Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bhadani (talk | contribs) at 10:16, 27 April 2006 (I feel the page requires something more, though it explains the topic nicely). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

From Talk page on "Infatuation"

• Infatuation -> Limerence: a real word redirects to a neologism... something's wrong with that picture. --Joy 01:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it is a neologism, but it's one that is i) not super new, ii) not found only on Misplaced Pages, and iii) seems to have gained a certain amount of usage - Google shows 1,330 hits, some on serious pages (e.g. Yahoo health pages). Now, maybe the article should be at Infatuation, with a redir from Limerance, but if so someone needs to look at it to make any needed changes in the article text. Noel (talk) 14:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Regardless, I'm not arguing against the existence of the article on Limerence. I'm saying that infatuation should be relegated to non-existence (and an automatic link to wiktionary) because it's not the same thing. --Joy 14:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That's fine with me; I'll delete the redir in a little bit. Noel (talk) 23:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Now that I look at it, there are a number of pages which reference infatuation, and this page seems to describe that as well as limerence. Should we try and make a real infatuation article (perhaps using in part e.g. the last paragraph from this), or what? Noel (talk) 17:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Since nothing had happened with this in four months, I've replaced the redirect with a {{wi}} link to Wiktionary. Angela. 02:01, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

This page is ridiculous SOMEONE PLEASE EDIT THIS CRAP

It's pages like these that ruin the credibility of wiki resources. I do a search for infatuation and I get some word invented by some quack from Connecticut. Some

F@#!ING MORON B@#!% who thinks that because she has a PHD she can change the English language. What the bloody hell is limerence? This is absolutely ridiculous. Will someone who knows how to edit stuff on here get up a page up for infatuation and delete the "cross reference" asap. I will literally be grateful for actions to stop the spread of moronity on the web. Oh, look at that, I invented my own word. Moronity. I think I'm going to make a page for it now.

The guy who wrote this is definitely an incredible AFC

First piece of talk

(date not conveniently ascertainable)

i'm not sure that the pain of being in love is that it is not reciprocated. isn't being in love inherently painful? it's not a comfortable emotion, but its consolation is not someone else feeling that for you, but that someone else in the world can mean so much to you. i think it should be valued for its own sake.

is love ever really reciprocated anyway? it seems to me such a miraculous, rare occurrence that the chances of two people feeling that way about each other seem amazingly small. i suppose if i am in love with you, i will respond in a way that may very well endear myself to you, but there always seems likely to be an imbalance. i think it was la rochefoucauld who said that in any relationship there's a lover and a beloved.

thinking of love as a thing that needs to be reciprocated rather than a good in itself is dangerous. a positive, valuable emotion risks being contaminated if it is made conditional on something in return. "i love you, but i'll be miserable if you don't love me back" is not the most generous of statements. there's something childish about the idea that love has to be reciprocated. having someone in love with you isn't a right, nor is it the best thing that could happen to you. loving someone is.

The user above said: "it seems to me such a miraculous, rare occurrence that the chances of two people feeling that way about each other seem amazingly small." This affirmation is garbage, in my opinion, because of the existence of propinquity and the propinquity effect caused by propinquity. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you have to remember that we aren't talking about love. It is clearly stated that love is NOT the same thing as limerence. There is a thing called love, and there is another thing called limerence. So read the article before you blurt out some crap.

Last commenter is probably a non-limerent

I'd say that there's a 99% chance that the person who said, "thinking of love as a thing that needs to be reciprocated rather than a good in itself is dangerous" is a non-limerent (according to the theory).

What I think is that that person is ignoring the existence of the propinquity effect. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 00:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

try this song...

For anyone currently feeling limerent, try listening to the song "Waiting For A Star To Fall" by the band "Boy Meets Girl". It only seems to intensify the feeling... Let me know what you think.

Discussion of band 'Limerence' removed

Sorry, dude. Your band isn't famous, and doesn't satisfy any of the requirements established to have an entry.

Why I edited out van Gogh's ear.

Since it seems to be quite unusual for people to give pieces of their ears as gifts, I have assumed that it was van Gogh's infamous ear that was referred to. There are many explanations of why he cut off part of his ear, several of which are sufficiently plausible that it cannot be reasonably assumed that any one of them is true. (At the moment, I am partial to the idea that he was trying to compensate in a symbolic way for the crimes of Jack the Ripper.) I substituted one of the risky and/or self-destructive behaviors that are more typical and more unambiguously associated with infatuation.

Love and Limerence

I've been reading Tennov's book on limerence, and I think it could easily be condensed into an article. It should be separated from the article on infatuation (it shouldn't be a redirect, they are different things). This article should only be about Limerence as defined by the creator of the term, since no real work has been done on the specific subject since that book. I don't know what to do with the other things in this article when I edit it, though. abexy 09:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The physiological basis of limerence

I've removed the reference to reduced serotonin levels being a causal factor in limerence. Unless someone can cite evidence that there is in fact a causal relationship between decreased serotonin levels in the brain -- or any other neurological factor -- and obsessive, irrational infatuation, I think the article should stick to clinically verifiable observations. Stating "linically, this state is marked by an increase in emotional sensitivity and instability," is an example of a verifiable observation. Any attempt to explain such behavior by recourse to neurological differences is mere speculation at best and doesn't belong here. Porkchopmcmoose 00:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The New Article

I finished work on the article, and I've put it up. It is essentially a summary of the second chapter of Tennov's book. I know the section on distinguishing limerence from other emotions needs to be expanded, but I think I'll leave that up to other people. Also, I don't know what to do about the Spoken Word. abexy 20:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Abexy, I like the finished product! If I get a wild hair I might work out how to do the read-aloud part. ~ Renee

I, too, like the finished article, although I disagree with the fact that the author made up a word, seeing as this phenomenon has to be as old as humanity itself. It is certainly not new and does not need a new word, but a good description of an intense infatuation. Lue3378 05:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While being infatuated with a person is part of limerence, its basic component is actually basic desire. I think by creating a new word allows it to be identified specifically rather than be attached to any past connotations or simple meanings of a word. Tennov said in the opening to her book that infatuation has a lot of negative meanings that come with it, when limerence is not inherently negative. Perhaps I should add more about why a new word is needed? abexy 06:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Book review

I added the link to the book review again because I think it is important to have some analysis of Tennov's work. If anyone has another source that is more thorough it would be useful. abexy 21:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

About the recent changes

Sadi Carnot changed the opening of this article recently. He changed the definition, making it incorrect. Limerence can be mutual, it can develop between two people at the same time. A good portion of Tennov's work is dedicated to the interactions between two people who have limerence for each other. It is not something that just comes at the end of a relationship. In addition, her work is not based completely on Stendhal's book, but rather off her own research, polling and interviews over a decade. I'm going to change the article back now. abexy 01:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

abexy, let's compromise and work together on the introduction. There's no need to do complete reverts. We can put our heads together and make a good introduction. Compared to all the other books on the psychology, science, or chemistry of love, limerence is by far the most ambiguous. We need to make the article informative in a way that makes a distinction between the topic of "love" and the topic of "limerence". Is this agreeable to you?

If so, we can not simply say:

• limerence = passionate love
• limerence = falling in love

I have read over 50+ similar books on love, and this word by far is the most irritating; in that it is referred to all over the place, but yet it is not defined distinctly enough so as to let the read go away with the feeling that they understand it. Let's work on this. I will make a couple of changes now; then read through the book more today and tomorrow.--Sadi Carnot 14:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, limerence is used very ambiguously. It has a specific definition of the reaction, as outlined in the basic components. That is the clear definition. The problem with the immediate introduction is the same as why there needed to be a new word: there is no clear terminology for it in English. Also, the reason it is so broad is because the limerent reaction is so broad, it extends from the first gentle feeling all the way to consummation or heartbreak, and beyond. This is why I had such trouble with my original introduction. I do like that new introduction which you wrote. abexy 20:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Here's a part I thinks should go in somewhere:

It is limerence, not love that increases when lovers are able to meet only infrequently or when there is anger between them.

References

1. Tennov, Dorothy (1979). Love and Limerence. Maryland: Scarborough House. ISBN 082862864.
2. ibid (pg. 71)
3. Capellanus, Andreas. (1969). The Art of Courtly Love. New York: W.W. Norton.

What does everyone think?--Sadi Carnot 11:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a section should be added about intensification through adversity. I had most of the information on it under the Course of Limerence, but it should have its own section. The second paragraph in the Limerent Reaction section could be moved there as well. abexy 19:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but maybe just call the section: intensification mechanisms; because there seems to numerous ways in which limerence can be triggered to increase in intensity, not just by adversity.--Sadi Carnot 21:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am proposing to split up the love page; see Talk:Love (to vote).--Sadi Carnot 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In love =/= Limerence

Why should "in love" redirect here? This article is about the state we call "in love" as described in a book, as seen by one certain scientist, not as it is widely accepted. "In love" should be seperate.

Correct you are. Changed redirect to love.--Sadi Carnot 23:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Organization of the Article

The article structure has been moved around, for the better I think. The components of limerence are now under Components instead of Distinctions. I also think moving the origins to a separate section is for the best, since explaining what it is and where it came from in the introduction is a little long. And the basic components belong in the introduction, since they are the basic components. I think the article ought to cover what limerence is before it goes onto describe how limerence theory was developed. abexy 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Abexy, I feel your intentions are good; however, the opening section is now too long. We have to remember that we are writing on a computer screen. The user is supposed to be able to see the table of contents on the opening screen. The goal is to make the opening section quick, catchy, and to the point. We want to get people to read what we write. If the opening section is too long, it will tend to turn the typical reader off. See any other Wiki article for comparison. --Sadi Carnot 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Understood, I moved them back to the Components section. I cannot find a better way to present them than in bullet format, but I still think it would be good to have them in the introduction. Seeing those basic components is what makes most people realize exactly what is meant by "limerence." abexy 05:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A recommendation

This shouldn't say anything about Plato's God-given true belief. It is full of philosophical assumptions that very few (if anyone) would understand, especially if I am right about its skeptical connotations.

--dragonlord 03:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes informatin is dangerous for the masses. Better to not mention it at all than risk someone benefitting from it.(sarcasm) Who are you to say don't mention it because they won't understand?

I am a person who has reasons for my opinions. This is what it said: "True love" must involve an understanding of a person on a fundamental level, which is unlikely to reside in the fantasy of a crush unless one postulates an empathic connection or accepts Plato's concept of God-given right opinion.. This is an opinionated statement. It may be stated using fuzzy terminology in order to hide the fact that it is opinionated. This website is supposed to have objective information. --dragonlord 05:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game

I just lost the game :( FredTheDeadHead 21:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

More

I feel the page requires something more, though it explains the topic nicely. --Bhadani 10:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)