5 ms·

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_...
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        I think self-reporting can provide some evidence, but of course it's much weaker than many other study methods. But even within survey studies, there are degrees of quality. And studies that sample undergrads in psychology classes (like the one you linked) are of particularly poor quality and generalizability. To me, that only barely counts as research at all. That doesn't mean psychology in general is pseudoscience. But it does mean this is a bad study that tells us almost nothing, and if this is representative of the quality of studies on the love languages overall, then we basically have no evidence one way or another about them.
        giantg2 5y ago
        What evidence do you have that the two studies are bad? Just claiming that a study using undergrads is bad sounds like terrible evidence.
- lupire 5y ago
  If its BS and it works, it's not BS.

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_...
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        I think self-reporting can provide some evidence, but of course it's much weaker than many other study methods. But even within survey studies, there are degrees of quality. And studies that sample undergrads in psychology classes (like the one you linked) are of particularly poor quality and generalizability. To me, that only barely counts as research at all. That doesn't mean psychology in general is pseudoscience. But it does mean this is a bad study that tells us almost nothing, and if this is representative of the quality of studies on the love languages overall, then we basically have no evidence one way or another about them.
        giantg2 5y ago
        What evidence do you have that the two studies are bad? Just claiming that a study using undergrads is bad sounds like terrible evidence.
lupire 5y ago
If its BS and it works, it's not BS.