Another slant on it

[wheelwright]

Was reading today, and came across the idea that some people may be classified as uncertainty avoidance types.

 

This is supposed to mean they believe in a certain 'truth', they expect there to be expressed and reliable rules of conduct re behaviour, and react negatively if this set of beliefs is shaken.

 

Conversely, there are supposed to be other types who 'roll with it' more. For whom truth is more circumstantial, and who expect a more uncertain and variable set of beliefs among peers etc.

 

Seems to sum up two sides of the LS coin to me...

 

And interestingly, there is also supposed to be a cultural bias in these traits.

 

Any lessons for me or you?

[Snowflower]

I think conflict-avoidance (not sure what you mean by uncertainty conflict avoidance) is a common trait in WS and perhaps some BS as well.

 

I know my H was a conflict avoider pre-affair and even during. He readily admits that this was/is an area he has to work on.

 

As for the cultural bias against a trait like conflict avoidance, I don't know if it so much a cultural thing as it is just a lack of self-awareness. I can't see how conflict-avoidance could ever be considered a good thing, whether it is in an interpersonal relationship or even in the world of business or professionally.

 

Discuss the problems up front. Don't smile and pretend they don't exist. That is not living authentically and it is not fair to you (general you) or anyone else.

[rafallus]

And, more transparently, what exactly are ideas you are trying to reconcile with that?

 

People are different, well, no kidding.

[woinlove]

WW, I've never heard of the concept of uncertainty avoidance being applied to issues on LS such as honesty and how one chooses to treat other people. Do you have a link for that or is this a connection which you are personally trying to make?

[StoneCold]

We understand very well.

 

..or perhaps you dont.

 

Some may find and opinion like yours very arrogant.

 

Always two sides to a coin..

 

One side is condescending and the other is arrogant....lifes a beautiful thing

Edited September 1, 2011 by StoneCold

[Owl]

WW...I think you've spent a lot of time trying to complicate and intellectualize what are basically simple concepts.

 

You chose to pursue a relationship with another man outside of your marriage. It didn't work out, and now your marriage is ending. Whether as a result of your affair or pre-existing issues is a moot point.

 

Posting here has shown you that some people will support your actions and some will not.

 

Trying to use large words or suggest some complex emotional concept is an underlying factor is just attempting to deflect yourself from facing simple, painful reality.

 

I don't think that there are many who come here to debate the idea of "uncertainty avoidance"...most come here to address the problems in their life a bit more directly I think.

 

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here?

[StoneCold]

I think conflict-avoidance (not sure what you mean by uncertainty conflict avoidance) is a common trait in WS and perhaps some BS as well.

 

 

Perhaps?... I think BSs are just are likely to be guilty of "conflict avoidance" as a WS....and the fact that many cant see that is a problem in and of itself that will likely be repeated. Thats how a marriage spins out of control and when that happens...all bets are off the table for both sides.

Edited September 1, 2011 by StoneCold

[xxoo]

Interesting concepts....

 

Uncertainty avoidance seems to have been studied primarily as a business concept. Do you have links to research examining uncertainty avoidance as it applies to personal relationships? I'd like to read them

 

Without further reading, it seems to me that uncertainty avoidance and conflict avoidance are two VERY different things. I can see an argument for an inverse relationship between the two (as one rises, the other may fall).

[drifter777]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are curious and your OP is a kind of poll.

 

I am definitely a "roll with it" kind of person as my formative years where spent living under the same roof with an abusive alcoholic. To survive under such conditions a person learns to be ready for anything and to not treat any plans as "firm" since there is no such thing. Strings of broken promises and being the victim of emotional and physical violence ended up making me a very vulnerable person. Rather than not trusting anyone and expecting the worst, I was so starved for love and affection that my first real girl-friend became my whole life. Since first loves never seem to last, I was devastated when she broke up with me after two years.

 

I left home at 16 and couch-surfed for over a couple of years. I was truly a "rolling stone" and learned to make the best of whatever situation I found myself in. I married young and have continued my natural instinct to make the best of things for decades.

 

With the benefit of hindsight I can see that while I am a "roll with it" type of person, I can only make this work due to my strong belief in a personal sense of duty, responsibility and behavior. While life continues to hand me surprises - good and bad - I am very resilient because I have this strong foundation of values.

 

Perhaps my case is rare, but it could also be a typical paradox developed by the cause and effect of these two seemingly opposite personality traits.

[wheelwright]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are curious and your OP is a kind of poll.

 

I am definitely a "roll with it" kind of person as my formative years where spent living under the same roof with an abusive alcoholic. To survive under such conditions a person learns to be ready for anything and to not treat any plans as "firm" since there is no such thing. Strings of broken promises and being the victim of emotional and physical violence ended up making me a very vulnerable person. Rather than not trusting anyone and expecting the worst, I was so starved for love and affection that my first real girl-friend became my whole life. Since first loves never seem to last, I was devastated when she broke up with me after two years.

 

I left home at 16 and couch-surfed for over a couple of years. I was truly a "rolling stone" and learned to make the best of whatever situation I found myself in. I married young and have continued my natural instinct to make the best of things for decades.

 

With the benefit of hindsight I can see that while I am a "roll with it" type of person, I can only make this work due to my strong belief in a personal sense of duty, responsibility and behavior. While life continues to hand me surprises - good and bad - I am very resilient because I have this strong foundation of values.

 

Perhaps my case is rare, but it could also be a typical paradox developed by the cause and effect of these two seemingly opposite personality traits.

 

Interesting resonse. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.

 

Your background is not that different from my own in many respects, and I think I learnt similar lessons to you.

[wheelwright]

So you read something and ran with it to try and justify your insurmountable disrespect towards your STBXH.

 

Brilliant.

 

In my own mind I read something that struck a chord. It made me think of LS and how certain entrenched differences between people who differ but all seem 'good people' might be explained.

 

Not fully explained but partly.

 

Then again, from another point of view, I am merely scrabbling in the dirt to try and maintain a good opinion of myself.

 

I wonder what your motives are?

[wheelwright]

Interesting concepts....

 

Uncertainty avoidance seems to have been studied primarily as a business concept. Do you have links to research examining uncertainty avoidance as it applies to personal relationships? I'd like to read them

 

Without further reading, it seems to me that uncertainty avoidance and conflict avoidance are two VERY different things. I can see an argument for an inverse relationship between the two (as one rises, the other may fall).

 

Yes, they are very different.

 

Hofstede came up with the concept I believe, if you want to google. It is used in business. It is also relevant to personal Rs as an intercultural concept.

[Saul Goodman]

Interesting concepts....

 

Uncertainty avoidance seems to have been studied primarily as a business concept. Do you have links to research examining uncertainty avoidance as it applies to personal relationships? I'd like to read them

 

Without further reading, it seems to me that uncertainty avoidance and conflict avoidance are two VERY different things. I can see an argument for an inverse relationship between the two (as one rises, the other may fall).

 

I'm going to have to agree with this.

 

All I have to say is that there is a thin line between moral relativity and a sort of moral solipsism, which is why I wonder what you are getting at. Although I have some idea already.

[wheelwright]

WW...I think you've spent a lot of time trying to complicate and intellectualize what are basically simple concepts.

 

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here?

 

When I don't know what I'm doing, I do research. If the 'intellectualism' seems like I am not being real enough, fair enough.

 

It's just me living my life the way that works for me

[wheelwright]

..or perhaps you dont.

 

Some may find and opinion like yours very arrogant.

 

Always two sides to a coin..

 

One side is condescending and the other is arrogant....lifes a beautiful thing

 

Was I being condescending? Goodness!

 

And I thought I was trying to raise a concept which might help to bridge a gap between differing viewpoints.

 

No job for me in conflict resolution then. I will work on this. Perhaps shutting up completely would help?

 

Anyway, as you say lifes a beautiful thing. I'll move on and concentrate on that!

[xxoo]

Hofstede came up with the concept I believe, if you want to google. It is used in business. It is also relevant to personal Rs as an intercultural concept.

 

I did google it before replying, but could not find any research that addressed the personal relationship angle.

 

I wonder if the tendencies would "play out" the same in personal and business relationships. My feeling is that would not necessarily be the case.

[StoneCold]

Was I being condescending? Goodness!

 

And I thought I was trying to raise a concept which might help to bridge a gap between differing viewpoints.

 

No job for me in conflict resolution then. I will work on this. Perhaps shutting up completely would help?

 

Anyway, as you say lifes a beautiful thing. I'll move on and concentrate on that!

 

 

Apparently Glinda seemed to think you were being condescending.... I didnt at all. I was trying to point out to her that just as easily as she could derive a negative conclusion about others opinions....so can others about her "opinions".....

 

ooohhhh the irony and humanity of it all lol.

 

Unfortunately the level of discussion you wish to raise is simply of no interest to many here....so you're better off to let sleeping dogs lie and find others to entertain your discussions

Edited September 2, 2011 by StoneCold

[woinlove]

Apparently Glinda seemed to think you were being condescending.... I didnt at all. I was trying to point out to her that just as easily as she could derive a negative conclusion about others opinions....so can others about her "opinions".....

 

ooohhhh the irony and humanity of it all lol.

 

Unfortunately the level of discussion you wish to raise is simply of no interest to many here....so you're better off to let sleeping dogs lie and find others to entertain your discussions

 

To me it seems many of the posts were puzzled by what WW meant by "uncertainty avoidance" in the context of infidelity. I still haven't read anything on this thread which clarifies it. If you understand it, please explain. That would be more useful than simply taking a dig at the rest of us.

[wheelwright]

To me it seems many of the posts were puzzled by what WW meant by "uncertainty avoidance" in the context of infidelity. I still haven't read anything on this thread which clarifies it. If you understand it, please explain. That would be more useful than simply taking a dig at the rest of us.

 

Thanks for clarifying the confusion. I'm sorry - it made sense to me.

 

I guess what struck me about the theory is that uncertainty avoidance types tend to prefer an unshakable truth perspective. For example, cheating is always wrong is an unshakable truth for many.

 

I have noticed for myself that when on the betrayed end of infidelity, I do not react in such strong terms as BSs I have witnessed here.

 

It seems more acceptable for me that people might stray. You can't avoid that possibility/likelihood. There are issues to deal with in such circumstances, but as I have a 'roll with it' philosophy, things don't seem so out of order.

 

One of the reasons I keep posting and trying to understand others here, is because I really don't get the absolute truth of infidelity is bad thing.

 

I get aspects of it.

 

I want to understand other viewpoints more, rather than to justify my behaviour.

 

And it's fine to see that people have a different viewpoint. I was not attacking anyone when I brought this subject up.

 

'Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of (uncertain) situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; ‘there can only be one Truth and we have it’.

 

Many people who post here came to mind when I read this.

 

And other cultures do things differently.

[wheelwright]

Apparently Glinda seemed to think you were being condescending.... I didnt at all. I was trying to point out to her that just as easily as she could derive a negative conclusion about others opinions....so can others about her "opinions".....

 

ooohhhh the irony and humanity of it all lol.

 

Unfortunately the level of discussion you wish to raise is simply of no interest to many here....so you're better off to let sleeping dogs lie and find others to entertain your discussions

 

Mmmm. I understood your POV I think. No need to explain.

[wheelwright]

I did google it before replying, but could not find any research that addressed the personal relationship angle.

 

I wonder if the tendencies would "play out" the same in personal and business relationships. My feeling is that would not necessarily be the case.

 

 

I think the same issues surface in both situations. The way it plays out differs. We can learn a lot from considering exactly how we are different if we want to get along.

[woinlove]

Thanks for clarifying the confusion. I'm sorry - it made sense to me.

 

I guess what struck me about the theory is that uncertainty avoidance types tend to prefer an unshakable truth perspective. For example, cheating is always wrong is an unshakable truth for many.

 

I have noticed for myself that when on the betrayed end of infidelity, I do not react in such strong terms as BSs I have witnessed here.

 

It seems more acceptable for me that people might stray. You can't avoid that possibility/likelihood. There are issues to deal with in such circumstances, but as I have a 'roll with it' philosophy, things don't seem so out of order.

 

One of the reasons I keep posting and trying to understand others here, is because I really don't get the absolute truth of infidelity is bad thing.

 

I get aspects of it.

 

I want to understand other viewpoints more, rather than to justify my behaviour.

 

And it's fine to see that people have a different viewpoint. I was not attacking anyone when I brought this subject up.

 

'Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimize the possibility of (uncertain) situations by strict laws and rules, safety and security measures, and on the philosophical and religious level by a belief in absolute Truth; ‘there can only be one Truth and we have it’.

 

Many people who post here came to mind when I read this.

 

And other cultures do things differently.

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

The problem I see with trying to label people uncertainty avoiders based on them thinking cheating is wrong is that the latter is an ethical issue, whereas a lot of uncertainty has nothing to do with ethics. So, someone may be happy to have a lot of uncertainty in their lives but thinking the dishonesty and disloyalty surrounding infidelity is unethical. I suspect more people think cheating is bad behavior based on the ethics than based on the uncertainty.

 

In addition, one might imagine a controlling personality, who has little tolerance for others disrupting his life, yet manages to lead a double life with two women, both of whom he controls. This man would be an uncertainty avoider in many ways, but still involved in infidelity.

 

The term original was applied to cultures as a whole, whether they are rigid or free-wheeling. I can imagine trying to apply it to individual people - not me personally, as I prefer fewer labels on people, not more. However, it doesn't necessarily correlate with the individual's views on infidelity.

[wheelwright]

Thanks for the explanation.

 

The problem I see with trying to label people uncertainty avoiders based on them thinking cheating is wrong is that the latter is an ethical issue, whereas a lot of uncertainty has nothing to do with ethics. So, someone may be happy to have a lot of uncertainty in their lives but thinking the dishonesty and disloyalty surrounding infidelity is unethical. I suspect more people think cheating is bad behavior based on the ethics than based on the uncertainty.

 

In addition, one might imagine a controlling personality, who has little tolerance for others disrupting his life, yet manages to lead a double life with two women, both of whom he controls. This man would be an uncertainty avoider in many ways, but still involved in infidelity.

 

The term original was applied to cultures as a whole, whether they are rigid or free-wheeling. I can imagine trying to apply it to individual people - not me personally, as I prefer fewer labels on people, not more. However, it doesn't necessarily correlate with the individual's views on infidelity.

 

Yeah - labels are not so good. I am more comfortable with individual ones than cultural ones.

 

Ethics is a minefield. If you are going deep and legal you should hash it out - otherwise people work on the basis of - well that feels right to me.

 

My point is that uncertainty avoiders will have a whole different set of what feels right to uncertainty acceptors.

 

While still having a perfectly adequate set of ethics in place. The ethics of what feels right. According to your culture (background, family, level of messed upness, socio-economic status, a whole lot of of other determinants which are only a way of saying lets understand rather than hate.)

 

Ethics is a minefield. It's not at all simple. But what feels right is.

[Spark1111]

Thanks for the explanation.

 

The problem I see with trying to label people uncertainty avoiders based on them thinking cheating is wrong is that the latter is an ethical issue, whereas a lot of uncertainty has nothing to do with ethics. So, someone may be happy to have a lot of uncertainty in their lives but thinking the dishonesty and disloyalty surrounding infidelity is unethical. I suspect more people think cheating is bad behavior based on the ethics than based on the uncertainty.

 

In addition, one might imagine a controlling personality, who has little tolerance for others disrupting his life, yet manages to lead a double life with two women, both of whom he controls. This man would be an uncertainty avoider in many ways, but still involved in infidelity.

 

The term original was applied to cultures as a whole, whether they are rigid or free-wheeling. I can imagine trying to apply it to individual people - not me personally, as I prefer fewer labels on people, not more. However, it doesn't necessarily correlate with the individual's views on infidelity.

 

Great post!

 

I think infidelity is a bad thing because it HURT ME TO THE CORE.

 

I can, on an intellectual level, understand developing feelings for another. That hurts, but that is life and it does happen every day. There are no guarantees in any relationship.

 

What hurt me more is the daily lying and deception needed to maintain the SECRECY of the relationship, not the relationship itself.

 

Why did a love relationship have to be kept secret from ME? Now that's controlling and condescending behavior. Disrespectful and cowardly too in that I was allowed, no, ENCOURAGED to operate under false assumptions and make life choices based on those false assumptions.

 

That's a calculated action by two people to undermine a third, and that's bad.

 

It really has less to do with a rigid ethical or moral stance, or uncertainty avoidance.

 

It's as basic as what we teach toddlers. Just play fair, period.

[Spark1111]

Yeah - labels are not so good. I am more comfortable with individual ones than cultural ones.

 

Ethics is a minefield. If you are going deep and legal you should hash it out - otherwise people work on the basis of - well that feels right to me.

 

My point is that uncertainty avoiders will have a whole different set of what feels right to uncertainty acceptors.

 

While still having a perfectly adequate set of ethics in place. The ethics of what feels right. According to your culture (background, family, level of messed upness, socio-economic status, a whole lot of of other determinants which are only a way of saying lets understand rather than hate.)

 

I have no problem if you make a decision based on what feels right for you.

 

People do it everyday and while their actions may not be my actions, I accept they believe it is in their best interests to do what they feel and think is right for them.

 

As long as they do not hurt me and mine in the process.

 

That's the only argument as far as I'm concerned.

 

That's the only instance where your rights to your freedom of choice breeches an ethical wall; if they infringe on my freedoms and my rights.