In this public portion of Sunday Morning Live on the 26th of October 2025, philosopher Stefan Molyneux tackles the insidious concept of gaslighting, examining its psychological underpinnings and effects on personal relationships and workplace dynamics. He delves into how gaslighting manipulates one's reality, instilling self-doubt and confusion. Stefan startsby defining gaslighting, referencing the classic film from which the term originates, and how it manifests through the deliberate contradiction of a person's experiences and memories. He explores the mechanics of this manipulation, focusing on how it distorts trust and fosters a toxic environment where the victim’s perception of reality is relentlessly undermined.
Throughout the conversation, Stefan unpacks the emotional toll that continuous gaslighting can have on an individual, including the erosion of self-esteem and the struggle to maintain a coherent sense of one's own truth. He draws attention to the predatory nature of gaslighting, highlighting how those who engage in such behavior often exploit the vulnerabilities of their victims—particularly their trust and inherent humility. He encourages listeners to reflect on their own experiences with gaslighting, whether from personal relationships or professional settings, and how these encounters can leave lasting scars.
Stefan continues discussing practical strategies for recognizing and combating gaslighting. He emphasizes the importance of establishing clear boundaries and insisting on accountability. To empower listeners, Stef suggests methods for challenging gaslighters in real-time by demanding the articulation of shared rules of engagement. By universalizing the principles at play in a gaslighting instance, one can expose the narcissistic underpinnings of the abuser's assertions and reclaim a sense of agency within the dialogue.
Stefan shares insights gathered from live interactions with listeners who recount their experiences of being gaslit, whether by family members, friends, or co-workers. Their diverse stories illuminate the pervasive nature of this issue, spotlighting its prevalence across different relationships and social contexts. He also discusses the necessity of self-advocacy and remind listeners that they must not gaslight themselves, dismissing their own experiences and feelings in the face of manipulation.
Finally, Stefan informs public listeners that a more intimate discussion on the cognitive patterns of selfish individuals in the subscriber-only segment, hinting at the complexity of navigating relationships with those who prioritize their own needs at the expense of others. This layered conversation is designed to equip listeners with both the psychological tools and emotional fortitude necessary to identify and dismantle the damaging structures of gaslighting, ultimately fostering healthier interactions in all aspects of life.
0:06 - Introduction to Gaslighting
4:08 - Understanding Gaslighting
6:41 - The Role of Trust and Humility
16:46 - Personal Experiences with Gaslighting
19:17 - Battling Gaslighting
24:00 - Universalizing the Principle
28:24 - Strategies for Success
29:09 - Transition to Private Chat
[0:01] Good morning, everybody. Stefan Molyneux, 26th of October, 2025.
[0:07] Hope you're doing well, 11 a.m. As a donor show, but I thought we'd start GenPop General Population, and then we will head over to Locals, freedom.locals.com to join. If you would like to join, get yourself a free month. You can go to fdrurl.com/locals. All right.
[0:33] Everything's recording. Yes. Somebody wrote the concept. I asked the donors, what would you like to talk about today? And of course, I'd happy to take text questions. Also, if you have questions on X, you can do that as well. The concept of gas lighting and its association with the suppression of anger, as well as self-doubt, and the effects of continued gaslighting on memory in terms of the relationship with oneself and others. Also the relationship of feigning of innocence and or helplessness and gaslighting, particularly in the context of personal relationships. But also how to best deal or not with co-workers who gaslight. So gaslighting is extremely evil. It's an extremely nasty, nasty, vicious, underhanded topic. It's essentially predatory. So...
[1:34] We will talk about that. Happy to take your questions. Questions are only available at the moment on X. I don't think the other platforms do it as well. I don't know what goes on with locals if we try that. Probably nothing good, I think. But, oh, thank you very much for your kind thoughts and wishes. I appreciate that. So gaslighting, as I'm sure you know, the term comes from an old movie called Gaslight, where a man is married to a woman. I think he's married. He tries to drive her crazy. He moves pictures and then says, no, that's how they've always been. He moves stuff around. He changes stories. He just continually tries to disassemble her own sense of reality and for some nefarious purpose to do with money or I think finance or inherent. I don't know. I don't remember the details in particular, but it is basically when you assert things that are true that are false, or you assert things that are false that are true. I never said that. I never said that, right? That's why I love it when my debates are recorded.
[2:39] I love the fact, love, love, love the fact that these conversations are recorded, because then you can actually go back and people who said, well, I never said that, you know, they're wrong. So what's the problem with gaslighting? So listen, the gaslighting is not, let's just talk about what it's not. So gaslighting is not just when you have a different memory of things, right? Well, it's Justin Trudeau when he was in conflict with some woman. Didn't say she was a liar, didn't say because I guess he talked to his lawyers. And so he said, I have a different recollection of the events or something like that. You know, it's something that is not going to get him in legal trouble because apparently it's fine if you have no conscience. But anyway, so gaslighting isn't when you just remember things differently or have a different perspective or a different opinion or something like that. Gaslighting is when.
[3:32] You knowingly contradict someone else or you refuse to listen to their good case or you refuse to even admit the possibility that they might be right, right? So if somebody says you're in a relationship and somebody says, oh, that time when you threw the glass against the wall or the time when you punched the wall or something like that, right? Now, that's a thing you would remember, right? You would remember that as a hole.
[4:09] So, if you say that, that never happened, right? It's a little tough if you punch the wall, right? Because there's a hole in the wall and there's a repair. Oh, you know, I just fell. My elbow went against the wall. You're misremembering or something like that. Or that hole was already there when we moved in. or I never say, oh, that time when you threw that coffee mug against the wall, it's like, that never happened. Well, where's the coffee mug? Well, I mean, I remember dropping it. I remember dropping it, but I don't, I mean, I never threw it against. So when you... Refuse to even accept the possibility, right? So if somebody says, you threw the cup against the wall, the mug against the wall, and you said, that never happened, that's gaslighting.
[4:56] Now, even if, but it's interesting because even if you didn't do it, you still need to say, oh, I don't remember that, but, you know, tell me, what do you remember? Right? So when you're curious, when you just blanket assert, something never happened again. And you're not, I know people Well, you in debates, right? I get all of that, right? But we're talking about when you are blanket dismissing somebody else's perspective in a personal relationship. Or it could be a work relationship because the question is around the work relationship. So if my wife says, when you did X, and I don't remember doing X, but like, I don't recall that, but tell me what you remember. Tell me what you think, right? and then oftentimes she will remind me and I'm like, oh yeah, yeah, that was right, you know. Have I ever been to this town before? Like that's the age you get. I've been so many places. Have I been to this town before? Yes, I don't remember it. And then, you know, five minutes later, oh yeah, yeah, I remember this door.
[6:00] So it is when you just blanket dismiss. So gaslighting relies on two things, that are very important in relationship and it exploits them. And just hit me with a Y if you've ever been gaslit. Hopefully not over the course of this conversation. Hit me with a Y if you've ever been gaslit. And if you could give me any details about that, that would be great.
[6:29] Oh, let me just see here. I've got a message from Dear James. Hopefully it's not a message about, can't hear him, me. Let us find out.
[6:41] Do, do, do, do, do, do. Yeah, just in general. If it's working.
[6:51] Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Just let me know if there's a problem. Otherwise, I have my glasses off. I can't read what you've written. I don't know if there's a problem, so that's fine. All right, so there's two things that are exploited in gaslighting. Number one is trust. You need to have trust in a relationship. The trust should be earned, of course. We need to have trust in a relationship. So the first thing that's exploited is trust. So if, you know, if my wife has a better memory for things than I do, she just, she always has, I think it's a female thing. We were just joking about this as a part of my novel where uh helen's boss says to her it was uh over 10 years ago and she's like it was 13 years so i'm like yeah at some point in the past something happened and my wife they're like bing bing bing bing she remembers everything it's remarkable it's a feat of prodigious memory it is to me it's like watching those half autistic indian kids who can multiply 19 numbers in their heads or something like that It's just an amazing thing for me that she can do that, but she can. And so I trust her. When she remembers stuff, I'm like, yeah, I trust her. So trust is one of the things that gets exploited.
[8:09] And the other thing that gets exploited is, it's hard to say whether it's humility or insecurity. My wife is right about a bunch of stuff that I don't remember. Right?
[8:23] And every year or two, we go through this exercise of like, hey, whatever happened to this guy that I used to be in contact with? I don't really remember. I just know that we were in contact with or maybe we were acquaintances or even friends. And then we weren't. And I'm just like, ships that pass in the night, tide comes in, tide goes out. The butterflies migrate to Mexico and people move in and out of my life. And I don't really remember these things. But my wife is like, this happened, then this happened, then you said this, and it's just boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. She's like, well, when I was a kid, we had a dusty old encyclopedia that helped me develop the rather base and anti-woke worldview. And if we had a conflict in the family, we'd look it up in the encyclopedia if we had a fight about it. I remember fighting with my brother about whether a king could move one or two spaces when I was learning chess. I didn't believe him. Well, I never really have. But he showed me in the encyclopedia, and I was like, yep, okay, that's right. So...
[9:27] So my wife has earned trust. I trust her. She says she remembers something, and she doesn't ever exploit it, so I trust her. So if you're in a conflict with somebody else, you remember something, and they don't, right? Let's say that you remember a friend of yours threw a cup against a wall when he was angry, and you mentioned that, and he says, that never happened. So that's a challenge, right? That's a challenge. Do you trust your friend? Because they're not just saying, I don't remember that, or that doesn't come to my mind, or I'm not sure, or they're like, it's a positive assertion in the face of your memory. So do you trust that person? And are you humble/insecure about your own remembrances? That's a big one, because humility and insecurity are the foundation of growth and wisdom. Everything that you learn you had to admit you didn't know beforehand every new skill you acquire you had to admit that you didn't have beforehand everything you improve you have to admit that you were worse at it beforehand everything you improve.
[10:33] Everything. So all growth, wisdom, maturity, knowledge, virtues, they all arise out of humility/insecurity. I mean, I claim to be a moral philosopher for 20 years. I accepted sort of the Aristotelian objectivist arguments for morality, but there was like niggling brain worm in the back of my head, which was like, it didn't feel quite right. It doesn't feel like It's a complete, I know, I know when things are complete. Like I know UPB, everybody who's run up against it gets smashed up. They just do. And, and everybody, everybody who's come up against it has been unable to overturn it because it is, it's dead simple, right?
[11:17] So that I know, right? And I do sometimes if I have a peculiar conflict with people in call-in shows or something like that, the live call-in shows. And by the by, I just wanted to mention, I don't know how many other people have live unscreened call-ins about the most complex topics. I just roll with it, right? I mean, I suppose it would be kind of like, I mean, what Charlie Kirk was doing and so on, but I'm in my bulletproof studio. But yeah, it's not common, certainly online, for people to have these sort of live, unscreened call-in shows, bring whatever you want to the table, right? And actually, I think it works out pretty well. But when I have a sort of odd or unclosed disagreement, like with the guy who was the radical skeptic, I think it was, yeah, Friday. And so I'll do a show. I'll often put it out to donors, which is like, here's where I felt I didn't complete the circle. Here's where I felt like there is ought dichotomy, which I had good explanations for in essential philosophy and in UPB, but I needed to have an absolutely closed circle. I need to move it from, well, you have to agree with this, to it's impossible to disagree. I have to move it from probabilistic reasoning to...
[12:36] Absolute reasoning from inductive, which is probability to deductive, which is a hundred percent given to premises. So when I have failed to close the loop, I circle back and make sure that I close the loop and then I'm better prepared for next time. So, um, just by the by, uh, this is going out to gen pop, but, um, what I was talking about in my review of the radical skeptic is, uh, it's a bit of a spoiler, but it'll, right. So next time a radical skeptic comes on, uh, I'll just, um, claim that they agree with me and they'll say, no, I don't. I said, no, you agreed with me or, and then they'll get mad and say they absolutely didn't. And then, okay, so you're not a radical skeptic or I simply don't reply. And they say, are you there? Hello? And I said, no, I already replied. And they say, no, you didn't say, no, I already replied. No, you didn't. Okay, so then you're 100% certain of that, right? So you can build the certainty from the interaction, and that way it's a closed loop, right? Because they don't say, I think you didn't reply. They say, you didn't reply, like an absolute statement. And the moment you start making absolute statements, you can't say, well, but embedded in that is a non-certainty. No, no, it doesn't. You can't make an absolute statement and then say it's not an absolute statement. So that's the answer, is to do it based upon the behavior and their certainty about that behavior.
[14:02] So humility is essential, or insecurity. I was insecure 20 years ago that I had...
[14:12] A unshakable answer to the question of morality, or that which is good for, or that which is best for the survival and flourishing of man, blah, blah, blah. Well, it's true for decent moral people, but I didn't want to write diet books for thin people. I wanted to be able to compel through reason agreement from those who opposed everything, right? Which is why John, the philosophy professor who called in, he actually showed up the other day on my timeline. So he called in and came at me hard, man. Insults, insults. It was very girly, very, very sad. Sorry to insult girls, but it was very sort of pathetic. And after a while, it's just like, okay, can you blah, blah, blah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm a bad guy. I don't know how to think. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Can you get onto any actual arguments, right? Because it's just projection when people come in and say, Stef, you're just a terrible thinker. It's like, can you actually make an argument? Or are you just going to sling insults like a terrible thinker? And I got him to agree that rape, theft, assault, and murder can never be universally preferable behavior. And he's like, so? I'm like, that's actually a pretty big deal right there, right? Anyway, so he kind of went off to lick his wounds, I guess, and then he showed up again on my feet the other day. Well, when I want to show my students examples of bad reasoning, I just show them your post. It's like, well, why don't you show them our debate where you had to concede all of my points about morality? And you were literally debating with me live. And he's like, you don't even know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. And I said, well, here's how I explained it. In my book, The Art of the Argument. And he's like, oh yeah, no, that's right, actually.
[15:41] It's just, you know, but no humility, right? And that's fine. We all struggle with vanity, right? So you have to believe that you can achieve it, which before you do, maybe a certain amount of vanity, but you also have to be insecure enough to know you have to work very hard to achieve it, which is your humility, right? So progress is like, you know how you go up the ladder, one rung at a time, don't hop up and down.
[16:04] But humility and vanity, I have to believe I can achieve it and I'm humble enough to know that I have to work hard to get it and to criticize myself when I fail to achieve it, which is sort of what I do in some of these live debates. So... Ah yes it's great that you're here live too john i appreciate that thank you so, the trust in the other person and the insecurity or humility to say i could be wrong i could be wrong, okay so gaslighting exploits those you trust the other person and you're willing to accept that you might be wrong.
[16:47] So, these two virtues, humility and trust, are virtues in the right context, right? They're not virtues in the wrong context. But let's see here. I want to hear what you guys have to say about it. Somebody says, my parents denied basically every memory from my childhood. Yep, absolutely, I went through that too. It never happened, you're misremembering, blah, blah, blah. Somebody says, yes, with regards to gaslighting. My older brother used to do it all the time over even the smallest things. Yeah, for sure. Because they need to keep you off balance, right? You're always wrong. You're always wrong. I'm always right. You're always wrong. Somebody says, anytime I've ever brought up any abuse or mistreatment to my mother, I've gotten a master class in gaslighting. Parents saying I had a perfect childhood. There's someone, somebody else says, parents not taking accountability when confronted. Yes, very important. Yep. And parents over childhood memories. Yes to gaslighting. James says, yes. I once mentioned being hit by my father with a belt. He completely denied it. And my brother backed him up saying he didn't remember it. Father was gaslighting. My brother was just going along with him. Well, your brother was gaslighting it too. Chris says, gaslit about past events, which I have concern about, or unresolved issues with both parents and co-workers.
[18:02] James says, oh, I was younger. My brother was two years younger. Somebody says, my mom's saying, I never said that. I don't want to dive too far down the memory hole this morning, but I remember how badly that effed me up. Just constantly as a kid not being able to trust anything or normalizing that it's okay for people to lie to me. Yeah, yeah, yeah. For sure. For sure. And have you been in romantic relationships where the gaslighting could power the Hindenburg? I think only one. I think only one romantic relationship was I in where it was pretty clear. John says, thank you for the tip. I'm being gaslit at work, and I'm in the top 20% of all salespeople in the company. People really are haters. Well, there's a tipping point. If you can compete with people, then their abilities inspire you. If you can't compete with people, you are easily tempted by resentment. Resentment is a confession of an inability to compete, right?
[19:18] So, how do you battle gaslighting? How do you fight gaslighting? How do you overturn gaslighting in relationships? What do you think? What do you think? How do you overturn it what is your defense against gaslighting, what do you think i will give you all time stay away from people who gaslight that's it yeah for sure but you still need to be able to win in the moment with gaslighters.
[20:09] Can't overturn it. I have to, yes, absolutely. But if you just leave people without overturning them and proving them wrong in your mind, the thoughts follow you, the regrets follow you, the lack of defense follows you. See, here's this, it's a wild thing, man. Predators will always smell your defenses. They sniff them out. And even if you've left, oh, I've left all my gaslighters behind, if you haven't understood how to overturn the principle of gaslighting, they will still be drawn to you. because you don't have that defense. In fact, you have the prior wound, which they can use. Wounds like bacteria come in through infections, right? So if you've been wounded, then you're more likely to get more gaslighters in your life.
[20:54] Ostracism, yeah, that certainly helps. I've learned it's not worth challenging people in interpersonal situations that are lying. Just nod my head and agree and move on. I hold them accountable for their actions, then leave. Not a good defense, but I talk to them less and less until complete silent treatment, yeah? Do not accept that your concern is not real to you. Don't gaslight yourself, yeah? Somebody says, I find it more useful. And I could be wrong. In fact, I'm probably wrong. Do not let them know how much you're something them. I think there's a word missing there. I don't think this is right, but the first thing that comes to mind is, oh, thank you for agreeing with me. I really appreciate that. John says, thank you for the tip. You have to outwit them and you have to embarrass them. No, anger, no. Oh, gosh, you're going to kick yourself. I'm so sorry. Oh, I'm gaslighting you. I've only been gaslit by people with a history of bad character, so I use past history to become certain that they are lying currently. Oh, Zim says, let them know how much you're onto them, right? Not into them, onto them. All right. That's a good point. And again, if you're on X, X is just going out to subscribers. Welcome to have chats about this. So what I've done with gaslighting is, let's say, I just made a gas situation. Dating some girl and she threw a cup against the wall, right?
[22:22] Right? And then she says, that never happened. And I know it happened, right? It never happened, right?
[22:31] And say, you're absolutely certain. You're certain it never happened. Yes, I'm absolutely certain it never happened, right? I say, well, now we have a challenge. I'm absolutely certain it did happen. You're absolutely certain it didn't happen.
[22:47] So who's right? Well, I'm right. Okay, so is your principle, is your principle, that only your memory is correct and my memory is always incorrect? Because I can't think of a time where my memory has been correct and you've given way. So is the principle that only you are right when it comes to memory? It's not a good principle, is it? Because if I take your principle, it's universalizing. That's how you fight gaslighting is you universalize. What is the principle by which you tell me you're absolutely certain you never threw a cup against the wall? What is the principle? What is the principle? Is the principle that all memory is valid? All memory is true. All memory or is it just for you because it's not a principle if it's just for you that's just narcissism if only your memory is right then you have no principle you just have that you're always right that's not a principle universalize universalize universalize what's the rule what's the rule we're playing by here people what is the rule we're universalizing that's the rule we play by always.
[24:01] You're wrong. By what standard? Well, you're just wrong. That's not a standard. What is the standard? It's the standard that everything we remember is true. Well, that's as true for me as it is for you, so that doesn't work. What is the standard? Get them to reveal the fucking narcissism. The principle is that I'm always right and you're always wrong. Get them to expose the self-serving, screwed-up, megalomaniacal narcissism. What is the principle? Is the principle that, oh, is the principle that all memory is valid? Well, I remember you throwing the cup against the wall. You say you don't remember that. What's the principle? How do we, I mean, it's a question. How do we resolve this? We both remember different things. We both remember different things. Now, that's the universalizing. That's the universalizing.
[25:05] You know the old trick. If you think someone's trying to poison you, pull in Erin Brockovich, right? If you think someone's trying to poison you, get them to drink from their own cup. Because they're saying it's safe. Get them to live by their own values.
[25:23] Is the value that all memory is valid and everyone who disagrees with your memory is invalid? Everyone who disagrees with memory is wrong. Well, then we have a contradiction because we both remember different things. It cannot be true that we're both right. We cannot go on the principle that every memory is true because I remember you throwing the cup against the wall. You say it didn't happen or you claim to not remember it. So what is the principle? What is the rule? You can't have a relationship if you don't have any rules. You can't play a game of chess if you don't have any rules. You can't play tennis if you don't have any rules. You can't do anything with anyone else if you don't have any rules, even the rules of syntax, sentences, grammar, comprehensibility, not both talking at the same time. What are the rules? What are the rules by which we resolve our dispute? Tell me what the rule is. Well, I'm just, in this instance, no, no, no, no, no. What are the rules? How do you know that you're perfectly right and I'm perfectly? Well, I don't remember it. It's like, yes, I understand that. You don't remember throwing the cup against the wall. I remember you throwing the cup against the wall. I'll give you, it was on this day, we did this before, we were having this conflict, there's the dent in the wall, you can't produce the cup. You know, there's some evidence, right? There's some evidence. No cup. Cup's gone. There is a dent in the wall.
[26:46] So something happened. There's a little bit of evidence. There's a little bit of evidence.
[26:57] But you ask people, don't get involved in fights. Don't get involved in he said, she said. Don't get involved in that stuff. Just ask, what are the rules? What are the rules? What are the rules? You've got to trust me, right? That's what people say. Trust me. I didn't do it. It's like, okay, so what is the rule? It's the rule we trust the other person and believe them. Then you have to trust and believe me that you did throw the cup against the wall. What is the rule? You're wrong. Okay, so the rule is that the other person is always wrong, but that rule applies to me, so you're wrong. Give me a rule that's not narcissism. That's all. Give me a rule that's not you benefiting solipsism. Just give me a rule that's not you win. That's not a rule. It's like playing a game of chess saying, well, I don't have any rules for chess, but the rule is I win. Like how can we even play if there's no game, there's no interaction, there's no negotiation, there's no debate, right? It would be like going into selling a house and saying, well, the price of the house is whatever the hell I want. I get what I want in this negotiation, but it's a negotiation, so shouldn't we both get one, blah, blah, blah? What's the rule? What's the rule? Ask for the rules. Ask for the rules.
[28:25] John says, this show is very helpful, by the way. I've been fighting uphill battles. I've been in my new role for one full quarter. I've already hit my annual peaks. My higher-ups, clients, and co-workers in other offices are raving fans. The people in my office hate the air I breathe. Well, you know, you've got to break through the mids, right? In order to succeed, I mean, if you start off low, right? I know I did, right? If you start off low, you've got to break through the mids. The mids is this crusty layer of resentment and pettiness and slave morality. You've got to break through that to get to the really successful people who enjoy your success. So I don't want to oversell, but that's how you deal. That's how you deal with conflicts. Tell me the rules. What are the rules? What are the rules? What are the rules?
[29:09] And people tell you the rules by how they treat you. Okay, well, we'll get into that. We're going to go private now. So if you want to join the private chat, you can go to fdrurl.com/locals. Get a free month. You can try it out for a month. Don't pay a thing. Get all the benefits and bonuses. I will be recording. I have one of the most delightful chapters in the history of my writing coming up, which is Helen's boss. I love that guy. Love, love, love that guy. He is rich and a great character.
[29:42] A memory of something is more reliable than a non-memory. Could be, unless, yeah, yes, for sure. But unless it's something vivid. All right. Like if somebody said to me, you jumped off the Eiffel Tower. I have a memory of you jumping off the Eiffel Tower. But no, I never jumped off the Eiffel Tower. Like, I know that for sure. I never jumped off the Eiffel Tower. So it depends how vivid it is. All right. So we're going to go just to donorists and, uh, I get what will still be going on X. And, um, we've got 30 seconds and the next one, the lens and thought processes of a selfish person. How do you explain or understand, you know, I think most of us here are not selfish. And so, um, somebody asked me, what are the lens and the lens and thought process of a selfish person who puts their own needs and preferences above everything and everyone else, how to understand that and process that. and, of course, to battle and fight that. So we'll get into that in the donor section, freedomain.com/donate to subscribe. You'll get this later if you want.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
