SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I believe that if you decide to offer R, and you actually want it to succeed, you need to support your WS and their efforts. That's a horrible place to be for many BS because you're in pain and they caused it. Why should you have to help them? Completely understandable to feel that way.

But the WS has a shit ton of their own work to do and few can do it without support. Maybe some WS get enough from IC, friends, reading, SI etc that they need little guidance and direction from their BS. But I think that's rare. Most WS, if they have remorse, are overwhelmed by the enormity of their error. Seeing yourself as the bad guy is not an easy thing to do. Then figuring out how to fix yourself, become safe and heal your BS becomes a mighty challenge that few are capable of. Thus they want to rugsweep, give up, run away etc. For the best chance at success the BS should be offering some degree of assistance, to the extent that your own health will allow it.

If you can't do it your WS may still figure it out. But I believe the odds drop based on everything we see here. People committed to R need to help each other, even if the WS doesn't really deserve it.

I agree, Trdd.

R is a process of building a new partnership between BS and WS. No matter how roles are distributed, the partnership needs to start out in some way between equals - the new M has to serve both partners for the M to succeed. Both partners need to receive and give in the new M. That means both partners need to provide emotional support to each other.

The WS needs to be with and support the BS as the BS processes the anger, grief, fear, and shame that come with being betrayed out of the BS's body. The BS needs to do the same for the WS - and the WS probably has even more grief, anger (at life or FOO, not at BS), fear, and shame than the BS has.

Both partners can delegate, of course. One partner can ask to other to deal with some shit in IC, for example, but delegation is support, too.

*****

Actually, IQ tests are culturally biased. Most SIers would probably score very low in an IQ devised in China, unless our Chinese is pretty good. We'd probably score pretty low in a test devised by an aborigine in the jungle unless we knew how to survive without modern conveniences, to recognize the resources and dangers in the jungle environment, etc. Etc., etc., etc. All one has to do to change one's IQ score is to get familiar with the cultural biases and assumptions of the test designer.

In the US armed forces in WWII, people qualified for Officer Candidate School with lower IQ test scores than needed for some specialist jobs. I guess even management knew it's easier to turn out a 2nd Lieutenant than a guy who could aim cannon or keep a tank going.

Higher IQ MIGHT mean a person can learn to think critically more easily than a person with lower IQ, but it doesn't mean they WILL think critically.

My experience has been that critical thinking requires questioning one's own preconceptions, and that is more associated with good character than with IQ. And good character in my experience has been independent of intelligence, wealth, religion, national origin, skin color ... you name it.

[This message edited by SI Staff at 7:26 PM, Friday, February 11th]

As to the IQ connection… I can only think about that in terms of MY experience, which is a WH who is VERY VERY smart and high on the IQ (albeit for those in Western / modern culture).

Intellectual / NON emotionally speaking, I’d say he’s a ton "smarter" than me. But on the emotional /common sense scale, I WAY out perform him.
So - he may be higher on the IQ scale, but I’d put myself much higher on the EQ scale (guess who cheated?)

It's been over 20 years since I've read the original text on EQ and follow-on books. As I recall, there was an experiment or set of experiments that the theory of EQ was based upon. They were about delayed gratification in children.

This is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the experiments.

The Stanford marshmallow experiment was a study on delayed gratification in 1972 led by psychologist Walter Mischel, a professor at Stanford University.[1] In this study, a child was offered a choice between one small but immediate reward, or two small rewards if they waited for a period of time. During this time, the researcher left the room for about 15 minutes and then returned. The reward was either a marshmallow or pretzel stick, depending on the child's preference. In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes, as measured by SAT scores,[2] educational attainment,[3] body mass index (BMI),[4] and other life measures.[5] A replication attempt with a sample from a more diverse population, over 10 times larger than the original study, showed only half the effect of the original study. The replication suggested that economic background, rather than willpower, explained the other half.[6][7] The predictive power of marshmallow test was challenged in a 2020 study.[8][9]

Quoting Trdd:

The trouble with eq research is people tend to throw everything in a large bucket and call it eq.

That's also my belief. My WH doesn't have any problem with delayed gratification. He does tend to squash negative feelings in a way that is unhelpful. He tends to distract himself with action. He doesn't consider risk and consequences in a situation nearly as much as I do. He's low on introspection. The comparison that I make is with me. Yet I can be overly high on introspection until I'm overwhelmed and paralyzed by anxiety and don't want to act. I tend to overly ruminate. That's not always healthy or productive. Being overly empathetic can also overstimulate me to the point that I don't want to hear from others.

My WH has improved in all his areas since dday. He also had his ADHD diagnosed and treated with medication which has improved my relationship with him measurably. (Sorry if that's controversial. I've seen others at SI say they don't believe their ADHD is a negative quality.) My over introspection has not improved since dday. In fact, it's definitely gotten worse and affected me to the point that I went to an intensive outpatient therapy a few years ago. There are times where I need breaks from SI because this site affects me poorly.

Dazedandconfused1978, I'm not nearly as negative as others here about improving EQ, but I don't know your story or your WW.

And the personality issues is something we are exploring also.

There is a general diagnostic test that your WW could take that may identify a personality disorder. There are tests for autism/aspergers too. I know someone who got a dual diagnosis of personality disorders this way and her IC wasted no time in getting her tested so that she could get proper treatment. If your MC is aware of this and not getting her tested, then is the MC really the best for her? I'm not saying fire the MC but maybe your WW should also be in IC with someone who specializes in dealing with the issues that she has. Remember - not all therapists are equal. Not all have the same credentials. Getting a relationship therapist to handle a serious case of mental/personality disorder could be like asking your pediatrician to aid in cancer treatment. They may know the basics but they may not be equipped to provide the best possible care like an oncologist would. If your MC is just having her journal and figuring it out instead of running some real diagnostics and tackling the issue head on, they don't sound like they're giving you the best possible chance at R. Is there any reason why your WW can't go to IC?

I experienced my first run in with infidelity with my father.

Dad was a psychotherapist.

Colleagues say he was so experienced that he would say within minutes whether their proposed treatment plan for a patient would work, and he was always right, sometimes to their annoyance.

He often was a wonderful father but also a next level compartmentalizer. He had lots of pieces in play.

The work and stress also took a toll.

It left me perplexed (and my Mum and brother gutted) that this guy, who was capable of insight and connection, could then just make large life decisions where his family hardly factored.

Emotional intelligence without right-intention and discipline isn’t enough. The Buddhists say some interesting things about right view and conduct (the noble eightfold path).

Seneca (stoic philosopher, enormously wealthy and Nero’s tutor for a time) is a complex figure. But one of his metaphors has stuck with me. He said that ethics is like an army doing manoeuvres in peace time. You have your engineers build bridges, only to tear them down, so that you are ready when you are faced with a real enemy.

I think the desire to live this way can come to a person in different ways. Sometimes you have the good fortune of being able to model it from a loved one. Sometimes it is pieced together after experiencing a string of personal catastrophes. I think for me it was a mix of those.

[This message edited by straightup at 2:44 AM, Saturday, February 12th]