donnamaybe Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Last time I checked (it was a while ago) it was possible to have more than one ID here on LS. However if one was "on moderation", using another ID to circumvent moderation was not permitted So if neither ES or OW (or any other ID used by the person behind these IDs) is/are currently on moderation it is perfectly acceptable for the poster behind these IDs to post using both. It's even allowable to have a conversation with oneself! As far as I know other LS posters can comment on this if they want, and even laugh about it privately. I'm happy to be corrected here, as I saw a reference to some recent changes to the TOS Is it okay to say if we do laugh about it... privately or otherwise? Link to post Share on other sites
SidLyon Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Is it okay to say if we do laugh about it... privately or otherwise? I don't know, maybe check the TOS. If the previous post doesn't get removed then it's probably OK. Link to post Share on other sites
SoMovinOn Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 But don't you think it would be a stretch to conclude that things that happen outside of an internet forum are drastically removed, generally speaking, from the stories told by those on this forum, statistically speaking? No. It would not be a stretch to conclude that in terms of statistical accuracy. Common sense. Common sense would tell you looking at a minute subset of a group, where that subset is made up of people who only fall into some very specific parameters (Internet access, post on an A related forum, have problems or conflicts related to the A...), cannot provide sufficient data on which to base any sound conclusions about the entire group. The additional problem with only looking at LS, or even internet forums as a whole, is you are not getting a statistically accurate random sample, even if you have sufficient numbers. Link to post Share on other sites
MissBee Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) No. It would not be a stretch to conclude that in terms of statistical accuracy. Common sense would tell you looking at a minute subset of a group, where that subset is made up of people who only fall into some very specific parameters (Internet access, post on an A related forum, have problems or conflicts related to the A...), cannot provide sufficient data on which to base any sound conclusions about the entire group. The additional problem with only looking at LS, or even internet forums as a whole, is you are not getting a statistically accurate random sample, even if you have sufficient numbers. So what is your hypothesis,or better prediction, about what accurate numbers would look like? Mine for example would be that the ratio of happy versus unhappy would be similar to what is observed on LS. Edited January 25, 2012 by MissBee Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Think I read somewhere that up to 40% of men and maybe 35%of women will be unfaithful during their marriages. Of course there are millions more who don't post here. People don't seem to come here until they run into some kind of conflict in their A relationship. There are other forums where they do post when they are at the stage of being satisfied in the A. They are very high statistics.. wonder how accurate that report was? Can't remember where I read it. GG My guess would be the area in which the survey is taken is a factor, sparsley populated areas would make a difference, age and many other things are major factors. The area in which I live, there are A LOT of affairs, so..... Link to post Share on other sites
donnamaybe Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 So what is your hypothesis,or better prediction, about what accurate numbers would look like? Mine for example would be that the ratio of happy versus unhappy would be similar to what is observed on LS. Makes sense unless one has an agenda. Taking the examples we have at face value and coming to a conclusion based on that would much more strongly indicate a lack of an agenda rather than looking at the examples shown here and adding, "but maybe..." or "what if..." because in those circumstances any ideas stemming from that would be mere conjecture and a biased one at that. Link to post Share on other sites
donnamaybe Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 No. It would not be a stretch to conclude that in terms of statistical accuracy.Well, according to most people posting in this thread, they feel LS represents a fair cross section of people who use the internet. Common sense would tell you looking at a minute subset of a group, where that subset is made up of people who only fall into some very specific parameters (Internet access, post on an A related forum, have problems or conflicts related to the A...), cannot provide sufficient data on which to base any sound conclusions about the entire group. The additional problem with only looking at LS, or even internet forums as a whole, is you are not getting a statistically accurate random sample, even if you have sufficient numbers.As I have pointed out time and time and time again, there ARE people posting in this forum who state very plainly that they DO NOT have "problems or conflicts related to the A." If one reads for actual content rather than reading for what they hope they might see they would glean ALL the information that LS has to offer. Link to post Share on other sites
SoMovinOn Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 So what is your hypothesis,or better prediction, about what accurate numbers would look like? Mine for example would be that the ratio of happy versus unhappy would be similar to what is observed on LS. I know statistics say 50% of all people in an M admit infidelity at some point in their M (which would include ONS). Since A's are secret, it is reasonable to presume some percentage of people don't admit to it. If that statistic is anywhere near accurate, it would indicate pretty much every M is touched by infidelity at some point. That being the case, with many millions of people involved in A's, I know a non-random sample of a couple of dozen can in now way provide an accurate picture. That's really the point of my comments. Link to post Share on other sites
SoMovinOn Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Makes sense unless one has an agenda. Taking the examples we have at face value and coming to a conclusion based on that would much more strongly indicate a lack of an agenda rather than looking at the examples shown here and adding, "but maybe..." or "what if..." because in those circumstances any ideas stemming from that would be mere conjecture and a biased one at that. I suppose that would make sense if one is satisfied with believing what they see is all there is to look at. What you suggest would be similar to walking outside ever day at noon and concluding it is always light out, since every time you look, it's light out. Anyone who claimed it gets dark at night, in this case, would be seen as having an agenda. As I've said, there is no statistically accurate validity to looking at a few dozen non-random samples and getting an accurate view of a group which consists of millions. Your insistence otherwise doesn't change that reality. Link to post Share on other sites
SoMovinOn Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Well, according to most people posting in this thread, they feel LS represents a fair cross section of people who use the internet. According to large groups of people, UFO's, ghosts, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and psychic ability are all real. Large groups of people believing something which cannot be proven, or which is wrong, doesn't not alter reality. As I have pointed out time and time and time again... 3 or 4 people as part of a non-random sample from a group of millions has no statistical significance. Link to post Share on other sites
frozensprouts Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 According to large groups of people, UFO's, ghosts, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and psychic ability are all real. Large groups of people believing something which cannot be proven, or which is wrong, doesn't not alter reality. 3 or 4 people as part of a non-random sample from a group of millions has no statistical significance. Personally, I think statistics really are, for the most part, a load of crud anyway, as they can be twisted and turned to show anything the person using them wants to show... But I can speak from my own experience, as well as the experiences of others that I have talked to, read about, read internet posts from, etc. Most will say that infidelity is hurtful. Maybe a few will say it didn't upset them or hurt them that their spouse cheated, but I have never personally come across that myself. about affairs being hurtful for the other man/woman...as I have never been one, I can't speak from personal experience, but based upon second hand information ( people telling me or reading their stories0 it does seem like there are more than a few other men/women who have been very hurt by their affair...does this mean that their stories ring true for all? Of course not...but it does lend credence to the idea that affairs CAN be very hurtful to SOME of the people involved in them...and ot does seem that this is more often the case than not Link to post Share on other sites
donnamaybe Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 According to large groups of people, UFO's, ghosts, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and psychic ability are all real. Large groups of people believing something which cannot be proven, or which is wrong, doesn't not alter reality. 3 or 4 people as part of a non-random sample from a group of millions has no statistical significance. 3 or 4? No, there are HUNDREDS of people on LS. Just because there are only a handful that don't have any problems with their A makes them a small number in comparison. That's the point you continue to miss, or perhaps choose to ignore. As for bigfoot, etc., do you REALLY have to be such a condescending you-know-what? I mean, seriously. Do you sit there and think up this stuff just to try to piss people off? Or are you saying A's are a figment of people's imaginations. Link to post Share on other sites
donnamaybe Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Personally, I think statistics really are, for the most part, a load of crud anyway, as they can be twisted and turned to show anything the person using them wants to show... But I can speak from my own experience, as well as the experiences of others that I have talked to, read about, read internet posts from, etc. Most will say that infidelity is hurtful. Maybe a few will say it didn't upset them or hurt them that their spouse cheated, but I have never personally come across that myself. about affairs being hurtful for the other man/woman...as I have never been one, I can't speak from personal experience, but based upon second hand information ( people telling me or reading their stories0 it does seem like there are more than a few other men/women who have been very hurt by their affair...does this mean that their stories ring true for all? Of course not...but it does lend credence to the idea that affairs CAN be very hurtful to SOME of the people involved in them...and ot does seem that this is more often the case than not And why is it, do you think, that despite all the evidence to the contrary someone would twist words and logic and insult folks in some kind of effort to deny this apparent truism? Link to post Share on other sites
frozensprouts Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 And why is it, do you think, that despite all the evidence to the contrary someone would twist words and logic and insult folks in some kind of effort to deny this apparent truism? maybe said person just likes to debate a point for the sake of debating it... if you were to tell them the sun was hot, they'd find 100 reasons to say that it wasn't i think they just enjoy debate Link to post Share on other sites
donnamaybe Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 maybe said person just likes to debate a point for the sake of debating it... if you were to tell them the sun was hot, they'd find 100 reasons to say that it wasn't i think they just enjoy debate Debate. Such a politically correct term. Link to post Share on other sites
MissBee Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I know statistics say 50% of all people in an M admit infidelity at some point in their M (which would include ONS). Since A's are secret, it is reasonable to presume some percentage of people don't admit to it. If that statistic is anywhere near accurate, it would indicate pretty much every M is touched by infidelity at some point. That being the case, with many millions of people involved in A's, I know a non-random sample of a couple of dozen can in now way provide an accurate picture. That's really the point of my comments. I'm not asking about the number of marriages touched by infidelity and the millions in As. In fact, with that information in place, I was asking about if you had to hypothesize about the ratio of said As that exist that are "happy/successful" and don't have similar outcomes to what is exhibited here on LS...what would your prediction be? In other words, of the people in North America, for example, who are in As, if you had to make an intelligent guess at the number that is happy/successful/works out to the APs' satisfaction, what would that ratio look like? Link to post Share on other sites
MissBee Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) According to large groups of people, UFO's, ghosts, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and psychic ability are all real. Large groups of people believing something which cannot be proven, or which is wrong, doesn't not alter reality. 3 or 4 people as part of a non-random sample from a group of millions has no statistical significance. If something cannot be proven, it cannot be disproved either. So one has to choose what to believe or what seems plausible in light of existing conditions...with room for changing one's mind as evidence presents itself. Thankfully As are social realities that aren't shrouded in great mystery and can be more accurately studied versus the metaphysical. But even if it were not, one has some opinion/hypothesis about these things that tells one's stance. God cannot be proven or disproved...some choose to be agnostic, some atheists and some believers. All have a stance on this yet -to-be-scientifically-validated being. Each group usually approaches the question of God in particular ways that belie their philosophies. Example, some atheists often pepper conversations about God with opposing arguments, a data set and an attitude that leans toward "disproving" or doubting any argument made in the affirmative. If a believer says yes, they have to say no. While neither they or believers can prove anything (scientifically that is)...both have their views and both will lean toward evidence and statement which support what they already believe. The agnostic may be more open to investigating without bias. Likewise this discussion boils down to: What conjecture does/can one make about As in the wider world with regards to their ratio of satisfactory vs. unsatisfactory ratings? I stated my hypothesis...it is not yet proven, as I haven't conducted or consulted prior research to see what exists...but unlike God, it is possible at least to get a tangible look. The conjecture one makes speaks to one's philosophy and even the refusal to have an hypothesis tells a tale as well. Most of us can read between the lines and in my field it is so important to look not only at what is said...but what is not said, skirted around etc. to glean insight. Does one refuse to make a guess, yet insist that no evidence can be found OR does one make a guess in light of the possibility that they may be wrong or right upon further investigation. One venture is more fruitful than the other. Edited January 25, 2012 by MissBee Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I know statistics say 50% of all people in an M admit infidelity at some point in their M (which would include ONS). Since A's are secret, it is reasonable to presume some percentage of people don't admit to it. If that statistic is anywhere near accurate, it would indicate pretty much every M is touched by infidelity at some point. That being the case, with many millions of people involved in A's, I know a non-random sample of a couple of dozen can in now way provide an accurate picture. That's really the point of my comments. Agreed that this is mostlikely this number is higher...in hearing many stats in all forms of info..such as preachers, news, media, etc...they say the divorce rate is half. Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Personally, I think statistics really are, for the most part, a load of crud anyway, as they can be twisted and turned to show anything the person using them wants to show... Some stats can be exaggerated...like if your doing a study because you want to sell a particular item, like drug companies, they could choose an area that is prone to what this drug fixes. There are certain stats that cannot be altered by a particular "want", like court, medical records, student apps, bankruptsy, etc. Concerning the number of affairs, personally I think it is higher than what people are willing to admit...like SMO said (paraphrase), how many will actually admit to it? The mantra with the people I worked with (and it was a lot) was, cop to nothing (and most didn't), and that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Growing up I saw a lot of affairs, at work I saw a whole lot of affairs, and I don't think my area is much different than any other. Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 LOL @ dishonest people in dishonest relationships (cheaters) arguing over how many cheaters (dishonest people) there are. SMH at the pure irony. Glinda, IMO, and it's not just those who have posted in this thread, it seems to be the general consensus of BS's and reformed that affairs aren't the norm, or they don't exist as much as they actually do. I have to wonder why, is it denial (this won't/couldn't happen to me)? Fear? Guilt from the exAP? Link to post Share on other sites
bentnotbroken Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 Affairs are more/less prevalent than some people believe. Depending on the region, the family values, the age of the participants, possibly income level. All these things may play a factor into what people believe the rate of cheating truly is, instead of denial, fear or guilt. As for cheating being rampant...doesn't make it a norm....just a sign of the things being more acceptable than they were in the past. Personally, I don't think cheating is any more prevalent than it has been since the beginning of time. I just think people "seem" to be more proud of it. Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I think people "seem" to be more afraid of it, and I don't understand why. Certainly economics and other things make a difference in stats, of which I communicated earlier in this thread. There also seems to be a demonisation of affairs, and those in them which makes no sense either. When we speak of morals, due to the fact we all have lied, we all have cheated, etc. Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 LOL, I understand liars and cheaters perfectly. I don't need you to explain it to me, thank you. This is an odd response concerning what you quoted me on. I wasn't "explaining" anything. I was actually asking a question, thank you. Link to post Share on other sites
bentnotbroken Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 I think people "seem" to be more afraid of it, and I don't understand why. Certainly economics and other things make a difference in stats, of which I communicated earlier in this thread. There also seems to be a demonisation of affairs, and those in them which makes no sense either. When we speak of morals, due to the fact we all have lied, we all have cheated, etc. Since the word "cheating" is what seems to be a hang-up(and we all haven't cheated), let's call it what the Word calls it "adultery". And I do believe there are people who have not participated. As far as demonization...I think that depends on what you use as a definition of "demon". Since most people involved in adultery are humans it is kind of hard to turn them demons. And I can't say I spoke of morals..since I believe that is another example of semantics used to halt conversation. What one values (in a lot of cases themselves and only themselves) seems to be more PC in the "real world" . Link to post Share on other sites
woinlove Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) I don't know about people seeming more afraid of it as I don't think wanting respect and integrity in one's partner means fear. I also don't know about demonizing it. Bringing disloyalty and selfish deception into one's marriage and family (if one has children) is bad behavior and probably shows that the cheater has work to do on him or herself. As to statistics, I think this NYT article discusses a lot of the relevant points, including the fact that statistics on infidelity can be exaggerated or underreported. The statistics considered most reliable settled in at about 22%, higher for men and lower for women, which seems in line with what we see here and on other forums - that affairs between older men and younger, single women are not uncommon. I don't know about the statistics, but I do know that I have never cheated on a partner/spouse (although interestingly, many studies ask if you have had sex outside your marriage, so I guess that would include open marriages in the "infidelity" statistics) and I am as certain as one can be that a number of people close to me have not cheated. I suspect that some (not all) of the BS who post here, as well as some of the former OW/OM, have not cheated either. Carrying on a secret R while trying to maintain a supposedly committed R through secrecy and deception, seems like an extremely unattractive lifestyle to me and I have no interest in sampling it. The more I read about infidelity, the more unattractive it appears to me. Being an OW, with hindsight and learning, doesn't seem like a very attractive role, but being a WS seems even less attractive. Edited January 25, 2012 by woinlove Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts