Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where one person or group makes another doubt their own perceptions, memories, or understanding of reality.

It’s often subtle, beginning with small denials or distortions, but over time it can erode the victim’s confidence in their judgment and sanity.

In personal relationships, gaslighting might sound like:

  • “You’re overreacting — that never happened.”
  • “You’re too sensitive.”
  • “You must be remembering it wrong.”

The goal is not necessarily to win an argument, but to destabilize the other person’s trust in their own mind, creating dependency and control.

Origins of the Term “Gaslighting”

The term gaslighting comes from the 1938 stage play “Gas Light” by British playwright Patrick Hamilton, later adapted into the 1944 film Gaslight starring Ingrid Bergman. In the story, a husband manipulates his wife into thinking she’s going insane by dimming the gas lights in their home and then denying that the light changed at all.

This powerful metaphor stuck: the flickering light that the victim sees — and the abuser insists isn’t real — became a symbol for the manipulation of reality itself.

Gaslighting in Politics and Public Life

In the 21st century, gaslighting has become a key term in political discourse. Politicians, media outlets, and public figures sometimes deploy gaslighting tactics on a large scale — not necessarily to persuade, but to confuse and exhaust.

Examples include:

  • Denial of verifiable facts — claiming events caught on video never occurred.
  • Reframing failure as success — asserting that an unpopular policy was “what people wanted all along.”
  • Projection — accusing critics of the very manipulative behavior being used.

In public life, gaslighting can function as a propaganda technique, designed to blur the line between truth and falsehood so thoroughly that people stop trusting any information — even their own judgment.

Is Gaslighting a Logical Fallacy?

Strictly speaking, gaslighting is not a classical logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning — errors in logic that make an argument invalid or misleading (for example, ad hominem or strawman).

Gaslighting, however, is a manipulative strategy, not a reasoning error. It doesn’t rely on invalid logic but on psychological manipulation — denying evidence, reframing narratives, and exploiting emotional trust to make someone question reality itself.

That said, gaslighting often includes fallacious reasoning. For example:

  • Ad hominem — attacking a person’s credibility (“You’re crazy, so your argument is invalid”).
  • Strawman — misrepresenting someone’s position to make it easier to attack.
  • Appeal to emotion — using guilt, fear, or shame to deflect from facts.

So, while gaslighting isn’t a fallacy in itself, it’s a bundle of tactics that employs fallacies to achieve psychological control.

Gaslighting Compared to Other Logical Fallacies

Tactic / Fallacy Description Goal
Ad Hominem Attacks the person, not their argument. Discredit the opponent.
Strawman Misrepresents someone’s argument to refute it easily. Create an easier target.
Red Herrings Introduces irrelevant information to distract. Shift attention away.
Gaslighting Denies or distorts reality to make others doubt themselves. Undermine confidence in truth.

Gaslighting differs from these in intent — while most fallacies are rhetorical tricks to win debates, gaslighting aims to control perception. It’s less about logic and more about power.

Take-off

Gaslighting is one of the most insidious forms of manipulation — it doesn’t just distort arguments; it distorts reality itself. Born from a 1930s play, the term has become a psychological and political concept that describes how truth can be systematically undermined.

In an era of misinformation and “alternative facts,” recognizing gaslighting is not just a matter of emotional self-defense - it’s a civic skill.