Split-Self Affair (Discussion)

[NoIDidn't]

The title of the thread was meant to very narrow. No one said this was the be all and end all conversation for all affairs.

 

I agree.

 

I kind of agree with the "split". But I think everyone has this split. I can't believe it can be turned into a widely accepted theory. Even among therapists. So it doesn't surprise me that opinions on it, and conflicting opinions within myself, are in this thread.

 

I will elaborate more when I have time.

[Devil Inside]

 

This is very closely related to criminals blaming their past, their issues, and their crimes on dysfunction and expecting leniency because of it.

 

 

Therapists ask about previous life experiences as a matter of course.

 

Hey NID..always enjoy these discussions.

 

I do have to take difference with your two points above.

 

In my opinion there are many people that look to their past to help give insight into what may have lead to an affair. That said, they do not expect leniency, they need to be accountable. However if they are sincere about really changing...they need to do more than change the circumstances.

 

In my experience previous life experiences greatly influence the present and the future. I always ask my clients about their childhood, parents, siblings, school, and romantic relationships because these will most likely hint to how they may see the world in the present. Our brains are wired to take in new situation in the frame of old ones, and the younger you are the more influential the experiences. So for me asking these questions is more then just filling in an intake sheet.

[Snowflower]

Hey NID..always enjoy these discussions.

 

I do have to take difference with your two points above.

 

In my opinion there are many people that look to their past to help give insight into what may have lead to an affair. That said, they do not expect leniency, they need to be accountable. However if they are sincere about really changing...they need to do more than change the circumstances.

 

In my experience previous life experiences greatly influence the present and the future. I always ask my clients about their childhood, parents, siblings, school, and romantic relationships because these will most likely hint to how they may see the world in the present. Our brains are wired to take in new situation in the frame of old ones, and the younger you are the more influential the experiences. So for me asking these questions is more then just filling in an intake sheet.

 

I'm glad you weighed in here as a therapist, DI

 

I believe our past experiences shape us, good and bad. While I don't think that past experiences (particularly bad ones) should be used as an excuse or a justification for our own present actions, what happened to us in the past does have some bearing on how we behave at times.

 

Understanding or explaining why someone did something as inexplicable as infidelity can have some very deep roots. Understanding or being able to explain why something happened can also, in some cases, prevent it from happening again.

 

Dismissing bad decisions such as infidelity by saying, 'they just wanted some fun on the side.' Or, 'cheaters have no moral compass' solves nothing and is not accurate...there are usually deeper issues.

[TaraMaiden]

In my seven years here, I've seen this time and again: adult posters are prevented from having serious meaningful discussions about infidelity because childish posters are always interfering with their brain dead moralizing and hectoring.

 

Eventually all grown-up discussion ends and the moralizers triumph.

 

My recommendation: those of us who actually wish to learn and discuss infidelity should put all these moralistic hucksters on our ignore lists. At a minimum, don't respond to the 500th post that all learning and understanding about infidelity is a mere attempt to justify infidelity.

 

Those idiots will never recognize the distinction if it bit them on the ass.

 

 

Hey Grogster.

Call a spade a ruddy shovel, and tell me why I'm not permitted to have an opinion.

If indeed, you're making reference to my being an idiot, childish and moraliser...

as I've tried to explain, this huge difference of opinion could also be as a result of social conditioning.

It is far, far more commonplace and accepted for American citizens to indulge in Counselling. I would go so far as to say that virtually every American citizen will attend, or has attended counselling for some reason or another.

 

It is a much rarer occurence in the UK.

Therefore we are neither subjected nor influenced to the plethora of theories, methods and aspects of counselling Americans are.

 

And having both attended Counselling myself, (thereby hangs a tale, what a laugh tht was! ) and worked within an organisation concerned with counselling couples, both before and after marriage, I've learnt, through a specific methodology, to call a spade a ruddy shovel, and look at things in a basic, down-to-earth, unembellished manner.

 

Therefore, when yet another so-called psychological 'expert' comes up with yet another angle, I'm afraid my bull5h1t meter is tripped, and I ask myself how many ideologies counselling in the USA can support, before it all becomes so confusing, that people really don't know which way is up any more, because one therapist they know says *this* yet another one says *that* and again, another says *the other*....

Just how many personality "flaws" can a person be 'suffering from'...?

Issues all have a category. they all have a name, a title, a little box to fit in.

pretty soon, we won't know people by their personalities, we'll know them by the issue category they're supposed to be in, and what they're seeing their own analyst about!

 

I don't think this kind of analysis is either truly helpful, nor fully constructive.

I think it stinks, and I think it's just a way of convincing people they're flawed, (can in fact impede progress, if 'diagnostics' are inaccurate,) and might fool them into thinking they need counselling until the seas run dry.

 

Which is another way of lining their coffers of many analysts who are arguably maybe flawed themselves, and in no position probably to assist anyone, other than to help them part with their money.

 

That's what I think.

[Brokenlady]

Just wanted to draw on DI's post a little more.

 

For beavioral/mental health issues history is important, not as an excuse but as a frame of reference - it is really no different than medical problems. (No one would "blame" your current lung cancer on the prostate cancer you had 20 years ago, but the history says something about how your body reacs to cancer, does it not?) It's relavent. And it is the same for categorizing things - medical diagnoses are categorized as a way of understand the course illnesses take and the best way to treat them successfully -and no one would call that "medi-babble".

 

And for the purpises of the split-self: the recommended course of treatment is IC and usually requires a minimum of 2 years, give or take. Notice: Individual therapy, NOT "family" therapy with one's parents. These are issues we have to work out for ourselves as adults, and because they are so deep, that takes a lot of time. It is up to the Split Selves to put in the work to do that. If they choose not to put in the work to resolve it, they have no one to truly blame but themselves.

 

Look at Jennie-jennies' MM (apologies for the example) - he cannot blame his childhood issues now, only his refusal to deal with them now as she is pleading with him to get into IC. But it does explain some things - obviously whatever is beneath the surface is too painful for im to deal with right now. It is unfortunate, but that is his choice. And if he is truly Split Self, then she knows that it isn't going to change anytime soon. So, at the very least, she knows what she's dealing with, and I think that's a good thing.

[jennie-jennie]

Look at Jennie-jennies' MM (apologies for the example) - he cannot blame his childhood issues now, only his refusal to deal with them now as she is pleading with him to get into IC. But it does explain some things - obviously whatever is beneath the surface is too painful for im to deal with right now. It is unfortunate, but that is his choice. And if he is truly Split Self, then she knows that it isn't going to change anytime soon. So, at the very least, she knows what she's dealing with, and I think that's a good thing.

 

I totally agree with this. It was when I read about the Split Self affair that all puzzle pieces fell into place. The frustration I had been struggling with for four years, the fight between my heart and mind, was over. What a relief the sensation was of my mind and heart finally being in agreement!

[TaraMaiden]

Just wanted to draw on DI's post a little more.

 

For beavioral/mental health issues history is important, not as an excuse but as a frame of reference - it is really no different than medical problems.

errr...yes it is....

(No one would "blame" your current lung cancer on the prostate cancer you had 20 years ago,

Actually, yes, they might, because there is no guarantee that cancer cells will not migrate, so there is every reason to suppose that the prostate cancer may well have been a mitigating factor.....

but the history says something about how your body reacs to cancer, does it not?)

Yes, the salient point being 'Body'.

It's relavent. And it is the same for categorizing things - medical diagnoses are categorized as a way of understand the course illnesses take and the best way to treat them successfully -and no one would call that "medi-babble".

Your analogy is flawed, because whilst matters of the body are largely anatomy, biology and pathology , which is an extremely exact science, the study of the mind is far from precise.

You cannot compare the physical function of the machinery we call the human frame, with the workings of the psychological conundrum we call 'The Mind'....

 

And for the purpises of the split-self: the recommended course of treatment is IC and usually requires a minimum of 2 years, give or take. Notice: Individual therapy, NOT "family" therapy with one's parents. These are issues we have to work out for ourselves as adults, and because they are so deep, that takes a lot of time.

They only reason they might be categorised as deep, depends on how willing or enthusiastic the person really is, to tackle these constructively. If a person is able to confront these issues head on, they are able to overcome them far more quickly. This would therefore make them 'shallow'. Conversely, if a person is reluctant to open up and let go, these issues would therefore be classified as deep.

It's not the issue that is the problem. it's the person's own willingness to 'heal' that is the problem.

 

It is up to the Split Selves to put in the work to do that. If they choose not to put in the work to resolve it, they have no one to truly blame but themselves.

Precisely.

The category is irrelevant. The person's own willingness or reluctance, is what counts....

 

Look at Jennie-jennies' MM (apologies for the example) - he cannot blame his childhood issues now, only his refusal to deal with them now as she is pleading with him to get into IC

with you.....

But it does explain some things - obviously whatever is beneath the surface is too painful for im to deal with right now.

Not necessarily.

he may just not want to deal with them at all. It's a possibility, although obviously, I have no way of knowing for sure.

my point would be - that neither has the Counsellor.

 

It is unfortunate, but that is his choice.

That has been one of my points, all the way through....

And if he is truly Split Self, then she knows that it isn't going to change anytime soon. So, at the very least, she knows what she's dealing with, and I think that's a good thing.

 

"If" being the operative word.

Does she really KNOW what she's dealing with....? For sure....?

 

Whilst I would say that it is 'fashionable' to categorise and label people, ('S/He's dyslexic', 's/he's bi-Polar', 's/he's narcissist', where there is no specific direct or justifiable evidence to support these 'diagnoses') the bottom line might just be that if a person is reluctant to dig up the past, and bring issues to the surface, it might simply be - because they just don't want to.

[grogster]

Hey Grogster! Good to see you again!

 

Agree with your sentiments, BTW. Not sure why some people find rational discussion so threatening...

 

Nice to see you, OW.

 

Its been awhile. I hope that all is well with you.

 

I don't know much about these "split self" theories, but, unlike the flamers, I'm willing to listen, read and learn.

 

All I can say is that I'm very happy with my reintegration.

[White Flower]

Nice to see you, OW.

 

Its been awhile. I hope that all is well with you.

 

I don't know much about these "split self" theories, but, unlike the flamers, I'm willing to listen, read and learn.

 

All I can say is that I'm very happy with my reintegration.

Welcome back grogster, glad to see you decided to reintegrate even with all the drama.

 

In college, we're allowed to choose our courses. If we don't like a particular course, we don't enter the classroom. Simple.

[grogster]

Welcome back grogster, glad to see you decided to reintegrate even with all the drama.

 

In college, we're allowed to choose our courses. If we don't like a particular course, we don't enter the classroom. Simple.

 

So true, White Flower.

 

And we all know some poor souls who are simply ineducable, and who lash out at others who attempt to educate themselves.

 

Those losers, this Moral Taliban, I happily ignore online, and off.