Original link: https://onojyun.com/2022/09/13/7036/
△ 256｜When is cheating most likely to happen?
I observed an interesting phenomenon, but there is no exact data basis for this phenomenon, so there is no way to say how big the “probability of it happening” can be.
As the title says, the interesting phenomenon observed in this study is “when is cheating most likely to happen”. However, the research on this phenomenon itself has no effect on social development. It even aggravates the contradiction and rift between the two people in the relationship. It itself is the same as the “emotional test question” . The other party gave the “bad” answer. Does it mean that the other party will definitely betray their feelings? But if the other party passes all the emotional test questions, will he never cheat again?
To reiterate the “core principle” of this blog: the more indecent the title, the more serious I’m going to be talking about.
@Leslie Molina
Regarding “when is cheating most likely to happen”, in the limited sample, I found an interesting common ground.
You can now create a new webpage with the Google keyword “Cheat that night”, and you will find that the “Night” node is so magical. Whether it’s the night the wife gave birth, the night of the wedding, or the night the two were reconciled, etc.
I have seen many actual cases. After two people have a big fight, women prefer to seek comfort by cheating, but when two people quarrel and make up, men are more likely to cheat at this stage. The former is easy to understand, because the fastest and most effective way to heal the relationship is to find another relationship to make up for the pain caused by the relationship, especially when the person himself has a “target” in his emotional life. , no matter what your other half does, you can use another target person to judge whether your other half is doing well or not. The more stark the contrast, the more the client fantasizes that he can repair his hurt by getting the other side’s feelings.
The latter is more difficult to understand. For example, on the night of the wife giving birth, the husband cheated on his first love – I can probably simulate the inner thoughts of these scumbags – I will be a father tomorrow, and I have to talk to my past. severing ties and having a blast is the best way to cut yourself off from your first love; or, i’m going from husband to dad tomorrow, so i need to grow up tonight, so i’m going to give myself another go A “single night”, in this way, can prove one’s sense of responsibility.
For example, in an outrageous real case, a couple went downstairs to have a barbecue, and the boyfriend was arrested for visiting a prostitute while he was going to buy cigarettes on the pretext. Before the girlfriend went to the police station, she had been wondering if the police had arrested the wrong person-because the two of them decided to go downstairs for a barbecue after a fight and reconciled.
Of course, we are not here to discuss the “reasons for cheating” today, because people who cheat will not admit it, and the reasons that can lead to cheating can be redefined through self-persuasion or sophistry. It’s just that I found an interesting commonality from many samples: many people’s derailment happens when the relationship between two people enters the next “stage”, such as the woman is pregnant or giving birth, or has a big fight. The moment two people after a fight get back together, or the moment when a long-standing stress is resolved, etc. This “stage” is not only a change in the relationship between two people, but also a change in a person’s psychological or physiological state.
I mentioned at the beginning that this “research” has no practical significance for society itself, because we should not stop the relationship between two people from changing, or the concept of a person’s psychology and physiology in order to prevent each other from cheating. What’s more sad is that even if these things are really stopped, will the derailment go away? Of course not, and even they will advance to more reasons and methods.
The reason why I emphasize that this kind of “research” is useless, let’s look at the most direct example.
After Li Yifeng was arrested for visiting prostitutes, some people put forward a very “logical” conclusion and guessed that the phenomenon was reversed : God, male stars are all prostitutes, Li Yundi and Li Yifeng. What about ordinary men?
Anyone who knows a little bit of logic knows that this kind of logical thinking is a typical “slippery slope fallacy” + “rash generalization” , that is, A causes B, B causes C, and C causes D. There is a probability between them, but the landslide occurs. The fallacy omits all probability conversions in the middle, does not consider the strength of causality, believes that as long as A will definitely lead to D, and at the same time “rash generalization” covers a man’s derailment to all men. So this set of “boxing” shocked many people: Yes! All male stars have cheated, so ordinary men have cheated 800 times!
When a special sample is discussed without probability and causal strength, it will inevitably enter the vicious circle of the slippery slope fallacy-men are prone to cheating during pregnancy on the female side. Of course, the samples that people are staring at can be used to support this conclusion. It is inevitable that a man cheats while the woman is pregnant. In the same way, the “pregnancy period of the female side” is abstracted, that is, during certain “specific periods”, such as when both parties cannot have sexual relations, or when women are hysterical during pregnancy, men are more likely to cheat— -Look, this is the consequence of unprovoked “fisting”, because according to the slippery slope theory to explain this abstract possibility, the reason for the man’s derailment seems to be thrown back to the woman herself, because the woman cannot provide “sexual function services” ”, or because women have lost control of their emotions because of pregnancy, so men choose to avoid cheating.
Therefore, according to the conclusion of this “research”, sooner or later, an out-of-control gender war will be formed.
But aside from the commonly used slippery slope fallacy, if someone told you that “the two partners are most likely to cheat at the moment when the relationship has entered a new stage”, you certainly won’t believe it, but you will be attracted by these samples. Because you get a conclusion, but this conclusion is much harder to prove that it does not exist than to prove that it exists.
A few days ago, I met a barman who didn’t allow others to recommend a product that he didn’t like because he himself encountered problems when using the product. So I asked him further, under what conditions did he think the problem came about, because I haven’t encountered it myself, so I can’t make an evaluation, and I need him to provide a way to reproduce before I can determine whether it’s true or not. A “problem has occurred”.
This is the method of “proving that the devil does not exist”. It is too difficult to prove that the devil does not exist, because as long as someone proves the existence of the devil, the conclusion that the devil does not exist is completely invalid, so proving the existence of the devil becomes a relatively “simple” ” thing. As a result, the person who did not allow others to recommend a certain product not only did not accept my affection, but also thought that my “questioning” was questioning the difficulties he encountered, and emphasized that “I encountered it, I did not need it. to prove to you.”
Look, now I have proposed a slightly provocative new topic: “Men are prone to cheating during the period from quarrel to reconciliation”, someone will definitely stand up to deny my conclusion, but I just take it There is a lot of evidence to prove that there are indeed some cases of men cheating when their wives are pregnant, giving birth, or even having a big fight and reconciling.
How can you refute me at this time?
(As a reminder, only magic can defeat magic.)
This article is reproduced from: https://onojyun.com/2022/09/13/7036/
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.