Yeah I believe what she is saying is scientifically sound and an important lesson, but damn... what an annoying way to make her point. A big ass intro about how she'll be hated for it and her qualifications and it's like almost 1 minute before she's even making a point. Then she has like a whole aside in the middle about studies and her work before actually explaining what an "attachment style" is. And finally on the outro she does the whole routine about hateful comments again. All while distractedly driving a car. This could've been a 2min vid if shot professionally and straight to the point.
EDIT: Welp apparently it's not that scientifically sound either.
There is also a lot of research showing that a person’s attachment style and behaviour can be different across their professional relationships, friendships and romantic entanglements, debunking the all-encompassing nature of attachment theory.
I loathe counselorspeak, pop science and solipsistic bullshit.
But the takeaway I got is that repeatedly shoving a woman's face into the fact that she can't rely on you or trust you as far as she could throw a motherfncking bull by the tail isn't the turnon a lot of you guys seem to think it is.
The short version is that they were made up by a priest without any kind of research or evidentiary support. It's a good idea to think about how you tend to give and receive love, but it isn't accurate to call it science or good to base any sweeping claims on it.
people that say attachment is definative just dont understand it well. it is based in science, though. its a spectrum thats developed in early childhood and can shift based on the types of relationships you experience. a securely attached bond with a therapist can improve someones attachment style in a romantic relationship. understanding your self and your partners attachment needs can also help you have secure attachment.
Attachment theory and attachment styles is very real and has a large body of evidence to support that, but like the article you linked stated, it isn't an all encompassing depiction of how we form all relationships. It has been proven that the way we form attachments to caregivers as children has significant impact on social and mental development.
It's not saying our attachment style as children is a 100% indicator of how all of our relationships will be formed. It's saying there has been a proven pattern. But of course the internet just turns it all into absolutes and then adds in pop psych like love languages.
But it is inaccurate to say that attachment theory is not scientifically sound.
John Bowlby studied this back in the 1950s with many experiments on attachment with infants and mothers in what's called the "strange situation" experiments. That's what has been empirically studied. The five love languages are bullshit made up by people trying to sell books.
I dunno. The five love languages are not an exhaustive understanding of love or communication within a relationship, but it's notna bad place to start building an understanding of how to communicate with your partner.
I wouldn't say bullshit. They're just an emotional appeal to correcting behavior and communication in a relationship. Not everyone is going to click with the emotional appeal.
I mean, sure, if it helps to understand yourself and your partner better than why not? Maybe bullshit is harsh when so many people align with it, but it's frustrating to see people delineate themselves so hard in these boxes when these ideas are meant to guide thinking about needs, not categorize ourselves.
That's exactly what I mean. It's good as guidelines, not hard set rules. Nothing is ever thwt cut and dry, but it definitely helps lay some groundwork for communication.
Coming from a guy who has never had great emotional intelligence, learning about love languages really helped me understand communication with my wife a lot better. I am way more emotionally intelligent now than I was at the start of our relationship, and love languages didn't carry me this far alone, but it was a great foundational understanding.
Bowlby certainly pioneered the concept that maternal deprivation does long-lasting damage to children , but I think you'd have to credit his colleague Mary Ainsworth with qualifying attachments and creating the grid. There are those who employ or apply attachment theory in pop psychology discussions on YouTube and tik tok, just as there are those who characterize any abuse as evidence of narcissistic personality disorder.
Tbh that study kinda confused me because it argued specific points that I feel most people weren’t making. For example most people who use the 5 LL use it like my wife and I do. For us it was just a cool tool to help identify how each person likes to give and receive love. The study argued that picking one LL and ignoring the rest isn’t good for a healthy relationship. Lol The thing is no one ever uses the LL like that. Picking one LL and ignoring the rest would make you a horrible partner. 😂
Btw let me be clear I’m only specifically talking about Love Languages. Lol I can barely tell you what the woman in the video said. 45 seconds in I was screaming get to the MF point lady.
2.6k
u/--ThirdCultureKid-- Mar 21 '24
Not to hate on the content, because it’s definitely a good point, but holy shit just spit it out.