7 ms·

You can give your heart, but if your significant other doesn't speak your love language, no matter how much you give, it may not be right for you. If you're foc

You can give your heart, but if your significant other doesn't speak your love language, no matter how much you give, it may not be right for you. If you're focused exclusively on giving, are you considering your own needs as a person? Granted, if both people are focused on giving, hopefully they can figure it out among one another.

manmal 5y ago
Languages can and have to be learned. This is also true for love language.
- golemotron 5y ago
  Love languages were invented to sell a book in 1992.
  - feanaro 5y ago
    Is this an American thing? I had no idea the OP was talking about an actual thing until now and understood the phrase "love language" as figurative.
    - sammalloy 5y ago
      "Love language" is a hugely popular, but pseudoscientific concept in the relationship community in the US. It's BS, just like astrology, the law of attraction, and all that jazz. But people swear by it, and they won't back down from it if it works for them.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        I mean, if you consider psychology psuedoscience, I suppose that could be true. It has numerous articles written about it in psychology publications.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Would you be so kind as to point out some well executed research on the love languages? I had been under the impression that they are pop-psychology. https://www.mic.com/p/do-love-languages-actually-matter-psychologists-weigh-in-18799908 https://www.mic.com/p/do-love-languages-actually-matter-psyc... “I don’t consider it to be an evidence-based practice, but I do find it to be a very useful tool and use it in all of my work with couples,” says Stefani Goerlich, a Detroit-based psychotherapist. research conducted in 2017 suggests that the five love languages only work when “both spouses exhibit appropriate self-regulatory behaviors.”
        giantg2 5y ago
        From that same article, it says that it's a communication technique/framework that is used in therapy. That it's a useful tool. I don't consider useful tools to be "BS". Also, just because something only works within specific parameters (spouses with self-regulating behaviors), doesn't mean it doesn't work. It just isn't a cure-all. It would be like saying antibiotics are BS just because they only work on a subset of bacterial infections. https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/788 https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/788
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Hard to tell if a tool is useful if there is not high quality research backing up the claim. That a tool is used, especially in psychology, does not mean that it is useful or a good model of actual human psychology. Freud's stuff is a great example of this. None of it has any basis in reality or formal research, but it was still widely used for many years.
        giantg2 5y ago
        Hence my qualifier of if you think psychology is psuedoscience. There is some research on ths subject, but most psychology research uses self reporting or self evaluation. If this is psuedoscience, then we should also be talking about how psychology in general is psuedoscience. Let's not forget, psychologist are used in court and even for things like psychological evaluations for employment. If they really are using psuedoscience, this presents a threat to the rights and freedoms of many individuals. Another study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233241159_Speaking_the_Language_of_Relational_Maintenance_A_Validity_Test_of_Chapman%27s_1992_Five_Love_Languages https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233241159_Speaking_...
      - lupire 5y ago
        If its BS and it works, it's not BS.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> Languages can and have to be learned. This is also true for love language. > Love languages were invented to sell a book in 1992. Can you clarify? Are you saying that someone first decided they were going to sell a book in 1992, and "invented" love languages to "fill in the blank" in order to do so? Or are you just talking about the normal situation of someone introducing a new idea of theirs (or in this case, schema) in the form of a book? I get the impression that you're objecting to the concept as not really a thing because it doesn't have a deep history. However, not all real things have names, or always had names.
    - MillenialMan 5y ago
      "The Five Love Languages" is literally trademarked. It's a framework that's designed to sound plausible, like a horoscope. It's not designed to be accurate, it's designed to make you go, "oooooh" and repeat the trademark. "Having relationship issues? Oh, have you heard of the Love Languages®? I read about it the other day..." If your partner doesn't want to touch you, what's the most likely explanation? That they "don't speak your love language", or that they aren't attracted to you? Ok, and if you are that partner, but you don't want to lose the relationship, what's an easy response? "I don't want to touch you because I don't find you attractive," or "I'm sorry babe, I do love you, but we just don't speak the same love language"? The whole thing is very Cosmo. It's designed to sell in the same way as Cosmo.
      - hallway_monitor 5y ago
        You're probably right but does that mean it can't also contain some useful truths? Personally, these types of frameworks do help me break out of my own self centered paradigm and appreciate differences in friends, coworkers and partners. For work teams I highly recommend the DISC survey. I do agree with the part about not touching though. It seems like a lot of problems are invented in marriages because people are unwilling or unable to say or even think the ugly truth that they simply don't want to have sex with their partner anymore.
        MillenialMan 5y ago
  - bluedino 5y ago
    Some people need to read a book to realize or justify their incompatibility
- fastball 5y ago
  I'd go one step further and assert that "love languages" are mostly bunk, in the same way that "learning styles" are not really a thing. Meyers-briggs, zodiac, learning styles, love languages, etc. are all self-fulfilling prophecies that are sold as empowering but are mostly just traps which limit your potential.
  - xivzgrev 5y ago
    I disagree. Love language improved my relationship for the better. It gives us language and priority to things that felt important but were difficult to describe and help the other understand. To your point tho we use all the languages, and many other things beyond the languages. I think it’s important to not get too fixated on them. It’s just one piece of the puzzle. There’s many other things required besides speaking someone’s love language, but it helps!
    - unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
      Individual people can be radically different in what makes them feel loved, satisfied and connected. If the OP never has to understand this, he/she is fortunate. More likely, there is someone in that person's life who would appreciate some directed curiosity.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    > mostly bunk Does this style of post ever work? You are dismissive of all these things but you lack a single reason/argument. Is there a chain of logic that leads you to this conclusion? It's a bit fascinating to me. I imagine the purpose of a post is to share ideas, to give people a chance to think more like you and that takes a persuasive argument.
    - fastball 5y ago
      Not sure why the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that they are bunk. Seems like the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts they exist in the first place, since "love languages" are not an objective thing.
nsomaru 5y ago
The way my guru would respond to question like “how do I avoid giving too much” type questions was to retort with a question… “If you’re a giver, what are you looking for?” … “Takers!” That is, if you’re giving with an expectation of something in return, you’re not looking to give, you’re looking for a transaction. True giving, then, does not carry with it the weight of any expectation or fruit. The joy is in the act of giving itself, the sacrifice, as a candle sacrifices itself to give light. He elaborated further to say that if one person is giving oriented in a relationship, it would be stable. If both, it would be heaven. To come back to the point of the OP, it’s the focus on “me, me, me” that’s the issue. Abraham Lincoln said (paraphrase) “there is one way to bring up your children, and that is to walk that way yourself.” I feel in relationships it’s similar. Less sermons, more leading by example without expectations.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  I don't disagree, because there is a lot of wisdom in what you say. But... 1. If kids see the example of a marital power dynamic of taking and giving, it's not that they will necessarily learn to be selfless givers! 2. I like the F Scott Peck definition of love, which is to extend ones self to support the spiritual growth of another. And, often the growth that a taker needs is to learn to be giving. Often, takers take because they view themselves as a victim. For a giver, it can be really difficult to go outside of one's normal giving mode without being sucked into a mode of anger or resentment. 3."Being married" is not an ultimate value—it can hurt all the people involved. Complicated! Sometimes I feel I could be a much better, more giving person in a healthier relationship because I could be helping many more people. If i take your example of the candle—it may be great to sacrifice yourself to create light, but is it worth the sacrifice if you aren't producing light?
  - nsomaru 5y ago
    The way I interpret what he said is, “if the sacrifice is genuine, light is the necessary result” I like it because it puts the ball back in my court and forces me to take responsibility without judging the other.
- jazzabeanie 5y ago
wetpaws 5y ago
>if your significant other doesn't speak your love language, no matter how much you give, it may not be right for you Thats why people communicate.
agumonkey 5y ago
That is true, personal experience showed me that what I took as love wasn't seen as such by the other one. Absolute crash ensued. Wisdom makes you pick the people that you feel compatible, or at least make you able to communicate in finer ways to make sure both are aiming at the same ballpark.

manmal 5y ago

Languages can and have to be learned. This is also true for love language.

golemotron 5y ago
Love languages were invented to sell a book in 1992.
- feanaro 5y ago
  Is this an American thing? I had no idea the OP was talking about an actual thing until now and understood the phrase "love language" as figurative.
  - sammalloy 5y ago
    "Love language" is a hugely popular, but pseudoscientific concept in the relationship community in the US. It's BS, just like astrology, the law of attraction, and all that jazz. But people swear by it, and they won't back down from it if it works for them.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I mean, if you consider psychology psuedoscience, I suppose that could be true. It has numerous articles written about it in psychology publications.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Would you be so kind as to point out some well executed research on the love languages? I had been under the impression that they are pop-psychology. https://www.mic.com/p/do-love-languages-actually-matter-psychologists-weigh-in-18799908 https://www.mic.com/p/do-love-languages-actually-matter-psyc... “I don’t consider it to be an evidence-based practice, but I do find it to be a very useful tool and use it in all of my work with couples,” says Stefani Goerlich, a Detroit-based psychotherapist. research conducted in 2017 suggests that the five love languages only work when “both spouses exhibit appropriate self-regulatory behaviors.”
        giantg2 5y ago
        From that same article, it says that it's a communication technique/framework that is used in therapy. That it's a useful tool. I don't consider useful tools to be "BS". Also, just because something only works within specific parameters (spouses with self-regulating behaviors), doesn't mean it doesn't work. It just isn't a cure-all. It would be like saying antibiotics are BS just because they only work on a subset of bacterial infections. https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/788 https://www.jhseonline.com/article/view/788
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Hard to tell if a tool is useful if there is not high quality research backing up the claim. That a tool is used, especially in psychology, does not mean that it is useful or a good model of actual human psychology. Freud's stuff is a great example of this. None of it has any basis in reality or formal research, but it was still widely used for many years.
        giantg2 5y ago
        Hence my qualifier of if you think psychology is psuedoscience. There is some research on ths subject, but most psychology research uses self reporting or self evaluation. If this is psuedoscience, then we should also be talking about how psychology in general is psuedoscience. Let's not forget, psychologist are used in court and even for things like psychological evaluations for employment. If they really are using psuedoscience, this presents a threat to the rights and freedoms of many individuals. Another study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233241159_Speaking_the_Language_of_Relational_Maintenance_A_Validity_Test_of_Chapman%27s_1992_Five_Love_Languages https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233241159_Speaking_...
    - lupire 5y ago
      If its BS and it works, it's not BS.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> Languages can and have to be learned. This is also true for love language. > Love languages were invented to sell a book in 1992. Can you clarify? Are you saying that someone first decided they were going to sell a book in 1992, and "invented" love languages to "fill in the blank" in order to do so? Or are you just talking about the normal situation of someone introducing a new idea of theirs (or in this case, schema) in the form of a book? I get the impression that you're objecting to the concept as not really a thing because it doesn't have a deep history. However, not all real things have names, or always had names.
  - MillenialMan 5y ago
    "The Five Love Languages" is literally trademarked. It's a framework that's designed to sound plausible, like a horoscope. It's not designed to be accurate, it's designed to make you go, "oooooh" and repeat the trademark. "Having relationship issues? Oh, have you heard of the Love Languages®? I read about it the other day..." If your partner doesn't want to touch you, what's the most likely explanation? That they "don't speak your love language", or that they aren't attracted to you? Ok, and if you are that partner, but you don't want to lose the relationship, what's an easy response? "I don't want to touch you because I don't find you attractive," or "I'm sorry babe, I do love you, but we just don't speak the same love language"? The whole thing is very Cosmo. It's designed to sell in the same way as Cosmo.
    - hallway_monitor 5y ago
      You're probably right but does that mean it can't also contain some useful truths? Personally, these types of frameworks do help me break out of my own self centered paradigm and appreciate differences in friends, coworkers and partners. For work teams I highly recommend the DISC survey. I do agree with the part about not touching though. It seems like a lot of problems are invented in marriages because people are unwilling or unable to say or even think the ugly truth that they simply don't want to have sex with their partner anymore.
      - MillenialMan 5y ago
- bluedino 5y ago
  Some people need to read a book to realize or justify their incompatibility
fastball 5y ago
I'd go one step further and assert that "love languages" are mostly bunk, in the same way that "learning styles" are not really a thing. Meyers-briggs, zodiac, learning styles, love languages, etc. are all self-fulfilling prophecies that are sold as empowering but are mostly just traps which limit your potential.
- xivzgrev 5y ago
  I disagree. Love language improved my relationship for the better. It gives us language and priority to things that felt important but were difficult to describe and help the other understand. To your point tho we use all the languages, and many other things beyond the languages. I think it’s important to not get too fixated on them. It’s just one piece of the puzzle. There’s many other things required besides speaking someone’s love language, but it helps!
  - unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
    Individual people can be radically different in what makes them feel loved, satisfied and connected. If the OP never has to understand this, he/she is fortunate. More likely, there is someone in that person's life who would appreciate some directed curiosity.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  > mostly bunk Does this style of post ever work? You are dismissive of all these things but you lack a single reason/argument. Is there a chain of logic that leads you to this conclusion? It's a bit fascinating to me. I imagine the purpose of a post is to share ideas, to give people a chance to think more like you and that takes a persuasive argument.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Not sure why the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that they are bunk. Seems like the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts they exist in the first place, since "love languages" are not an objective thing.

nsomaru 5y ago

The way my guru would respond to question like “how do I avoid giving too much” type questions was to retort with a question… “If you’re a giver, what are you looking for?” … “Takers!” That is, if you’re giving with an expectation of something in return, you’re not looking to give, you’re looking for a transaction. True giving, then, does not carry with it the weight of any expectation or fruit. The joy is in the act of giving itself, the sacrifice, as a candle sacrifices itself to give light. He elaborated further to say that if one person is giving oriented in a relationship, it would be stable. If both, it would be heaven. To come back to the point of the OP, it’s the focus on “me, me, me” that’s the issue. Abraham Lincoln said (paraphrase) “there is one way to bring up your children, and that is to walk that way yourself.” I feel in relationships it’s similar. Less sermons, more leading by example without expectations.

dr_dshiv 5y ago
I don't disagree, because there is a lot of wisdom in what you say. But... 1. If kids see the example of a marital power dynamic of taking and giving, it's not that they will necessarily learn to be selfless givers! 2. I like the F Scott Peck definition of love, which is to extend ones self to support the spiritual growth of another. And, often the growth that a taker needs is to learn to be giving. Often, takers take because they view themselves as a victim. For a giver, it can be really difficult to go outside of one's normal giving mode without being sucked into a mode of anger or resentment. 3."Being married" is not an ultimate value—it can hurt all the people involved. Complicated! Sometimes I feel I could be a much better, more giving person in a healthier relationship because I could be helping many more people. If i take your example of the candle—it may be great to sacrifice yourself to create light, but is it worth the sacrifice if you aren't producing light?
- nsomaru 5y ago
  The way I interpret what he said is, “if the sacrifice is genuine, light is the necessary result” I like it because it puts the ball back in my court and forces me to take responsibility without judging the other.
jazzabeanie 5y ago

wetpaws 5y ago

>if your significant other doesn't speak your love language, no matter how much you give, it may not be right for you Thats why people communicate.

agumonkey 5y ago

That is true, personal experience showed me that what I took as love wasn't seen as such by the other one. Absolute crash ensued. Wisdom makes you pick the people that you feel compatible, or at least make you able to communicate in finer ways to make sure both are aiming at the same ballpark.