6 ms·

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://w

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.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Small, non-representative subsets of the population are inherently bad as study targets from the perspective of epistemological power. Results derived from such sample sets often do not generalize. If you combine this weakness with a weak investigative methods like survey, the problem compounds. My definition of a good study is one that gives us strong evidence about the world, and a bad study is one that doesn't. What else can you call a study like this one but bad? > What evidence do you have that the two studies are bad? The study indicts itself (i.e. it describes its methods, and the methods are not ones that lead to strong evidence).
        giantg2 5y ago
        I asked for evidence and you are essentially saying "cause I say so". Explain why the methods are wrong. Show some evidence. The study population is only non-representative if applying it to populations that don't match. For example, this study supports the results for university students 18-22. Again, we come back to the point that just because it only applies for a subset does not make it "BS". So what's wrong with the other study? Or will it be more of the same generalized claims about poor methods without any specific details from the study being given, nor any supporting facts to back up your determination?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Hard to tell if a tool is useful if there is not high quality research backing up the claim. That's obviously not true. Show me the high quality research studies backing up the idea that a hammer is useful for hammering nails or that a flat-head screwdriver is useful as a improvised chisel. The way to tell if a tool is useful is if you use it and it works for your application.

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.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
        Small, non-representative subsets of the population are inherently bad as study targets from the perspective of epistemological power. Results derived from such sample sets often do not generalize. If you combine this weakness with a weak investigative methods like survey, the problem compounds. My definition of a good study is one that gives us strong evidence about the world, and a bad study is one that doesn't. What else can you call a study like this one but bad? > What evidence do you have that the two studies are bad? The study indicts itself (i.e. it describes its methods, and the methods are not ones that lead to strong evidence).
        giantg2 5y ago
        I asked for evidence and you are essentially saying "cause I say so". Explain why the methods are wrong. Show some evidence. The study population is only non-representative if applying it to populations that don't match. For example, this study supports the results for university students 18-22. Again, we come back to the point that just because it only applies for a subset does not make it "BS". So what's wrong with the other study? Or will it be more of the same generalized claims about poor methods without any specific details from the study being given, nor any supporting facts to back up your determination?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Hard to tell if a tool is useful if there is not high quality research backing up the claim. That's obviously not true. Show me the high quality research studies backing up the idea that a hammer is useful for hammering nails or that a flat-head screwdriver is useful as a improvised chisel. The way to tell if a tool is useful is if you use it and it works for your application.