manipulation or misunderstanding?

Post Reply New Topic

Hi

I would appreciate some feedback about communication issues; in particular how to differentiate between manipulative behaviour compared to misunderstanding. Also, people's emotional defense strategies. In other words, what counts as dangerous, what is mutual confusion, and what is their (generally harmless) emotional "stuff".

I have a partner who has qualifications in social work/counselling, with a high level of training in psychological, social and communication processes. He also recently left a long-term abusive relationship, which he tolerated/enabled. I have known him for some time (on and off for 20 years) and we do get along well in many respects.

This combination presents me with relationship/communication that mixes the far ends of the systematic AS and "emotional" NT spectrum. On one hand I am learning new relationship skills. The idea of a complementary partner does appeal. On the other hand, I sometimes distrust his motives, statements and explanations. I suspect they have been affected by his prior relationship. At times, he is highly insecure and reacts in dissociative ways. Additionally, there are indications that he perceives my er, neurological status as a novelty.... fascinating when I am compliant or entertaining, but ultimately the inferior party (incorrect, mistaken or unaware) during conflict.

In particular, I am having difficulty with this occurrence:
When I describe a statement that he has made....

"when you said [insert his statement here],
I interpreted that in [this way].
Is that what you intended to communicate?"
He claims to have no recollection of making the statement.

This is a major problem for me. Because I know that I may misunderstand social/verbal communication, I need to have a clear memory of the conversation so I can revisit it and clarify anything I am confused about. I am likely to miss the nuance of the sentence, or the facial expression that accompanied it, but I have an excellent verbatim recall.

So, when someone fundamentally denies making their verbatim statement... "I would never say that to you", "I don't recall saying that", I firstly suspect their response (I know they did make the statement) and secondly, I am unable to clarify what they meant.

When I rephrase to: "if you WERE to say [insert confusing statement], what WOULD you mean?", I encounter further avoidance of the subject. It doesn't matter in what way I rephrase my question to make it less confrontational, the answer remains the same: basically, it didn't happen.... just want to move on.
I am not "clarifying", in the way that some people do, to prove myself right, or persecute the other guy. In fact, I am more interested in proving myself wrong by discovering that they were NOT deliberately offensive, when I had that initial interpretation.

Additionally, the denial of the statement, and the subsequent inability to clarify the meaning, results in a mental stale-mate for me. Because my mind works like an extensive if-then-if-then-if-then network, (and/or not so much), I MUST choose a pathway for the event in order to close it and file it in the right category.... in order to understand it, "move on" "forgive and forget" etc etc.

Frankly I would prefer that someone said: "yep, I said you are a blockhead, and I mean that you are a blockhead", instead of denying the fact that they told me I was a blockhead.

The denial of the original statement(s) causes me to question the level of manipulation that may be present in his communication. Do people really not remember a statement they made 5 minutes earlier? For what purpose would they deliberately deny it? Could it be an avoid-the-angry-wife conditioned reaction? Do people dissociate to the extent that they truly have no recollection of what they just said?

Thanks for reading. Appreciate any feedback.

Sounds like gaslighting to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Thanks for your reply.

I have read about (and experienced) gaslighting, and it does seem a possibility in this case.
However, I don't want to assume that it is gaslighting, when it could be something else that I am unfamiliar with.
For example, talking in a dissociated state as a result of PTSD.

Does anyone know how to compare gaslighting behaviour against a genuine lack of recollection, against emotionally defensive lying, or against PTSD?

Is it part of NT/human behaviour to "gaslight-lite" ie to lie for the purpose of emotional self-protection or if they think that the issue is of no consequence? In which case, the behaviour is more on the emotional-stuff level.

In other words:
gaslighting = dangerous or pathological
PTSD or actually does not recall = "genuine" misunderstanding
Lying = emotional stuff

I experience some level of dissociation myself, but when I am "confronted" on something that I did/said in such a state, I may say I have no recollection of t, but I do recognize that I might've not remembered it. The "I would never say that to you" sounds rather manipulative. May I ask, does this only happen when you ask him to clarify "problematic" statements which you feel a lot of emotion about or also with more neutral confusing statements? In the former case, it definitely sounds like manipulation to me either out of an abusive nature or out of self-protection.

thank you for your question:

"May I ask, does this only happen when you ask him to clarify "problematic" statements which you feel a lot of emotion about or also with more neutral confusing statements?"

The answer to this is that there is a wide range of situations in which this occurs -that's the confusing part.
However, a general pattern appears that the more highly charged the emotional context (for him or for me, but mostly for him), the higher degree of the behaviour occurring.

The most offensive example was a scenario in which my partner made the statement "you don't know s**t", during a dissociated monologue regarding insurance claims (around the fact that I would not make a claim on insurance for MY property, for damage that pre-existed an earthquake and was therefore un-claimable)
Obviously, I took issue with that statement, which was a huge red flag to me.
He seemed shocked and apologetic that he had said such a thing.
Though, he did not "remember" saying it, nor any other statements of the monologue.

A lesser example is a scenario in which he made the statement "your house, your rules" during a debate around household processes (eg removing shoes at the door so the neighbourhood dog crap stays outside). He remembers the more neutrally toned statements such as "I feel like a flatmate in your house" (fact: he is a flatmate in my house), but does not recall the charged "your house, your rules" statement, which I interpreted as expressing resentment.

Other examples are of more specific words such as "banal" (saying it because it sounds sophisticated, or intending to be disparaging?) or of a gesture (laughing at me, or laughing at the ridiculous situation? making dismissive hand gestures? or not?). There is always the "you can interpret things in many different ways" defense, but some actions or statements are hmmmmm unmistakable.

His explanation for excessive reactions refers to being over-sensitive to criticism, and feeling the need to justify or defend himself as he has done in his prior relationship. That relationship also involved a lot of toxic arguments, which are foreign to me. Nevertheless, I examine my behaviour to check if I am being difficult or pedantic, (and triggering his issues) or merely setting boundaries.

Although I understand his reasons, this is effectively expecting me to accept that the words coming out of his mouth are not his thoughts or attitudes toward me.

I want to emphasise that this is not a daily occurrence, nor do I perpetually "nit-pick" at him for meaning.
But when this issue arises, it raises these questions.

Hmm, I know someone who just repeats "no, no, no" when they know they are wrong and defensive about it. It doesn't matter how logically or methodically I explain how they cannot possible be correct, all I get is "no, no, no."
I'm not doing it to prove myself right per se either, just that I must have clarity.
I suppose that falls into your category of "emotional stuff" - they know they're wrong really, just trying to deny it.
Annoying, but not serious.
I also find that people who talk a great deal actually do forget half of what they say, which my be the case for your partner. Have you ever had an instance of addressing his meaning right after he says something you may be misunderstanding? The minute he stops speaking, question "that, right there. You just said [whatever], what did you mean?"
He can hardly claim to have completely forgotten something he has just said.
If he does, it may serve to narrow down the possibilities. In your if-then-if-then system, this may run it is completely unlikely to be genuinely forgotten said 1.5 seconds ago. If he denies saying it, then there is another explanation for the denial.
Maybe I'm blunt but I would question outright about the communication difficulties and have him address it with you. If he has training in any psychological discipline and is genuinely trying to communicate clearly, he shouldn't have problems talking about something that may just be clashing styles.

thank you for this feedback, indeed keeping up with the conversation is something I am working on... so that I can respond more in "real time", rather than recording and revisiting the discussion afterward (even immediately afterward).

What I have noticed, when I do question his statements during a "dissociated" episode, the result is that the monologue begins verbatim from the start... somewhat like a repeat loop on a CD. While I understand that peoples "emotional stuff" category causes them to be highly sensitive and react in triggered ways, the extent of the monologue disturbs me.

For example:
[after he waterblasts the concrete path and side of the house and tears paint off the side of the house, and I say "oh, don't worry about cleaning the house, the paint falls off because it's a poor coating", which triggers his criticism issues...]

He begins a defensive/aggressive very patronising monologue describing how to paint a house, using the waterblaster and starting at the top because the paint drips downward so you paint the top first etc etc etc.

At any point if I respond to the monologue with any statement, for example:
"yes, I understand",
"you are monologuing just now; you asked me to tell you when you were doing it"
"yes, I hear you and I get it"
"I'm not criticising you; you did not paint the house and I really am indifferent about the paint"
"are you seriously telling me that paint drips downward again? "
the monologue begins again from the start. Even if I am silent, the monologue begins over, all by itself.
The record so far is 9 verbatim repetitions. This makes it difficult to have real-time discussion, and I am coming to the realisation that the only option is to terminate the conversation when the monologue begins.

We have discussed this process but without real change taking effect. Are there any other ideas for dealing with monologue behaviour? Is this a typical emotional defense tactic, or can it become pathological?