I'm watching a video on "The 5 Love Languages" book, and I was curious what Fedi thinks of the model.

[miranda_blue@eldritch.cafe]

@alice I think it's neither science nor pseudoscience. It's not science. "Pseudoscience" would mean it fraudulently pretends to be science - for example by superficially borrowing from its vocabulary and formalisms - while it isn't, and I haven't seen any such thing about this concept. It's just an arbitrary analysis grid someone put together based on their opinions and personal experience, and it may or may not be relatable or useful to other folks.

I don't find it especially useful or relevant to me, but I don't mind that it is to others, on the opposite!. I do mind other people trying to force it on me.

[hal_pomeranz@infosec.exchange]

@alice Understanding how you need to receive love is important for your own happiness. Understanding how your partners need to receive love is a key for long-term, happy relationships.

[scmbradley@mathstodon.xyz]

@alice https://www.buzzsprout.com/2040953/episodes/12684857-the-5-love-languages

[outputdoubtr@mastodon.seattlematrix.org]

@alice was looking for "forgiveness / understanding" but maybe thats the wrong kind of thing

i wouldnt know
love feels real but i observe that it is not

except in as much as it can cause me to suffer

[larymir@chaos.social]

@alice I don't think that the specific approach of "5 love languages" is scientific
I never read Gary Chapman's (the "inventor" of the concept) book about it, but only third party sources talking about the concept

But the general idea of "maybe there are ways in which I show affection/love (not only romantic love), that the other person doesn't 'receive' as easily" seems helpful for relationships

[mindpersephone@spookygirl.boo]

@alice

Voted for b, but I mean "vaguely useful abstraction that sort of works unless you look to closely"

[webhat@infosec.exchange]

@alice nice, two polls in one

[larymir@chaos.social]

@alice And those 5 "love languages" Chapman proposes also don't seem like a bad starting point when talking about different ways to show affection/love. Although there are many other ways to do that
But reducing that to those 5 could increase the likelihood that one isn't able to think of that many others (because you're already primed with those 5)

[larymir@chaos.social]

@Scmbradley @alice thank you for posting that!
I thought I remembered that guy being problematic, but Wikipedia only mentioned he is a Baptist pastor and I was wondering if I misremembered or just assumed that he had problematic views because he is a protestant Christian
But no, I was not mistaken: he has problematic views
https://www.scarymommy.com/creator-5-love-languages-homophobe

[jn@boopsnoot.de]

@alice some thing i find unclear about this, but haven't seen mentioned: do these points mean that i use these things to express my love, or that i like to have these things done to my to have love shown to me? point 5 is explicitly about receiving, but then 5 could easily be folded into 2 as well...

the more i look at this list, the less sense it makes

[sparklesugarfairy@app.wafrn.net]

Arent these just common things people want in relationships? why not just call it that (not an insult but its weird were mystifying basic human desires)

[raineer@frontrange.co]

@alice I think it’s definitely fact-based that people have different preferences and that most people could express their love language. I’m really surprised to see such a high number on psuedo-science.

[takotaco@infosec.exchange]

@alice the dude that came up with this is a homophobic religious zealot and had literally no scientific backing to his writing. It's just more heteronormative boxes that restrain people from expressing themselves freely.

[alice@lgbtqia.space]

@jn I think the author meant things done to or for you, so getting gifts, being touched, etc.

[aaron@social.caskey-demaret.se]

@alice TIL if you misclick your answers in a poll you cannot edit them, and this is by design and will not be changed. https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/issues/20611

[alice@lgbtqia.space]

@aaron I don't like that design. *Every* poll I run, at least one person (if not several) say they accidentally clicked the wrong option and want to know if they can edit it.

[joshsusser@autistics.life]

@alice A perfect example of how some psychology thing might be an interesting idea to investigate, but they immediately drive the idea into a ditch by considering only neurotypical people, like they are the only ones worth mentioning. Almost every pop psychology thing I see is entirely useless because it has no idea neurodiversity is even a thing. I have yet to see a single article on procrastination talk about ADHD in any way, unless it was specifically about ADHD. And everything is like that. We ND folk are just outliers to be discounted, so all their models are wrong.

[emily_rugburn@lgbtqia.space]

@joshsusser but but but thats not how statistics work