The Fog - APs take on it?

[eleanorrigby]

I would like the betrayed spouses and former waywards who find the fog to be an "excuse" or something to "cling to", to please, in the words of that urban poet with the confusing hair, Eminem, to please stand up.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

*stayingseated

 

Now that song is in my head.

[thomasb]

Eh - there was a specific article provided to discuss. I was hoping to get APs views on it - bc like I said, you few WS and the BSs here have made it abundantly clear that they believe in it. I know you believe in it (or say you do now at the minimum) - But I also know that it would never hold up in a court of law - never.

 

It's not scientific, it's not rational, it's not realistic - bc if it was - there would be no crimes ever. People would just accept that we all do things "out of character" and no punishment is needed - let's just hope that fog doesn't come back again, phew!

 

There's a big difference in looking back, in hindsight, and saying, "Man, I wish I would have handled that differently" or "wow, these consequences are tough, had I known then what I know now"... that's accepting that what you CHOSE was maybe not the "right" thing - or that you bargained more than you were willing to lose. That's just hindsight - not a freakin' fog of endorphins that renders you helpless and out of control.

 

Love to know who you are to discount what I say about my thoughts and actions during my affair. So now you know everything not only about how things are in your married mans marriage and mind without being there, but you know what I think, feel and know about my own situation. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. But you are wrong.

[Poppy fields]

I would like the betrayed spouses and former waywards who find the fog to be an "excuse" or something to "cling to", to please, in the words of that urban poet with the confusing hair, Eminem, to please stand up.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

*stayingseated

 

For me, it would be an excuse.

[Decorative]

For me, it would be an excuse.

 

I am sorry. I guess I don't understand your reply.

 

So you believe you were in a fog and it excuses your behavior ? Leaves you blameless ? Because that is what I am asking you to stand up for ( and it invalidates the majority of your posts on this thread).

 

Huh.

 

You are the first person I have ever "met" who sees it as an excuse that leaves them not culpable.

 

You should answer all of AR's questions then. LOL

Edited April 18, 2013 by Decorative

[Poppy fields]

I am sorry. I guess I don't understand your reply.

 

So you believe you were in a fog and it excuses your behavior ? Leaves you blameless ? Because that is what I am asking you to stand up for.

 

Huh.

 

You are the first person I have ever "met" who sees it as an excuse that leaves them not culpable.

 

You should answer all of AR's questions then. LOL

 

What? I guess I misunderstood the question. Sorry.

 

I was responding as a BS and a WW who thought that using the fog theory would be an excuse for my spouse's behavior, or my behavior, and not an accurate representation of what went on. I guess this week has been harder on my brain than I thought. lol

[Decorative]

What? I guess I misunderstood the question. Sorry.

 

I was responding as a BS and a WW who thought that using the fog theory would be an excuse for my spouse's behavior, or my behavior, and not an accurate representation of what went on. I guess this week has been harder on my brain than I thought. lol

 

LOL

 

It's okay. It's been a wild ride this week. LOL

[Decorative]

No, you don't know how they feel...you know how you felt/ feel....your feelings are you own, and they have validity to you...no one is disputing that....but to assume that every betrayed spouse went through the same thing or that you know how they feel is a fallacy

 

Exactly.

 

And again- no one has taken me up on my offer to validate what AR is saying.

 

No one has said it is an excuse.

[2sure]

I haven't heard of any WS who blames the affair fog for their actions.

I haven't heard any BS use the affair fog to excuse the behavior of a WS.

 

I hear it come into play all the time some time after DDay or after the A ends. By WS, by OW.

What was I thinking? I don't know what I was thinking!

 

I mean, a BS can hope their WS comes to their senses and ask if the affair fog is real. But more often than not its a term found in posts by fOW or FWS.

[AnotherRound]

By the same token, and with that same logic, could you also not agree that:

 

I'm not telling anyone that they don't feel what they say they feel, or think what they think - I'm simply saying, from my perspective, it APPEARS that they may not be able to see the situation subjectively (since they are smack dab in the middle of it, and they benefit from (not) believing in the fog).

 

As vehement as you are that BS's are deluded into believing in "the fog" because they benefit from it, could not OW/OM be EQUALLY as deluded for NOT believing in the fog because they benefit from it NOT being real?

 

No - because I think that the WSs benefit MORE from the BS believing it than the BS does. I think that this is something that WSs use to minimize their accountability in their own actions.

 

How do I benefit from it not being real???? It doesn't benefit me or negatively affect me in any way whatsoever. It is either real or it isn't - it's either proven (that like you said it's an actual physical phenomena) or it isn't. That's easily provable - so, if it's real, why isn't there any research on it? Where's the valid research to back it up? I find it hard to believe that it is proven and not out there and available.

 

I researched it in medical journals and academic journals - including the APA and the ACA database... nothing. It doesn't even get a hit - not one single one. Now, if I google it - I get hits galore - but ONLY on websites for marriage building stuff. These sites claim that it is a true phenomena, proven by science - but, no links and no research to back that up.

 

I KNOW that this is not a medical site - but I'm not sure that means people can just all willy nilly say something is scientifically true and proven and then get frustrated bc someone else disagrees. I mean - yeah, you can do that - but I can't let it fly - sorry. It is either proven or not proven. And, if it was a common term amongst the scientific community - I should get at least a couple of hits in peer reviewed journals - heck, I'd even settle for one!

[AnotherRound]

Maybe you could provide some brain scans or some other peer reviewed, scientific evidence that proves BSs and WSs feel better when they use the term "fog"

 

Because many people who have been in affair triangles are saying using the term "fog" doesn't help them feel better and DOES NOT excuse behavior in any way.

 

Even the article posted in the OP says fog is not an excuse.

 

So where is the peer reviewed evidence proving otherwise?

 

There isn't any peer reviewed science regarding "the fog" at all - bc it doesn't exist... lol. If it did, there would be SOMETHING on it somewhere - and no, marriage building sites don't count - and that's the only place I'm finding it.

 

People can claim all kinds of things - like that they weren't "in their right mind" when making decisions that hurt their spouse - does not make it true. Prisons are FILLED with innocent people, ya know?

 

There have been a few BS/WS here who said that "the fog" didn't benefit them - maybe it didn't - I remain skeptical. How would they know that it didn't benefit them if they never tried it the other way? You know, the WS just accepting that they acted like a crappy person, and the BS just accepting that their WS actively chose to hurt them? Did they try it both ways and neither felt better ? Did they try it both ways and one felt better than the other? And - if that's the gauge - well, that doesn't make it "true" scientifically - like some have claimed that it is (an actual brain activity) - it just means that they believe it.

[IfWishesWereHorses]

How about changes during addiction, AR?

[AnotherRound]

Love to know who you are to discount what I say about my thoughts and actions during my affair. So now you know everything not only about how things are in your married mans marriage and mind without being there, but you know what I think, feel and know about my own situation. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. But you are wrong.

 

Well, I hadn't even thought about you personally - as I have no idea of your story - but okay. Who I am is someone that is telling you that you may believe whatever you want - of course, you don't need my permission for that - as I don't need yours. I sleep just fine at night.

 

If it doesn't apply to you - then what? It doesn't apply to anyone? Okay - duly noted. I don't even know if you were a WS or a BS... so, sorry, I didn't analyze your situation at all.

 

People think all kinds of things that are incorrect. For instance, some people believe that "the fog" is a scientific term that actually denotes a studied and proven phenomena in which some people are not themselves - but only when they are making decisions that hurt that person. ????

[AnotherRound]

No, you don't know how they feel...you know how you felt/ feel....your feelings are you own, and they have validity to you...no one is disputing that....but to assume that every betrayed spouse went through the same thing or that you know how they feel is a fallacy

 

I'm not assuming that everyone experienced the same thing. Nor, am I trying to tell anyone how they felt. I am simply pointing out that there is no "fog" scientifically. So, when someone chooses to use it to describe their spouse's wayward behavior - they are using a term that is not realistic, not true, not valid. They can do that of course - it's their right - but they maybe shouldn't try to act like it's a physical and scientifically proven thing that happens to people. If it was, and it did, there would be research on it - literature...

[AnotherRound]

How about changes during addiction, AR?

 

Clarify please.

[seren]

AR, are you specifically looking for research or theoretical discussion using the term Fog? I find psychological projection explains some of the elements of Fog. I have never heard H try to excuse the A by saying he didn't know what he was doing nor would I have accepted that, denial is pointless and has no place in reconciliation, although I am sure that many would find solace in not looking at what the A was. We can only go by what our WS tell us and what we see and experience from their actions. Much the same as the AP.

 

It is a shame that more WS aren't responding and not just those currently in an A, after all, that might be counterproductive when discussing fog or the concept of it.

[Decorative]

Try googling oxytocin and vasopressin instead of "the fog." Just because it has another name doesn't make it non-existant.

 

Exactly. Right.

[PhoenixRise]

There isn't any peer reviewed science regarding "the fog" at all - bc it doesn't exist... lol. If it did, there would be SOMETHING on it somewhere - and no, marriage building sites don't count - and that's the only place I'm finding it.

 

People can claim all kinds of things - like that they weren't "in their right mind" when making decisions that hurt their spouse - does not make it true. Prisons are FILLED with innocent people, ya know?

 

There have been a few BS/WS here who said that "the fog" didn't benefit them - maybe it didn't - I remain skeptical. How would they know that it didn't benefit them if they never tried it the other way? You know, the WS just accepting that they acted like a crappy person, and the BS just accepting that their WS actively chose to hurt them? Did they try it both ways and neither felt better ? Did they try it both ways and one felt better than the other? And - if that's the gauge - well, that doesn't make it "true" scientifically - like some have claimed that it is (an actual brain activity) - it just means that they believe it.

 

So you don't believe it because you haven't found anything about it in the kinds of sources you think credible.

 

And

 

You went to some un-credible source to copy and paste an article about fog that actually states the polar opposit of your premis that fog somehow is an excuse that relieves responsibility.

 

And

 

You completely dismiss the lived experience of people who are telling you that fog was not a feel better statement nor was it an acceptable excuse.

 

Did it ever occur to you that it is possible to both use fog as a descriptor AND hold someone completely responsible for their actions simultaneously? One does not have to negate the other.

 

Did it ever occur to you that your definition and understanding of what fog is has absolutely no similarity to the way BSs (the ones posting here at least) understand and use the term?

[AnotherRound]

Try googling oxytocin and vasopressin instead of "the fog." Just because it has another name doesn't make it non-existant.

 

I did. Nothing but marriage building sites - I used a lot of terms, not just "the fog"... I even tried Dissociative Disorders - none of them explain it either.

[eleanorrigby]

I did. Nothing but marriage building sites - I used a lot of terms, not just "the fog"... I even tried Dissociative Disorders - none of them explain it either.

 

I cannot stress enough — The Fog does not provide an excuse for the actions of the Wayward Spouse. However, it certainly does explain where some of the behaviour comes from and how it can manifest. If you read any of the works of Dr. Helen Fisher, you will gain a clearer understanding of the dynamics of the human mating system and how dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin can affect a person’s judgement and personality.

 

This is from the article you posted. What's your opinion on this part?

[AnotherRound]

So you don't believe it because you haven't found anything about it in the kinds of sources you think credible.

 

And

 

You went to some un-credible source to copy and paste an article about fog that actually states the polar opposit of your premis that fog somehow is an excuse that relieves responsibility.

 

And

 

You completely dismiss the lived experience of people who are telling you that fog was not a feel better statement nor was it an acceptable excuse.

 

Did it ever occur to you that it is possible to both use fog as a descriptor AND hold someone completely responsible for their actions simultaneously? One does not have to negate the other.

 

Did it ever occur to you that your definition and understanding of what fog is has absolutely no similarity to the way BSs (the ones posting here at least) understand and use the term?

 

It's not a matter of the definition at this point - it's a matter of people claiming it to be a real physiological thing when it isn't. They can call their WSs cheating on them whatever they want -but it still boils down to nothing more than someone making choices and disregarding the hurt that someone else would feel.

 

I'm not dismissing anything other than the fact that this is not a true and scientific thing. It just isn't. There is no "fog" that takes over people and allows them to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do - they do things that are within their character to do - bc they choose to. We ALL have that inside of us - that ability to do bad things.

 

And the article was a beginning point for discussion. It's from a marriage building site bc I cannot find ANYTHING on any other type of sites at all (not academic, not scientific, none...).

[PhoenixRise]

It's not a matter of the definition at this point - it's a matter of people claiming it to be a real physiological thing when it isn't. They can call their WSs cheating on them whatever they want -but it still boils down to nothing more than someone making choices and disregarding the hurt that someone else would feel.

 

I'm not dismissing anything other than the fact that this is not a true and scientific thing. It just isn't. There is no "fog" that takes over people and allows them to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do - they do things that are within their character to do - bc they choose to. We ALL have that inside of us - that ability to do bad things.

 

And the article was a beginning point for discussion. It's from a marriage building site bc I cannot find ANYTHING on any other type of sites at all (not academic, not scientific, none...).

 

No one has said a WS was "taken over" by anything. This is why definition and meaning in usage matter. You are using the term in a way that most BEs don't.

 

And

 

Right now scientist are using the Hadrian Collider to study something people are calling the "god particle". Up til now there has been no evidence that it existed.

 

Luckily scientist dont take lack of evidence as definitive proof that something absolutely doesn't exist. In my experience, only people with an axe to grind do that.

[Decorative]

AR-

Helen Fisher is a biological anthropologist.

 

She has, as have others, done research into this area.

 

It's been pointed out multiple times in this thread.

 

You may want to start there.

 

She lives for research and data.

 

Her TED talks are fascinating.

 

So are her books.

 

And papers.

 

She's a well respected and reviewed scientist. She explains the chemical guts of love and attraction.

 

Instead of pretending this stuff isn't real- maybe start reading it. And watching it. And listening to it.

 

It's hard to take this thread seriously at this point. We have one poster complaining that people are saying the grass is purple with polka dots, and criticizing that view.

 

But everyone else is saying the grass is green.

 

It's a strawman, taken to an extreme.

 

It would be nice if it would stop.

[seren]

AR, my H had an affair when experiencing combat stress and PTSD, neither of which is an excuse for his A, but maybe the reason he went down that road. I went with him to all the psychologists, the testing, the process to help him rebuild the man he had been before trauma, which I could have told them was damn impossible as he would always be scarred by his experience. When the sessions discussed his coping mechanism, his A was brought up, he struggled for ages to describe how he felt at that time - he called it, 'The time I felt I had my head up my arse and couldn't see or think clearly'. Not my words, his. The psychologist went on to use words to try to understand what he meant, eventually he came up with walking and living in a fog, H all but jumped out of the chair to agree. I admit to sitting shaking my head and thinking Fog? WTF sort of reason is that.

 

When having (many moons ago) theoretical discussions to, not explain behaviour more to understand it, many different terms, explanations, are used to basically say the same thing. I think this is maybe where it all comes unstuck, I used to use real life scenarios for my students to explain Systems Theory, Networking, Jarkata, Maslow and his pretty coloured pyramid. Most who ran for the hills when Theory was trundled out could see what it meant when broken down into real life discussion. hence most psychology courses starting with the task to looking at your own life experiences and applying theory to explain process.

 

I am always reminded that my preference when compiling research is that I always leaned more to qualatitive data than the cold, hard world of numbers. What qualatative data told me had far more resonance than any percentages as it meant real people, real situations. Although I get the need for published data.

 

I know that the thng I use in crafting is called a hemostat, I know what it does, but for me it will always be called the turning thingy, my crafting pals and my H knows what that is, to my surgical friend it is and always will be a hemostat. Same tool, different name, different task, but I'll bet if and when he does crafting he will call a hemostat a turning thingy.

 

Maybe you could conduct a research study, there are plenty of IRL people here to contribute, or maybe not. Sometimes it matters not what we call something, just how it works for us (general).

[MissBee]

This is from the article you posted. What's your opinion on this part?

 

I cannot stress enough — The Fog does not provide an excuse for the actions of the Wayward Spouse. However, it certainly does explain where some of the behaviour comes from and how it can manifest. If you read any of the works of Dr. Helen Fisher, you will gain a clearer understanding of the dynamics of the human mating system and how dopamine, oxytocin, and vasopressin can affect a person’s judgement and personality.

 

Thanks for highlighting this.

 

That was what I was getting at in my initial post. Which was removed for quote violations, but here goes again:

 

Here's the explanation for brain chemicals in love.

 

Brain in Love, Brain Chemicals, Brain Science - Posit Science

 

Fisher has scanned the brains of young paramours and found that when they're focusing on the object of their affection, a whole host of brain parts start lighting up. One of the two most important regions was initially a little surprising to Dr. Fisher. First, she found that the caudate nucleus—part of the primitive reptilian brain—is highly active in these amorous individuals. As expected, she also saw the brain areas associated with dopamine and norepinephrine production light up. Both are brain chemicals associated with pleasurable activities and excitement.

Fisher puts it best when she says, "No wonder lovers talk all night or walk till dawn, write extravagant poetry and self-revealing e-mails, cross continents or oceans to hug for just a weekend, change jobs or lifestyles, even die for one another. Drenched in chemicals that bestow focus, stamina and vigor, and driven by the motivating engine of the brain, lovers succumb to a Herculean courting urge."

 

Fisher also notes that other parts of the reward system, like the one that activates when you're eating chocolate, plays a role during this phase of love. She supports the hypothesis that like chocolate, being head over heels in love is addictive. Of course, dopamine is what gets released when you take a hit of cocaine, too—so it's not surprising that other research suggests that for the brain, a bad break up is like kicking a drug habit.

 

 

I imagine the fog is the same thing but coupled with other processes and conflicts because it is an affair and not simply the regular falling inlove with no barriers. In short, every feeling is associated with a chemical process, so fog, even if not currently researched specifically, isn't arising out of thin air, but might simply be the same process our brain experiences when in love but is seen as more insane because of the double nature of one's life and the extent some have to go to preserve it. No matter what name it's given...it has a neuroscientific explanation, so long as we experience it. Every emotion is linked to brain processes.

 

Poets, musicians, everyday people have long understood that the brain in love, even if that love is short-lived, can be a bit crazy. Scientists have discovered a person in love has a brain hopped up on chemicals and will seem to do anything for that love object/feeling, that when they are no longer in love, they're like wtf??? Why???. It's how it is for everyone. The affair fog from what I can intelligently deduce is a variation of this normal process but because there is a spouse and a double life, unlike with single people, this snapping out of it often gets aided by a dday, or they have been living in compartments anyway and the constrains often produce an even heightened sense of the crazy already in existence with lovers. And again, I think who determines this is the BS witnessing their spouses behaviors and explanations as well as the WS themselves...not the AP.

[jlola]

It's not a matter of the definition at this point - it's a matter of people claiming it to be a real physiological thing when it isn't. They can call their WSs cheating on them whatever they want -but it still boils down to nothing more than someone making choices and disregarding the hurt that someone else would feel.

 

I'm not dismissing anything other than the fact that this is not a true and scientific thing. It just isn't. There is no "fog" that takes over people and allows them to do things that they wouldn't otherwise do - they do things that are within their character to do - bc they choose to. We ALL have that inside of us - that ability to do bad things.

 

And the article was a beginning point for discussion. It's from a marriage building site bc I cannot find ANYTHING on any other type of sites at all (not academic, not scientific, none...).

 

Ar,

 

I wrote earlier about a friend who does absolutely to reading at all. Well, unless it pertains to business.

 

Witout doing any reasearch he described his affair as "temporary insanity" "said he sees clearly now what he could "not see",says he was in a "depressive time of his life" and has said he Never wants to go there again. He also said the MOW made him feel good and now he sees the qualities she had were made up in his head,partly because he did not see her enough .

 

This is a pretty close description of "fog" from someone who literally is clueless when it comes to anything psychological.