Talk:Limerence/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hilarity

In any case, the limerent reaction describes what amounts to inappropriate perseverance. Limerence does not seem to develop in normal, happy relationships. Something, somehow, has to go wrong.

Oh, that is cute. But I had to remove that statement because of how silly it is. Oddity- (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wiki Psychology Banner?

Will putting this article under the greater purview of WikiProject Psycology will increase the reader base of this article? Not that such an expansion of the reader base is unwelcome, mind you. Hopefully those interested in psycology will not be so quick to dismiss the major premises of the article, and instead focus upon the smaller nuances and wording. The ratings are justified, by the way, in their own language directly, for example see quality. sudoartiste 22:16, 2 January, 2007 (PST).

It should help get people interested in the topic here to improve it. I think it's more of a Wikipedia development strategy, to help editors work together than for the casual person looking for info. That's just my take on it though. Aleta 06:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sign here please

Dear contributors, commentators and editors: please sign, even if you are an unregistered user. Unsigned blocks of text make me wonder if people are arguing with themselves. You don't have to be fancy, there's a little button on top of the edit page that'll do the markup for you. It's a real pain in the butt going through the history and adding sigs by hand. Now, back to the topic at hand, Limerance. --Jaguara 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Sections

84.68.106.240 deleted the Sexuality and Limerent reaction sections. Now, I'll be honest, I was never a fan of the limerent reaction section or the section that follows it, and this article does need to be simplified, but deleting sections without discussion is not the way to do it. abexy 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to propose that we remove, or greatly reduce, the sections Limerent reaction and Bond varieties. These sections are both accessory information which are not necessary, complicate the article, and are lengthy. abexy 18:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think you should remove it, though you might consider it accessory information, the whole point of wikipedia is to cover topics expansively, and in this case it does contain information unique from other parts of the article. Kuf360 22:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Platonic View Section et al

AwesomeMachine - I reverted the page because the additions seem to be very religion-based and not encyclopedic (historic though they are). It may be that certain items only need to be put in quotes - but the way it is currently written makes it look as if the article itself is biased toward a Christian god. I would be happy to work with you to reword your changes to reflect a non-biased opinion, or you are welcome to make such changes yourself. Thanks! Kabethme 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

clarification?

The article says following

"Love involves concern for the other person's welfare and feeling, while limerence does not require it, although it can certainly be incorporated"

As per this statement, concern for the other person's welfare and feeling may be incorporated in limerence, is limerence equal to love in that case? I'm trying to figure out what things (apart from concern for the other person's welfare and feeling) differentiate love and limerence? --71.227.146.166 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot have "true love" for someone until you get to know them. Limerance, in my opinion, is natures way of making a human literally crazy for someone, so the species can reproduce. The person must have enough sense to not do anything illegal, or dangerous, or stupid, and also have enough sense to follow their heart. I think limerance is closer akin to lust than "true love". There is "love the feeling" and "true love", and limerance is when "love the feeling" is extremely overloaded. In my opinion, to think there is a medical cure or a pill you can take is absurd. Time will eventually "heal" you. It's just part of being a human being. It's not a sicknes, although it resembles one. (Safepassage) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree To clarify the difference : Limerence : a state of huge feeling of desire towards a person. It is important to note here that Limerence the desire must be a general desire. I.e I REALLY WANT JANE, NOT I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH JANE, .

True love : Is limerance with just one difference that you are not "in love" with your "mental picture" of jane but because you know Jane you love her for what she is. But true love is Limerence. its just that some times Limerence can be that you really liek some one you dont know so how exactly can you really love someone you dont know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.16.168 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Limerance

It seems 'limerAnce', 'limerAnt', is kind of an alternative orthography for 'limerence' (see for instance the 'Urban Dictionary', and there is a bar in Lawrence, Kansas, called 'Limerance', probably full of people hungry for romance). Is it acceptable? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Soczyczi 14:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, the Urban Dictionary argument was explicitly used in the Wakin paper that is already cited in this article. (I wouldn't be surprised if the idea came from this page.). This technically counts a valid secondary source (though not independent, nor published in a peer reviewed journal as far as I can tell), so the misspelling could probably reasonably be mentioned in this article. limerance is already a redirect here, and that's all that really concerns me; I'll leave it to someone else to add if they wish. -Verdatum (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Basic Components

I noticed someone put a template calling for the list of basic components of limerence to be rewritten in prose. I understand that this is standard Wikipedia policy, but I happen to find this particular list to be very useful. It very clearly articulates the feeling of limerence and adds quite a bit of value to the article; I am afraid that something will get lost if it is turned into a paragraph. I don't mean to say that it musn't be rewritten in prose, just that, if it is, the text should live up to the quality of the list. --Nemilar 04:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cracky?

Why the revert to remove Cracky? An article on Cracky is forth coming and seeing how it is a cult based on the principles of Limerence, I believe it is deserving to be linked to this article. That fact thats there are over 9000 members of the Monastic Order of the SkyQueen may not seem worthy of an article to wiki editors, but does not mean our cause is not worthy of notation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.67.247 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Domo Arigato Mister Roboto (Thank You!)

I just wanted to give a note of thanks to all who have contributed to this wiki. It's a great page, and the article is really coming along nicely. THANKS FOR ALL THE FAB WORK. It's an fascinating read, and also, very readable. There's a lot of meat to get through, but I like the way its divided up, and sectioned. Great guys! Knowsitallnot (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Post Rejection What

It does not seem that the article does not mention what happens after rejection actually occurs. 1) What does limerence become like if it continues after this point? Does is still count as limerence if there is absolutely no hope of reciprocity, especially if the person experiencing the limerence is convinced of not letting any of his or her fantasies become true by avoiding the limerent object? 2) Is it still limerence if the person feeling limerence originally is later convinced of the limerent object's utter differences/weaknesses leading to the belief of impossibility of reciprocity but is still emotional about the limerent object in a similar way during limerence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by IamSooty (talk • contribs) 17:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this artcile should exist because it is a vital part of life which nearly everybody experiances. If you do not then you will at some point in your life almost definetly. It is a step apart from infatuation because it can last for years and almost under any circumstances, it is about really liking that person for who they are not just their physical attractivness. ALthough lust can start it off and help make it more exciting it is definetly not just a sexual desire which drives to it. ALthough there is no proper scientific proof for it I assure you a large percentage of the population can relate to it. Flamineagle (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, that was just completely unrelated, and stupid while at that. Limerence isn't about "liking the person for who they really are," it's making you BELIEVE that you're liking the person for who they really are. Secondly, you just added a post that was COMPLETELY unrelated to the original topic at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.224.58 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with 4 tildes ~~~~, and you may notice that the comment above yours was posted a year and a half ago, and thus probably not in need of your reply correcting them. -Verdatum (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is no good.

Why did anyone decide to keep it? It sounds like a bunch of limerent people contributed to it and now the article's tone is very lovelorn and un-Wikipedia. 75.80.87.71 (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2008

Indeed. It needs to be almost completely re-written. Oddity- (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No this article tells the absolute truth. It deserves to be left as it is--Metalhead94 (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

While the article might tell the truth as seen by some perspective, and it may be an interesting read, it does not have enough references and should not part of Wikipedia in it's current form. I'm amazed that anyone would defend the way this article is currently written given the glaring issues that are listed all over this talk page. 162.27.9.20 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd Just Like to Say

This is one of the most interesting articles I've ever read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.51.49 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there. It seems many have finally found what to call the emotion they have felt for some time with this article.--Metalhead94 (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

New reader

I have just discovered this page as i have had feelings for someone for some time that I cannot explain. for whatever reason this information hits a real nerve and describes my feelings exactly. limerence whether real or not medically does help explain the feelings of those of us that appear to suffer from it.I would dearly like to find a cure or some non intrusive help. Please keep the discussion openJaybee13 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. As I've said, this is a brilliant article. It should definitely be kept as a prime example of how to write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.48.36 (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Every bit of this article on Limerence describes my feelings for this woman. It does hurt, I will wait for the right time to tell this person my feelings towards her, What am looking for in a response is for her to reciprocate. If their is no recprication on her part at least I have expressed my feelings and hopefuly I can learn to deal with this. I can honestly say that I have never ever felt this way. Not even when I fell madly in love with my wife, I loved wife so much it hurt as well this Limerance type love and hurt is so different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.61.26 (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't Believe

I just can't believe such a relevant article was pending for deletion earlier this year.--Metalhead94 (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's so relevant, how come the article doesn't have sources of published psychologists/therapists/sociologists/etc. discussing the term? Take a careful look at WP:NEOLOGISM. The topic appears notable, so I don't have any problem with an article on Limerence existing. But I do understand deletion nominators' concerns. Secondary sources that discuss the author's work need to be found and included. If such sources don't exist, then the article is presenting Undue Weight, and should be converted to a more summary-style. -Verdatum (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that relevant. I just couldn't picture an article about a real emotion being deleted. Yeah, I agree it needs more sources cited, though.--Metalhead94 (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Low importance?

Why is an article that perfectly describes a very real human emotion and that has finally given an explanation of this emotion to so many people out there rated "low-importance". I just don't understand...--Metalhead94 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The best way to understand the rating is to read the associated link on the project's importance scale. "Subject is peripheral knowledge to the field of psychology and possibly trivial but still notable. There may be limited research on the topic, or most professionals in psychology have not yet taken note of it." Sounds dead-on target description of this article. If you're really asking why most professionals in psychology have not yet taken note of it, that is the way publication in modern Science/Academia works. I can point you to many articles that discuss the issue if you wish. -Verdatum (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. I was pointing out that the emotion itself exists. I agree it could use some more sources cited, though.--Metalhead94 (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section definition

I have some concern over the change to the lead section made here. I do believe my wording from the previous version can be improved upon, but this edit changes the paragraph's meaning. The issue is that from what I've found, the term means different things according to different sources. I believe that Tennov's own definition should explicitly be stated as the meaning for which the term is coined, and someone else's definition to serve the dual purposes of describing what the term has come to mean, and to put it into plainer english to make the article more easily accessible to readers. I believe it should be made clear that the alternative definition is not nesissarily in harmony with the originator's intended definition. (Otherwise, good stuff in this edit; yay for copyediting!) -Verdatum (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Causes?

Are there any known causes for limerence, like a bunch of chemical reactions within one's body? If so, might be good to list (a few of) them in the article. Tom-Zegiklekkerniet (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There aren't known causes for well researched disorders, like clinical depression. The chances of known causes for a term that is only used by a small handful of professionals are nil. I know of no clinical studies regarding limerence outside of those discussed in the article. If anyone finds any such studies, they should probably be added. -Verdatum (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone add an explanation within this article explaining why limerence is not just unrequited love? Thank you.75.56.51.96 (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Limerence is not necessarily unrequited, and unrequited love isn't necessarily obsessional (OCD-like). Limerence is also a a pretty new term, so I'd be careful using it.

Interestingly, OCD and love are actually very similar chemically (low serotonin), so treating OCD can actually affect one's ability to love. MichaelExe (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose that this article be changed to "Falling in love" and the first paragraph read "Falling in love is an involuntary interpersonal state that can involve an acute longing for emotional receiprocation, obsessive-compulsive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and emotional dependence on another person.1 This state has also been called limerence, a word coined by Dorothy Tennov.2" I propose the information on the current "Falling in love" page be incorporated to further explain the concept. And wherever the word "limerence" used, change it to "fall in love" or "falling in love", as appropriate. So for example: "Falling in love is characterized by intrusive thinking and pronounced sensitivity to external events that reflect the disposition of the person the individual has fallen in love with towards that individual. It can be experienced as intense joy or as extreme despair, depending on whether the feelings are reciprocated." or "Affection and fondness exist only as a disposition towards another person, irrespective of whether those feelings are reciprocated, whereas falling in love demands return. Physical contact with the person the individual has fallen in love with is neither essential nor sufficient to an individual who has fallen in love, unlike one experiencing sexual attraction." I think it would make so much more sense to the average reader. Could the limerence link from unrequited love still direct to here if the article gets renamed? I think it still should. 1 ref. Wakin-Vo I.D.R. Model of Limerence. 2 ref. Dorothy Tennov's book, Love & Limerence Thank you.75.56.51.96 (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Limerence is much closer to Infatuation. We've also got an article called Falling in love and several on love. Love addiction is also somewhat similar to this. This probably doesn't warrant its own page (there are only two actually good sources), although it could be briefly mentioned in another love article. MichaelExe (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The falling in love article could certainly use improvement too. Adding to what MichaelExe has said, this article is very specific to the writings on the specific term "Limerence". Changing it's title would require changing the bulk of its content. As far as removing the article altogether, it'd be met with resistence (I've deleted a lot of random praise for this article), and the article isn't horrible, it's just not a terribly notable topic, so I never bothered trying to nominate it myself. -Verdatum (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better in the article about Dorothy Tennov. Or, at least, we should look for more sources. PubMed has a couple primary sources (PMID 3655355 and PMID 16446522). I wouldn't be surprised if one day Limerence was included in the Obsessive–compulsive spectrum. MichaelExe (talk) 11:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is worth keeping / analysis on equivalents in other languages

I believe this article accurately describes the concept in a very precise, non-passionate and unbiased fashion. Considering myself a limerent and having heard others suffering from this ailment, I can relate very well to most of the text in a clear and simple way, even through most the exceptions and contradictions inherent to this set of emotions. That is important considering the complexity, nuances and particularities of the concept; specially for the understanding of persons unfamiliar to, or unaware of such feelings.

That said, I would like to point out that the stated traditional equivalent of the concept in Spanish: "enamoramiento" (5th paragraph), doesn't necessarily convey the overwhelming feelings that distinguish limerence (such as anxiety, attachment, dependance...) from love, or from simply being in love. There is actually no term for it. In Spanish "enamoramiento" can be simply used, as it usually is, to denote fascination with something or someone (as stated in the Diccionario de la Real Academia Española). I don't actually know of a concept in Spanish used to distinguish and encase those feelings in any particular way; regrettably. --Qrul (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Qrul

I deleted the reference to equivalents in other language. Not only was it incorrect--those words do not mean "limerence"--but it was appallingly ignorant. "Fallen-in-love-ness"? Seriously?? Ever heard of a thesaurus? Maybe the fact that the Spanish word begins with E-N-A-M-O-R might provide a clue that the English equivalent is "enamorment".

--Callumny (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd never noticed that section in the article before, but yes, that's what I recall being taught in Spanish class. -Verdatum (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The article definitely needs to be cut down. The only source that meets Wikipedia's standards for WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliability is Dorothy Tennov's book. Imo, this article should be deleted, but we could include an overview of limerence in Dorothy Tennov's article, and redirect "limerence" to that page, too. The term is hardly notable, and the fact that we're using one good source for such a long article and that the article on the author is so short (which gives the impression that she isn't notable, either) seems a little off. Her work is definitely interesting, and I think it deserves a spot on Wikipedia, but this is way too much on so little. MichaelExe (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Limerence in context, concept hard to understand

I found the concept of limerence hard to grasp in its details, because there are no clear borders drawn and clarifications made with regard to other concepts with a far wider popularity, the obvious being love and infatuation.

Further, it is not entirely clear where in the process "boy meets girl" to "boy marries girl" limerence should be seen.

Consider as an analogy, if a new term relating to time of day was introduced, described in general, vague terms concerning sunshine, but no explanation was made how it relates to morning, mid-day, afternoon, day as a whole.

As an aside, large parts of the description of physical symptoms and behaviours do not match my personal experiences of either love or infatuation. 88.77.145.143 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)