#61216 - love languages

[NerdGirl]

I tend to notice my love languages more when they're missing. For example, I had a bunch of non-physical roommates once. I really felt like I was starved of affection that year. It probably sounds crazy, but I kept a mental tally of how many hugs each roommate had given me. Those hugs meant a lot to me.

(And I'm not especially outgoing, so I usually don't initiate things like that. If they're not freely given to me, I just go without.)

Me too, all of the above.

[Katya]

As much as I want to be all judgy when it comes to Love Languages, I just can't be.

Why do you want to be "all judgy" of the Love Languages?

I have my disagreement with the book in reference . . .

What are your disagreements?

[Dead Cat]

My primary love languages are acts of service and words of affirmation.

As for the "True Color" test:
19 Green
12 Orange
11 Blue
8 Gold

[Marduk]

Katya, I'll come back to that question, just wanted to post my color results. I did this once when I was like 12 and came up mostly green, now I'm

18 green
18 blue
8 gold
6 orange

[Gimgimno]

Duckie, you're like a slightly exaggerated me on the color test.

...thank goodness you're not a slightly exaggerated me in real life, or you would have absolutely no friends.

[bobtheenchantedone]

16 gold
14 blue
12 green
8 orange

Apparently that's me.

[Whistler]

I'll go ahead and be all judgy of the 5 romance languages, even though I haven't read it!!!

Is this yet another feel-good piece of pop-psychology unsupported by quantitative research? Even if we did that quantitative research, would it make a difference? Why do we have science at all if we enjoy intuiting life's truths?? AHHHHH this is my life

[Whistler]

I think I can say the same about these quizzes that require you to rank traits. Can't I be responsible AND curious? How is this better than myers-briggs typology or all those other personality quizzes? I HATE POP PSYCHOLOGY SO MUCH

[thebigcheese]

Is this yet another feel-good piece of pop-psychology unsupported by quantitative research?

Honestly, I'm not really sure how to answer this question. On the one hand, the love language concept does seem pretty cheesy and unfounded. On the other hand, does it really need to be based on some type of research? I graduated with a degree in psychology, and I always felt like most of my classes (but not all of them) were based on stuff that's very intuitive. Lots of times, it seemed like the formal research just confirmed the obvious. Anyway, I think this book is a really interesting observation of mankind. If you're not familiar with it, it's basically saying that some people respond better to certain expressions of love. For example, some people really appreciate praise, some people really appreciate when someone serves them, some people just need a hug, etc. The whole premise of the book is that you can really improve your relationships once you figure out which types of expressions are most effective with any given person. Even if it's not based on scientific study, I feel like it's a very sound principle.

So take it for what you will. I've found it interesting and helpful in my own life.

[Whistler]

I too graduated in psychology, but I disagree with your statement that most of your classes (and by extension, most of psychology) were based on stuff that's "very intuitive." Maybe in hindsight those things seemed obvious, but there is a lot of psychology research that confirms things we wouldn't expect. Stuff like being distracted while you're studying might help you remember it later (http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/02/ ... al+Cortex)) or that colonoscopies are remembered as less painful if they last longer but are less intense (http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/01/ ... s_pain.php). Not everyone goes through the grief cycle (http://mindhacks.com/2010/11/08/grief-myths/). Etc. etc.

I guess my problem with "love languages" is that it assumes that everyone has consistent preferences, and I don't think that's true. I don't think it's necessary to compartmentalize everyone into their favorite "love language," and I think we can learn to appreciate many different forms of affection. If someone's language is gift-giving does that mean they don't appreciate it when someone spends time with them?

As Katya mentioned before, there are other factors to consider. Maybe one person really likes it when they can tell their partner is really "trying;" (even if they don't like the chocolates they feel loved at the thought put into it) but another person must actually like the affectionate gesture (if they don't like the chocolates they won't feel loved). Or maybe there's a masochistic way of expressing affection that is enduring things you don't like that your partner likes (football, cheesy films, whatever. I personally don't see a need to pretend I like something).

There's probably some truth to the love languages thing, but until there's research to back it up, there's no knowing if it's any better than all the other self-help books out there (simply focusing on these things could be what makes them feel effective rather than their specific content).

[thebigcheese]

I too graduated in psychology, but I disagree with your statement that most of your classes (and by extension, most of psychology) were based on stuff that's "very intuitive." Maybe in hindsight those things seemed obvious, but there is a lot of psychology research that confirms things we wouldn't expect. Stuff like being distracted while you're studying might help you remember it later (http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/02/ ... al+Cortex)) or that colonoscopies are remembered as less painful if they last longer but are less intense (http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/01/ ... s_pain.php). Not everyone goes through the grief cycle (http://mindhacks.com/2010/11/08/grief-myths/). Etc. etc.

I'm sure you could find lots of examples of surprising studies, but I still think those are more the exception than the rule. It probably also varies by specialization. For example, in terms of social psychology, I think it's generally very intuitive. Non-social branches of psychology are different. For example, the cognitive/neuroscience stuff is extremely scientific. And I probably wouldn't call abnormal/clinical psychology intuitive, not as much as social psych anyway.

At any rate, you bring up some good points about possible inconsistencies with the theory. Researching it might be interesting, but I'm not sure that the results would be very meaningful. Personally, I think that human-to-human interaction is more of an art than a science. As such, the love languages provide you with something more like general guidelines than hard-and-fast scientific rules.

There's probably some truth to the love languages thing, but until there's research to back it up, there's no knowing if it's any better than all the other self-help books out there (simply focusing on these things could be what makes them feel effective rather than their specific content).

This is an interesting sentiment. In my mind, self-help books are basically just a bunch of practical suggestions. The people who read them are looking for ways to improve some facet of their behavior, and they are seeking practical suggestions for how to do that. Have you ever asked a friend for some study tips? Or asked your mom how to handle conflict with your roommates? Or how to get your baby to stop crying? Same thing with these books--it's just advice. You're willing to disregard someone's advice, simply because it hasn't been scientifically researched? I find that short-sighted because I value other people's experiences. I'm sure that a lot of pop psychology really is garbage (women's magazines = horrendous), but I also think there are some really helpful tools out there. Distinguishing between them doesn't have to be a scientific research project. Just use your own judgment.

[Whistler]

That's the very problem! Sometimes advice we think is good is actually bad. I do mean to discount anecdotal evidence, as it is overrated. In some areas, anecdotes are as contradictory as the research (like, I don't know, in knowing how to put your child to sleep, though sedatives will do it every time), but in other areas, including aspects of social science, research is significantly more consistent than anecdotes. Given your background, I would hope that you would acknowledge that one small data point (i.e., one person's experience) is not more reliable than a research study examining many data points.

[Katya]

So, Whistler, if you were to rigorously test one (or more) of the claims put forth in this book, which one would it be and how would you test it?

[thebigcheese]

Given your background, I would hope that you would acknowledge that one small data point (i.e., one person's experience) is not more reliable than a research study examining many data points.

Yes, I understand, but I suppose my perspective also includes the practicality factor. I don't live my life based on the results of research studies, and I don't know anyone who does. I can't really wait around for some professor or graduate student to conduct research on "the most effective methods of loving others" (because that's got to be one of the most complicated subjects EVER) when I've got parents and siblings and a husband to deal with on a daily basis. If somebody does the research eventually, great, but in the meantime, I'm going to work with the resources that are available to me. The theory seems plausible, so why not give it a shot? If it doesn't work for you and your loved ones, discard it.

[Tao]

I can't really wait around for some professor or graduate student to conduct research on "the most effective methods of loving others"

Awesomest study topic ever.

Though, the more I think on it, it sounds like it has already been done. Probably in the 60s.

[thebigcheese]

It's true, there are already TONS of different scientific theories about love. Of the ones I've learned about, I've never really found any of them to be very practical since they were geared more toward defining love than actually applying it. But I honestly haven't looked into it much, and I don't have access to the BYU databases anymore

[Marduk]

The best scientific study on how best to love others was performed around the year 30, by that one guy. What's his name?

Oh yeah, Jesus.

[mic0]

I guess my problem with "love languages" is that it assumes that everyone has consistent preferences, and I don't think that's true. I don't think it's necessary to compartmentalize everyone into their favorite "love language," and I think we can learn to appreciate many different forms of affection. If someone's language is gift-giving does that mean they don't appreciate it when someone spends time with them?

While I think the love languages concept is interesting and even helpful in relationships, this is one of my main problems with it. Preferences are not consistent, they change with time, and you can change your own perspective to appreciate anything as love. I understand there are people who need physical affection, but that doesn't mean they can't appreciate that I listen to them and serve them to show my love. It can be destructive to say, "Well I feel love X way and you never do that therefore our friendship is no good." Sometimes the love languages seem like one more way to give an excuse.

Which is all to say - I agree with Whistler!

[Imogen]

but love languages doesn't say "this will be your love language forever and you can never change." the thing i like about love languages and true colors is that they acknowledge that people will change their needs and desires over time. i had a coworker who went from STRONG orange (very competitive, dare devil type) to a strong blue once she got pregnant because her priorities changed. and these theories acknowledge those changes.

[Katya]

I guess my problem with "love languages" is that it assumes that everyone has consistent preferences, and I don't think that's true. I don't think it's necessary to compartmentalize everyone into their favorite "love language," and I think we can learn to appreciate many different forms of affection. If someone's language is gift-giving does that mean they don't appreciate it when someone spends time with them?

While I think the love languages concept is interesting and even helpful in relationships, this is one of my main problems with it. Preferences are not consistent, they change with time, and you can change your own perspective to appreciate anything as love. I understand there are people who need physical affection, but that doesn't mean they can't appreciate that I listen to them and serve them to show my love. It can be destructive to say, "Well I feel love X way and you never do that therefore our friendship is no good." Sometimes the love languages seem like one more way to give an excuse.

Which is all to say - I agree with Whistler!

Have you not read the book, either? Like Imogen said, that's not really the point of it. The point (as I remember it), is that different people feel loved through different types of actions and it's entirely possible for someone to be trying to show you love (and vice versa) but to be showing it in the wrong way for you. The point of the book isn't that there's only ONE way to love everyone or that you can only feel ONE way of being loved throughout your life. While I agree that the premise is still scientifically untested, it doesn't strike me as all that controversial, and it's certainly not as dumb as you (plural) are making it out to be.