Social Identities of WS versus OW – A match made in hell

[Brokenlady]

I've been reading up on various social identity theories and it’s been helping me make some sense of how xDM was able to compartmentalize and put some of his words and actions into perspective. It turns out that there are people classified as high self-monitors, who are able to change their personalities to fit a situation easily, like social chameleons, if you will. Politicians, actors, and trials lawyers are among the best at doing this kind of thing – an effective way to control the impressions of themselves that they convey to others. These skills can be used for deceptive and manipulative purposes, or just to promote smooth social interactions, key ingredients for WS in an affair. Yet, these individuals prefer to live in a stable and predictable social environment populated by people whose actions consistently and accurately reflect their attitudes and feelings, and are especially fond of those who avoid strategic posturing (low self-monitors). The cost of being a high self-monitor, it is said, “is that their words and deeds reveal precious little information about their true inner feelings and attitudes.”

 

Meanwhile, low self-monitoring individuals “strive for congruence between who they are and what they do and regard their actions as faithful reflections of how they feel and think.”

 

Based on the OW posts here, it sound like OW tend to be the low-self-monitors, which may explain why we have such a hard time understanding WS whose words and behaviors don’t match their supposed feelings.

 

The bolded part is what I find particularly interesting. It would suggest that WS's choice either to stay in the M or leave it is likely to be based on trying to "look good" to those important to them, and may bear little resemblance to their true desires feelings. What do you guys think

[Spark1111]

Interesting post, BL.

 

I do think people who enjoy a high-degree of career success must be somewhat chameleon like to succeed.

 

And certainly in today's climate, a happy family life is used as a guideline for emotional stability -- another important factor in the corporate and career world....stability.

 

I have always been intrigued by a person's ability to compartmentalize, especially during an affair.

 

My WS's first words after DDAy was: "Please don't tell anyone about it."

 

Since I had thrown him out and had at that point intended to divorce him, I did tell family and friends. Not all. Strange to think in retrospect, I knew he would ALWAYS be the father of my children, and I did not want them hurt by salacious gossip.

 

One of the hardest things for me personally to understand IS that ability to compartmentalize so easily.....

Because if it happened once, it may happen again.

[Brokenlady]

One of the hardest things for me personally to understand IS that ability to compartmentalize so easily.....

 

Because if it happened once, it may happen again.

 

Well that's the thing - for someone who has shown the ability to cover up their real thoughts and feelings, it is as second nature to them as breathing. How does one ever know if you're getting the authentic "real deal" with these people?

 

It also seems like the BS's (as well as the OW's here) also tend to be more of the low-self monitoring variety.

[2sure]

That was truly, an amazing and spot on description of both my H and myself. Almost as though all of the descriptions I have been trying to reconcile in my head, or define, or explain all this time...

 

To a freaking T.

 

One thing interesting to me personally -

 

My H has always said that he admires my emotional honesty. That I am one of the most emotionally honest people he has ever met. I dont know about that really - but compared to him, yeah.

 

Also, when I was OW , I definitely was very high self monitoring. In those relationships it was important for me to be , basically, whoever they needed me to be.

 

But when I married, I did it because I could be myself. So, my role and my actions were low monitoring. Emotionally honest.

 

Sometimes I feel like am the OW in my own life.

[angie2443]

Meanwhile, low self-monitoring individuals “strive for congruence between who they are and what they do and regard their actions as faithful reflections of how they feel and think.”

 

 

In my experience and observation, the healthiest relationships include, among other things, two partners who "strive for congruence between who they are and what they do". If I ever ended up single again, I would not touch one of the high self-montering people with a ten foot pole.

[Brokenlady]

If anyone is curious, the quiz developed by psychologist Mark Snyder to determine if you are high or low self-monitoring is here: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~ckb/SELFMON2.html

[Spark1111]

That was truly, an amazing and spot on description of both my H and myself. Almost as though all of the descriptions I have been trying to reconcile in my head, or define, or explain all this time...

 

To a freaking T.

 

One thing interesting to me personally -

 

My H has always said that he admires my emotional honesty. That I am one of the most emotionally honest people he has ever met. I dont know about that really - but compared to him, yeah.

 

Also, when I was OW , I definitely was very high self monitoring. In those relationships it was important for me to be , basically, whoever they needed me to be.

 

But when I married, I did it because I could be myself. So, my role and my actions were low monitoring. Emotionally honest.

 

Sometimes I feel like am the OW in my own life.

 

hahaha! You still make me laugh!

 

I am low-monitoring, if that means emotionally honest, authentic to my own desires, trustworthy and living my life with common sense and integrity.

 

I am also kind and calm and reasonable, which I have come to realize in IC tends to attract high-monitors in all relationships...friends too.

 

I really can enjoy high-maintenance personalities, but compartmentalization is a whole other ball game to me, especially in an affair.

 

I can understand down-playing certain aspects of your personality if you are with a group of people and need to fit in in order to further your career, education, etc. I think we all do that to a degree.

 

But to totally bi-sect your life into two different compartments --married family life vrs. secret affair life, is just so hard for me to understand.

 

I mean, I get it emotionally. I just cannot figure out the total exhaustive effort of the logistics of it.

 

I mean, how do you get any work done, inside or outside the home? Truly? Maintain family, friend and holiday obligations? How effective could your work performance be in your home or office when your life is so compartmentalized? When you are obsessing about the next tryst?

[2sure]

I mean, I get it emotionally. I just cannot figure out the total exhaustive effort of the logistics of it.

 

I mean, how do you get any work done, inside or outside the home? Truly? Maintain family, friend and holiday obligations? How effective could your work performance be in your home or office when your life is so compartmentalized? When you are obsessing about the next tryst?

 

I might have a little insight to this.

Having previously "compartmentalized" my life when I was OW , I have to say that when my H cheated and tried to explain that his actions had nothing to do with me or our marriage....I was able to wrap my head around his feeling that way. In fact, my own familiarity with compartmentalizing helped me not take my H's betrayal ...as....personally.

 

Still, this separation ability. Its awful, I'm sorry I did it to myself as OW just because it really does create a disconnect within your own soul.

 

But..as to how one can do that, live with a bunch of different boxes. Its not hard really. When you leave one box , or part of your life, or person, or conversation...and enter another: The other one no longer exists except maybe peripherally.

[Brokenlady]

Spark,

These high-monitoring folks have been changing their colors so frequently for their whole life and are by now so adept at it that it really takes little effort. It would be exhausting for those of us who are more like low-monitoring, I think.

 

One other interesting thing that occurred to me, xDM's xW was absolutely a very high-monitoring individual. Since he is too, maybe that was part of their trouble - they were both constantly behaving falsely with each other, being decptive and manipulative. What a nightmare....life in a home like that is a constant play. No thank you.

 

I wonder if it's ever possible for a high and a low monitoring person to get along for the long term. I guess it depends on the high-monitor's willingness to be authentic at least sometimes, vulnerable and brutally honest. It just sucks when one feels constantly manipulated.

[White Flower]

I've been reading up on various social identity theories and it’s been helping me make some sense of how xDM was able to compartmentalize and put some of his words and actions into perspective. It turns out that there are people classified as high self-monitors, who are able to change their personalities to fit a situation easily, like social chameleons, if you will. Politicians, actors, and trials lawyers are among the best at doing this kind of thing – an effective way to control the impressions of themselves that they convey to others. These skills can be used for deceptive and manipulative purposes, or just to promote smooth social interactions, key ingredients for WS in an affair. Yet, these individuals prefer to live in a stable and predictable social environment populated by people whose actions consistently and accurately reflect their attitudes and feelings, and are especially fond of those who avoid strategic posturing (low self-monitors). The cost of being a high self-monitor, it is said, “is that their words and deeds reveal precious little information about their true inner feelings and attitudes.”

 

Meanwhile, low self-monitoring individuals “strive for congruence between who they are and what they do and regard their actions as faithful reflections of how they feel and think.”

 

Based on the OW posts here, it sound like OW tend to be the low-self-monitors, which may explain why we have such a hard time understanding WS whose words and behaviors don’t match their supposed feelings.

 

The bolded part is what I find particularly interesting. It would suggest that WS's choice either to stay in the M or leave it is likely to be based on trying to "look good" to those important to them, and may bear little resemblance to their true desires feelings. What do you guys think

I feel as though I could have written this book myself. I used to say that MM 'profiled' people, mainly his W and his other OWs. I think I may have been the one to keep him on his toes.

 

I often noticed that he relied on his W to be a certain way, have certain attitudes, and act in reliable manners so that he could manuever around them. I might have made a comment such as, 'Won't your W show up at this event and spy on you?' and he would say, 'No, she won't dare, she hates to drive in the rain'. He relied on her well known low-self monitoring standards so that he could carry out his high ones.

 

Very interesting topic BL.

[White Flower]

Spark,

These high-monitoring folks have been changing their colors so frequently for their whole life and are by now so adept at it that it really takes little effort. It would be exhausting for those of us who are more like low-monitoring, I think.

 

One other interesting thing that occurred to me, xDM's xW was absolutely a very high-monitoring individual. Since he is too, maybe that was part of their trouble - they were both constantly behaving falsely with each other, being decptive and manipulative. What a nightmare....life in a home like that is a constant play. No thank you.

 

I wonder if it's ever possible for a high and a low monitoring person to get along for the long term. I guess it depends on the high-monitor's willingness to be authentic at least sometimes, vulnerable and brutally honest. It just sucks when one feels constantly manipulated.

I think that is part of the attraction to a low-self monitor type by those of the high type. I posted often in the past that OW's personalities were 'real' to the MM; that the MM didn't understand it but was highly attracted to it. I didn't know there was a genre or category but it makes sense now.

 

Often they realize they can manipulate them but sometimes if not rarely they want to become like them. Hopefully, with age, time, and experience, one can transition over in their mature years to either be or at least see the value of both types.

[ladydesigner]

I think that is part of the attraction to a low-self monitor type by those of the high type. I posted often in the past that OW's personalities were 'real' to the MM; that the MM didn't understand it but was highly attracted to it. I didn't know there was a genre or category but it makes sense now.

 

Often they realize they can manipulate them but sometimes if not rarely they want to become like them. Hopefully, with age, time, and experience, one can transition over in their mature years to either be or at least see the value of both types.

 

This is excellent food for thought.

 

Do you think it is at all possible to be both because in my marriage I feel like the low-self monitor yet in my A I was the high-self monitor.

[KikiW]

I have to say I think this is one of the most interesting threads I've read. Nice job

[Brokenlady]

It also turns out that" high self-monitors have difficulty sustaining long term relationships and are more prone to divorce"

 

And even more "Wow" is this: " self-monitoring may cause an individual to form superficial relationships that are easily replaceable. Not surprisingly, high self-monitors are more likely than low self-monitors to leave their dating partners in favor of another person, to have dated a larger number of people, to have sex without commitment (Snyder, Simpson, & Gangestad, 1986) and, regardless of relational length, are more likely to have dating relationships of lower levels of intimacy and trust (Snyder & Simpson, 1984). Unfortunately, research does not adequately inform why self-monitoring leads to relationships of lower quality. We suspect that this may result from the communication skills associated with self-monitoring.

 

For more: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-172685200/dark-side-self-monitoring.html

[White Flower]

This is excellent food for thought.

 

Do you think it is at all possible to be both because in my marriage I feel like the low-self monitor yet in my A I was the high-self monitor.

Like Spark1111 said we all have the ability to be what we want or need to be in any given situation. My poly-sci professor told us 'politics is everywhere', meaning we all make choices to behave in a certain manner in order to get what we want.

 

For most of us it is just easier to be low-self monitoring because sheer honesty doesn't have to be made up or planned. I suppose it is all about planning.

 

Further, Dr. John Gray (Mars and Venus fame) says that as we age we tend to become more like our opposites. Men get in touch with their feminine side and women get in touch with a more masculine side. (No, that doesn't mean we become more manyly!) So yes, I do believe it is possible to morph into something 'more' or different as we age. It's just the aging process really. We don't have to lose who we are because we are just becoming fuller beings, deeper souls. It doesn't make the high-self monitor a bad person even if he/she used that characteristic to do bad things at one time or another in his/her life.

[OWoman]

It also turns out that" high self-monitors have difficulty sustaining long term relationships and are more prone to divorce"

 

And even more "Wow" is this: " self-monitoring may cause an individual to form superficial relationships that are easily replaceable. Not surprisingly, high self-monitors are more likely than low self-monitors to leave their dating partners in favor of another person, to have dated a larger number of people, to have sex without commitment (Snyder, Simpson, & Gangestad, 1986) and, regardless of relational length, are more likely to have dating relationships of lower levels of intimacy and trust (Snyder & Simpson, 1984).

 

I'm a high self-monitor, and it's not all doom and gloom. Yes, the description above of my love life is pretty accurate, but on the plus side, self-monitoring is what enables someone to be adaptable to different situations, to be a better manager (since you can adapt your management style to the people / person in question, rather than being a one-trick pony) and to be sensitive to others rather than just pushing ahead with your own agenda. Perceptiveness, accurate reading of social situations and "EQ" are all functions of self-monitoring. Someone who is low self-monitoring may be consistent, congruent with their values and "true to themselves" irrespective of situation, but they can also be impervious to the needs or feelings of others, blunt to the point of rudeness, unable to adapt to changing or complex situations, resistant to change and self-absorbed.

 

Neither is "better". It's all about balance.

[Brokenlady]

 

Neither is "better". It's all about balance.

 

I suspect it's a continuum, rather than a set of two alternatives. Still, if given the choice, I'd rather be with someone who is genuine and less socially agile than someone whose hidden agenda is always lurking.

[OWoman]

I suspect it's a continuum, rather than a set of two alternatives. Still, if given the choice, I'd rather be with someone who is genuine and less socially agile than someone whose hidden agenda is always lurking.

 

Depending on where on the scale they sat - if it was someone who was blunt, always spoke their mind (eg, told your mother they thought her new hairstyle was ugly when she asked what they thought) and always owned up to eating the last cookie, perhaps; if it was someone who started whistling during a funeral because the light through the stained glass windows made them feel happy, or who micromanaged everything around the house because that was how they liked to be treated, or who came unravelled if you suggested shopping on sunday rather than saturday, I'd far rather have the high self-monitoring person.

 

In a R, I think it's important that both parties are tuned in to each other. If one has a low EQ / is low self-monitoring and it becomes all about them, I'd want to run a mile I really think there does need to be balance.

[Spark1111]

Okay, so what if one learns early they do lack some EQ, and then becomes a high-self monitor to help open doors that would not really open for them?

 

They develop a self-serving, coping personna that helps them achieve their goals?

 

Now they APPEAR to be a high-self monitor, but it is a cover for their low self-esteem.

 

How authentic could that person truly be? In careers, relationships, etc.

[2sure]

As I said - when I was OW, I was very high monitoring. Comfortable with the compartments of my life and the various roles I played in them. And sure, as far as management, dealing with people, public speaking...that self monitoring is used successfully in those aspects of life. It made being an OW several times over easy for me, and admittedly financially beneficial as well.

 

BUT. When this ability to self monitor is used in your personal life, your relationships with those close to you: It is simply INSINCERITY.

 

I had come to realize this prior to remarrying and its the reason I stopped being OW, changed many things about my life, and remarried. I want to live my life sincerely. If not for those around me, then for myself.

 

There is a disingenuousness to self monitoring that perhaps cannot be seen by those practicing it or those not expecting it. But its there and has no place in personal relationships.

 

To be honest, this sincerity has not come as easily to me as I think it should. But I'm trying and its freeing and I like it. Maybe I was out of practice. But I wont accept less.

[2sure]

Okay, so what if one learns early they do lack some EQ, and then becomes a high-self monitor to help open doors that would not really open for them?

 

They develop a self-serving, coping personna that helps them achieve their goals?

 

Now they APPEAR to be a high-self monitor, but it is a cover for their low self-esteem.

 

How authentic could that person truly be? In careers, relationships, etc.

 

Wow! We were responding at the same time. We said the same thing, I just used too much thought.

[White Flower]

I'm a high self-monitor, and it's not all doom and gloom. Yes, the description above of my love life is pretty accurate, but on the plus side, self-monitoring is what enables someone to be adaptable to different situations, to be a better manager (since you can adapt your management style to the people / person in question, rather than being a one-trick pony) and to be sensitive to others rather than just pushing ahead with your own agenda. Perceptiveness, accurate reading of social situations and "EQ" are all functions of self-monitoring. Someone who is low self-monitoring may be consistent, congruent with their values and "true to themselves" irrespective of situation, but they can also be impervious to the needs or feelings of others, blunt to the point of rudeness, unable to adapt to changing or complex situations, resistant to change and self-absorbed.

 

Neither is "better". It's all about balance.

It is always nice to get a better definition than, 'we are all capable of both' like I said. Thanks OWoman!

[silverplanets]

I am, by nature, a very, very high self monitor. I say by nature, but it was also as a result of various conditioning that I was taken through whilst young.

 

The funny thing was, when I was with my OW I often had no need to self monitor - i just used to let myself be and react how I reacted, without pre-processing.

 

That's why, for me, it was one of the most unusual experiences of my life.

 

Go figure

[silverplanets]

If anyone is curious, the quiz developed by psychologist Mark Snyder to determine if you are high or low self-monitoring is here: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~ckb/SELFMON2.html

 

just did it ... 24 out of 25.

[OWoman]

BUT. When this ability to self monitor is used in your personal life, your relationships with those close to you: It is simply INSINCERITY.

 

 

OTC - "self-monitoring" does not equate with insincerity. It is about being aware of what is going on around one - the sensitivities of others, where they're at, and what behaviour would be appropriate in that context. It's not about coming over all fake UNLESS YOU CHOOSE TO ACT FAKE.

 

If you are not "self-monitoring" to at least some degree, you will come across as completely blunt, untuned in to anyone else but yourself, completely self-absorbed and uncaring of what anyone else thinks or feels.

 

Instead of demonising the extremes, it would be more helpful to recognise where - and to what extent - such attributes are useful OR NECESSARY in which situations. I'd hazard a guess that many of those slagging off "self-monitoring" would be horrified if someone brutally told someone else they looked ugly in new clothes, or that they'd put on way too much weight and had become sexually repulsive - behaviours consistent with low self-monitoring. MOST people recognise that tact and diplomacy in certain situations are necessary to sustain healthy social functioning. There is a huge difference between being a social fake and being a sophisticated, high EQ well-functioning person - which requires a reasonably high "self-monitoring" score.