"LOVE, n. A temporary insanity curable by marriage or by removal of the patient from the influences under which he incurred the disorder. This disease, like caries and many other ailments, is prevalent only among civilized races living under artificial conditions; barbarous nations breathing pure air and eating simple food enjoy immunity from its ravages. It is sometimes fatal, but more frequently to the physician than to the patient."
If being in love is the disease, the physician is the one who tries to stop that from happening: interfere in someone's pursuit of love and you're likely going to face negative consequences!
While it's short on prescriptions for actually overcoming limerence, I found it helpful in at least understanding the mechanisms driving my limerent feelings. If you want help coping with limerence, the tribes.com forum may be of some help (though a fair amount of it is simply people broadcasting their neuroses). I have found some nuggets of good advice however:
It's hard to say whether limerence is in and of itself a problem. Tennov takes a NPOV. Certainly, if you're supposed to be working and instead you're daydreaming about someone it's a problem. Like a lot of things, it lies on a spectrum from pleasurable to pathological or dangerous. Still, I would agree with the author's point that understanding the distinction between limerance and love can be helpful.
I somehow discovered how to overcome limerence. The answer is simple - you have to trick the very subconsious that is forcing you have these feelings with it's own methods.
Basically, what you do is that as soon as you start thinking of this person, imagine a series of events, starting with this person actually becoming yours, that lead to your utter fall and destruction. Like : "We fall in love, I go broke, cockroaches swarm all over the house". Done for two to three weeks, it basically cured me of all these feelings.
Limerance can wreck your life. I'm not kidding. Being with someone just long enough to have a kid may be optimal for your genes, but can really cramp your style in the modern world.
The person whom I was most strongly limerant with was both unmarriable and not someone I want to be connected to by a kid for the rest of my life. Using my brain, or perhaps rather the rest of my brain, and not treating limerance as some mystical holy thing is probably in the top three best decisions I have ever made in my life, along with marrying the person for whom I never had a lot of limerance (a smidge, I suppose, but nothing by comparison), just shared values, life goals, senses of humor, and the ability to have a strong truth-based relationship with each other. You know, all that unimportant stuff next to the question of whether I feel floaty around her.
Use your brain. All of it. Nobody will save you if you don't; they all think this same stupid thing.
(For that matter, it's also dangerous to think that a relationship must be built on limerance and once it fades it's "over". I suppose there are more reliable ways to fail at relationships, but this is up there. The question is not whether it'll ever be "over", the question is, what will you have left once it's "over"?)
Limerance for me has always been either the lowest (in the cases when it was unrequited) or the highest (in the cases when it worked out) point in my life. In retrospect, I remember both kindly, but at the time, the lowest points have been the most tortured misery I've ever experienced.
Personally, I wouldn't consider marrying someone unless I had limerance for them at some point in our relationship. I wouldn't marry someone while I am in the state of limerance because that's a potential recipe for disaster, but I want to know that if I'm with someone for the rest of my life, I can rekindle the fire that once was.
I strongly agree. Limerance has never been a "great feeling" for me, especially because it pushes one to take important decisions that they would have never taken otherwise. What's best for your genes is not necessarily what's best for you.
> What's best for your genes is not necessarily what's best for you
That brings about all sorts of meta-questions. I mean, for starters who's to say that's true? Is what's best for you really whatever makes you happy, or is what's best for you what's best for your genes?
We have evolved the ability to pursue goals that are more fulfilling than simply "Passing on the genes". That's why, for one thing, we have condoms. People can consciously decide whether to have children or not, and I believe most educated people agree that this is a good thing. There is no reason why we should allow evolution (which has zero foresight) to dictate what's good for us.
I understand what you're getting at, but limerence certainly can be a bad thing, as msluyter pointed out (" Like a lot of things, it lies on a spectrum from pleasurable to pathological or dangerous.").
When finally tired of an unrequited limerence many years back, I used anger. Whenever they came to mind, I made myself get angry at them. I would reminded myself of all the things they had done knowing that it would string me along in that state just a while longer or some small slight that, because of my feelings, they had known they could get away with, or something like that. Very similar to your method, I didn't let them enter my mind without drawing up this rebuttal feeling. About three weeks later it was amazing how free and clear my head felt. Like part of me had been asleep or drugged for years.
I'd go further and say that the cure is psychological time, i.e. having more intense experiences per hour. You have to isolate yourself completely from the object of your infatuation and then try to have very intense days, like those you had in childhood or boot camp. Do new stuff, win battles, lose battles, have sex with a lot of people. From my experience, this will cure your infatuation way faster than sitting in a room. If all parts of your mind are constantly occupied with other stuff, you go very quickly from "can't stop thinking about him/her" to "wow, a full hour without unhappy thoughts and I feel okay", to a day clean, then a week...
> I'd go further and say that the cure is psychological time, i.e. having more intense experiences per hour.
If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying what is more bluntly phrased, "get a life," or "get out more," in which case I entirely agree with you.
As someone who once lost an object of limerant obsession, I can say the worst thing you can do is stay in the same place, doing the same thing. I noticed when traveling last year, I bumped into a number of freshly broken-up people. They are clearly wiser than I was.
Sorry, non-native English speaker here... Never heard the term "limerence before". Seems to be a kinda-sorta synonym of "infatuation", no? Why everybody in this thread is using it instead of just "infatuation" -- some Internet meme that I'm not aware of?
It's not a real word. It was coined by the author of the book, and https://www.google.com/search?q=limerence makes clear that usage of it is limited to discussions based on the book.
It's a strange neologism, too, that doesn't sound right to my ear. What's the etymology? The only thing I can think of is limen (threshold) as in liminal and subliminal.
It seems there is no etymology: According to the creator, "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." https://www.languagehat.com/archives/001708.php
I also find myself feeling slightly uneasy when confronted by a word without etymology. Knowing it was consciously made up is somehow reassuring.
"Infatuation" has a slightly different meaning distinct from "love" while "limerence" is a distinct and precise form of "love". Just like love can be an umbrella term for a number of similar but different emotions (love like siblings, love between parents and children, love between friends, etc.), "limerence" might also be called a "crush" or "puppy love" (if I read the article correctly).
I think you can probably use it loosely as a synonym with infatuation in most contexts but the meaning is ever so slightly different.
I never heard it before today either, English has a far too many words.
My ex was convinced with the right person, limerence will last forever. Maybe she was right, but I very very very strongly suspect she was not.
Overcoming it is useful because:
1: It will eventually end
2: When it does end, you'll be in for a shock- to say the least
Essentially, if it lasted forever things would be great and this wouldn't be a problem. Since it doesn't, the sooner you get past it the better as far as making life choices goes.
I can understand that, but I still disagree with your conclusion.
Know that it doesn't last, enjoy it while it's there and try to lay the foundations for an adult relationship in the meanwhile, so that you could get past the infatuation phase (which, as you say, is inevitable) without breaking up.
Being with a partner who thinks it can last forever if they just find the perfect person can be a recipe for disaster, though one would hope most people grow out of that state of mind after a few attempts.
It's not my argument, but I do see some validity. You suggest 'enjoy it while its there' which is excellent advice- but at the same time, simply put, life-changing decisions aren't going to sit around and wait 3 years for limerence to wear off.
life-changing decisions aren't going
to sit around and wait 3 years for
limerence to wear off.
True, that's a tough cookie.
I guess the best choice in that case is to recognize the situation and try to rationally analyze it (e.g. "I'm not really in a good position in life to marry that women/have kids/move thousands of kilometers to a different continent to peruse this cute girl I've met 3 days ago while backpacking in the Himalayas[1]") and act accordingly - even though that's not very romantic.
Easier said than done, though.
[1] Unfortunately that one comes from personal experience.
That's good advice -- to start laying the foundation for a good transition from a limerent relationship to a companionate one, but isn't it very possible to have another limerent object while you're already in a companionate relationship with one? That's a troubling thought. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
I don't feel comfortable giving advice on that matter because I didn't have to handle something like that myself, so take the following with a big grain of salt.
I am sure you can get infatuated with another person while being in a loving relationship, but I tried not to put myself in a situation where the possibility of 'something just happened' even arises in the first place.
As a programmer who works in a >90% male environment and whose hobbies are similarly male-dominant, that might be easier for me to achieve than for some people.
With that disclaimer in mind, my opinion is that if you've let yourself fall in love with someone else you either:
1. Didn't really love your spouse (or thought you could do better) and might have subconsciously tried to break up or make your spouse break up with you (another declaimer: I am not a psychologist either).
2. Were not acting as a responsible adult, otherwise you would have seen it coming and taken measures against it.
3. Are confident that your relationship can survive 'harmless' affairs and craved the thrill and excitement but didn't want to leave your partner for it.
I don't think there is necessarily anything morally wrong with that last possibility, although one would hope you've discussed being in an open relationship with your partner beforehand.
Wow. I've had some girlfriends who I was not strongly limerant about, and that always bugged me when I thought about it, to the point that I thought marriage was probably out of the question. This despite the fact that I really enjoyed being with them, and had "compassionate love" for them. I tried to remind myself that that was probably Disney talking, but it's as if it has been almost hard coded into my brain.
I feel like I've been hit by the other end of the spectrum. Girls have dumped me saying they only want to be friends, but then when I stop returning their calls they get really upset.
I'm suggesting that the reason they dumped me was that they felt the companionship love but not limerance. I guess I'm simply complaining that they need to feel limerance for it to be successful in their minds.
Ah, now I get it. Yes, every American girl I ever dated seemed to have this problem. Limerance is just a chemical thing so it can be hacked. Being charming but extremely mysterious seems to trigger it. I'm talking like "at the end of the first date she doesn't know my last name" kind of mysterious. Every question she asks is dodged, redirected or answered with an obvious joke.
Of course I wasn't interested in living this way so I married a European. :)
Never heard of him before now. It did first hear the theory from some internet source, but from what I just read about Deangelo it's sounds a little different.
In any case, every time I tried it it seemed to work and every time I deviated the relationship ended. Hardly scientific proof but the source I read had spent years surveying women to arrive at his conclusions.
It is to some extent, but probably less than usual. I'm not really in a position to give advice, as my longest relationship was less than 3 months long.
This is a fantastic article. How many people are aware of this distinction, and the idea that you have to be comfortable with who someone really is rather than your vision of them?
I had no clue until about a year and half ago. I had that intense limerence feeling, (with alll the irrationality walking in the sky when I saw her type of thing). It is intense. BUT when I was scrutinizing that person closely I knew that she was somebody that I knew wasn't right for me (in the long term anyways). So, something was wrong with my primitive instinct lying to me to be attracted to this person a lot, while the rational side was saying that this is not right, especially when scrutinizing/imagine the future.
I eventually found the term, and looked at it closely. Sadly I could describe my two other 'loves' of my life (or what I thought was the feeling of love then), as simple limerence.
:(
But I guess, the shattering of an illusion is a price you pay for maturing up.
Real love is something that grows and the article would have done well to just use the word "crush" because that's what it is describing. Crushes can grow into love, but clearly don't have to.
Not nearly enough people. I do suspect though some basic common sense can occasionally save people, including those who know nothing about the concept.
For example, I have experienced limerence with several women who were completely untenable. The primary example was deep into recreational drugs, and my basic sensibilities knew enough to fight back. I WANTED to do something, but I didn't even have to engage my higher brain and think about it to know it was a bad idea. Only problem is that limerence is over 3 years old and still not dead.
I have understood the difference between love and limerence for a while now, but never quite grasped the idea that we need to enjoy the real person instead of our own fantastical vision of who they are. My understanding of the distinction between forms of love comes from examining the four Greek words for love, where philia is compassionate love and eros is limerence, but this hadn't led to enough insight for me to see past the "angel" form and become comfortable with the real person. As a high schooler and having only experienced limerence once, I think that if I can figure out the distinction then most of my peers can too, but that's not to say that we don't still frequently fall in love with a vision or fervently believe that this love can last forever.
Can we experience limerence with new projects? The project at hand becomes your whole new world.
I wonder if the reticular activating system has anything to do with it.
As I remember from the director's commentary track on some Almodovar film: Love isn't love unless there is reciprocity. (This was when some male character is stalkily going through the things in a woman's abode)
I am guessing the justification for the (admittedly editorialised) title lies in this extract:
The central paradox of limerence is that someone who is actively limerent feels like they are experiencing the most unique, rapturous experience in the world even though limerence seems to have fairly universal characteristics (at least in Western cultures, although it could be argued that traditional Asian cultures do understand limerence but don't use it as a basis for marriage)
Of course it's not as simple as that. Even in the West there are many different, and complex, reasons that people chose to get married, and I am sure the same is the case in Asian cultures. But as a culture-wide generalisation, I guess there is some truth in it.
The thing I find peculiar sometimes in the West is not so much the fact that so much emphasis is placed on the limerence phase, but that the companionate phase is so... almost scorned. I am pretty sure that biologically and culturally the point of the former is to get us to the latter.
Interesting points and well-written. The title given is certainly misleading.
Quite honestly I don't think I've ever experienced this feeling. I have been the "limerent object" as a teenager, though. It felt simply horrible that someone was intrusively obsessing about me for years, seemingly with no regard for how I actually felt about it.
For a long time afterwards, I was convinced that "love" is a socially acceptable front for something entirely selfish which has nothing to do with communication or compassion.
Not trying to be nosy, but, what qualified as 'intrusively' obsessing? Would it still bother you if you were aware of the obsession but not subject to any intrusive actions?
You think you see something amazing. You really want that. You are a human, with a brain, which is flexible and adaptable. So if you don't get what you want, you adapt and try to make the best of it, rationalizing further and further from the truth. The mind, if resolved, can adapt and see the better parts of things. A monk who lives in a post-apocalytic world could, for example, really enjoy a blooming daisy. Same pattern.
But then other things come along. And finally you move on.
Re: [oatmeal]...this is true love because it can be everlasting, but this is not the love script that we are bombarded with from every literary or entertainment form in our lives.
I would just say, in defense of fairy tales, that some nice morals are (a) it's good to be optimistic and (b) you should step up and win. It's good practice. Seems unrealistic or even unhealthy to promote such behavior sometimes. And there is a balance. But sometimes you should step up and win.
This is particularly because human infants cannot cling onto their mothers the way all primate infants can (a consequence of hairlessness and shorter arms).
Awesome.
...the optimal middle area...
What? That's wrong. Premature optimization. There's nothing wrong with more diversity, esp. regarding immune systems.
For as long as we project god-like idealizations onto our romantic partners and demand that they make us happy as the fairy tales describe, we will never truly love them as human beings.
Yeah, but clearly the qualities of steadfastness and adaptability in limerence can also be found in the qualities of steadfastness and adaptability in marriage. The difficult parts, in limerence and in marriage (though the latter I am just guessing about) are in those moments of honesty with yourself and reality.
I've been limerant twice in my life, I'm 21 and I can say both were so far the worst times of my life. The only cure is never seeing the person again or putting a bullet in your head. I can see how it can bring joy to those for which it is reciprocated, for me it sucks and I wish it never happens again.
The feeling is useless, sex is both much more fun and actually real. Personally I thought it was an awful thing that happened once and then you weren't susceptible to it anymore. I had no idea it could happen again.
"In the end, the basis of a stable relationship is founded on a love that emerges not in spite of but because of the other person’s flaws and weaknesses, because ultimately it is our imperfections that make us human."
It seems more logical to me to love someone in spite of their flaws.
Nothing really related to Hacker News, but that's one of the reasons why I "love" the site... those great off topic articles that apply to almost everybody and that let you see that there is a world beyond bits and bytes.
We are very attracted when we project on the other that which we repress or feel missing in ourselves, a part of our own un-developed, unaccepted or unknown true nature. Therefore the need to merge.
Best thing in this case is to see what that is in ourselves. Cherish the relationship, while knowing the other is not neccessarily what we project on them, but a catalyst for us to know ourselves better.
Same thing goes for intense hate by the way. It's all towards unowned features of ourselves, but we project it on the other when they have the slightest resemblence to it.
Like the old bard said:
"There's so many different worlds /
So many different suns /
And we have just one world /
But we live in different ones"
Even the notion of being human is outdated. There were previous century views and now we're in a new era, with deeper understanding of what makes us up. We've gone from a blob of living matter, to a horrendously intricate biological machine.
That period stretched from a few centuries ago (Newtonian mechanics) to the first half of the 20th century. Now, I think, we're heading toward the understanding that "intricate biological machine" might not be the best of models, and that "blob of living matter" is worth revisiting.
The notion of world-as-machine is becoming dated I think, as a more organic understanding arises, both from the mixing of western and eastern ideas, as well as better physics.
Also, I'd observe that our machines have become more complicated. The complexity of the first car is nothing whatsoever next to the complexity of your cell phone. The more complicated our machines get, the more organic their behavior has been getting quite naturally. (Indeed, one of the most important things about building large systems is learning how to write code that works less "organically", lest the problems that organic machines tend to have overwhelm you, things like errant state propagation and such that cause weird, weird bugs five minutes after the trigger.)
Hello everybody, I am the one who posted this article and it is because I have been trying to find an answer for so many troubling things for such a long time (wait to see my post on why I shared this)...among them is that this might be the reason to the 50% divorce rate in the United States.
But before we go into that, I have a question for all of you: Can someone you have been limerent about, being nonrequited, dissapointed...basically having gone through the whole pain process...still be trusted and cared about? This is actually the main reason why I sought for an answer for so long.
When it comes to advice: Wise men don't need it, and fools won't heed it. And those who want it the most, like it the least. There's plenty of fish in the sea. Life's too short to waste it with people who can't/won't return your affections. Of course, if masochism is your thing, by all means go ahead and reopen that old wound, and bring on the pain.
Of course. The whole point of Yee's writing is that it's imperative to transition into a companionate phase from the ephemeral and almost-superficial limerent one.
Rather than getting rid of 'limerent' feelings, is it possible to channel them into motivation for something else? For instance, Y loves unobtainable woman X, but sees there's no reason why X should want Y, therefore sets about a disciplined program of self-improvement and wealth/prospect/prestige-accumulation in the hope that X may one day be attracted.
It comes back to the universal problem of how to focus ones mind in order to become more productive.
> therefore sets about a disciplined program of self-improvement
> and wealth/prospect/prestige-accumulation in the hope that
> X may one day be attracted.
That's basically the plot of every mind-poisoning, B.S. movie fed to American (all Western?) youth.
So many men, especially young men, believe in this concept of winning over their love. Somehow he'll make her love him (creepy overtones of misogyny). He'll convince her that he's worth loving.
If you really like yourself, then that's good enough. If you're not happy with yourself, yeah, improve. But don't ever think you need to improve for someone else[1]. Anyone who actually responds to this is a manipulative jerk who will gradually up the stakes to watch you dance.
If X doesn't win over Y, he should consider whether he feels he needs to improve in any areas, pursue any changes, then see how things go when he bumps into Z, having forgotten about Y.
[1] - exception: unquestionably defective personality traits (alcoholism, gambling addiction, abusiveness) when you're in a long-term relationship and you both agree to work on it.
Personally I think the more 'poisonous' idea is that 'you are who you are' and that people don't respond to actual values/achievements. Who wants to be loved in spite of what's good about them, of what they try to do.
The films you talk about usually show a very superficial process of improvement, typically involving dressing in cooler clothes, lots of silly shenanigans, taking on some new hobbies, and going places to 'hang out.' I'm talking about actual achievements, starting with getting yourself in shape and becoming more entertaining, but extending to meeting your academic potential, finding a good career, developing new skills, committing to side projects, establishing a network of admirable friends, broadening your horizons etc. Things that would serve X well regardless of whether they really do impress Y in the end. With the quality of life possible in the West on a meagre wage, it's tempting to coast through life achieving a fraction of your potential
> the more 'poisonous' idea is that 'you are who you are'
Er, are you talking about trashy movies? I don't really know any that tell you not to achieve things.
> The films you talk about usually show a very superficial process of improvement
It seems to depend on the sex of the character. Females have to lose the glasses and wash their hair with conditioner. Men seem to have to prove themselves, learn stuff, go to ridiculous lengths of sacrifice thereby proving to the female lead that they're worthy, etc.
> it's tempting to coast through life achieving a fraction of your potential
It sounds to me like it's more tempting to waste your time obsessing on the pursuit of money and success in the eyes of others, rather than doing what makes you happy and brings you closer relationships.
I wasn't talking about movies - but the prevalent 'love is blind' idea (there are many ways of describing it). It's worse than the shallow 'get the girl' antics of movies IMO.
Also I think you imply a false dichotomy between 'the pursuit of money and success' and doing what makes you happy and brings you closer relationships.
> Also I think you imply a false dichotomy between 'the pursuit of money and success'
You cut out the critical "in the eyes of others" part.
As for a "false dichotomy," spending your life trying to make more money and present the image of success is not a path to happiness. It's quite well documented that the best thing you can do for happiness is to improve your personal relationships. As for money, it doesn't lead to happiness. A lack of money leads to unhappiness, but you only need enough.
Anyway, I really think you're missing my points entirely. I'm not saying you shouldn't seek self improvement, and I'm not saying you shouldn't try to achieve things (which may or may not lead to riches). I'm saying do what you want to do for yourself and focus on your relationships. Don't be led around by false ideals implanted in your psyche, and don't try to be "good enough" for others, as it will only make you unhappy.
I left out 'in the eyes of others' because I didn't want to have to bring up a second false dichotomy you were implying, namely between 'success in the eyes of others' and 'success in your own eyes.' I mean most people have pretty similar ideas about what constitutes success.
If you try to make the most of yourself and feel you've succeeded, and you are still not 'good enough' for someone else, then I don't think that would make you unhappy. At that point you'd probably peacefully accept that something wasn't to be and that you were not to blame. On the other hand, if you never fulfill your potential, if you never really give it a try, and are left wondering what might have been, that seems a surer root to unhappiness. Though it will creep up on you after years of just having 'enough' money and maintaining the same relationships.
Value isn't just the domain of money, it's also the domain of creativity and of personal qualities/virtues. Relationships, self esteem, etc, are not exempt from the concept, recognition and exchange of value. Although a lot of people talk like they are, which I think is at the bottom of this argument here.
It is interesting that he can manage an essay of such length without mentioning Stendahl, whose _On Love_ isn't that hard to find--wasn't before Amazon, actually. One trusts that Ms.es Hatfield and Tennoy found room for him in the bibliography.
And what in the world might be the proposed derivation of "limerence"? Wikipedia offers no hint, though it does use the word "crystallization", which Stendahl I believe popularized in this context.
It's actually not your fault. My web host is moving the server hosting my domain and they've clearly messed up somehow. I'm in the midst of resolving this with them.
In the mean time, if you google "Love in Four Acts", Google has the article in its cache. Sorry for the inconvenience all.
"The prince and princess merely change forms and show up on TV sitcoms, movies and fill the roles in novels, plays and even songs. The same story is being re-enacted over and over again for all ages."
I think if we recognize that human organism -the individual system called human body- is a programmable organism like a computer -and tv and movies program this organism- then we would be taking a step toward understanding this concept called -love-
-Ambrose Bierce