10 ms·

Emotionally focused couple therapy can help love last

294 points by raleighm 7y ago

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
> “Real love stories reflect the wisdom of attachment science, which states that love is an ancient survival code designed to keep a few precious others that we can count on close. We are wired by millions of years of evolution for this kind of connection, and it is as essential to us as our next breath.“ I hate stuff like this because it’s some of the most “just-so” evolutionary reasoning there is. It reminds me a lot of the way “ancient” or “evolutionary” stories are used to justify fad diets. No amount of statistical studies on current couples therapy outcomes can confirm such a highly specific evolutionary marketing tag line. Not to mention that, like with many parts of social science, we should be hugely skeptical of the research basis for this technique. I’d need much more compelling discussion of the study methodologies before finding it worthwhile to invest in really reading them and deciding if there is credibility to it, or if the outcomes are due to confounding factors or selection effects. But hearing just-so reasoning about attachment bonds is a non-starter. What about forager societies with loose sexual norms and cultures that did not emphasize monogamy or long-term partner bonding?
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  I wish I could upvote this many times. This "just so" reasoning about evolution is basically pure pseudosience, and yet it is so prevalent in so many books, seminars, videos of today... It's like people assume that if they just think up of some reason that would losely make some vague sense and use some of evolutionary terms, if there is a way to picture a mechanism that they are describing and if that mechanism in the picture would have some evolutionary mechanics - that it automaticallt means that it applies to reality, to our physical historical evolution and the exact way that it played out; that they understand the evolutionary traits of those behaviors/qualities... It's like they think that just because evolution itself is basically a status quo in the scientific community, then any other random preposterous bs argument that you make about it, or just use the evolutionary terms in, would somehow automatically by association have as much predictive power/internal coherence/pure basic connection to reality as the evolution itself. It's a disgrace this is so prevalent nowadays... It is a clear sign that whoever writes the content is no real scientist.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    Yes, it's called evolutionary psychology and it is (to paint with a broad brush that doesn't accurately describe everyone researching related concepts) bullshit.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    What irks me is that the every time someone finds an evolutionary reason for something, it is just as easy to find an evolutionary reason to explain the opposite of it, which makes the explanation useless. For example, "men evolved to be promiscuous because having many children gave the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes sense until you realize "men evolved to be faithful because nurturing their children gave them the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes just as much sense. When your theory can explain everything, it can explain nothing.
    - kebbekaise 7y ago
      Both of those explanations vaguely make sense. And indeed both strategies are seen in nature. Neither approach is strictly better than the other. It's situational. You gotta look at how many resources are available how easy and predation pressure and probably lots of more factors.
      - MiroF 7y ago
        But this isn't falsifiable.
- tony 7y ago
  I understand the marketing tagline / spin part. To be fair, since it's a theoretical framework, the analogy is done in such a way it's hard to disprove. There's a Barnum effect thing to it. I could keep firing off examples and make it really hard to disprove. I don't necessarily accept this as science, but as way of analogize complex human behavior without being overwhelmed by variables and contradictions. A framework will tend to pick what's important and be a way of handling signal:noise. For example, you could take a more grim framework, like terror management theory will say we're all in fear of death and so society make rules, individuals focus on self-esteem, all to shake off the anxiety mortality gives us. It's hard to disprove that, but that's the point: it posits a core human motivation while willfully ignoring other things to get from Point A -> Point B (example: the motivation of Alexander the Great's military campaigns were to spread his cultural standards/law and ensure forces threatening those rules at home were contained / eliminated. Him naming cities after himself explains the self-esteem motive :P. Napoleon, Emperor Qin, all conquered and placed legal/regulatory systems in their wake) Back to frameworks in general: It's built off observational anecdotes and if put to the rigors of say - a physics experiment - it'd be hard to give that kind control / certainty. We can't read minds, and various types of reporting methods may not pan out. Our whole lives we're forming object relations that have meanings/associations/intricacies on an individual basis. So to handle things, we pick a common denominator and use that to inspect the situation. We have to look back into relationships and see conditions / cause / effect, rather than being able to simulate in a controlled setting. > What about forager societies with loose sexual norms and cultures that did not emphasize monogamy or long-term partner bonding? Attachment theory tries to be a theory of everything. It'd then be chalked up to difference in culture/customs, rather than the theory not fitting. If a monogamous relationship isn't there, some other bond likely will. Doesn't have to be romantic. The relations between the hunting group, the teamwork and dynamics of the tribe. It could be argued the cooperation based on trust is what kept it together, so they could survive. It involved letting their guard down at times to trust someone else. It could also explain betrayals, outcasts and desertion, longstanding protracted hostilities and alliances.
- empthought 7y ago
  Attachment science is developmental psychology, not couples therapy. I’m not sure what exactly you’re objecting to (the “real love stories” phrase is extraordinarily tenuous), but the “wired by millions of years of evolution” part is pretty well substantiated. The author has perhaps unfortunately led you to fill in the blanks about what “this kind of connection” means, but the attachment science part has nothing to do with monogamy or sexual norms.
  - mlthoughts2018 7y ago
    > “but the “wired by millions of years of evolution” part is pretty well substantiated.” Can you point to the studies on this? I’m extremely skeptical. I’m sure lots of research papers have been published, much like in evolutionary game theory, while the reality is none of the generalized comments of million-year evolutionary processes has actually been backed up. Most often these claims aren’t even falsifiable.
tony 7y ago
I got the book by the author (Attachment Theory in Practice: Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) with Individuals, Couples, and Families by Susan M. Johnson) on kindle but haven't read it yet. I was on a book buying binge a few weeks ago for anything related to attachment theory. More on EFT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotionally_focused_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotionally_focused_therapy Regarding attachment theory itself: A major paper in adult attachment theory is Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d36/ac75d7081fcd86d467f6d2ef408d60c8ffca.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d36/ac75d7081fcd86d467f6d2.... For further reading, stuff by Cindy Hazan, Phillip Shaver, Mario Mikulincer is good Attachment theory originally was focused on early stage development in children by John Bowlby. Later it was expanded as a way to conceptualize relationships beyond the child and caregiver, things like friendships, work colleagues, bandmates, etc. Examples where modern attachment theory could be used formulate a hypothesis (or analyze if you have more than conjecture): - why a band breaks up - why CrunchPad failed (https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/30/crunchpad-end/ https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/30/crunchpad-end/) - in interpersonal relations, contradictory, anxious, afraid, erratic behavior - or on the other hand - secure and trusting around someone or a group. Attachment can explain lasting, functional relationships. I guess in HN-speak, there could be dyads between startup co-founders, founder <-> employee, investor <-> founder, employee <-> employee. Those cooperational things bubble up into group dynamics and product formation / stuff shipping. New startup idea: Founder therapy :)
- Terretta 7y ago
  > modern attachment theory could be used to formulate a hypothesis ... there could be dyads between startup co-founders, founder <-> employee, investor <-> founder, employee <-> employee No question. // source: former serial co-founder
  - ljm 7y ago
    Attachment theory is one of those things you shouldn't get into unless you're ready to see it in yourself. // source: several years of therapy after that realisation
- 7y ago
paulryanrogers 7y ago
> It has taken more than 4,000 years, starting from the first love letter – carved in stone for a Sumerian king in the 8th century BCE – to crack the code of love. Comes off a bit self aggrandizing. Still, time will tell if this method really works
xwdv 7y ago
Monogamy is still one of the biggest societal pressures that people struggle to escape, at the expense of their own happiness and emotional well being. And in some cases there are real punitive consequences for not conforming to it. You should not force exclusivity wherever it does not occur naturally. Not everyone can be 100% fulfilled from one relationship.
- Twinklebreeze 7y ago
  I agree. I'm of the opinion that monogamy is only harmful when it is considered the default. People/couples should put thought into this aspect of their relationship, and choose what is right for them. Even if that means monogamy.
  - xwdv 7y ago
    The irony is that modern society has made great strides to promote relationships between all combinations of genders of individuals... but any suggestion of non-monogamy is still struck down with shame or castigation almost reflexively, with little to no thought. It’s getting better though.
    - r00fus 7y ago
      There is no irony other than the fact that you think it's ironic. Monogamy is the default for same-sex couples as well. Orthogonal issue. The issue with non-monogamy is that a pairing (2 people) is the smallest working group, and that's what the game theory of dating proves to be most durable and successful. A 3-person working group requires at least 3x more relationship work, and a 4-person pairing requires 6x as much.
      - xwdv 7y ago
        People have partners on the side very successfully until they are caught, and arguably those side relationships would be more successful if they did not have to keep them a secret and their other partners agreed to the open nature of the relationship.
shadykiller 7y ago
How about using MDMA for couples therapy ?
- mynegation 7y ago
  That was totally out of the left field. Is this a random joke or do you have any interesting links to share?
  - steve_adams_86 7y ago
    I don't have links (sorry) but a few prominent people in the psychedelics-for-therapy crowd often share anecdotes about these drugs helping people to shed ego, communicate better, and generally build bonds better. There are real accounts of this, but many if not all are anecdotal due to how limited data is and how informal data capture is. A great place to look is Tim Ferriss' podcast episodes about psychedelic therapy. He has two I can think of, and one has a few great anecdotes. From him you'll find many others. Gabor Maté is a good one to check out. He uses psychedelics extensively in therapy and has for quite some time. One woman I listened to (I believe on Tim's podcast) detailed how her and her husband would take MDMA (I believe) every year or so and talk things out. Whether things were good or bad. She describes herself as the last kind of person you'd expect to see taking illegal drugs, but here she is, and she believes it has made her marriage far better than it would have been without them. There are countless similar stories.
  - berberous 7y ago
    Not the OP, but he’s not joking — it’s an area with an increasing amount of interest and research, although obviously tremendously hampered by the legal issues. I don’t have any links, but you can find plenty on google. There are also studies using it to treat PTSD in veterans.
    - nothrabannosir 7y ago
      Which is ironic, because that was the original use of MDMA to begin with. It started as a therapeutic drug.
wiggler00m 7y ago
Is there an app for this?
viburnum 7y ago
Nope, mutual attraction is what couples need. People invent unsolvable problems in their relationship when they lose attraction.
- malcolmwhite 7y ago
  To love someone only so long as their looks attract you is to love them very weakly.
  - Godel_unicode 7y ago
    To assume that attraction is purely physical is to have a very shallow understanding of attraction.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
      If the definition of attraction is to be read to encompass everything that makes you like a person, doesn't it make the original statement vacuous? "Liking each other is what helps couples stay together?" I suppose it's true that few couples ever got divorced who wanted to be together. But it doesn't tell us anything.
    - malcolmwhite 7y ago
      The first definition I see for attraction is "pleasing to the senses" and the second is "sexually alluring." If OP meant something more than physical, then "attraction" was a misleading word choice. Even with your definition of attraction, attraction-based love is fundamentally self-serving, and those who practice it rob themselves of the beauty of blind commitment in loving relationships.
- bigred100 7y ago
  If I believed this were the case I’d be single for life.
  - closeparen 7y ago
hospadar 7y ago
Brings to mind SSC's excellent review of all therapy books ever: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/20/book-review-all-therapy-books/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/20/book-review-all-therap...
bananamerica 7y ago
This may be true, but one could argue: is making love last always the best option?
classics2 7y ago
If you need “couples therapy” your relationship is already over. Women have zero desire to see a man expose real human emotions.
- shitloadofbooks 7y ago
  There's no way someone with this outlook on life has ever had a long-term relationship. No one is going to listen to the opinion of a deranged "incel" type.
  - viburnum 7y ago
    For your sake I hope you don’t learn the hard way.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't respond to a bad comment by making the thread even worse. Personal attacks make the thread even worse. Not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Infinitesimus 7y ago
  Do you truly believe that every (or charitably, most) women have no desire to see men express honest emotions? Is that based on your experiences/observations you'd like to share here? I understand and am painfully aware of the societal pressure but I don't think it is intentionally malice by any gender moreso than a series of qualities we've fanned that have left this unpleasant side effect
  - poloniculmov 7y ago
    it's a redpill thing.
kweinber 7y ago
EFT is one of the few couples therapies that has any sort of scientific track record. I looked into it a few years ago and it may have saved my marriage. I highly suggest a therapist to guide you. They serve as a referee and coach (an impartial person who can call bs or timeout) to get you out of bad communication patterns between you and you significant other. I doubt you could turn this into an app because both partners are effectively learning to relate to each other in a more sustainable way. I highly recommend this for married couples needing a tune-up and pre-marital couples who didn’t grow up in an environment with parents in a stable relationship.
- Ixiaus 7y ago
  I wish I knew about EFT so much earlier in my life. Even just understanding the basic ideas has helped me immensely.
onreact 7y ago
I've got her "Hold Me Tight" book here but have stopped reading it a while ago. Good reminder to finish it now. My impression - even with my parents - was that couples always replay conflicts following certain patterns. Turns out it's really the case. "we cracked the code of love" would have been a better headline for that article. It's an actual quote from it.
kelvin0011 7y ago
Every relationship needs to have trust,balanced equality,never have to hurt your love by any kind of cheating being micro or what's ever, so also needs to have openness and accountability.happy home is how we maintain the trust between us.A pattern of not hiding, being accountable and openly builds the trust.You deserve to know the truth, save yourself time and emotion wasted on a cheating partner,mine abandoned me on a sick bed for some reasons that baffled my understanding after i hacked her phone. I found out she has been sleeping with my best friend. To confirm for sure your partner is cheating,I ll suggest you employ the services of a certified ethical hacker I know. He offers a wide range of discreet hacks,You would be surprised how much information you can uncover from a spouse phone.Contact at (collinshackworld @ g mail . com)OR text +1 (4 0 9) 9 9 9 3 4 7 7, he is a reliable hacker,tell him i referred you, i know he will help you.

294 points by raleighm 7y ago

mlthoughts2018 7y ago

> “Real love stories reflect the wisdom of attachment science, which states that love is an ancient survival code designed to keep a few precious others that we can count on close. We are wired by millions of years of evolution for this kind of connection, and it is as essential to us as our next breath.“ I hate stuff like this because it’s some of the most “just-so” evolutionary reasoning there is. It reminds me a lot of the way “ancient” or “evolutionary” stories are used to justify fad diets. No amount of statistical studies on current couples therapy outcomes can confirm such a highly specific evolutionary marketing tag line. Not to mention that, like with many parts of social science, we should be hugely skeptical of the research basis for this technique. I’d need much more compelling discussion of the study methodologies before finding it worthwhile to invest in really reading them and deciding if there is credibility to it, or if the outcomes are due to confounding factors or selection effects. But hearing just-so reasoning about attachment bonds is a non-starter. What about forager societies with loose sexual norms and cultures that did not emphasize monogamy or long-term partner bonding?

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
I wish I could upvote this many times. This "just so" reasoning about evolution is basically pure pseudosience, and yet it is so prevalent in so many books, seminars, videos of today... It's like people assume that if they just think up of some reason that would losely make some vague sense and use some of evolutionary terms, if there is a way to picture a mechanism that they are describing and if that mechanism in the picture would have some evolutionary mechanics - that it automaticallt means that it applies to reality, to our physical historical evolution and the exact way that it played out; that they understand the evolutionary traits of those behaviors/qualities... It's like they think that just because evolution itself is basically a status quo in the scientific community, then any other random preposterous bs argument that you make about it, or just use the evolutionary terms in, would somehow automatically by association have as much predictive power/internal coherence/pure basic connection to reality as the evolution itself. It's a disgrace this is so prevalent nowadays... It is a clear sign that whoever writes the content is no real scientist.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Yes, it's called evolutionary psychology and it is (to paint with a broad brush that doesn't accurately describe everyone researching related concepts) bullshit.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  What irks me is that the every time someone finds an evolutionary reason for something, it is just as easy to find an evolutionary reason to explain the opposite of it, which makes the explanation useless. For example, "men evolved to be promiscuous because having many children gave the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes sense until you realize "men evolved to be faithful because nurturing their children gave them the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes just as much sense. When your theory can explain everything, it can explain nothing.
  - kebbekaise 7y ago
    Both of those explanations vaguely make sense. And indeed both strategies are seen in nature. Neither approach is strictly better than the other. It's situational. You gotta look at how many resources are available how easy and predation pressure and probably lots of more factors.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      But this isn't falsifiable.
tony 7y ago
I understand the marketing tagline / spin part. To be fair, since it's a theoretical framework, the analogy is done in such a way it's hard to disprove. There's a Barnum effect thing to it. I could keep firing off examples and make it really hard to disprove. I don't necessarily accept this as science, but as way of analogize complex human behavior without being overwhelmed by variables and contradictions. A framework will tend to pick what's important and be a way of handling signal:noise. For example, you could take a more grim framework, like terror management theory will say we're all in fear of death and so society make rules, individuals focus on self-esteem, all to shake off the anxiety mortality gives us. It's hard to disprove that, but that's the point: it posits a core human motivation while willfully ignoring other things to get from Point A -> Point B (example: the motivation of Alexander the Great's military campaigns were to spread his cultural standards/law and ensure forces threatening those rules at home were contained / eliminated. Him naming cities after himself explains the self-esteem motive :P. Napoleon, Emperor Qin, all conquered and placed legal/regulatory systems in their wake) Back to frameworks in general: It's built off observational anecdotes and if put to the rigors of say - a physics experiment - it'd be hard to give that kind control / certainty. We can't read minds, and various types of reporting methods may not pan out. Our whole lives we're forming object relations that have meanings/associations/intricacies on an individual basis. So to handle things, we pick a common denominator and use that to inspect the situation. We have to look back into relationships and see conditions / cause / effect, rather than being able to simulate in a controlled setting. > What about forager societies with loose sexual norms and cultures that did not emphasize monogamy or long-term partner bonding? Attachment theory tries to be a theory of everything. It'd then be chalked up to difference in culture/customs, rather than the theory not fitting. If a monogamous relationship isn't there, some other bond likely will. Doesn't have to be romantic. The relations between the hunting group, the teamwork and dynamics of the tribe. It could be argued the cooperation based on trust is what kept it together, so they could survive. It involved letting their guard down at times to trust someone else. It could also explain betrayals, outcasts and desertion, longstanding protracted hostilities and alliances.
empthought 7y ago
Attachment science is developmental psychology, not couples therapy. I’m not sure what exactly you’re objecting to (the “real love stories” phrase is extraordinarily tenuous), but the “wired by millions of years of evolution” part is pretty well substantiated. The author has perhaps unfortunately led you to fill in the blanks about what “this kind of connection” means, but the attachment science part has nothing to do with monogamy or sexual norms.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  > “but the “wired by millions of years of evolution” part is pretty well substantiated.” Can you point to the studies on this? I’m extremely skeptical. I’m sure lots of research papers have been published, much like in evolutionary game theory, while the reality is none of the generalized comments of million-year evolutionary processes has actually been backed up. Most often these claims aren’t even falsifiable.

tony 7y ago

I got the book by the author (Attachment Theory in Practice: Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) with Individuals, Couples, and Families by Susan M. Johnson) on kindle but haven't read it yet. I was on a book buying binge a few weeks ago for anything related to attachment theory. More on EFT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotionally_focused_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotionally_focused_therapy Regarding attachment theory itself: A major paper in adult attachment theory is Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d36/ac75d7081fcd86d467f6d2ef408d60c8ffca.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d36/ac75d7081fcd86d467f6d2.... For further reading, stuff by Cindy Hazan, Phillip Shaver, Mario Mikulincer is good Attachment theory originally was focused on early stage development in children by John Bowlby. Later it was expanded as a way to conceptualize relationships beyond the child and caregiver, things like friendships, work colleagues, bandmates, etc. Examples where modern attachment theory could be used formulate a hypothesis (or analyze if you have more than conjecture): - why a band breaks up - why CrunchPad failed (https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/30/crunchpad-end/ https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/30/crunchpad-end/) - in interpersonal relations, contradictory, anxious, afraid, erratic behavior - or on the other hand - secure and trusting around someone or a group. Attachment can explain lasting, functional relationships. I guess in HN-speak, there could be dyads between startup co-founders, founder <-> employee, investor <-> founder, employee <-> employee. Those cooperational things bubble up into group dynamics and product formation / stuff shipping. New startup idea: Founder therapy :)

Terretta 7y ago
> modern attachment theory could be used to formulate a hypothesis ... there could be dyads between startup co-founders, founder <-> employee, investor <-> founder, employee <-> employee No question. // source: former serial co-founder
- ljm 7y ago
  Attachment theory is one of those things you shouldn't get into unless you're ready to see it in yourself. // source: several years of therapy after that realisation
7y ago

paulryanrogers 7y ago

> It has taken more than 4,000 years, starting from the first love letter – carved in stone for a Sumerian king in the 8th century BCE – to crack the code of love. Comes off a bit self aggrandizing. Still, time will tell if this method really works

xwdv 7y ago

Monogamy is still one of the biggest societal pressures that people struggle to escape, at the expense of their own happiness and emotional well being. And in some cases there are real punitive consequences for not conforming to it. You should not force exclusivity wherever it does not occur naturally. Not everyone can be 100% fulfilled from one relationship.

Twinklebreeze 7y ago
I agree. I'm of the opinion that monogamy is only harmful when it is considered the default. People/couples should put thought into this aspect of their relationship, and choose what is right for them. Even if that means monogamy.
- xwdv 7y ago
  The irony is that modern society has made great strides to promote relationships between all combinations of genders of individuals... but any suggestion of non-monogamy is still struck down with shame or castigation almost reflexively, with little to no thought. It’s getting better though.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    There is no irony other than the fact that you think it's ironic. Monogamy is the default for same-sex couples as well. Orthogonal issue. The issue with non-monogamy is that a pairing (2 people) is the smallest working group, and that's what the game theory of dating proves to be most durable and successful. A 3-person working group requires at least 3x more relationship work, and a 4-person pairing requires 6x as much.
    - xwdv 7y ago
      People have partners on the side very successfully until they are caught, and arguably those side relationships would be more successful if they did not have to keep them a secret and their other partners agreed to the open nature of the relationship.

shadykiller 7y ago

How about using MDMA for couples therapy ?

mynegation 7y ago
That was totally out of the left field. Is this a random joke or do you have any interesting links to share?
- steve_adams_86 7y ago
  I don't have links (sorry) but a few prominent people in the psychedelics-for-therapy crowd often share anecdotes about these drugs helping people to shed ego, communicate better, and generally build bonds better. There are real accounts of this, but many if not all are anecdotal due to how limited data is and how informal data capture is. A great place to look is Tim Ferriss' podcast episodes about psychedelic therapy. He has two I can think of, and one has a few great anecdotes. From him you'll find many others. Gabor Maté is a good one to check out. He uses psychedelics extensively in therapy and has for quite some time. One woman I listened to (I believe on Tim's podcast) detailed how her and her husband would take MDMA (I believe) every year or so and talk things out. Whether things were good or bad. She describes herself as the last kind of person you'd expect to see taking illegal drugs, but here she is, and she believes it has made her marriage far better than it would have been without them. There are countless similar stories.
- berberous 7y ago
  Not the OP, but he’s not joking — it’s an area with an increasing amount of interest and research, although obviously tremendously hampered by the legal issues. I don’t have any links, but you can find plenty on google. There are also studies using it to treat PTSD in veterans.
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    Which is ironic, because that was the original use of MDMA to begin with. It started as a therapeutic drug.

wiggler00m 7y ago

Is there an app for this?

viburnum 7y ago

Nope, mutual attraction is what couples need. People invent unsolvable problems in their relationship when they lose attraction.

malcolmwhite 7y ago
To love someone only so long as their looks attract you is to love them very weakly.
- Godel_unicode 7y ago
  To assume that attraction is purely physical is to have a very shallow understanding of attraction.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    If the definition of attraction is to be read to encompass everything that makes you like a person, doesn't it make the original statement vacuous? "Liking each other is what helps couples stay together?" I suppose it's true that few couples ever got divorced who wanted to be together. But it doesn't tell us anything.
  - malcolmwhite 7y ago
    The first definition I see for attraction is "pleasing to the senses" and the second is "sexually alluring." If OP meant something more than physical, then "attraction" was a misleading word choice. Even with your definition of attraction, attraction-based love is fundamentally self-serving, and those who practice it rob themselves of the beauty of blind commitment in loving relationships.
bigred100 7y ago
If I believed this were the case I’d be single for life.
- closeparen 7y ago

hospadar 7y ago

Brings to mind SSC's excellent review of all therapy books ever: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/20/book-review-all-therapy-books/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/20/book-review-all-therap...

bananamerica 7y ago

This may be true, but one could argue: is making love last always the best option?

classics2 7y ago

If you need “couples therapy” your relationship is already over. Women have zero desire to see a man expose real human emotions.

shitloadofbooks 7y ago
There's no way someone with this outlook on life has ever had a long-term relationship. No one is going to listen to the opinion of a deranged "incel" type.
- viburnum 7y ago
  For your sake I hope you don’t learn the hard way.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't respond to a bad comment by making the thread even worse. Personal attacks make the thread even worse. Not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Infinitesimus 7y ago
Do you truly believe that every (or charitably, most) women have no desire to see men express honest emotions? Is that based on your experiences/observations you'd like to share here? I understand and am painfully aware of the societal pressure but I don't think it is intentionally malice by any gender moreso than a series of qualities we've fanned that have left this unpleasant side effect
- poloniculmov 7y ago
  it's a redpill thing.

kweinber 7y ago

EFT is one of the few couples therapies that has any sort of scientific track record. I looked into it a few years ago and it may have saved my marriage. I highly suggest a therapist to guide you. They serve as a referee and coach (an impartial person who can call bs or timeout) to get you out of bad communication patterns between you and you significant other. I doubt you could turn this into an app because both partners are effectively learning to relate to each other in a more sustainable way. I highly recommend this for married couples needing a tune-up and pre-marital couples who didn’t grow up in an environment with parents in a stable relationship.

Ixiaus 7y ago
I wish I knew about EFT so much earlier in my life. Even just understanding the basic ideas has helped me immensely.

onreact 7y ago

I've got her "Hold Me Tight" book here but have stopped reading it a while ago. Good reminder to finish it now. My impression - even with my parents - was that couples always replay conflicts following certain patterns. Turns out it's really the case. "we cracked the code of love" would have been a better headline for that article. It's an actual quote from it.

kelvin0011 7y ago

Every relationship needs to have trust,balanced equality,never have to hurt your love by any kind of cheating being micro or what's ever, so also needs to have openness and accountability.happy home is how we maintain the trust between us.A pattern of not hiding, being accountable and openly builds the trust.You deserve to know the truth, save yourself time and emotion wasted on a cheating partner,mine abandoned me on a sick bed for some reasons that baffled my understanding after i hacked her phone. I found out she has been sleeping with my best friend. To confirm for sure your partner is cheating,I ll suggest you employ the services of a certified ethical hacker I know. He offers a wide range of discreet hacks,You would be surprised how much information you can uncover from a spouse phone.Contact at (collinshackworld @ g mail . com)OR text +1 (4 0 9) 9 9 9 3 4 7 7, he is a reliable hacker,tell him i referred you, i know he will help you.