SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

All those books you’ve read, all those counselling sessions, they’ve all been a waste of time because they didn’t help you get over it.

This is a form of the appeal to closure fallacy: “we need to move on here” without offering any sound set of reasons for why other than “closure.”

Frankly I see little to gain in this.

Take what you need and leave the rest. Obviously a number of BS’s find it helpful.

The "how could I/she/he know?" logical fallacy

I have been served this one by no fewer than three therapists - one actually said: "That's why people end up in court, because they cannot think of all the rules beforehand" as if there is nuance and ambiguity in cheating behavior that the cheater hides and lies about.

To answer your question, faithfulman, I think this falls under Diminished Responsibility.

Another version of it is when a defendant in court claims ignorance of the law, which of course is no defense.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

[This message edited by Thumos at 12:04 PM, April 27th (Tuesday)]

R is not for everyone, nor is D. This advice in this string is helpful for newbies but at some point in the journey, if you are deciding to R (which I know that Thumos has not decided that) then you still have the work to get to at least the compassion piece. Empathy is not a word that is useful from a BS towards a WS about an affair. That is way too tall of an order. BUT - it IS needed surrounding some of the things that led to it and some of the work being done as a result of it. At that point, you can seriously use logic as a shield.

I agree and this is probably a good caveat for a discussion about these tools.

The "I lied/continued to lie to protect you" logical fallacy

I think this one is so absurdly common that it needs no example, and serves as a way for a cheater to keep on doing the wrong thing or simply protect themselves from consequences.

I'm unsure if it's a fallacy but it's certainly an example of a propaganda technique called "The Noble Lie." A lie told to "protect" a people to promote social harmony (or in the case of infidelity, a lie told to "protect" an innocent spouse and preserve marital harmony). Unfortunately a noble lie can quickly morph into a sinister Big Lie used to justify transgression.

The "It's too late" logical fallacy

Often employed by a cheater prior to confrontation: "I crossed this line before, I might as well continue cheating because it is too late to stop now"

Interestingly this is a version of the sunk costs fallacy that many BS's fall prey to on the back end of infidelity.

Often what one most objects to is exactly what hits home.

Not in this case.

The statement is about solace, not about problem-solving. You're seeing an either-or where there isn't any ... a false dichotomy.

I guess I was looking at your statement in the context of and in juxtaposition to what this thread was actually discussing: logical fallacies that cheaters use to bullshit their betrayed spouses, often with success.

But I guess what you wrote is true once I disregard the actual subject matter of the thread.

Frankly I see little to gain in this. You won’t debate your way out of infidelity, nor can you apply logic to make a WS end the affair.

I'll explain the "gain".

It's not about winning a debate, it's about ending the debate.

The fallacies are not for the betrayed spouse to retort with: "You just engaged in the XYZ logical Fallacy!"

It's to educate the betrayed spouse so they may avoid being snowballed by the ultra-common sophistry that is utilized by cheaters (and their enabling therapists) to obfuscate, minimize, blameshift, and altogether avoid responsibility for their actions and choices.

Now to get back to the subject at hand...

***

The "how could I/she/he know?" logical fallacy

To answer your question, faithfulman, I think this falls under Diminished Responsibility.

Another version of it is when a defendant in court claims ignorance of the law, which of course is no defense.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

***

The "I lied/continued to lie to protect you" logical fallacy

I'm unsure if it's a fallacy but it's certainly an example of a propaganda technique called "The Noble Lie." A lie told to "protect" a people to promote social harmony (or in the case of infidelity, a lie told to "protect" an innocent spouse and preserve marital harmony). Unfortunately a noble lie can quickly morph into a sinister Big Lie used to justify transgression.

***

The "It's too late" logical fallacy

Interestingly this is a version of the sunk costs fallacy that many BS's fall prey to on the back end of infidelity.

***

- Diminished Responsibility

- The Noble Lie

- sunk costs fallacy

Thank you Thumos.

Hopefully this information can help at least one betrayed spouse identify and dismiss these "bullshit arguments" (That's my technical term!) for the nonsense that they are, whether they are spouted by a betrayed spouse, a therapist, or anybody else, cutting through the noise as they move forward.

[This message edited by faithfulman at 1:13 PM, April 27th (Tuesday)]

It's difficult for me to take in that everything has to be scientifically proven, and "not mystical" from someone who is religious.

Actually I don't think I've ever said that. I think what I said is that something that holds itself out to be clinically based in science should be able to prove itself empirically. If it is, in the words of Karl Popper, not "falsifiable," then we've got a problem if it's holding itself out to have a privileged place of clinical authority.

That is why psychotherapy has come under such scrutiny and its theories of mind increasingly questioned and met with skepticism. CBT, on the other hand, is falsifiable and is based on brain science.

Another example: talk therapy's efficacy as a whole has come under increasing scientific scrutiny. I won't say that science has repudiated talk therapy. Far from it. But there are some early findings that it is not as effective as first believed, and I think one can say with some level of confidence that many other practices are equally effective (prayer, deep reading of great literature, journaling, meditation - although this last too is now coming under increased skepticism).

If people get something out of talk therapy, they should certainly do it.

As for the place of emotion, I said several times that emotions have a place and should not be dismissed. Although I think this is a rather "angels on the head of a pin" discussion that derails the purpose of this thread: To identify logical fallacies often used by WS's in order to equip BS's with tools that can help them navigate through the murk.

I think your statement perhaps misapprehends my own faith, which is not based on emotion. Certainly emotions are a part of my faith, as they are for any other area of human existence, but that is not the grounding for my faith. Emotionalism is often the hazy territory in which many people lose their faith.

Anyway, thanks for this comment. But again, I think it misses the point of this thread.

[This message edited by Thumos at 1:07 PM, April 27th (Tuesday)]

HikingOut, I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time here. This is a threadjack. I’m happy to address it in my thread in the D/S section if you want to do it there, where it belongs. No I don’t consider myself a WS nor does my WW for very good reasons. But this thread needs to remain focused on providing BS’s with a good set of tools. I don’t appreciate attempts to derail that discussion (and I’ll warrant neither do a lot of BS’s).

Fair enough. I actually was not intending to threadjack. What I was merely pointing out to you is this is an example of how logic can be bended. Or how logic is not black and white or having one universal truth.

Had an unknown BS posted what you did, there would be many in line to say that person is minimizing a mini or early stages of an emotional affair. Because you are a known poster, and I believe most believe you to have a good moral fabric, and we all know your story nothing further was said. That is a logical fallacy, but it's an awfully educated one because we know you better. Most of the time when we get new posters there isn't all the background and we post in black and white terms without understanding the nuances of another's situation. That too is a logical fallacy.

You were talking about logical fallacies of a WS, and I think logical fallacies exist in all people. It's important to make the distinction that your reality will read different to someone else because it's through their lens. Having been in a madhatter situation, this is the lens I am currently viewing posts with. I meant to use it as an example that was relevant to you as the original poster in order to consider how one situation can be read many different ways and different logic can be applied.

However, it wasn't lost on me that you might be get in your feels about the example, but let it sink in. It's completely relevant to the post. That being said, I am certainly not interested in pushing a discussion on it, whatever you and your wife have decided are completely up to you so no I do not feel the need to go address it in your thread. I do not feel the need to classify you, or ask others to. I only posted and presented evidence of how we interpret the fallacies on the site with a very limited knowledge of many of the posters.

It was a relevant example, one you didn't appreciate, and that's okay. If other's didn't appreciate it, I am sorry if my actions were misinterpreted towards me trying to stir a pot so to speak. Wasn't my intention. It's just when someone posts, I often will use examples I know about their own situation to illustrate a point. I tried to carefully word it as to not to use it against you, but instead as an illumination as to how logic can vary person to person.

I will of course respect what you said and leave it at that. But, I did feel the need to explain myself further as it feels like the motivations of what I said were being stated for me.

[This message edited by hikingout at 1:14 PM, April 27th (Tuesday)]

It's not about winning a debate, it's about ending the debate.

The fallacies are not for the betrayed spouse to retort with: "You just engaged in the XYZ logical Fallacy!"

Exactly. Now in my own case, I actually did point out the logical fallacies my WW was using but not in a know it all or unkind way. I would simply say, "Hey you just said XYZ. Here's why I think that's problematic. For one thing, it is a version of a logical fallacy called ABC. I'm not saying that to be difficult, just trying to keep us honest here. If we're going to talk about this, we need to do it in an intellectually honest way."

That usually shut down that particular gambit and she wouldn't use it again.

Did it help us R? No. Not at all. But I never claimed it would help anyone R.

What it did do was put me back on firm ground in my own head so that I wasn't questioning the reality around me and was no longer being subjected to gaslighting.

That's really important and cannot be understated.

You were talking about logical fallacies of a WS, and I think logical fallacies exist in all people.

This is most certainly true, but this thread is about the common set of fallacies that WS seem to deploy. And yes, to be fair, I'm really talking here about early days. Hopefully if a couple moves along, they stop falling into these traps along the way.

I'm not suggesting that WS do so out of malice. Most of the time, it's rather out of defensiveness, pride, shame, etc.

But it helps for a BS to be able to spot these things.

I tried to carefully word it as to not to use it against you, but instead as an illumination as to how logic can vary person to person.

I didn't think you were trying to use it against me, but I do think it is better addressed in my other thread. And again, I am happy to take that subject up if anyone has insights or questions. But I think it belongs over there.

[This message edited by Thumos at 1:19 PM, April 27th (Tuesday)]

That said, if I’m paying a lot by the hour for someone to provide me with allegedly clinical advice and thoughts, I’d like for their advice and thoughts to be based on something other than mysticism.

This is exactly what you said. And, often in debate you will ask for evidence.

What I was trying to point out (but maybe I did it poorly) is we believe in all sorts of things that are not scientifically proven and I pointed out religion not to bring that as a point of discussion but moreso to point at faith and hope.

Many users of our community look to SI to see evidence that R can happen and happiness can be found in it. R is a leap of faith, some of it is based in logic. Often, logic is what keeps people married long enough to R. I can't leave now because of my kids, my finances, my job, etc...those are almost always the logic people jump to. Honestly, some would point out some of those things are fallacies, while others would say they are valid.

R is a leap of faith. You make an educated leap - you take in history, you take in present, but noone has a crystal ball for the future.

And, when many of us have done therapy, even if it's just the magic of hearing our thoughts outloud to a person who can help us sort through them and find patterns in them, there is enough evidence to support it as a science as much as we can support anything else.

I think you think I am derailing the conversation, I think I am trying to add balance to it. That's all.

Now in my own case, I actually did point out the logical fallacies my WW was using

Of course you did Professor Thumos!

Let me add to this - not only to cheating partners craft these excuses, betrayed partners do as well!

I know this because I DID IT.

But since I was trying to suppress my own emotional hurt and moral indignance with intellectual dishonesty, I could not sleep, I was a hot-and-cold emotional wreck, I lost weight, the whole package.

I could not continue this way, having lost nearly 20 pounds in a month while I tried to explain it to my wife, nicely.

But until I got mad! (See everyone? EMOTION.) and put it on paper and made her see it - not using specific logical fallacies - but using examples, we made no progress into understanding her behavior was the problem, not my reaction to it.

***

Of course that was short-lived because cheaters hate taking responsibility for the hurt they cause the same way Dracula hates sunlight.

And then the fucking therapists hated me for not swallowing their bullshit - her personal cheerleading-enabler-therapists, our couples therapists - none of them had any interest in accountability - they all utilized logical fallacies to either make me the bad guy or to diminish her responsibility.

Of course, when I asked if it was then okay for me to do the same, they were scandalized.

Needless to say the therapists eventually hated me. Sometimes after one session.

And then before seeing any other therapists I researched and interviewed them beforehand. Not a one were into accountability, unless it was "mutual".

Sorry to go so far off course Thumos. But I see so much of this Sophistry in the world of therapy as it pertains to infidelity and I find it to be terribly damaging to betrayed spouses because the therapist is supposed to be the authority, and I have found them to be anything but.

[This message edited by faithfulman at 1:35 PM, April 27th (Tuesday)]

That said, if I’m paying a lot by the hour for someone to provide me with allegedly clinical advice and thoughts, I’d like for their advice and thoughts to be based on something other than mysticism.

I'm not suggesting that WS do so out of malice. Most of the time, it's rather out of defensiveness, pride, shame, etc.

I am not taking up for WS's either. I have no problem with the post or it's intention. I was only adding to the post for BS's who despite any of this still may want to R.

I have been on both sides of the fence. Generally speaking, I do think it's helpful to hear others point out bullshit not to fall for. I get it. But, don't fall in other traps too. I think the most helpful thing I have going for me as a BS is the fact that I know about the fallacies of the WS and other than maybe one or two things I am still chewing on, I didn't internalize much of that stuff at all. BUT, what I am finding as a BS that many of the dangers to me in finding my way back out of this is my own fallacies as the BS. I won't try and expand that into this conversation too heavily any further because maybe it's a thread of it's own.

I am pretty passionate about distorted thinking, and trying to point out when it's happening. The best book I have ever read on it is The Power of Now by Eckhardt Tolle. When you learn that so much of what we think is ego-centric bullshit and we learn to spend time consciously and objectively observing our thoughts, it's quite eye opening.

My best advice is this (no matter if you are a WS or a BS) - decide what you want to see happen. Not because of circumstance or any other thing than what you want to happen. (This to me is the hardest part!) But the more you define that the more you will gravitate towards it, the more you gravitate and take steps the more those steps will take you where you need to go. We are guided by our thoughts always - our emotions, our logic, everything is bended towards what type of thinking we do. Anyway, the more you know what you want, the more you learn to set boundaries around it, the less control anyone else will have over your own happiness. But, know that we get in our own way. If you get too rooted in logic or emotion, it's a recipe for disaster. And, spending too much time looking at the logical fallacies could eventually be a barrier to your love and compassion if what you have decided you want is R.

That said, if I’m paying a lot by the hour for someone to provide me with allegedly clinical advice and thoughts, I’d like for their advice and thoughts to be based on something other than mysticism.

Okay, I am still not seeing how that one word really makes a difference.

The reality of it is the only thing the clinical side of this is doing is forming a hypothesis based on what YOU are telling them. They will work to prove or disprove the hypothesis and use a course of action as to what has you stuck. Over time, they may be able to tell that you are not telling them something or that your self awareness is not very good and that they have to try things that helped other people because you are not assisting them in their job by minimizing, lying, or plain out being obtuse.

Some people it's proven body work or tapping is helpful. Some people say that's hooey. Who cares? If you find the thing that helps you, truly helps you, why is it important whether it was an emotional breakthrough, a scientific one, a mystical one? I can understand you had a very bad experience with religious based counseling, so maybe there is a path there.

If you get too rooted in logic or emotion, it's a recipe for disaster. And, spending too much time looking at the logical fallacies could eventually be a barrier to your love and compassion if what you have decided you want is R.

Again, I find this to be a helpful caveat to this conversation.

I also think many BS's are caught up in a storm of emotions for a good long while.

It helps to pause, breathe, write things down, and really think about the logic of something a WS has said. Does it hold up? Does it have what attorneys often call "the ring of truth?" And how do you feel about it?

All valid questions, but logic has to be in there somewhere. Otherwise a BS is just being cast about on a life raft in a very stormy sea.

This is why BS's are so often cautioned not to get caught up in the sunk costs fallacy. Surely we shouldn't stop at advising BS's to spot just this one fallacy, all by its lonesome? And isn't a focus on some level of rational thought also one of the primary reasons for having a WS write down a detailed narrative timeline? Of course it is! The timeline can be examined for veracity and now a WS has committed a narrative (hopefully a true one) to paper.

Gaslighting is replete with logical fallacies. If BS's learn how to slow things down and spot them, they can reverse some of the damage from gaslighting.

[This message edited by Thumos at 1:54 PM, April 27th (Tuesday)]

Okay, I am still not seeing how that one word really makes a difference.

Here's why: psychotherapy, which until recently formed most of the backbone for talk therapy, is based entirely on Freud's body of work. This work was added to, expanded upon, explicated, over the years. For example, Karpman's drama triangle comes out of psychotherapy (that said, transactional analysis seems to have some things in common with CBT).

It turns out Freud's theory of mind is a fiction. There's no good evidence for it.

The terms that have seeped into public consciousness (anal retentive, Oedipal complex, death wish, penis envy) have no grounding in evidence.

I could as easily say someone is elbow retentive, has a life wish or has deep-seated nostril envy as long as we're in the territory of making things up.

So if you're making clinical recommendations for an individual based on a conception of the mind that isn't grounded in reality (the id, ego and superego have no grounding in science at all) there's a real danger of harm. Or at least the danger of wasting a significant amount of time chasing down rabbit holes.

“Independent studies have begun to converge toward a verdict... that there is literally nothing to be said, scientifically or therapeutically, to the advantage of the entire Freudian system or any of its component dogmas." ~Frederick Crews

Some people it's proven body work or tapping is helpful. Some people say that's hooey. Who cares? If you find the thing that helps you, truly helps you, why is it important whether it was an emotional breakthrough, a scientific one, a mystical one? I can understand you had a very bad experience with religious based counseling, so maybe there is a path there.

This reminds me of a very funny Mitchell & Webb skit, "Homeopathic A&E" which people may enjoy. Look it up on YouTube.