This doesn’t really feel counter to the Love Language ontology to me. The point in my mind is not that there are 5 specific languages, the 5 languages are mostly useful for breaking through the naive conception that all love languages are the same. (I think this may be different from what the creator of the 5 languages intended, but when I first saw the love languages book I thought ‘here’s a model that’s wrong but useful and makes the correct, important meta point’)
And it feels like the ‘being seen’ thing is a) maybe something that’s a unique language or frame of its own, b) I think most of the original 5 language are spoken most strongly when they convey a clear sense of seen ness)
“Being seen” can be qualitatively different from “love languages” because it’s causally upstream of things like being good at inferring someone’s love language.
LL as often presented seems like an attempt to shoehorn some insights that depend on theory of mind, into a framework where you can just categorize someone as a “type” and then black-box them without understanding why different things work on different people. I’ve done this and it leads to lots of misunderstandings and hurt feelings, especially if you get too good at predicting black-box behavior & feeding the system its max-reward input, without thinking about what beliefs might be forming in the other person’s head.
On the other hand, this could easily be an attempt to get across the higher-level point, to the sort of person who can’t think abstractly, but can think conceptually through concrete examples; five quite different examples of a thing are going to be enough to make the general point. LessWrongers are reasonably likely to miss the point of a presentation like that, because we’re used to thinking conceptually via explicit abstractions.
This doesn’t really feel counter to the Love Language ontology to me. The point in my mind is not that there are 5 specific languages, the 5 languages are mostly useful for breaking through the naive conception that all love languages are the same. (I think this may be different from what the creator of the 5 languages intended, but when I first saw the love languages book I thought ‘here’s a model that’s wrong but useful and makes the correct, important meta point’)
And it feels like the ‘being seen’ thing is a) maybe something that’s a unique language or frame of its own, b) I think most of the original 5 language are spoken most strongly when they convey a clear sense of seen ness)
“Being seen” can be qualitatively different from “love languages” because it’s causally upstream of things like being good at inferring someone’s love language.
LL as often presented seems like an attempt to shoehorn some insights that depend on theory of mind, into a framework where you can just categorize someone as a “type” and then black-box them without understanding why different things work on different people. I’ve done this and it leads to lots of misunderstandings and hurt feelings, especially if you get too good at predicting black-box behavior & feeding the system its max-reward input, without thinking about what beliefs might be forming in the other person’s head.
On the other hand, this could easily be an attempt to get across the higher-level point, to the sort of person who can’t think abstractly, but can think conceptually through concrete examples; five quite different examples of a thing are going to be enough to make the general point. LessWrongers are reasonably likely to miss the point of a presentation like that, because we’re used to thinking conceptually via explicit abstractions.
I haven’t read the book.