SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

@Morbs
​I wanted to clarify my point regarding the word unique, as I think I was imprecise in my earlier phrasing.

​Virtually no case in psychology, or more broadly in all of medicine, is going to be identically the same. But what does that matter? The point is that you gather enough information to compare a situation to an established case study, and then you use the learnings from that baseline to prescribe and advise.

​Take childhood trauma as an analogy. A psychologist would not analyse the minutiae of the trauma and suggest, "Ah, this person's parent only hit them on the left side of the face, whereas my general experience includes the right or both sides, so we need to rip up the whole rule book on how to handle it." That would be absurd. You look at the core psychological damage and apply the documented treatment path that works.

​I firmly believe that if an individual were to write out the entire essence of their story, including their actions, their best understanding of why they did it, the dynamics of their marriage, their view of their partner, and the final outcome, I could find an existing case that followed each of those beats. It would match the whats, the whys, and the end results. I admit that this can happen with too little information, as in the case of Notmyidentity, and people can project their own lived experiences onto the accounts here.

​But my point remains, what does it matter if it is not literally identical? It is not a rhetorical question. I genuinely fail to understand how the statement that "no situation is an atom for atom reconstruction" furthers the conversation or helps anyone. If we had to treat every human dynamic as an isolated, unprecedented phenomenon just because the exact fingerprints do not match, the entire field of behavioural science would not exist.

​Apologies for returning to the example, but with Notmyidentity's husband and his atypical response, people including myself were searching for comparable cases where we have noted similar reactions. Rug sweeping was one example, guilt from prior indiscretions another, or as I supposed, perhaps neurodivergence. The issue in that case was that it was all too speculative because we did not have enough of the story to get to the truth of the matter. Had we possessed the full account, it might have been a different story.
​
"Comparable" is exactly how we diagnose, treat, and actually help people heal. I worry that the view of "uniqueness" is often just a solipsistic position that people impose on their situation to make themselves feel special, rather than accepting that their patterns are well documented and entirely readable.

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 6:04 PM, Sunday, July 19th]

You are completely right that human behavior falls into broad archetypes, and I don't mean to suggest that any of our situations are totally unique snowflakes that have never happened under the sun.

We absolutely have baseline accounts for these things, and you could easily find a comparable case study for almost every single thread on this board.

​Where the breakdown happens for me is that an archetype is just a diagnosis, not a prescription.

​The glitch in the forum dynamic is that once the community identifies a couple's broad archetype, there are some who immediately tries to copy and paste the exact same treatment plan onto them. Some voices expect them to follow the exact same timeline, use the exact same boundaries, and process their healing in the exact same way as every other couple in that specific category.

​But knowing someone's archetype doesn't tell you their actual internal capacity, their emotional regulation skills, or how their unique nervous systems interact in real life.

Two couples can fit into the exact same category on paper, but one wayward might be uncovering deep childhood trauma while another is dealing with pure entitlement. One couple might need three months to stabilize a specific boundary while another needs three years.

​That is what I mean when I say it isn't universal.

The affair behavior itself fits into a neat, predictable box, but the human beings trying to rebuild after the bomb went off cannot be mass-produced. When we treat the archetype instead of the actual person on the screen, we stop offering real, nuanced help and just start grading them on a standardized script.

Virtually no case in psychology, or more broadly in all of medicine, is going to be identically the same. But what does that matter?

It matters to the individual.

Thank you for clarifying. I understand what you are saying, except for this section:

Two couples can fit into the exact same category on paper, but one wayward might be uncovering deep childhood trauma while another is dealing with pure entitlement. One couple might need three months to stabilize a specific boundary while another needs three years

.

Surely that wouldn't put them into the same category then? If one wayward's character flaws are a reaction to childhood trauma, that would be an archetype of its own, whilst a wayward acting out of pure entitlement would be a completely distinct archetype.

Once you get to the "whys", you can really start to pull together some genuine, targeted advice. Anything prior to uncovering those core motives is inherently going to be speculative.

I think a helpful analogy here is dieting. People struggle with eating issues for a host of different reasons, and each of those reasons forms its own archetype. Even within those specific groups, a dietitian still needs to adjust the broad advice to cater to the individual—whether that means a calorie deficit, carb restriction, or a different approach entirely.

To sum up your point using this analogy: it feels like you believe the community can successfully identify the problematic eating habits, and perhaps even dial into a specific issue like binge eating. However, even when they get there, they aren't allowing for that tailored, individual touch at the end. Is that a fair summary?

DS

You are splitting hairs over the definition of a category, but your dietitian analogy is an absolute bullseye. You just perfectly described my entire point.

​The community is great at identifying the bad eating habits. We can see the binge eating a mile away. But instead of acting like a dietitian who tailors a plan to the individual, the room hands everyone the exact same standardized menu and gets frustrated when it doesn't fit their unique metabolism.

​It doesn't matter how many highly specific boxes you create to explain the whys. If we treat the archetype instead of the actual human being standing right in front of us, we aren't helping them heal.

We are just enforcing a script.

​You spent all that time arguing the logic of the vocabulary about the shape of the boxes, just to completely prove my point for me.

[This message edited by foreverlabeled at 10:53 PM, Sunday, July 19th]

Hmm... this is interesting, so I guess I'll volunteer to be the subject of my own case study.

I actually want to gently push back on this part:

"The issue in that case was that it was all too speculative because we did not have enough of the story to get to the truth of the matter. Had we possessed the full account, it might have been a different story."

I think having more of the story absolutely helps, but I'm not sure it gets us to the truth so much as it gets us to a stronger hypothesis.

Even if I wrote a novel (and trust me, nobody wants that ) it's still my perspective, filtered through my understanding of my husband, my understanding of myself, and my interpretation of what we've experienced together. That doesn't make it worthless, but it also doesn't make it objective fact.

I also wonder if there's sometimes a tendency (and I genuinely mean sometimes) to assume a wayward's stated internal experience is probably inaccurate or self-deceptive if it doesn't line up with the expected pattern. I completely understand why that instinct exists. Self-deception is real. Blind spots are real. I had plenty of them.

But I think there's a difference between, "Hmm... I wonder if this is a blind spot worth exploring," and, "This is definitely a blind spot."

That's really the distinction I'm trying to get at.

The other thing that keeps rattling around in my brain is that if we assume every wayward journey ultimately follows the same script, it gets hard to leave room for the story that doesn't quite fit. Not because it's "special" or "better," but because humans are messy.

I'm a big believer that "never" is a strong word, and even if it's not my story, someone's not going to fit.

Just another thought to throw into the mix.

@NotMyIdentity

I agree with your pushback.

These tendencies within the community are likely due to waywards being generally unreliable narrators, especially early on. Because of that, people will instinctively dig through what is being said in an attempt to uncover a deeper truth. This clearly isn't always the case and shouldn't we shouldn't generalize. However, I want to say—especially regarding your post—I don't think this scrutiny was malicious or ignoble.

Further to that, I fear the reality is that it can be triggering for some people, no matter how hard they try to avoid it, to hear someone state: "I cheated, it wasn't who I am, my husband forgave me pretty immediately, and I've experienced very few consequences."

Humans have a deep, inherent need for justice, and I feel that is likely what drove such an intense overanalysis of your situation. Some people find it incredibly difficult to accept your account exactly as it happened, simply because it makes them uncomfortable to face the reality that sometimes people cheat and actually go on to improve their lives and relationships without dire life ruining consequences. This somewhat includes me. I'm pro-redemption for waywards (which I distinguish from pro-reconciliation) but it does make me feel better to know they had to run through a succession of herculean tasks to get there. Otherwise, what's the point of striving to be a good person you know? But I try hard to not let that discomfort cloud my advise. I'm sure I fail often.

The 'it isn't who I am' section of the above could be discussed further but I feel a good body of that begun on your original post

I hope you do stay around and maybe get to a place where you can share your full story down the line. I do think it would be extremely useful to some to have an full account of what perhaps led to your husbands quick forgiveness. Was it something in him? was it in how you acted? Was it the nature of your marriage? Was it the nature of your affair? Etc etc

[This message edited by DRSOOLERS at 2:04 PM, Monday, July 20th]

I had plenty of them.

Checking in on the verb tense, NotMyIdentity. I don't mean to nitpick, but one thing I've learned, and will now take the time to write about in conversation with you but also for waywards who may be reading, is that when I have identified a blind spot, I become MORE aware of it and the need to be careful about it and manage it. I wouldn't write about them in the past tense.

It helps me when people give concrete examples, so I will give one here (skip this part if you don't need an example). When I was growing up, I was extremely smart in school. I got skipped ahead in math, scored high on the SAT when I was 12, etc etc etc. It wasn't from an intellectual home life - my parents didn't go to college or value intellect - but I read a LOT and loved math so much I would pester the teachers for whatever was next. I loved the orderliness of it, the fact that I KNEW if I had the right answer and it didn't matter what the teacher said or thought. But - here's the origin story of this particular blind spot - my younger brother, also smart, was terrible at school, and my mother put me in the "mean older sister" role very early (that's a long story that I now understand though it still happens). So the result was: all of my accomplishments were diminished or even scoffed at. You may be good at school, but your brother is artistic. You may be good at school, but your brother is nice, and that's more important. So I have a huge blind spot when people tell me I'm smart. This is what that looks like in real life: I was working on a research project at the college I work for, which is also a place where my kids have gone to school so we get calls from the development office looking for donations, and recently the dev person led with, "I hear you are doing amazing work on this project, they were talking about it at the board meeting, please come to the next board meeting to give us a quick update." Even though I am AWARE of this blind spot, my heart went pitter pat. I had to go for a long walk to realize that it was development office bullshit, especially because I was already aware that this particular project had results they didn't want and it was going to be buried. I had to call my husband to talk me through it - this is bullshit, right? He said yes, and, wonderful man that he is, affirmed that I am smart. So I suppose it's no longer a BLIND spot, in that I am responding and acting to things without realizing what's actually happening, but I definitely have blurred vision at best, and I need to think carefully and talk to people I trust whenever I'm in a situation where this is activated. And I could give you many, many more examples.

Dr. Soolers,

I’m curious whether the search for a deeper truth can sometimes become an example of pattern expectation. Is it possible that, because we’re expecting there to be another layer, we occasionally end up finding one that isn’t actually there? 🤔

However, I want to say—especially regarding your post—I don't think this scrutiny was malicious or ignoble.

I agree. I think everyone was genuinely trying their best to offer supportive advice and perspectives. My objection wasn’t to exploring possibilities—I actually think that can be really valuable. It was when possibilities started feeling more like conclusions than hypotheses. That may simply be a difference in writing style online, but I think it’s an important distinction.

When I was told I was being defensive or minimizing, the conversation felt less productive to me—not because I think those things can never be true, but because it becomes difficult to engage with someone else’s interpretation of your internal state when the act of disagreeing with that interpretation is itself viewed as evidence of the interpretation.

At that point, it can feel like there isn’t much room left to explore the possibility together. I think there’s a difference between someone saying, "I wonder if this could be defensiveness; it may be worth examining," and someone saying, "This is defensiveness, and your disagreement proves it." The first invites reflection. The second can make reflection much harder.

Further to that, I fear the reality is that it can be triggering for some people, no matter how hard they try to avoid it, to hear someone state: "I cheated, it wasn't who I am, my husband forgave me pretty immediately, and I've experienced very few consequences."

Ironically, my husband said something very similar a few days ago. 😂

I think there can sometimes be a focus on the phrase "it wasn’t who I am" as meaning, "I did it, but it wasn’t really me." I don’t see it that way. I think it’s more nuanced.

I chose to have an affair. That choice absolutely says something about me. It reflects something about who I was at that time and the choices I was capable of making. I just don’t believe it defines the entirety of who I am or speaks to the core of my identity—then or now.

But that’s neither here nor there. I think we both have a pretty good understanding of each other’s frameworks at this point. We may continue to disagree on parts of them, but I appreciate hearing how you’re thinking about it.

Pippin,

Thank you. I think our definitions may differ slightly.

When I say a blind spot has been resolved, I don’t mean I’ve become immune to making similar mistakes or that I no longer need to monitor myself. I mean there were things I genuinely couldn’t see before that I can now recognize. Once I can see them, they stop being blind spots—even if they remain areas I need to manage thoughtfully.

So I actually think we’re closer than it might seem. I’m sure I have current blind spots and areas where my vision is blurry. But I also think one of the goals of reflection and healing is that some things genuinely move from unconscious to conscious awareness. Once that happens, they may still require attention, but they’re no longer invisible to us.

I can rest in the assurance that I’ve acknowledged some of those former blind spots and adjusted accordingly, while also recognizing there are undoubtedly others I haven’t yet discovered.

Ironically, my husband said something very similar a few days ago. 😂

Smart man.

I'll follow up on your original chain such not to muddy the waters of this chain if you are interested, if not, ignore but it will be there.