Talk:Limerence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Limerence - Definition issue with regards to relative importance of reciprocation, uncertainty and hope[edit]

In particular this section of the definition: "overwhelming, obsessive need to have one's feelings reciprocated." does not seem to represent the limerant state but instead a form of an "Obsessive Love" which is a different category of romantic attachment and has its own variety of manifestations (which are often likely to co-exist with limerence). One may be obsessed with experiencing and expressing the love while in a limerant state, but the intent can be varied and the progression of the relationship towards its natural conclusion may be desired, whether that is reciprocation or not.

I also think it's important to mention the underlying context in which the limerant state arises, a certain mixture of uncertainty and hope. From my understanding the crucial elements of limerance are uncertainty about relationship progression, hope for reciprocation (which may or may not be obsession - but often manifests as intrusive thoughts, fantasy or projections), and actual emotional feelings of love/attachment.

split into a new article?[edit]

I can't quite believe that someone has expressed the idea of splitting this article into a new article called infatuation. Was that really the idea?

When one splits something, one should get at least two pieces, no? There would then be whatever in this article expresses (probably redundant) ideas on infatuation, and then whatever is "limerence" but not really infatuation.

To me that would be a little like splitting an article intended to discuss the relationship among factors such as ambient temperature, ambient humidity, and physiological homeostatic mechanisms related to body temperature into an article entitled "Feeling hot." P0M (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've ever experienced it, but I can't imagine people rejecting their infatuation as a bad thing.
Limerence, on the other hand, is often unwanted. The "intrusive thoughts" are intrusive because they're undesired, but can't be stopped. From what I read on tribe.net, these people wish that it would just go away. There's even a story here about a woman who admitted her feelings, expecting to get rejected, and becoming distressed when the feelings were reciprocated, because even though she was so ecstatic afterwards, what she really wanted was to lose the feelings.
I think what would be helpful is a section discussing the difference between limerence and other feelings involved in relationships. --68.160.205.114 (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, as someone suffering from what I would describe as limerence, infatuation and limerence are two separate things. Infatuation is short-lived attraction to someones, usually physically. Limerence occurs when you grasp more of a persons personality, and perceive connections made with the person, so that a strong feeling of attachment and desire for that person develops, but it is not yet real love because you do not know that person fully inside and out, which is required to love someone.Yonskii (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above contribution. I congratulate the authors of this article which accurately describes a condition which is imo much more common than many people realise and which needs to be more widely recognised. The article is not OR because it is based on the research of an accredited academic. Please do not split or delete it. Viewfinder (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the term may have been invented to make a new stab at a precise understanding of a condition that overlaps some or all of the things that we informally identify as infatuation. Infatuation is generally a negative term that indicates bedazzlement and loss of control. It is something that is viewed as "to be expected" of young people, but something that is criticized if it interferes with the social functioning of a full adult.
If we look at limerence from the standpoint of zoology, then it seems to me to make sense. Almost all animals engage in courtship rituals. The purpose is to conquer fear and aggression. Even simple creatures such as jumping spiders engage in a mutual recognition process that identifies potential mates, and, most important, puts the female into an agreeable state for mating and subdues her hunger. Humans are far more complex, but we still need to establish relationships that may be inhibited by fears generated by unfamiliarity and/or prior negative experiences with other humans. The phenomena described as limerance imply an altered neurophysiological state. This state tends to make doubts and suspicions disappear, and the potential mate to be over-valued. The altered state persists for long enough for a child to be born, and then a new form of bonding takes precedence, one in which the bond between the parents is reinforced by their individual bonds with the child.
There is a historical record of a sort from China's Tang dynasty. A young man who does not even have affection from his own family, who has been indoctrinated against extramarital relations, etc., meets a young woman (really a teenage girl) who suddenly breaks through his reserve. He sees the possibility of psychological intimacy. She interprets his interest as purely sexual. She has severe character structure issues and has probably suffered prior sexual abuse. Her mother is an enabler and was probably an enabler of whatever person hurt her to begin with. The man can see none of the negative factors and therefore cannot do anything effective to ameliorate them. (See my translation at
http://www.china-learn.info/Ying-ying%20Zhuan.html)
Limerence is a gateway to sexual interactions, not an expression of sexual interest, but the distinction is hard to see. It is particularly difficult to fathom the whole thing for those who have grown up in a society that equates love and sexual relations. P0M (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me that the "common law marriage" between the two characters in the story mentioned above lasted only about as long as limerence is supposed to keep people together while waiting for the first child. The young lady in the (probably autobiographical) story never became pregnant. The young man eventually realized that his mental functioning was distorted and that while the young woman was sexually available to him she was not in the least intimate with him psychologically. He terminated the relationship after a long period during which she accused him of being on the verge of abandoning her, a self-fulfilling prophecy.P0M (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up - especially definition[edit]

I don't feel competent enough to do it myself, but here are some thoughts:

1) Definition in the introduction makes little sense - unless limerence is "a state which SEEMS TO RESULT from a romantic relation", which could be just about anything. An actual definition is in the "characteristics" paragraph and should be used instead.

Done. Kbog (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) Someone mentioned in the discussion that the term morphed - it has a different meaning now from what Tennov meant. Make it clear.

3) "Limerent" can be both a noun meaning "object of limerance" ("limerent object") and an adjective meaning both "one experiencing limerance" ("limerenct person") and one being an object of it (see above). It's confusing - make it clear.

4) Second paragraph, second sentence is repetetive, repetetive. And that somebody uses a term "sexual incentive motivation" in their work doesn't mean it has to stand out in the introduction being duly confusing by its pleonastic nature (incentive is almost a synonym of motivation).

5) Shorten the whole article, it's definitly too long for the subject.

Agreed. Kbog (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6) Clear the jargon - e.g. "particular carving up of the semantic domain of love" (meaning it's a "a subtype/kind of love") and strangely built sentences (semicolons are ok in French academic writting, but confusing to Anglo-Saxon readers). And style that seems to be directly copied from a coursebook (Tennov's, perhaps). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loard (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the word - request for someone to write up a summary of the references below (or more)[edit]

The article states who coined the word and why, but not from what. I thought that it was related to liminality (from the Latin word līmen, meaning "a threshold"), a concept first developed by anthropologists in the early 20th century, but it's not.

I'm going to add cross-references ("not to be confused with") at the top of both Limerence & Liminality, but my chronic illness is acting up so I can't take the energy and therefore the time to make this post smaller (apologies to Blaise Pascal & WP:TLDR), much less concisely add the info below to the article. I suggest a brief Etymology section quoting the coiner's purposeful attempt at lack of...uh...etymology. I would still call the section Etymology to be parallel with other articles' and because it answers the question of etymology that readers pose, as seen below.

http://www.gramps.org/limerence/ (about halfway down, apparently from the publisher of her ebook)

The Linguistics of Limerence—Professional Article

Dr. Tennov writes, “It is rare that an artificial term, invented, and chosen deliberately to be without cognates, that originates at a known date and place, expands tractably during a quarter-century, across disciplines and continents, sometimes arriving at meanings different from that intended by its inventor.”

(By the way, if you “Google” on the word “limerence” today, you'll discover over 120,000 references, from rock music groups to neurology articles. People have adopted the word in literature, poetry, as the name of a consulting business, and even pornography.)

http://www.languagehat.com/archives/001708.php

What's particularly interesting about limerence is its etymology, or lack thereof, as explained in this quote from Dorothy Tennov, the word's inventor: 1977 Observer 11 Sept. 3/9, I first used the term ‘amorance’ then changed it back to ‘limerence’... It has no roots whatsoever. It looks nice. It works well in French. Take it from me it has no etymology whatsoever.

Thanks in advance, even if all you could do is read all this. :) --Geekdiva (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed minor mistakes. Also, the previous poster from 2011 had some good points, too. --Geekdiva (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPELLING? MORPHING? All words morph, of course, but I was surprised to see this word take on such a technical meaning (not a bad thing) over the years. I distinctly remember attending a conference, about 1981, where I learned this word from a speaker who said something to this effect: "I don't like the word infatuation, so in my book I created the word 'limerance,' as it just has a better ring to it than infatuation." I don't remember the speaker at all, not even her gender, but it must have been Tennov. I remembered the word and have used it many times since. I've always spelled the word "limerance" (looks more lyrical than limerence, as in the word "dance"), and I see that spelling used all over the web. I don't have her book, but I assume it says "limerence," since that is what most are using here. Yet many, even on this page, are spelling it limerance. I like the notion that a "limerent object" is the object of limerance—but I'm not trying to change anything here, just noting the widespread use of both spellings and that we should aim for consistency. ChicagoLarry (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues[edit]

***1) Under definition: "Though there are no established preconditions for limerence, there is a high rate of coincidence between limerence, depersonalization/derealization disorders, and dysfunctional attachment environments in childhood."

Can we get a citation here? I've never read any research relating limerence to depersonalization/derealization disorders, but if it exists, I'd sure like to.

***2) Under characteristics: "Affection and fondness exist only as a disposition towards another person, irrespective of whether those feelings are reciprocated, whereas limerence deeply desires return, but IT REMAINS UNALTERED WHETHER IT'S RETURNED OR NOT."

Tennov stated that there were three ways that limerence subsided: 1) consummation (reciprocation), 2) starvation, and 3) transference. If the limerent's feelings are genuinely returned, it can/may fall under 1. Each limerent has a slightly different view of acceptable reciprocation. Some limerents, upon achieving reciprocation/consummation, remain limerent (as documented by Tennov)…while other limerents do not achieve any "real" consummation (e.g., physical, or in the form of an actual relationship) but find their limerence waning after an LO professes similar feelings.

***3) Under sexuality: "In such cases, limerence may form as a defense mechanism against the limerent object, who is not perceived initially as a romantic ideal, but as a physical threat to the limerent. This is particularly consistent among limerents who were formerly victims of sexual abuse or trauma."

Again, is there a citation for this? I'm not sure when this article was so thoroughly changed from its previous incarnation(s), but this newer version makes a lot of statements linking limerence to psychological disorders, trauma, and attachment theory…some of the claims are made with citations, others are not, and I'm curious as to where all of this is coming from.

***4) Under sexuality: "Limerence elevates body temperature and INCREASES RELAXATION, a sensation of viewing the world with rose-tinted glasses, becoming more receptive to sexuality, and daydreaming."

How does limerence increase relaxation? This should be more specifically explained or denoted, given that this article also stated:

"There is apprehension, nervousness, and anxiety due to terrible worry that any action may bring about disaster."

"...[contact] is accompanied with an acute feeling of ecstasy or despair, depending on the turn of events beforehand."

"Considerable self-doubt and uncertainty may be experienced, leading to 'personal incapacitation expressed through an unsettling shyness in the presence of the [L] person'[14] - something which causes pain, but also enhances desire to a certain extent…"''

***5) Under limerent reaction: "The correlation with dissociative disorders is particularly high among "serial" limerents."

Citation, please. I am a serial limerent and have known other serial limerents, but I have never heard this. On the other hand, I *do* know of NON-serial limerents who were affected by dissociative disorders. Honestly, if this research is out there, I'm interested in reading it.

***6) Under impact: "David Brooks defines limerence as a potentially positive, unifying, transformative encounter with the divine, or oneness of mankind.[21]"

I watched this video, and the only mention made about limerence was around the 15min mark--Brooks was not even talking about limerence as explained in this article. I am almost positive he is using some other definition of the word (possibly mistaken), in a totally different context, and I have no idea why this is even cited here.

Osiyeza (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like David Brooks, but I was surprised that his comment was even mentioned here, as though he were a recognized expert on the psychology of emotions rather than a political/cultural commentator. If Rush Limbaugh shared his thoughts about limerence, would they go before or after David's? 99.191.111.35 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devotion to Celestial Qualities[edit]

"Attendant to stress on the celestial qualities perceived, and devotion to them, there is abundant doubt of reciprocal amity: rejection."

What? Is there meaning here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:37E7:9D70:9489:5A4F:D09:AC18 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Adding Section: Causes[edit]

I propose adding a Causes section to the Limerence page. Mgdupont (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Adding Section: Overcoming Limerence[edit]

I propose adding an Overcoming Limerence section to the Limerence page. Mgdupont (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor: obsessive vs compulsive[edit]

Intro sentence currently includes "compulsive thoughts". I think "obsessive thoughts" is more correct, since compulsions are behaviours whereas obsessions are thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110:8008:1010:0:0:0:201 (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Came here to say the same thing, so I fixed it. The whole article needs a lot of work, but this bugged me too much to leave it for when I can spend more time on the rest. Permstrump (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A product of Asperger's Autism?[edit]

There is some indication that limerence is the product of a person with Asperger's Syndrome fixating on a person, instead of an object.GESICC (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to some reliable sources supporting that statement? Permstrump (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it is always the product? Wikkrockiana (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Limerence/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

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.

Last edited at 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 22:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pathological? Distinguished from other kinds of love?[edit]

Is limerence pathological? Always pathological? How do we distinguish limerence from exciting love? The article should make this clear. Wikkrockiana (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The french wikipedia says "Le concept de « limerence » est présenté par Tennov comme une façon de concevoir l'amour de manière scientifique", "the concept of limerence is presented by Tennov as a scientific way of conceving love". So, indeed, it IS romantic love, but conceptualized in a way that make it "measurable" by tests. At the worst, it is the suffered way of loving of a insicure, shy, undeclared lover. So, it's not pathological (but its obsessive characteristics could become pathological). The article shows great confusion because in Tennov's work "limerance" was not necessarily a negative mental state, quite the contrary (she says that it's potentially inspirant, and offers a definition that it's nothing more than the mainstream description of a general passion), but the term "limerance" was successively "pathologized" by Wakin Vo, who thought of a pretty specific condition in which a person is both pathologically affected by OCD and in love. - Brocabruno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.82.16.176 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

A word being mentioned two times in a book is still a trivial mention which doesn't belong in the article. Even if it were a novel devoted to the concept of limerence, it is still red-linked and relies on a primary source. And besides the point, trivia sections are discouraged in Wikipedia as they often introduce irrelevant material and detract from the flow of the article (see WP:TRIVIA). I don't think that the idea of limerence has received such coverage in popular culture that we need to discuss it in the article. Daß Wölf 17:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several examples of similar articles with "popular culture" sections:

The article Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content says that such sections "can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias" as long they are "verifiable" and "contain facts of genuine interest to the reader." I am a reader, and the fact that limerence is specifically mentioned in a popular recent novel is of interest to me, so I am trying to make a contribution to this article in an accepted manner so other readers can be aware of this. Rather than allow one user Wölf arbitrate what may be of interest or of use to everyone else, why not include the "in popular culture" section and allow users to edit it for improvements if needed? User:Sqrlntz1999 18:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content is an essay, while WP:TRIVIA is a guideline. Nevertheless, the essay mentions that, "When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft. They should be carefully maintained, as they may attract trivial entries, especially if they are in list format." While these sections seem to be commonplace in similar articles as you pointed out, most of these examples are poorly written TV Tropes-style lists which would have to go if these articles were nominated for a good or a featured article.
There are some popular culture sections here that are better written than others (e.g. the one in Love addiction, which could benefit from some copyediting and commentary on more modern portrayals of love addiction, but otherwise gives interesting information sourced to secondary sources), but none of them would do good to include another paragraph that basically boils down to: "On page __ of book ____ the word __ was mentioned in the sentence that goes: ________". I get stuck on TV Tropes regularly, and even I don't see how this could be of any interest to the average reader. Daß Wölf 23:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia: What this guideline is not says, "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all." Trivia: "In popular culture" also says, "This material is not categorically trivial. Media coverage of a topic is generally encyclopedic information, helps establish the topic's notability, and helps readers understand the subject's influence on the public (and often vice versa)." The several examples from the other Wikipedia articles above show that the "average reader" probably would be more interested to know how limerence is presented in current fiction than, say, whether the Wikipedia article was nominated for an award. This is "suitable information" because it uses familiar context to help increase awareness and understanding. That's the intention of my contribution, anyway. If it's poorly written or presented, please improve and build upon it, instead of dismissing as trivia and deleting. User:Sqrlntz1999 15:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to improve here. This is a citation of a brand new book, which thus has yet to enter popular culture (if it ever will), so it can hardly help the reader connect to something familiar to better understand the concept of limerence. Also, the book seems to touch on the article subject so marginally that it cannot teach the reader anything beyond what he has already learned before reaching the "In popular culture" section. This is supported by a lack of any secondary sources discussing this book in connection with limerence. There is no familiar context here, hence, it doesn't aid the reader's understanding. The only thing it could possibly do is increase their awareness of the novel, which is not this article's job. Daß Wölf 00:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NRE[edit]

New relationship energy.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Limerence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ought to be better[edit]

While I defend limerence as being a much more rigorously examined concept than the newer/trendier new relationship energy, Limerence isn't really substantially better than New relationship energy.

As can be seen from browsing the Talk history of both articles, NRE has repeatedly been put forward as all the rainbows-and-unicorns happy-fuzzy feelings of "falling in love" (with no downside except maybe sacrificing your career or skipping out on your spouse and children), while all the bipolar obsessive stalkerish stuff has been damned as "limerence," when actually (leaving off the propaganda of mindless Romance) they are pretty much the same thing.

So it is with reluctance that I might be trimming the most questionable claims made in Limerence. I could use some assistance, namely the citations made to "Tennov, 1998" when the only Tennov piece clearly cited is the 1999 edition of her book (originally 1979). Similarly, there are citations to "Morris" and "Moore" and "Agmo" and "Leggett & Malm" that do not offer an actual book or paper, so it's well into W.T.F. range here; if I didn't have a bias, I might delete these assertions, and then remove the passages that had claimed them as support.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Magic Potion[edit]

Romance is the conspiracy of the hormones, and starts with the delusion that romance is the same as love. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.78.144.132 (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why this article?[edit]

Since "limerence" is basically a synonym for infatuation, it does not merit its own article.

Especially since far more people are familiar with the word "infatuation".50.205.142.35 (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Limerence, as characterized in the article, is of such duration as to qualify as a different phenomenon. Infatuation is frequently taken to be short-lived. The two share many features though. Spirarel (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to build on the above, infatuation typically implies some greater level of rationality and control over the desires, while 'limerence' is just a made-up term for lovesickness so the good esteemed late Dr. Tennov, PhD could sell her book 136.35.170.50 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

is passionately desired actually to take place[edit]

this, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of an infinitive that begs to be split. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:FD24:46CE:76AF:D0B5 (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Willmott's self-published book[edit]

I'm going to be removing references to Willmott & Bentley's book Love and Limerence: Harness the Limbicbrain. This book was self-published by Lynn Willmott using CreateSpace, and it's also no longer in print so it's not possible for anyone to obtain a copy of it.

A careful reading of policies such as WP:RELY, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:SELFPUB would lead one to conclude that it's not appropriate as a Wikipedia source, because it's a self-published primary source by an author who is not an established subject-matter expert in the relevant field.

Willmott & Bentley have otherwise one single article published on the topic [1], published in a minor journal with a permissive editorial policy: [2]

The hallmark of The Qualitative Report will not be built upon rejection rates; rather, we want to distinguish ourselves by assisting authors to improve themselves and their texts. We strongly believe all authors and their research have merit. Sometimes, that quality is not readily apparent in the text. The goal of this approach is to help authors to develop their ideas and to work collaboratively with their mentors to help them to bring out the best in their work.

Lynn Willmott's ideas are also not that well supported by the literature on this. She and her graduate student are basically the only academic authors I can find that are advancing an idea that limerence has to do with attachment issues. Everything else I can find on this topic relates it to dopamine and serotonin systems in the brain.

Furthermore, I found that references to this book seem to have been originally added by Lynn Willmott herself. [3] The username "Lathbury1" clearly refers to "Lathbury House", which is Lynn Willmott's self-publishing company.

See e.g. WP:UNDUE. From what I can tell, she is just a fringe author who tried to advertise her self-published material by citing herself as a source. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research on dopamine and serotonin[edit]

I've added reference to these 2 studies in the lead: [4] [5].

Neither of these papers specifically use the word "limerence", but if you read them it's clear what they are talking about. Fisher's fMRI paper repeatedly uses Love and Limerence as a citation, for example. Fisher also does use the word "limerence" to refer to this in another paper which also talks about the fMRI study before the results were published: [6].

It should be obvious why the 2 studies are relevant to the article, but I was careful with the wording to try to avoid synthesis.

Looking at Wikipedia's guidelines though, I think it may not even technically be synthesis to say these 2 studies are about limerence, because Fisher's 2002 paper connects all the ideas together using the word. WP:SYNTH says '"A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article.'

Anyway, it should be fine.

There's actually a pretty large amount of research on this, they just rarely use Tennov's word specifically. Fisher, for example, seems to be a fan of the idea that "limerence is love" which may explain why she refers to Tennov quite a bit but avoids the word except occasionally. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Limerence&oldid=1218259912"