Trigger Warning: This post contains information that could be triggering to someone with a history of emotional abuse. Please proceed cautiously and feel free to stop reading and take a few deep breaths if any of this feels like too much.
Gaslighting is widely recognised as one of the ever-present manipulation techniques employed by manipulators and emotional exploiters. It is generally understood as a form of psychological manipulation that makes you question your own reality, memory, sanity, or competence. Among the most common examples are people insisting you invented something, claiming an event never happened, or denying they ever said a particular phrase. It also includes making you doubt your own feelings (I would bet that anyone who has dealt with this kind of person has been called "too sensitive" more than once).
The textbook examples of gaslighting involve confronting the abuser about their behavior, only to have them deny reality and potentially reverse the attack. For example, if you point out that they yelled at you, they might calmly respond, "I never raised my voice, you are the one who is shouting." (I once heard a psychologist say that if you ever find yourself wishing you could record every conversation you have with someone, it is a strong indicator that you are dealing with a manipulator.)
However, there are also more subtle instances of gaslighting—ones that don't unfold as an outright argument over what happened, but as something stranger: an exchange you live through and, at the time, accept as ordinary. This is one of the disorienting realities of narcissistic abuse—while you are inside it, these moments don't register as dysfunctional at all. They simply become "how things are." It is only once you have stepped back emotionally—which, more often than not, means you have stepped back physically as well—that you can look at these same exchanges and finally see them for what they are. This is also why these instances can resurface during periods of minimal contact: by the time you're forced into occasional contact with the person again, you have usually already gained the emotional distance needed to notice what you couldn't see before.
I will provide a few examples of these sneaky instances, all based on true stories. Surely, little by little, you will be able to recognise the unique ones that are played, or have been played, in your relationship.
Example 1: The "Invisible" Reality
You spot a small spider and, because you are afraid, you ask the person to get rid of it. They start by saying it isn't true; that you always "see insects around even if they are not there" (implying you are insane and hallucinating). Then, you point at the insect from a distance. They say they don't see it. You get closer and continue to point. "See?" you say. "It's right there." "I can't see it," they respond very calmly. You get even closer and point again. They look at you with a raised eyebrow and say, "I am sorry, maybe it's just me having some eyesight problems. But I really can't see it." In the meantime, that spider is merrily continuing to create its web.
The Dynamic: By denying the existence of something right in front of your eyes, they force you into a state of sensory confusion. It makes you question if your eyes—or your brain—are functioning correctly. This creates a foundation where they become the "source of truth" while you are left feeling untrustworthy and unhinged.
Example 2: Creating Deliberate Confusion
You ask a question, and they answer a completely different one. When you point out that they are not giving the information you requested, they raise their voice, continue to shout the wrong answer, or throw a tantrum.
Scenario 1: You are planning to go somewhere new and have a doubt about the route. Before leaving, you ask, "After the first roundabout, should I turn right or stay on the main road?" They reply, "No, you turn left at the oil station." You realize they have a different route in mind, but that won't work for you because you need to make a stop along the way. You calmly ask again, "In the route with the roundabout, what should I do? Should I turn right or keep on the main road?" Instead of answering, they lose their temper and yell that they have already told you to turn left at the oil station.
Scenario 2: You are about to head out, and the other person says, "Remember to take the car keys." You say, "OK," and then casually ask, "Do you think we should also bring the reusable shopping bags, in case we stop at the supermarket?" They respond, seemingly to your question: "I already told you, they're on the shelf by the front door." You pause—the shelf by the front door is where the keys are, not the bags. You clarify: "I'm asking about the bags, not the keys." They raise their voice: "I heard you. I said they're on the shelf." The conversation now revolves entirely around defending which object was being discussed, and your simple, practical suggestion about the bags is left unanswered—and, eventually, forgotten.
The Dynamic: The goal is not simply to avoid your question, but to make you feel that your need for clarity is the problem. By answering a completely different question or intentionally misinterpreting you, the other person manufactures chaos. When you try to steer the conversation back to the actual topic, they escalate to force you to drop it. This leaves you feeling frustrated, silenced, and—most importantly—confused.
Example 3: The Erasure of Shared Reality
They ask you to prepare a coffee. Since the machine hasn't been used for some time, they ask you to discard the first two cups and give them the third. You do as requested. They are in the room right in front of the kitchen, and because the coffee machine makes quite a bit of noise, you assume they heard you making coffee three times. When you kindly bring them the coffee, they raise their voice in frustration: "Did you actually throw away the first two coffees? I told you to only give me the third!" When you ask, "Didn't you hear me make three coffees on a loud machine five meters away?" they reply with the same seraphic tone they used when claiming not to see a black spider on a white wall right under their nose: "No, really, I didn't hear any noise."
The Dynamic: This is a denial of shared sensory experience. By ignoring obvious, audible evidence, the abuser forces you to defend your reality. When they refuse to acknowledge what just happened, you begin to doubt your own perception. It makes you question if you are truly "too sensitive" or "hallucinating," creating an agonising cognitive dissonance between what you know to be true and the version of reality they demand you accept.
Example 4: The Preemptive Accusation of Incompetence
They repeat an instruction multiple times as if one time were not enough for you to understand. For instance, just as with the car keys, they might tell you to take the keys three or four times before leaving the house, even if they have clearly heard the sound of you picking them up or even watched you do it while standing directly in front of you.
The Dynamic: This acts as a subtle, constant belittlement. By acting as though you lack the basic cognitive ability to follow a single instruction, they slowly dismantle your self-esteem. It forces you to accept the role of someone who is "forgetful" or "incapable," which makes it easier for them to control or override your future actions.Example 5: False Attribution of Incompetence
Example 5: False Attribution of Incompetence
You are parking the car, but you suddenly notice a new leaflet hung on the outside wall near the parking spot. You stop to read it, thinking it might warn you not to park there. The abuser says, "It's just a reminder for people to collect their dog's waste," and then they quickly shout, "Why are you parking so far from the sidewalk? Can't you just park the right way?" Of course, you had simply stopped the parking maneuver midway to read the leaflet; you weren't actually parked.
The Dynamic: This is contextual manipulation and mischaracterisation. By deliberately ignoring the context of your behavior—that you were mid-action, not finished parking—the abuser reframes your actions as incompetence. You find yourself spending your energy defending your basic competence, and eventually, you may stop questioning the "rules" of the environment entirely, assuming, little by little, that the constant complaints about your behaviour must be grounded in some actual fault of yours.
Seeing these patterns for what they are—calculated maneuvers rather than personal failings—is the first step toward regaining your clarity. Once you can label the behaviour as it is happening, you strip it of its power to make you doubt your own mind.
Search