Disdain for the existing literature is common on LW.
I want to point out that 5 love languages is not literature so much as pop psyc (in that it has no peer review). Humans are filled with noise and complicated cases. There is no reason why 6 love languages would not explain communication better than 4 would than 5 would.
Other than the fact that many humans agree with the book (leading it to be popular).
Science goes:
generate theory
test theory
publish results
pop goes:
generate theory
publish theory
let the public be the judge.
I am suggesting people do the more science-based iteration route than the pop-route.
Fair enough. I still think the risk of someone coming up with “The 1 Love Language” is high enough that outside sources are worth pursuing. Obviously “The Six Love Languages” would have sufficed in a similar way.
I want to point out that 5 love languages is not literature so much as pop psyc (in that it has no peer review). Humans are filled with noise and complicated cases. There is no reason why 6 love languages would not explain communication better than 4 would than 5 would.
Other than the fact that many humans agree with the book (leading it to be popular).
Science goes: generate theory test theory publish results
pop goes: generate theory publish theory let the public be the judge.
I am suggesting people do the more science-based iteration route than the pop-route.
Fair enough. I still think the risk of someone coming up with “The 1 Love Language” is high enough that outside sources are worth pursuing. Obviously “The Six Love Languages” would have sufficed in a similar way.