There’s an increasing drift between how they get used colloquially in everyday language and the commonly accepted definitions among psychologists. There’s a sense in which the lay usage is “wrong” (in that it doesn’t match more scientific, precise, or technical usage), but of course, language has always been and always will be in flux. At the end of the day, a word does mean what people widely use it to mean. So I think it’s useful to be aware of both definitions for psychological concepts. The everyday concept helps us understand others, whereas the more technical definition is usually more helpful for helping us understand the way the world works. Here’s a list of examples:

1) Gaslighting

Everyday usage: Someone invalidating your perspective or lying to you in order to manipulate you

Precise usage: Manipulation that specifically causes someone to doubt their own senses or their ability to reason

2) Negative reinforcement

Everyday usage: Something bad happens when you do a behavior, so you do it less

Precise usage: Removal of an aversive stimulus after a behavior is engaged in, causing that behavior to increase (not a form of punishment). This is in contact with positive reinforcement, which adds a desirable stimulus after a behavior (which is a different way to get a behavior to increase).

3) OCD

Everyday usage: being a neat freak or someone who needs things done in a specific way

Precise usage: A disorder involving repetitive, intrusive obsessions and/or compulsions (behaviors performed to reduce anxiety) that are time‑consuming or impair function.

4) Depression

Everyday usage: feeling sad a lot

Precise usage: an ongoing near-daily pervasive depressed mood (sadness, emptiness, and/or hopelessness) or loss of interest or pleasure, that coincides with symptoms like fatigue, suicidality, poor concentration, weight change, or feelings of worthlessness.

5) Antisocial

Everyday usage: a desire to avoid being around other people

Precise usage: a personality disorder (ASPD) involving pervasive disregard for or violation of the rights of others, typically involving deceit, manipulativeness, aggression, and a lack of empathy/remorse.

6) Narcissist

Everyday usage: someone who is self-centered or very vain

Precise usage: a personality disorder (NPD) involving a grandiose sense of self-importance and superiority, need for admiration, and reduced empathy.

7) Trauma

Everyday usage: A very upsetting experience

Precise usage: Exposure to someone dying, serious injury, or sexual violence (DSM), or another extremely threatening or horrific event that has a long-lasting negative impact on a person’s mental function.

While there’s a time for going with the flow of culture, and using words however people casually use them, there’s an important role for more technically precise terminology as well. In the cases above, I believe the technical versions of these words are worth knowing about and understanding.

This piece was first written on November 7, 2025, and first appeared on my website on December 11, 2025.

There’s an increasing drift between how they get used colloquially in everyday language and the commonly accepted definitions among psychologists. There’s a sense in which the lay usage is “wrong” (in that it doesn’t match more scientific, precise, or technical usage), but of course, language has always been and always will be in flux. At the end of the day, a word does mean what people widely use it to mean. So I think it’s useful to be aware of both definitions for psychological concepts. The everyday concept helps us understand others, whereas the more technical definition is usually more helpful for helping us understand the way the world works. Here’s a list of examples:

1) Gaslighting

Everyday usage: Someone invalidating your perspective or lying to you in order to manipulate you

Precise usage: Manipulation that specifically causes someone to doubt their own senses or their ability to reason

2) Negative reinforcement

Everyday usage: Something bad happens when you do a behavior, so you do it less

Precise usage: Removal of an aversive stimulus after a behavior is engaged in, causing that behavior to increase (not a form of punishment). This is in contact with positive reinforcement, which adds a desirable stimulus after a behavior (which is a different way to get a behavior to increase).

3) OCD

Everyday usage: being a neat freak or someone who needs things done in a specific way

Precise usage: A disorder involving repetitive, intrusive obsessions and/or compulsions (behaviors performed to reduce anxiety) that are time‑consuming or impair function

4) Depression

Every day usage: feeling sad a lot

Precise usage: an ongoing near-daily pervasive depressed mood (sadness, emptiness, and/or hopelessness) or loss of interest or pleasure, that coincides with symptoms like fatigue, suicidality, poor concentration, weight change, or feelings of worthlessness.

5) Antisocial

Everyday usage: a desire to avoid being around other people

Precise usage: a personality disorder (ASPD) involving pervasive disregard for or violation of the rights of others, typically involving deceit, manipulativeness, aggression, and a lack of empathy/remorse.

6) Narcissist

Everyday usage: someone who is self-centered or very vain

Precise usage: a personality disorder (NPD) involving a grandiose sense of self-importance and superiority, need for admiration, and reduced empathy.

7) Trauma

Everyday usage: A very upsetting experience

Precise usage: Exposure to someone dying, serious injury, or sexual violence (DSM), or another extremely threatening or horrific event that has a long-lasting negative impact on a person’s mental function

While there’s a time for going with the flow of culture, and using words however people casually use them, there’s an important role for more technically precise terminology as well. In the cases above, I believe the technical versions of these words are worth knowing about and understanding.

This piece was first written on November 7, 2025, and first appeared on my website on November 18, 2025.

Gaslighting, where someone causes another person to doubt their sanity or senses, can cause psychological damage.

There’s an opposite thing, though, that can also be damaging. As far as I know, it has no name. I call it “lightgassing” (or “light gassing”). Here, I explain how lightgassing works.

Lightgassing is when one person agrees with or validates another person’s false beliefs or misconceptions in order to be supportive. 

Unlike gaslighting, a tactic of jerks and abusers, lightgassing is an (unintentionally harmful) tactic of friends and supporters.

Here are common examples I’ve seen that are sometimes, but obviously not always, lightgassing:

• “Since they did X, they don’t deserve to be with you.”

• “It was reasonable for you to do Y because they made you feel bad.”

• “You did nothing wrong. It was 100% their fault.”

Ideally, when you’re upset, friends should validate your feelings and help you feel heard and understood, but they should do so without agreeing with statements they themselves know to be false.

We do a disservice to people when we encourage their false beliefs. Most people have a value of truth-telling (and knowing the truth), and by avoiding lightgassing, we stay truer to these values.

But how does one listen with openness and empathy to an upset friend and still validate *feelings*, without validating *false beliefs*? This can be a tricky maneuver, which I think is one reason people feel tempted to lightgas.

If you want to avoid lightgassing, the key is to validate those elements of a person’s *beliefs* that you know to be true while empathizing with them and validating that their *emotions* are understandable and okay to feel. But the key is to do this without reinforcing beliefs in false things.

I think it’s usually not helpful to challenge what another person believes is true right in the heat of emotion when that person is sad or upset. So avoiding lightgassing will often initially involve simply not validating/agreeing with what you believe is false. Later, when the person is feeling better, if they ask for your opinion on the facts (or you feel it’s important for them to hear your opinion), you can tell them what you believe to be true at that point.

A caveat that I think is worth mentioning is that sometimes, the only thing we know about a situation is what our upset friend or loved one has told us. In such cases, I think we should start with the assumption that what they have described is an accurate representation of what they experienced (unless any reason to doubt it emerges).

Lightgassing (or light gassing) typically happens in ordinary situations where someone feels hurt or upset. But it can also happen in more extreme situations, such as when you’re trying to help someone who is feeling upset due to severe delusions caused by psychosis. 

In the case of someone with psychosis, the path of least resistance is to lightgas them by agreeing with their delusions, but this is not in their own interest. On the other hand, if you invalidate their emotions, you will likely make them more upset and may lose their trust. The tightrope to walk is to help them feel cared about, listened to, empathized with, and understood, without saying that their delusions are reality. In other words, to avoid lightgassing them while also not causing them to feel gaslit.

Does lightgassing really deserve its own term? Why not just call it “enabling”? Well, lightgassing can be a type of enabling, similar to how gaslighting is typically a form of manipulation. But lightgassing is much more specific than enabling, and enabling can include lots of things that are not lightgassing (e.g., buying an alcoholic some alcohol is a form of enabling but not lightgassing). Having a more specific term (lightgassing) makes it easier to spot and communicate about this specific pattern of behavior.

This piece was first written on October 1, 2023, and first appeared on my website on May 13, 2024.