vangel2 Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Thank you Vangel, you have pretty much read my mind and told me what i needed to hear. I wish it hadn't taken so long for me to see it for myself. I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic that though love would conquer all in the end. TOJAZ that makes the two of us =)
Author tojaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 I guess I'm just a hopeless romantic that though love would conquer all in the end. that makes the two of us =) Well, maybe it will and we just haven't found it yet.
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Lisa, thanks for the link. As always you have just what i was looking for. I haven't read it all yet, but it already has opened my eyes. I see a lot of your ex in there as well. TOJAZ I found another short article that described it perfectly, but now I can't find it again! Will keep looking.
Author tojaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 Thanks. You haven't given an update lately, hows the job hunt coming?
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Thanks. You haven't given an update lately, hows the job hunt coming? Not well! The situation is not good, just got to keep plodding along.
Author tojaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 True enough I suppose. For some reason there are jobs all over the place here, everyone is looking for help. I wonder why that is? It's a college town and usually by this time nobody is hiring. TOJAZ
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 True enough I suppose. For some reason there are jobs all over the place here, everyone is looking for help. I wonder why that is? It's a college town and usually by this time nobody is hiring. TOJAZ Don't know, all that is going here is telecanvassing for minium wage, so basically getting sworn at all day!
Author tojaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 My sister used to do that. She didn't want anyone to know, but one day she had to call my house and I recognized her voive. We both started laughing and I think she got in trouble over it. It was funny though.
PWSX3 Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I see a lot of your ex in there as well. TOJAZ Isn't it kind of funny how everyone's situations are just a little different but when you get down to the root most of them are all the same.... I've taken some classes that were written by Heny Cloud & John Townsend & it was really good because they were talking about me & my situation but then you talk to others & they seem to have the same problem. I just wonder if it is so simple then why are people still having problems & why can't marriages be saved more often????? I think I read someplace that only 1% of marriages that are on the rocks get back together......Just thinking this morning reading some of the posts.....
Author tojaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 Isn't it kind of funny how everyone's situations are just a little different but when you get down to the root most of them are all the same.... I've taken some classes that were written by Heny Cloud & John Townsend & it was really good because they were talking about me & my situation but then you talk to others & they seem to have the same problem. I just wonder if it is so simple then why are people still having problems & why can't marriages be saved more often????? I think I read someplace that only 1% of marriages that are on the rocks get back together......Just thinking this morning reading some of the posts..... Thats a good point. I think it all stems from a lack of communication. I know it's cliche but it's true. By the time a person decides theres a problem and to make it public. There is so much resentment built up that the situation seems hopeless and they leave. That seems to be how mine worked. TOJAZ
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I don't think everyones situation is the same. Things that may appear on the surface to have similarities probably don't, it's only the two people involved who have a true understanding of the whole picture. The leavers actions and words may be similar, but the relationship dynamics will be different. So when people describe the process of a relationship breakdown, you will be able to identify with the actions of the leaver, however, if you really delve into the specifics of your relationship, which only you can do, you will see that although some actions are common, the underlying causes may be very different form the next person. We all have our own personalities and we have interacted with each other, therefore, two situations cannot possibly be the same.
Owl Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Actually, I'd disagree with you here, Lisa. People are amazingly simple critters when you get down to it. We do something...anything...for only one of two reasons. To get something we want, or to get away from something we don't like. Marriages, relationships...they're really not all that complex. If you look at the bottom line to virtually everything, it's miscommunication. Either someone didn't communicate their wants/needs, or they did but the other person didn't hear them. Either they didn't communicate their true expectations/wants/desires for a relationship, they intentionally miscommunicated them, or the other person didn't understand them, or possibly simply didn't care enough to do so. If you look at marriages impacted by infidelity, the more you watch the stories, the more you'll see that they're all basically very, very similar. The differences only occasionally are large enough to impact the outcomes. The 'fix' for most of these things are very similar as well. That's why 'blanket advice' is given on these forums all the time...and it tends to work quite well.
FoolMeAgain Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 I see why you are called OWL. very wise, insightful and helpful
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Actually, I'd disagree with you here, Lisa. People are amazingly simple critters when you get down to it. We do something...anything...for only one of two reasons. To get something we want, or to get away from something we don't like. Marriages, relationships...they're really not all that complex. If you look at the bottom line to virtually everything, it's miscommunication. Either someone didn't communicate their wants/needs, or they did but the other person didn't hear them. Either they didn't communicate their true expectations/wants/desires for a relationship, they intentionally miscommunicated them, or the other person didn't understand them, or possibly simply didn't care enough to do so. If you look at marriages impacted by infidelity, the more you watch the stories, the more you'll see that they're all basically very, very similar. The differences only occasionally are large enough to impact the outcomes. The 'fix' for most of these things are very similar as well. That's why 'blanket advice' is given on these forums all the time...and it tends to work quite well. That's subscribing to the Psychological theory called Social Exchange Theory, which argues that human relationships are formed and maintained by the use of subjective cost-benefit anaylsis and the comparison of alternatives, (something I noticed the therapist on the site you recommended the other day, follows). However, having studied Psychology for 6 years I believe (as do many psychologists and therapists), that this is a much too simplistic view of human behaviour. For example, it does not take into account differences in culture, enviroment during childhood, personality, personality disorders, psycosis, theory of ageing, mental stability, neurosis and illness, horomonal and neurochemical influences. Nor does it take into account the effect of development of morality, Gestalt principles of the sum greater than its parts etc. Essentially, what I am arguing is the Existentialist viewpoint, that one cannot simply generalize about what drives human behaviour as each individual is a seperate being functioning in their enviroment, as such they are beings and becoming similtanously ie: there are numerous factors, interactions, enviromental influences. A human is always in flux. The advice isn't as blanket on here as it may appear, people bring their own expriences to the table, I've noticed for example that some members first question is always "have they been having an emotional or physical affair?" This is a direct reflection of their own experience, now sometimes this will be the case and the person may offer the advice that worked or didn't work for them, this is all we can do, we can only offer advice based on the information we have and the experiences we have had. However, other members probe much further, ask more questions about the individual circumstances and even if the experience is not consistent with their own, they try and offer advice, sometimes from perhaps a subjective, "if I was in your position, what would I do" standpoint. A lot of the advice may appear blanket, but you will also see members that say things like "I pick and choose the advice I recieve on here and spin it and turn it to fit my own circumstances". This is because only the person in the realtionship knows about that relationship and how it broke down, everyones experience as an individual and as an individual in interaction with another individual will have true insight into that dynamic. So, no I disagree the fundementals are not always the same, even though they may appear to be on the surface. (Sorry for such a long reply)!
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Sorry, that should have read "Gestalt principles the WHOLE graeter than the sum of its parts", I'm very tired today, did not get a good nights sleep, yet again! Also, PWXS3, that's why it is not that simple! If it was just a matter of this simple theory of reductionism (to use you therapists words Owl, to top up the love bank), then we would all be able to keep our relationships in balance and no one would have problems or split up, or on splitting up, we could all just top up the love bank! There are so many INDIVIDUAL factors and interaction and social factors involved in every relationship. The best therapists by the way,IMO, if anyone is looking either for MC or individual are Eccletic therapists, these do not subscribe to one theroy, but use and intergrate all theroy and practice according to what best meets the individual.
Owl Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Again, I see your point. And there is some level of 'invidiualism' required even in the concept of the "lovebank"...for example, different people have different emotional needs. Identifying your spouse's specific emotional needs, and fulfilling them is the primary method for filling their "love bank". But frankly...assuming both parties are 'relatively' sane, with no major addictions, mental illness, or circumstances of abuse...again, any other factors are generally minor enough not to have a major impact on the normal course of marital recovery. Granted that marital recovery after infidelity remains a rather low probability, and this could indeed be accounted for by your idea of how all these factors change things. But, if that were true, I'd expect that MC's that employed your Existensialist viewpoint would have a far higher recovery rate than those that employ a Social Exchange Theory viewpoint. I've not seen any statistics truly demonstrating more success one way or another...regardless of what anyone publishes on their own website to drum up business. I'm certainly no student of psychology...on the contrary, I struggled very much with getting even a basic understanding of people around me as a youth. Much of my understanding today is based off a very concerted effort on my part to try to understand them. As a child/teen/young adult, I had major issues with interacting with people. My youngest son was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome several years ago, and I wonder at the similarities to my own social issues at times (I was never examined or diagnosed by any medical specialist for any kind of mental/social issues). Interesting discussion...I can appreciate your viewpoints.
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Again, I see your point. And there is some level of 'invidiualism' required even in the concept of the "lovebank"...for example, different people have different emotional needs. Identifying your spouse's specific emotional needs, and fulfilling them is the primary method for filling their "love bank". But frankly...assuming both parties are 'relatively' sane, with no major addictions, mental illness, or circumstances of abuse...again, any other factors are generally minor enough not to have a major impact on the normal course of marital recovery. Granted that marital recovery after infidelity remains a rather low probability, and this could indeed be accounted for by your idea of how all these factors change things. But, if that were true, I'd expect that MC's that employed your Existensialist viewpoint would have a far higher recovery rate than those that employ a Social Exchange Theory viewpoint. I've not seen any statistics truly demonstrating more success one way or another...regardless of what anyone publishes on their own website to drum up business. I'm certainly no student of psychology...on the contrary, I struggled very much with getting even a basic understanding of people around me as a youth. Much of my understanding today is based off a very concerted effort on my part to try to understand them. As a child/teen/young adult, I had major issues with interacting with people. My youngest son was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome several years ago, and I wonder at the similarities to my own social issues at times (I was never examined or diagnosed by any medical specialist for any kind of mental/social issues). Interesting discussion...I can appreciate your viewpoints. Thanks for the discussion, certainly the lovebank concept can do no harm in a relationship and can go a long way to maintaining a relationship. My argument is that it is not possible given all the varying factors of the psyche to simplifiy all relationship problems to this level, as we all act according to our set of experiences and current enviroment, that includes outside influences as well, so it is not just a matter of whether someone feels in equibrlium in their profit/loss comparisons. As to why sometimes the advice given by MC's etc works and sometimes it doesn't, because even a thearpist is a human. Yes, they are supposed to be unbiased, ethical but they are human and as such no matter how much they try not to, they will bring their own experiences to your marital problems.
Author tojaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 :confused: O.K. I'm no shrink, and I'm not as wise as Owl, hell I can hardly spell look at my posts, but I think you both are right. Owl argues behavior ans actions are simple and instictual, based off of wants and needs. True, if you break anything down far enough, thats the core. Lisa argues that itis very complex and derived from past experience and emotion, family of origin, also true, but a different facet of the actions. Owl's take... I want a cup of cofee, because I'm thirsty. Lisas take... I chose cofee because my dad always drank cofee so i naturally grew up a cofee drinker, plus it's early and i need to wake up for work! Owl breaks it down to the core where Lisa peels back the layers of an onion one by one. In the end, I drink cofee when I'm thirsty, but if I think about it, I also know why I do instead of tea. Of course this could all just be B.S. because I felt left out. TOJAZ
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 :confused: O.K. I'm no shrink, and I'm not as wise as Owl, hell I can hardly spell look at my posts, but I think you both are right. Owl argues behavior ans actions are simple and instictual, based off of wants and needs. True, if you break anything down far enough, thats the core. Lisa argues that itis very complex and derived from past experience and emotion, family of origin, also true, but a different facet of the actions. Owl's take... I want a cup of cofee, because I'm thirsty. Lisas take... I chose cofee because my dad always drank cofee so i naturally grew up a cofee drinker, plus it's early and i need to wake up for work! Owl breaks it down to the core where Lisa peels back the layers of an onion one by one. In the end, I drink cofee when I'm thirsty, but if I think about it, I also know why I do instead of tea. Of course this could all just be B.S. because I felt left out. TOJAZ Kind of but not exactly, we may have basic desires but we may not always need these met or act upon them due to other parts of the psyche, such as our morality, personality, mental health, the enviroment. Essentially what I am getting at is the brain is a complex organ, behaviour is a complex action, emotions are complex, (we do not love just because of what we gain) and life is never as simple you provide me with X therefore I'll give you X, it's more like my moral code says X, I saw my father do X, you may have done this, how does this factor into my belief system, not just my instictual needs.
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Perhaps I can explain it better with the use of Freudian theory (I'm no Freudian by the way), but most people know some Freud. The id, the ego, the superego. What Owl is saying is that we just react and make decisions based on our id (I want, I want), if we did we would all be Narcissists! lol, what happens is a smooth interplay of the three components, the I want (ID), the Ego (realistic) and the superego (consciense), all these parts of the persona develop as a direct result of childhood. Therefore the mainataince of love/realtionships is not just directly based on cost/profit, otherwise we wouldn't need the conscience. Emotion is more complex than that. IMHO.
Author tojaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 Kind of but not exactly, we may have basic desires but we may not always need these met or act upon them due to other parts of the psyche, such as our morality, personality, mental health, the enviroment. Essentially what I am getting at is the brain is a complex organ, behaviour is a complex action, emotions are complex, (we do not love just because of what we gain) and life is never as simple you provide me with X therefore I'll give you X, it's more like my moral code says X, I saw my father do X, you may have done this, how does this factor into my belief system, not just my instictual needs. Very true, but seperate. The behavior and the explanation behind the behavior are two different things. We act off of a simple need, I want X so I take steps to get X. Why do i want X anyway, because of love, emotion, desire, need, on and on does not change the reasons for our actions. The want. TOJAZ
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Very true, but seperate. The behavior and the explanation behind the behavior are two different things. We act off of a simple need, I want X so I take steps to get X. Why do i want X anyway, because of love, emotion, desire, need, on and on does not change the reasons for our actions. The want. TOJAZ If we just acted off the ID we wouldn't need the other parts! We learn from a very young age that we cannot function off the want alone, the ID is the innerchild the tantrum thrower, as we mature we develop the other components through psychosexual stages, how these develop will be in direct consequence of how balanced an upbringing you get (according to Freud), the result, we keep our childish wants in check because of other ideas, factors, influences, so being content is not just about having our needs met. It isn't about a coloum of profits and losses. (Unless you have Narcisssist Personality Disorder!)
Author tojaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 This is fun! Name me an action that is not to fulfill a want or to distance ourselves from something we don't like.
LisaUk Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 This is fun! Name me an action that is not to fulfill a want or to distance ourselves from something we don't like. That's not what I mean, we don't act soley in isolation of our wants.
Author tojaz Posted July 8, 2009 Author Posted July 8, 2009 That's not what I mean, we don't act soley in isolation of our wants. We do act solely for our wants, thats why you can't answer. Some wants trump other wants and our values and such make us decide what we want more. Heres a crude example. I haven't shared my bed for 3 months, and I want to, but I also want to honor my marriage vows and respect my wife. My want for my retained integrity trumps my want for cheap sex. A narcicist would opt for the immediate gratification while I opt for my values but it is still a want. How I want to define myself. TOJAZ
Recommended Posts