[terrified_in_TN]

   I DO agreee with you TN it should be up to us how we digest it. Though to be honest I did gobble up Shock SIS post and ignored anyone that said anythinbg on the contrary to what I wanted to hear. But that was my fault and my decision.

Don't feel bad Father5.  I think its pretty normal and I believe many of us read more into something than was actually there, or got laser focused on information that aligned with our hopes in the beginning.

Again, I can't speak for LP, but I think maybe that is what she meant by as time progresses or views and opinions often change with regards to MLC.

-T

[Not Applicable]

So again here we are with NYM questions/thoughts.

If we take Acorn's stats as true, then for most people, the advice here on what will lead to reconciliation is irrelevant. No matter what one does, the chances are they aren't going to reconcile.

However, I still feel that those who reconcile still have certain characteristics in common. Those characteristics may be necessary for reconciliation to take place, but they are not a guarantee that it will take place.

I am going to quote RCR here and I know that I will probably get slapped down by someone for saying this. But this is something RCR once wrote. She actually emailed members to do a reconciliation survey. She found that every single reconciliation story involved a clinging boomerang. The numbers were still small. I am sure it was no more than a dozen, but still they all were of a single contact type.

That doesn't mean a clinging boomerang is a guarantee of reconciliation, but it suggests that any other type is going to have an even lower chance than a clinging boomerang.

Now it would be interesting to do a statistical analysis of contact types of MLCers to see the relative percentages of different types.

[Not Applicable]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here about the stats, from two angles.

1. Could it be those of us who are members of the forum actually are dealing with worse cases than average of MLCers, hence our need for the support and the lower reconciliation rates?
2. We are a select group who mostly want to keep our spouses. But could the rates of reconciliation actually be lower in the general population because if someone decides to dump their MLCer immediately and move on with their lives, they aren't going to bother to join a forum like this?

[Acorn]

If we take Acorn's stats as true,

Sorry, not my stats.  HS’s.  Therefore, RCR’s.   
I’m a stickler for accuracy. 

[Thunder]

Terrified my gosh, another great post.

I agree with two points.

"a select few posters just don't want that information posted.  The position seems to be that it is irreverent, and potentially harming to the message of the site"
Like OP says, Knowledge is Power.

"the information presented should not impact ones hope."

[Not Applicable]

I meant the stats calculated by Acorn.

[Not Applicable]

I have to admit I have always been very laser focused on reconciliation stories as opposed to the general advice given in the forum. Not for the hope, but to be honest, from a strategic perspective. These are people who clearly beat the odds, so is there something we can learn from them and only them?

[Acorn]

   I DO agreee with you TN it should be up to us how we digest it. Though to be honest I did gobble up Shock SIS post and ignored anyone that said anythinbg on the contrary to what I wanted to hear. But that was my fault and my decision.

((((HUGS))))))) Father5.  I understand your tears.  Been there...  In hindsight, those tears, for me, were the start of coming to grips with reality and walking forward bravely.  I hope it’s the same for you.

The above quote seems to indicate that you are truly waking up from LBS fog.
Wishing you nothing but the best.  Go forth and conquer your fears. 

[RedStar]

Shoot, LP, I counted wrong! 
Thank you for your insightful post. 

I am not a statistical researcher, but I wish someone on HS was, because I'm sure they could explain better that what is being counted is not a good correspondence to what you want to measure. It LOOKS relevant, but it really is not. I'm NOT saying that "there are more recons than what show up on HS." I'm saying that the numbers we see on HS simply do not correspond to any relative balance between recon and not.

‘It LOOKS relevant, but it really is not.’   To make this statement, you are sure to know what ‘really is’ relevant.  Could you please elaborate? 

‘The numbers ...... do not correspond to any relative balance between recon and not’.  To make this statement, you are sure to know what ‘relative balance between recon and not’ constitutes.   Could you please elaborate?

I am going to work on how to answer you better, Acorn, but...see, part of the problem when we try to estimate "odds" and use "information" that we have is that these ways of thinking are often based on logical fallacies. May I use your first response as an example of what I mean by that?

If I say that something is not a valid measurement, it does not actually follow, in fact, that I know what IS a valid measurement. Because there are more than two choices here. Yet most people are easily led to either/or thinking.

But as I said, I'll work on trying to explain what I mean by what is not relevant in HS numbers and then post that later. (To TNT: yes, it is a common approach. That doesn't mean, though, that it is accurate or...I don't want to sound patronizing about these things so I'm sorry if I do, but--I do a lot of delving into the "lenses" that people live by in general, of which the "MLC lens" is just one, and...well, it is hard to talk about all this because we all have a lot of lenses that we may not realize we are wearing. Including me, of course.)

What I'll say right now, which is a separate issue from looking for a way to calculate "odds," is sort of along the lines of what a few have said above--that it doesn't matter anyway what we estimate the "chances" of recon in general are. Because no matter how many others do whatever they do, it does not impact what happens in any *particular* situation at all. So someone taking "under 1%" as their "odds" when recon is what they want is also not helpful. (And I am using that "stat" as an example only. I maintain that we *can't* measure what so many would like to!) We do not have the ability to state what anyone's "odds" are.

The important thing, I think, is how we handle our own situations. To me, that is the purpose of this site--not the promotion of standing but how to handle ourselves and our lives to maximize living at our best.

We can certainly do things that reduce the likelihood of recon, but we learn that increasing that is less under our control. It's a very complicated issue, and the overwhelming complexity I see often keeps me from posting! LOL. It's keeping me right now from even knowing how to word my next sentence.

[terrified_in_TN]

No problem RedStar.  I do think ultimately this is just going to have to be one of those points that we agree to disagree on.  I DO think the calculations are relevant.  VERY relevant since they are recon calculations based on a site that was entirely geared for recon.  Do I think they are totally accurate?  No way.

-T