SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I have to agree with Dr on this one.

Just be careful not to do it too often

You could look at the problem of 'limbo' as a logic problem

You want to 'know' if your current strategy will have success, so apply Game Theory to it.

Example 1

Applying Win-Stay, Lose-Shift (WSLS), the strategy that ultimately proved most successful in evolving, long-term environments with mistakes:

Win-Stay, Lose-Shift (Pavlov) typically starts by cooperating on the very first move.

• If both players cooperated: You achieved a good outcome (Win).

Following the "Stay" rule, you cooperate again to maintain the peaceful, mutually beneficial relationship.

• If you defected and they cooperated: You achieved the highest possible payoff by exploiting them (Win).

Following the "Stay" rule, you defect again to keep taking advantage of their compliance.

• If you cooperated and they defected: You got exploited and received the worst possible payoff (Lose).

Following the "Shift" rule, you switch your play and defect next to punish them and protect yourself.

• If both players defected: You both ended up in a mutually destructive deadlock (Lose).

Following the "Shift" rule, you switch your play and cooperate next in an attempt to reset the relationship back to peace.

Example 2

Applying Generous Tit for Tat (GTFT) the most successful strategy in Robert Axelrod's original computer tournaments.

• The First Move: Like standard Tit for Tat, it always cooperates on the very first round.

• If the opponent cooperates: It always cooperates in the next round.

• If the opponent defects: Instead of automatically retaliating, it flips a metaphorical coin. It forgives the opponent and cooperates anyway with a specific probability (usually between 10% and 33% of the time). The rest of the time, it defects to punish them.

Treat each loving action I listed as a "cooperate" move.

In the place of 'punishing' make a successful repair a condition for continuing - ie when you defect, repair and when they defect, insist on repair

The background condition is that leaving the game is, of course, always an option for both participants.

Personally I would: inject lots of loving gestures, make honesty about hurt feelings (including those based on memories) and successful repairs with mutual accountability the golden rule and follow this strategy for a period of a month/three months/six months (your desired period).

Re-appraise with an objective viewpoint (inject details of your cooperate and defect and the other players cooperate and defect moves into an AI model could be a way that helps pattern-recognition).

Has your brain also been able to integrate the behavioural shifts in both participants and is your nervous system noticeably less frequently activated?

This way the 'choice' of limbo (which is really now a commitment to a good strategy) becomes an easier choice to make.

[This message edited by BoiledEggs at 10:23 AM, Sunday, October 18th]

What if the winning strategy for the betrayed spouse is ultimately separation because the wayward spouse doesn't try hard enough to get out of limbo and expects the betrayed to cater to them with hot drinks and foot rubs after devastating the marriage?

Pogres response is correct and to expand on it

@BoiledEggs
Appreciate the detailed reply, but applying game theory to betrayal recovery fundamentally misses the point, both logically and psychologically.

For starters, these models rely on two rational actors playing by the same rules. Infidelity is not a game of symmetrical choices. It is a unilateral breach of trust by someone who has already shown they will exploit the rules for asymmetric gain. Cheaters are not rational algorithm.

Leading with cooperation also reverses accountability. Asking a betrayed partner to start injecting loving gestures and warmth is not signalling goodwill, it is appeasement. It rewards bad behaviour upfront and signals that breaking trust carries no real cost to their daily comfort. Unearned warmth after a betrayal does not build trust, it enables entitlement.

Beyond that, forgiving defects just teaches them what they can get away with. In Generous Tit for Tat, forgiving defection a percentage of the time keeps the game moving. In a marriage post-infidelity, letting defects like lies or boundary crossing slide even occasionally is not preventing a deadlock, it is teaching a wayward partner how far they can push you.

Crucially, this entire framework implicitly assumes that keeping the game going and reaching reconciliation is the optimal outcome. Staying in the game is not automatically a win. Often, the most logical and healthy outcome is recognising the other player is unfit and walking away. Limbo does not exist because the betrayed partner lacks a clever strategy. It exists because they are evaluating whether the betrayer is even worth staying with in the first place.

You cannot spreadsheet or optimize your way out of trauma. Limbo ends when the person who broke the trust steps up and does the heavy lifting to rebuild it, or when the betrayed partner decides they have had enough and leaves.

I'm sorry, I suspect you mean well but this strategy appears to me to be an overcomplicated: roll over and show your belly. You've been abused and mistreat but just take it and be kind. I personally think that's dangerous.

Big agree with that, DRS.

Well, I was answering the subject matter :

Specifically limbo regarding the relationship between the BS and the WS not the individual healing of the BS or WS.

I would direct objections to:

"follow this strategy for a period of a month/three months/six months (your desired period)."

"Re-appraise with an objective viewpoint (inject details of your cooperate and defect and the other players cooperate and defect moves into an AI model could be a way that helps pattern-recognition)."
Note: could also be a trained individual therapist) - BS has free choice.

And as I said: Leaving the game is, of course, always an option for both participants.

Part of being g in limbo is the betrayed spouse is trying to figure out if the wayward spouse is making enough changes to be worth reconciling with.

Game theory doesn't tell you what you should want. It models strategic choices and their outcomes according to specified preferences, incentives, and payoffs.

If the objective is to preserve the marriage, then behaviors that increase cooperation, reduce hostility, and rebuild closeness might be successful strategies. But suppose the betrayed spouse's objective is to determine whether the wayward spouse is genuinely committed to repairing the damage, and to leave if they aren't?

Those are different objectives.

A betrayed spouse might deliberately stop compensating for the wayward partner's passivity, not because they want to punish them, but because they need to see what the other person will do independently. If they start supplying all the affection, reassurance, and initiative, they might make the relationship more pleasant while making that particular question harder to answer.

Or suppose the betrayed spouse discovers that the wayward partner is willing to participate in a pleasant relationship but unwilling to confront the difficult consequences of the affair. Separation might then be the outcome that best serves the betrayed spouse's interests. In that situation, a strategy that successfully preserves the marriage could actually fail the betrayed spouse.

You do acknowledge that leaving is an option. But merely acknowledging that option doesn't solve the problem. Your proposed framework still seems to evaluate the experiment primarily through improved cooperation, reduced nervous-system activation, and progress toward a better relationship.

Those may be valuable outcomes. They aren't equivalent to establishing that reconciliation is desirable or that the wayward spouse is doing enough to merit it.

The trouble is that sometimes 'winning' requires 'shifting'. If one wants to R, cooperating is the winning move as long as one receives cooperation in return.

But non-cooperation (however the BS defines it) is important info - if the WS keeps not cooperating, the BS is almost always going to be better off taking the non-cooperation as a sign that R won't work.

Personally, I think the BS's best bet is total honesty if R is a possibility. IMO, if the BS wants R, the BS's best bet is to say so clearly, and probably more than once. Bigger's sandwich statement is a good one - 'I want to R, but that means not sharing you.'

IMO that means asking the questions that are aimed at surfacing deal killers, too. For me, those were:

Do you love me?
Are you in love with me? (I wish I had asked, 'do you desire me?')
Will you be with me and me alone for the rest of your life?

(I got 3 yeses. I don't know - and I have no way of knowing - what 'no' or 'maybe answers would have done, though I'm pretty sure a 'no' would have sent me to a lawyer.)

IOW, as DRS states somewhere, boundaries make the difference between R as an active or passive pursuit.

*****

I distinguish between 'limbo' and 'uncertain'. If I hadn't asked those questions, though, I might still be limboed, afraid about our M. As it is, I'm still uncertain. Maybe my W fooled me.... I've chosen to be certain that I made the right choice, though.

If R is on the table, at least a couple of years of uncertainty is part of the process.

In fact, uncertainty is an integral part of life at least as long as one lives ('at least' because I, for one, don't know if there's an after-life or what an after-life will be).

Uncertainty may feel limbo-like, but I feelings sometimes misinterpret what's happening. Sometimes on can't know a result for much longer than one wants to wait.

(IMO, the POLF (Plain Of Lethal Flatness) can be uncertainty, but it can also be not being ready to accept the reality that R isn't working.)