy Gaslighting (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember when Sen. Mazie Hirono accused Barrett of a slur by using the term "sexual preference" (which Biden was apparently fine to use [facebook.com] several months before) and then Merriam Webster immediately changed the definition [nypost.com] to indicate it as being an 'offensive' term?
I think that would be a pretty good example of gaslighting they could use in illustration
Re: (Score:3)
M-W ought to get a good shellacking over that.
Re:M&W Does Enjoy Gaslighting (Score:5, Insightful)
Merriam Webster NEEDS to get a lot of flack over their constant revisions to accommodate slang, ignorance, and worst of all 1984-style propaganda efforts.
It should take at least a decade before they make significant changes. They'll add some idiotic twitter trend to the dictionary just as it's dying off and the other 80% of the population not in that social cesspool is still largely unaware.
I remember not long ago some fuckups added figurative to the definition of literally. Irony and overstatements don't need to be added. Abuse of literally isn't new at all but it wasn't in the book until now and the same reasoning should continue to apply. People will appropriate words into new ways for many reasons but fads don't need to be documented at least without context. Like offensive words come and go over time periods and if you document that you must indicate the time period and culture. Touchy amplified tiny groups of offended people is going to be a never ending thanks to technology.
Cancel Culture (Score:2)
Hell, just now it caught my attention (and raised a chuckle) that "cancel culture" is only one of the top ten omitted on MW's page. No wonder there's so much effort spent to convince the world it doesn't exist, when there's widespread interest in finding out why it's happening (a
Re: (Score:3)
Merriam Webster made a correction. Using "sexual preference" in relation to someone's sexual orientation implies that it is a choice rather than something inherent to that individual. The idea that being gay is a choice which can be reversed is a very old homophobic trope, and a danger to people who are at risk of being forced to undergo conversion therapy (which the UN defines as abuse).
It's a shame it took so long for them to do it.
"Gaslighting" ?! Word of the YEAR ?! Really ?! (Score:4, Funny)
Are you crazy ?!
.
.
Sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Ah ah. You can't fool me like that.
"1740 percent" ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So that is x1840, right? An increase of 1840 times.
Wrong. It's 18.4 times.
One hundred percent increase is a doubling (x2), 200% increase is a tripling (x3), 300% increase is a quadrupling (x4). And so on.
It's funny how you stop exactly at the one everyone still known..
According to your brilliant idea we would have to call x18.4 duodevigintiouple and that discards the numbers after the decimal point...
So you're basically suggesting to use an archaic, cumbersome and less accurate system for representing these types of numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A "times factor" is much more clear and mathematically easier than using a dramatic and mathematically obscuring percentage,
I dunno. It covers a different kind of perspective. A percentage is not a 'times factor', but it is a 'how many times more factor'.
I guess it's just about how used you are to processing this type of information.
crunk .. krunck (Score:1)
Is that still a word?...krunk
Like "that presidential debate was krunk(ed)..."
It was so much fun to say
Wait, what? (Score:3)
You mean it doesn't have anything to do with igniting flatulence?
I feel so... gaslit....
Oh is that so? (Score:2)
"Gaslighting" -- behavior that's mind manipulating, grossly misleading, downright deceitful -- is Merriam-Webster's word of the year.
Merriam-Webster chooses its word of the year based solely on data.
That's just what they want you to think. /joke
you're such a drama queen (Score:2)
'Gaslighting' Is Merriam-Webster's Word of the Year For 2022
No it's not.
Ironically, Alt Definitions are Gaslighting (Score:3)
Meriam-Webster shows two definitions-- One being traditional and the other being severely watered down.
Definition #1
Psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator.
That's some pretty heinous stuff. This sounds really bad.
Definition #2
The act or practice of grossly misleading someone especially for one's own advantage.
This is just "lying" and doesn't approach the offense of the first definition. This kind of "awfulizing" allows people to claim every infraction is a felony and makes it impossible to discuss the real effects of specific actions on the world around us.
Karine Jean-Pierre (Score:2)
There's two kinds of gaslighting. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People who actually perceive no right and wrong don't argue with the concept. They see no value in arguing with it
Re: (Score:2)
Real Gaslighting (Score:3)
Last time i saw a house with real gaslight was in San Juan, some historical building still had piped-in gas, with real gas lamps on the walls. Bit like 12 Grimmauld Place.. each lamp was not very bright, maybe as bright as a 15 watt bulb. Had a certain charm to it, tho. But no, wouldn't trade electric for gaslight anytime soon.
But this "new" gaslighting (named after a quite good movie, actually).. I wish I didn't see it anymore. Despicable practice. When I find I'm being gaslit it creates a wave of revulsion in me.. which is why my political compass has shifted pretty drastically since the late 2000's.
If you've not seen Gaslight.. do so. Creepy AF.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And this one's so old you *won't* need a killer 12.2 channel SensaSurround Ear Destroyer 3500 hi-fi system to enjoy it!
Re: (Score:3)
Gaslighting can be a lot brighter than that.
I don't know the building you refer to but I assume that it has simple naked flames at each lamp. If a gas mantle [wikipedia.org] is fitted, which the flame heats until it glows white-hot, the emitted light can be significantly brighter.
I remember seeing gas street-lights in my youth which were easily as bright or brighter than a 100W incandescent electric bulb.
Professor Sam Vaknin: Gaslighting (Score:2)
But this "new" gaslighting (named after a quite good movie, actually).. I wish I didn't see it anymore. Despicable practice.
Professor of Psychology Sam Vaknin, diagnosed with both psychopathy with and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) coined the term "Gaslighting" from this movie to describe a particular form of abuse conducted by people with NPD. His book Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited is an authority on this subject matter. He describes himself as self aware psychopath.
Prof Vaknin describes "Gaslighting" in a youtube video from 2010 Gaslighting and Ambient Abuse [youtube.com]. Whilst Vaknin's videos are educational he
Some types of gaslighting (Score:3)
...are explained here [reddit.com].
But darling... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Something seems to be missing (Score:2)
You know like, "the largest crowd ever", and you see the same photos and, you're like "wtf, is this dude blind?"
That's gaslighting in my books.
Or... (Score:1)
...is it?
Aaigh!! Merriam-Webster is manipulating us! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What if gaslight used to mean something else, then through a campaign of misinformation, it became defined as how some wanted it.
j/k I like the way you recursively meta think
Why the ascention of 'gaslighting' (Score:2)
A good number of people think the left has done a 1984 style Ministry of Truth through Twitter and the rest of the media. Started with the aftermath of the 2016 election and really ramped up during the pandemic.
Re: (Score:1)
Dumb word (Score:2)
Unfortunately it's a stupid compound word that has no intrinsic meaning whatsoever based on its root words. It would be far better if the word was "hobkort" or some other entirely made up word that is not already a meaningful sentence ("Gas lighting."). A person not familiar with the word, and hearing it used, will not attempt to figure out its meaning by context, but instead will consider what it means to light gas (for me, I actually thought it had something to do with the lighting of gas lanterns that u
Re: (Score:2)
It would be far better if the word was "hobkort" or some other entirely made up word that is not already a meaningful sentence ("Gas lighting.").
Seriously? You actually use the words 'gas lighting' as a verb in general speech?
"Grandma, i'm going out gas lighting"
"Very well dear, just make sure you put on your coat."
A person not familiar with the word, and hearing it used, will not attempt to figure out its meaning by context
Funny, because looking for the meaning was my first reaction to hearing it being used. It's quite obvious the context is not 'lighting gas'. Unless you're a teenager. Then, lighting your gas is a perfectly normal and common thing to discuss.
Re: (Score:3)
If I were to suggest (Score:2)
Thanks, Trump! (Score:1)