SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I have to agree with Dr on this one.

Just be careful not to do it too often

You could look at the problem of 'limbo' as a logic problem

You want to 'know' if your current strategy will have success, so apply Game Theory to it.

Example 1

Applying Win-Stay, Lose-Shift (WSLS), the strategy that ultimately proved most successful in evolving, long-term environments with mistakes:

Win-Stay, Lose-Shift (Pavlov) typically starts by cooperating on the very first move.

• If both players cooperated: You achieved a good outcome (Win).

Following the "Stay" rule, you cooperate again to maintain the peaceful, mutually beneficial relationship.

• If you defected and they cooperated: You achieved the highest possible payoff by exploiting them (Win).

Following the "Stay" rule, you defect again to keep taking advantage of their compliance.

• If you cooperated and they defected: You got exploited and received the worst possible payoff (Lose).

Following the "Shift" rule, you switch your play and defect next to punish them and protect yourself.

• If both players defected: You both ended up in a mutually destructive deadlock (Lose).

Following the "Shift" rule, you switch your play and cooperate next in an attempt to reset the relationship back to peace.

Example 2

Applying Generous Tit for Tat (GTFT) the most successful strategy in Robert Axelrod's original computer tournaments.

• The First Move: Like standard Tit for Tat, it always cooperates on the very first round.

• If the opponent cooperates: It always cooperates in the next round.

• If the opponent defects: Instead of automatically retaliating, it flips a metaphorical coin. It forgives the opponent and cooperates anyway with a specific probability (usually between 10% and 33% of the time). The rest of the time, it defects to punish them.

Treat each loving action I listed as a "cooperate" move.

In the place of 'punishing' make a successful repair a condition for continuing - ie when you defect, repair and when they defect, insist on repair

The background condition is that leaving the game is, of course, always an option for both participants.

Personally I would: inject lots of loving gestures, make honesty about hurt feelings (including those based on memories) and successful repairs with mutual accountability the golden rule and follow this strategy for a period of a month/three months/six months (your desired period).

Re-appraise with an objective viewpoint (inject details of your cooperate and defect and the other players cooperate and defect moves into an AI model could be a way that helps pattern-recognition).

Has your brain also been able to integrate the behavioural shifts in both participants and is your nervous system noticeably less frequently activated?

This way the 'choice' of limbo (which is really now a commitment to a good strategy) becomes an easier choice to make.

[This message edited by BoiledEggs at 10:23 AM, Sunday, October 18th]

What if the winning strategy for the betrayed spouse is ultimately separation because the wayward spouse doesn't try hard enough to get out of limbo and expects the betrayed to cater to them with hot drinks and foot rubs after devastating the marriage?

Pogres response is correct and to expand on it

@BoiledEggs
Appreciate the detailed reply, but applying game theory to betrayal recovery fundamentally misses the point, both logically and psychologically.

For starters, these models rely on two rational actors playing by the same rules. Infidelity is not a game of symmetrical choices. It is a unilateral breach of trust by someone who has already shown they will exploit the rules for asymmetric gain. Cheaters are not rational algorithm.

Leading with cooperation also reverses accountability. Asking a betrayed partner to start injecting loving gestures and warmth is not signalling goodwill, it is appeasement. It rewards bad behaviour upfront and signals that breaking trust carries no real cost to their daily comfort. Unearned warmth after a betrayal does not build trust, it enables entitlement.

Beyond that, forgiving defects just teaches them what they can get away with. In Generous Tit for Tat, forgiving defection a percentage of the time keeps the game moving. In a marriage post-infidelity, letting defects like lies or boundary crossing slide even occasionally is not preventing a deadlock, it is teaching a wayward partner how far they can push you.

Crucially, this entire framework implicitly assumes that keeping the game going and reaching reconciliation is the optimal outcome. Staying in the game is not automatically a win. Often, the most logical and healthy outcome is recognising the other player is unfit and walking away. Limbo does not exist because the betrayed partner lacks a clever strategy. It exists because they are evaluating whether the betrayer is even worth staying with in the first place.

You cannot spreadsheet or optimize your way out of trauma. Limbo ends when the person who broke the trust steps up and does the heavy lifting to rebuild it, or when the betrayed partner decides they have had enough and leaves.

I'm sorry, I suspect you mean well but this strategy appears to me to be an overcomplicated: roll over and show your belly. You've been abused and mistreat but just take it and be kind. I personally think that's dangerous.

Big agree with that, DRS.

Well, I was answering the subject matter :

Specifically limbo regarding the relationship between the BS and the WS not the individual healing of the BS or WS.

I would direct objections to:

"follow this strategy for a period of a month/three months/six months (your desired period)."

"Re-appraise with an objective viewpoint (inject details of your cooperate and defect and the other players cooperate and defect moves into an AI model could be a way that helps pattern-recognition)."
Note: could also be a trained individual therapist) - BS has free choice.

And as I said: Leaving the game is, of course, always an option for both participants.