22AR27-25

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )

ARchive = www.bit.ly/3ywNNcx (this page)

pdf = www.bit.ly/3AL5UxS

chimp = www.bit.ly/3cavke4

AR 27:25 - Gaslighting, our loss of trust, and the Apocalypse

In this issue:

DECEIT & TRUST - from the significance of gaslighting to the upheaval of Western society

Apologia Report 27:25 (1,578)
July 13, 2022

DECEIT & TRUST

"How to Recognize Gaslighting and Respond to It" by Angela Haupt (Washington Post, Apr 18 '22) -- "Some mental health experts are concerned that overusing the term could obscure the abusive nature of gaslighting and reduce its power to help victims recognize ongoing manipulation." (Historically, "gaslighting has meant a conscious way to control and manipulate someone.")

More recently, the expression "has morphed into what [psychotherapist Joey] Ackerman labels a 'catchall phrase' - often used incorrectly by people referring to simple disagreements over issues or interactions that don't meet gaslighting's historical definition.

"[I]t's important that gaslighting retain its original meaning: the experience of having your reality repeatedly challenged by someone who holds more power than you do." (Hmm. Doesn't that seem to fit the reality that perpetrators often believe they enjoy?)

Surprisingly, Haupt concludes with: "Recovering from gaslighting can take years, and working with a therapist is often key to healing." The real deal, it would appear, is a lot more serious. <www.wapo.st/3zxgyYJ>

For a Christian response on the topic, consider "For Our Lamps Are Going Out: Gaslighting in the Age of Social Media" by Anne Kennedy (Christian Research Journal, 44:2 - 2021, pp29-33), which begins with a discussion of the origin and definition of the term followed by tactics employed.

"Gaslighting is a useful umbrella trope for understanding many different kinds of damaging online behavior. Gatekeeping, tone policing, outright lying, and the demand to 'do better' all constrain members of online communities through fear rather than love." <www.bit.ly/3b2k6rv> (paywalled)

A focus on trust in society over the past decades is included by the Our World in Data site <www.bit.ly/39WBEFl> which compares international survey findings and reporting: "Global comparisons of trust attitudes around the world today suggest very large time-persistent cross-country heterogeneity. In one extreme, in countries such as Norway, Sweden and Finland, more than 60% of respondents in the World Value Survey <www.bit.ly/3RpSdu6> think that people can be trusted. And in the other extreme, in countries such as Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru, less than 10% think that this is the case.

"Data from European countries shows that average trust in the police tends to be higher than trust in the political and the legal systems. And trust in the political system is particularly low - in fact much lower than interpersonal trust for all countries except Switzerland. ...

"Long-run data from the US, where the General Social Survey (GSS) <www.bit.ly/3nSi2pu> has been gathering information about trust attitudes since 1972, suggests that people trust each other less today than 40 years ago. This decline in interpersonal trust in the US has been coupled with a long-run reduction in public trust in government - according to estimates compiled by the Pew Research Center since 1958....

"Interpersonal trust attitudes correlate strongly with religious affiliation and upbringing. Some studies have shown that this strong positive relationship remains after controlling for several survey-respondent characteristics. ...

"In the US, trust in the federal government is at historically low levels." Many of the charts published by Our World in Data are quite interesting. For a related July 10 Associated Press item, see <www.bit.ly/3RlGs89>

Big Tech has had a disproportionate level of negative influence on our trust. More than two years ago, Wired magazine ran a lengthy feature titled "The Dirty War Over Diversity Inside Google" (Sep '19, pp80-95) <www.archive.ph/4nbDN> written by the publication's senior editor, Nitasha Tiku, which asked if the tech giant was "biased, hiding something, the best hope for the future of tech, and/or tearing itself apart." It begins: "On a bright Monday in January 2017, at 2:38 in the afternoon, about a thousand Google employees ... began pouring out of the company's offices in Mountain View. California. ... Many of them held up signs [including] of course, 'Don't Be Evil!'"

The context at the time was anti-Trump. Tiku describes how Google's founders "had designed their company's famously open culture to facilitate free thinking." For example, "to a remarkable extent, Google's workers really do take 'Don't Be Evil' to heart. C-suite meetings have been known to grind to a halt if someone asks, 'Wait, is this evil?' To many employees, it's axiomatic: Facebook is craven, Amazon is aggro, Apple is secretive, and Microsoft is staid, but Google genuinely wants to do good."

However, Tiku notes: "According to <www.archive.ph/Xihwu> The Wall Street Journal, members of one [internal] mailing list brainstormed whether there might be ways to 'leverage' Google's search results...." Deeper into the article (renamed online: "Three Years of Misery Inside Google"), <www.archive.ph/EOs7l> we read about a potential "violation of Google's meritocratic hiring process," its relationship to "an 'anti-diversity manifesto' [that] had gone viral inside Google," and how it all lead to heartbreak for a Google Search engineer named James Damore.

Another issue discussed by Haupt and related to the demise of trust at Google involves a disagreement at the very top of the company's leadership, and questioning if "they should stop complying with China's censorship rules and tell the public...." Added to this is a discussion of "the dark side of Google's tolerance for aberrant geniuses." There's more, but that's enough from just this one source. <www.bit.ly/3OpBtS8>

In his brief article "Is Google Dying?" (HotAir, Jun 21 '22), Charlie Warzel reports: "In February, an engineer named Dmitri Brereton wrote a blog post about Google’s search-engine decay," that is, results that are increasingly untrustworthy.

"The post quickly shot to the top of tech forums such as Hacker News and was widely shared on Twitter and even prompted a PR response from Google’s Search liaison, Danny Sullivan....

"Brereton’s most intriguing argument for the demise of Google Search was that savvy users of the platform no longer type instinctive keywords into the search bar.... 'Most of the web has become too inauthentic to trust,' Brereton argued...." <www.bit.ly/3Nrnhqd>

Then there's the mantra "Trust the science." On a regular basis, AR points out the widespread lack of consensus among scientists as well as substantial errors within its many specialized fields of study. <www.bit.ly/3OCUnoM> More specifically, The Economist magazine ("When Doctors Disagree," Oct 24 '20 - one among several results when searching their site for this phrase) contributed to the record of disputes between authorities on Covid-19 - a subject swelling at an accelerating rate. <www.econ.st/3QYscC3>
POSTSCRIPT, Aug 8 '22: For a counterpoint to this, see "Slow. But Sure." (The Economist, Nov 2 '19, p74), which is subtitled: "The scientific method has come under scrutiny. But it works. Eventually."

There are related concerns for Big Tech. The title of the documentary "The Creepy Line" (Dir: M.A. Taylor/ Robert Epstein, Jordan B. Peterson, Peter Schweizer/ 80 min) refers to a comment by former Google chairman Eric Schmidt, who said when it comes to issues like privacy, Google policy "is to get right up to the creepy line but not cross it." However, the documentary argues that Google and Facebook cross that creepy line all the time. <www.bit.ly/3y168hs>

A recent book which condenses much of the above is The Bodies of Others, by feminist and tech company CEO Naomi Wolf. <www.bit.ly/3OvcmNz>

* - "Naomi Wolf's The Bodies of Others focuses on the extremely important issue of bodily autonomy, that you decide what happens to your body. The greatest loss to our freedom is when our leaders make decisions on the bodies of others. Buy this important book to understand the consequences. -- Peter McCullough (cardiologist; president, Cardio Renal Society of America) <www.amzn.to/3AalDGv>

Due from Baker Book House on October 11 this year is Untrustworthy: The Knowledge Crisis Breaking Our Brains, Polluting Our Politics, and Corrupting Christian Community, by Bonnie Kristian (editor-in-chief, TheWeek.com) and David French (for whom Baker, oddly, appends only "Biography not available for this author." Give <www.bit.ly/3ubteRi> a peek to resolve this.)

The promo includes: "Which media outlets will help me be a responsible news consumer? How do I know what is true and whom I can trust? What can I do to combat all the misinformation and how it's impacting people I love?

"Many Americans are agonizing over questions such as these, feeling unsure and overwhelmed in today's chaotic information environment." <www.bit.ly/3Rbe2hh>

Writing for The Gospel Coalition (May 5 '22), Trevin Wax, in "A Church of Suspicious Minds," applies the quote: "It would be better to be deceived a hundred times," Charles Spurgeon told his students, "than to live a life of suspicion" in regard to handling the challenge of deceit and the obligation to trust.

We had better learn how to trust Christ with all this and more. Everything that this edition of AR touches upon will be nothing compared to what the Book of Revelation warns us may be soon at hand. (And THAT is no conspiracy theory.)

Last, for years I've (RP) been interested in the rate at which human knowledge has been doubling and have been updating a unique web page to consider it. <www.bit.ly//knowledge-doubling-curve> And, like the title of this week's edition of AR, the most important part comes ... at the End.

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )