Talk:Limerence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on January 10, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

My main question is that if this article is put under the greater purview of WikiProject Psycology, will that 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 the page on quality.

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Archives
Talk Page Archive I Talk Page Archive II Talk Page Archive III

[edit] 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)

[edit] Limerence as a Concept vs. Verifiability

The way I see it, the notion of limerence is basically unverifiable. Some people almost unfailingly feel every aspect of it while others are confused by the very thought of its existence. There's really no scientific, medical or legal evidence of its existence, or nonexistence. So, why is the page cluttered with so many banners regarding lack of sources and such? You'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate study on the subject with any sense of proving or disproving the information contained within, unless the information is blatantly unprofessional and written terribly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.151.174.208 (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case then the article should be deleted. This violates both the original research clause and the verifiability clause of Wikipedia's rules... in short, if it isn't verifiable, then it shouldn't be on wikipedia. Pianoguy (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of inexplicable hostility directed towards the very existence of this article. Yes, I agree it should be cleaned up and perhaps shortened. And I agree that some of the more extreme physiological aspects of this phenomenon strike me as a little far-fetched. But the claims of skeptics that this topic doesn't even exist is patently illogical. Not only does the concept seem to be founded on an extensive psychological survey, but many readers confirm that the article is of great value in describing their own experiences--in direct contradiction to the "Low Importance" rating assigned by some arrogant expert. Given all that, why not set aside the arrogance and help improve it? A glance at the evaluation comments suggests that the number one improvement would be to bolster the article with citations from other sources. This is not my field, so I'm not going to do that, but surely someone can. Chairease (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Pianoguy ur a damn idiot i can quote you another two section clauses that would justify the existance of the topic which i applaud. keep working on it, Limerence can be proven scientificaly the problem is that not enough reseach has been caried out of the who topic of love, limmerence is part of love, so buy acknowledging love you must akcnowledge that huge desire towards a person that love brings along : i.e. limerence. yes you can have limerence without love. i.e. huge desire without knowing the person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.16.168 (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Chairease

said: "There seems to be some sort of inexplicable hostility directed towards the very existence of this article. Yes, I agree it should be cleaned up and perhaps shortened." ..and was right on....and i think this 'inexplicable hostility' has something to do with projection, denial, past psychological wounds regarding 'love', etc, etc that contribute to the intellectual dishonesty regarding whether or not this article should be deleted. also, whether or not something is 'verifiable' or not is VERY subjective. and i think the whole argument that something is not 'scientific' and/or 'verifiable' is a highly suspicious argument. also, i think limerance is very much 'verifiable' (whatever that is supposed to mean). as you will note on this discussion page, many people (and much to my chagrin i must admit that i personally have experienced this mental state described in the 'limerance' article) attest to having experienced the 'symptoms' of 'limerance' ....even going so far as to say that the article described their symptoms to an uncanny degree.

IMO, this article should not even be close to being considered for deletion from wikipedia. being a counselor who works with adolescents and their families in crisis at a mental health hospital, i see the negative and painful effects of 'limerance' on a weekly basis. this article helps further an understanding of this perplexing phenom. of human existence (that we all have experienced if we are honest).

i sincerely hope that the wikipedia admins. do not give in to the 'inexplicable hostility directed towards the very existence of this article' and delete this article, as it would do a great disservice, IMO, to the aims of wikipedia specificlly and the study of the human condition in general. --Username22 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Infatuation

Several people have asked lately why infatuation, along with other things, redirect here. The main reason is because no one has written articles for those yet. They should not redirect here. Excluding that most links to infatuation are not using it in the "I'm oh so in love with this person" sense, such as the Star Trek references it has. But let me explain why limerence is not infatuation, or at least why there should be different articles. Limerence is an attempt at a study into the nature of romantic love, it has a specific definition. Moreover, it can have low levels. The course of limerence is not always an arching to intensity and then puttering down and it does not work like clockwork. Infatuation is an intense feeling of a person to anything. It needs its own article. That said, yes, this article needs, more than anything, some psychologists to edit it. It needs to be free of the people who want to write what they feel. It needs people who have studied personal romantic relationships to come in and put this article in its place. At the very least, it needs people doing research into the subject even if they are not experts. That way, we will have informed editors instead of people who change things because they feel it should be different. Oh, and maybe should someone archive the talk page? abexy 09:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi abexy and everyone, should the entire talk page be archived in one big wad or sectioned off? I'd copied some older entries (2004-2005, with stray 2006 comments) in my sandbox as an example and am working on others as I get a chance. I kept it sandboxed for now pending feedback, rather than just trimming the talk page without warning. Let me know what you think. Jaguara 21:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done (falls over) Jaguara 06:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but if not for the link from "infatuation", I never would have known about limerance. (Safepassage 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] pain?

what causes the chest pains that are described in this article?

     Perhaps, a combination of heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure changes, as well as the common European notion that emotions are felt within the heart, work together to create a semi-imagined sensation of elated grief or ecstacy?  128.195.186.56 12:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Adieu

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Treatment

Well, now that we know what this is, how can it be prevented? Many of the symptoms are unpleasant, and if one's limerent object is unattainable, one is in for a rough time. Does meditation help? 24.95.48.112 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a disease. You don't want to prevent it, you certainly don't need 'medication'. What you need to do is tell her. 203.108.239.12 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Meditation", not "medication". I sorely wish this subject were studied in more depth by psychiatrists and biologists. Also, I said "unattainable". Unattainable means that in no case could a serious relationship be established with the limerent object. Thus, one would want a way to end the unpleasant, distracting, and potentially damaging preoccupation. It turns out, however, that uncertainty is the key. Tennov comments on this briefly at the end of her book. If you can eliminate all hope, such that you know the LO does not and will never reciprocate, the road to recovery can be greatly shortened. I guess if you got the LO to categorically reject you, that could help, though I've found that simply being realistic about what's going on and continually dwelling on the LO's negative attributes useful. It also helps to have had some experience. When I was a teenager, I was pretty helpless. I'm also dying to know what causes the chest pain. 24.95.48.112

[edit] So true

This Tennov person knows exactly what's going on in my head. 89.120.193.125 11:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep it's annoying when you get it. IT'S SO ANNOYING AND IT WON'T GO AWAY!!

Effin horrid is what it is. Not only did they characterize and categorize my teenage years into something vaguely reminiscent of a syndrome of sorts - they were also SPOT ON! By the way, experiments have shown that guinness alleviates symptoms to a certain extent ))) 128.195.186.56 12:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Adieu

[edit] Possible explanation of the annoyance

I think one reason for the feeling of annoyance many of those commenting report after having read this article is that the author seems to minimize the personal significance of the "crush" experience. The author also over-generalizes, which only serves to further minimize the individual reader's very personal experience with the wonderful and necessarily mysterious phenomenon of falling in love(-ness). L Dopa1969 (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I had this for a girl for 4 years. Finally broke down and told her how I felt when I got to feeling utterly nauseous after talking with her one night. She didn't share the feeling. I'm getting better now. We're still friends. 68.62.118.177 02:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] RE: So true

Yes, this is exactly true. This article is so accurate. Word-for-word what's going on in my head.

I have felt this thing for 4 years and I am finally going to tell the girl. Just thought I'd let you all know. Wish me luck! gregapage

Good luck, man! Wow, 4 years! That's a long time. Hope it works out for you, brother. Rimush 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article is absolutely spot on. I still feel 'limerence' for a girl I knew twenty years ago, the fucker doesn't wear off, tell her now guys is my advice to you. 203.108.239.12 03:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey. It's the 4 year long guy. It didn't go well :(

eer I was looking around for souces and verification of this article and I think there just aren't any becuase it's not very well known or documented. gregapage

Sorry, man :( But don't worry, there's plenty of other girls out there. Rimush 12:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Better luck next time.

Sorry about that man. Mail10 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: clarification?

I too have been trying to determine if there is a point in which limerence becomes love, or if they will always be separate? If the feelings are reciprocated and there is mutual concern for the other person's welfare and feelings, then in that situation has limerence evolved into love? Eric - 14:48, 11 July 2007

I would imagine so, likely resulting into a Romantic love, seeing as they share the feeling of "intense attraction" with just the concern for the other person's welfare and feelings as the telling difference. Maybe it is advisable to create another heading on this topic in the main article, just an idea. GGLucas 00:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Shame, shame!

Now watch me ruffle some feathers...

I've just read through all three pages, and I must say, I congradulate everyone who has been so forthcoming with their stories. Here, however, my praise abruptly ends. Why must anyone feel it necessary to 'cure' or 'get over' limerence? Every other post seems to reference limerence as some disorder, fit for no more celebration than yet another ubiquitous three-letter acronym and neat catagorization complete with a complementary miracle pill. (One wonders what anyone who advocates abolishing the page on the grounds of subjectivity was doing in Wikipedia's psychology department anyway...) This is love, that greatest of forces, our very characteristic that makes us human. Instead of poking and proding, rather than running from a feeling that can be just too powerful, rather than attempting futily to 'push her from your mind', we should embrace that which will draw out the best and the worst, but always the strongest, of our emotions. Revel in the euphoria and take your weeping over rejection to operatic levels, but make sure you feel something. I, for one, had belief in science and logic until I discovered just how unrequited my love was. Now, I can think of nothing more beautiful than emersing myself in hitherto unknown music, discovering that literature is more about the delicate interplay between personalities than plot. Writing was once a deadly allergy, and yet since that fateful January 24th I can scarcely concieve of a more artisitic method for salting my own tears. I have kept a tally of the days since we have spoken, and every mark eteched into that paper – well, it seems a fate worthy of Umbridge, at the very least. My only fear is that I may weaken, may stop loving her so much, that these emotions might one day wither. The rest of you, on the other hand… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.72.11.137 (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Touching & yes you do have a teeny point. But you are talking from an idealistic point of view. In reality Limerence makes you feel like shit all day long for a long time. You dont sleep well, your mind wanders easily, your overall potential is highly diminuished, not to mention the hours of emotional pain and huge depression level. This aint a joke i know ppl who killed themselves. So obviosly like when you have a headache you take a pill i bet people would love to just take a pill and don t feel like a failure all day. If you like to feel bad thats your problem. But in reailty people attempt to get over limerance at least temporarily via abuse of intoxicating substances or simply attempting to sleeping it off. I knwo a person who used to sleep 17 hours a day for almost a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.16.168 (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Limerent reaction...

I'm no psychologist, it seems logical that stages #3 and #4 be combined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.182.51 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] yep..

i've had it this way, and i still do if you should recognize this as what you feel/have for a person, then even though it feels very WRONG, then do it, otherwise you will regret it...and perhaps end up being stuck for ages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.84.172 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

in case you consider limerence a disease, the only and best way to "cure" it, is to simply tell the persons. in most situations, the limerent object is not attainable, but you risk being stuck for years otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.84.172 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)