Why is limerence so bad?

Post Reply New Topic

it's because of the below post I was under the impression that you were not fully acknowledging it's limerence.



Anyway I am done with this thread, no need to be passive-aggressive like that - just keep in mind that you are not the only person who was romantically ignored/rejected on this planet - have a nice day.

Reminded me of this:

Defining the Problem

I can’t forgive you. Even if I could,
You wouldn’t pardon me for seeing through you.
And yet I cannot cure myself of love
For what I thought you were before I knew you.

- Wendy Cope (again)

In your set up you define neurodiversity as



This directly contradicts how you are using ND here as if it was a specific group.

However you have also arbitrarily combined a bunch of neurotypes which you lump together with a bunch of arbitrary traits under the auspices of nuerodiversity. You have not properly established relationship between traits and neuotypes and between neuotypes themselves. Nor have you fully allowed for free movement to establish what these relationships are.

You are right that the DSM defines conditions quite arbitrarily. We agree on that. In the Aspie Test you also arbitrarily picked traits and trait relationship, and the there is limited free movement here as these trains are effectively weighted and scaled to fit into the two sided model. Don't get me started on the modified polarised spider graph.

I find the study quite circular, it is model that this constructed in a way the fits the conclusion you intended. Nothing more. It is also largely based on self-reporting/questionnaire you have constructed to support your theories.

[/quote]

I don't disagree with that. I never argued that it was the extreme end of normal distribution. In fact that would contradict both my definition of diversity and your own.

This is an elaborate circular exercise IMO.

To the contrary. It defines both the ND and NT group as factors in human diversity.



I have. All the traits in Aspie Quiz (which is over 1,000) are related to the two factors. I've even shown that the relation to these factors can predict how strongly they correlate with random traits.

IOW, the Aspie Quiz study found no evidence whatsoever that there are more than these two factors in human diversity, and they explained 60-70% of the variance. I even found that the Big Five factors didn't survive being analysed with Aspie Quiz items, rather the resulting factor structure was that of Aspie Quiz, and not of the Big Five.



First, Aspie Quiz tested more than 1,000 traits in the construction process, many part of professional surveys for psychiatric disorders. Second, factor congruence coefficients showed that the exact item selection was not important. That's also why I can add new traits and still achieve reliable scores.



The current spider graph is weighted with coefficients from Confirmative Factor Analysis (CFA), and it showed that the 10 dimensions were acceptable in the CFA analysis. It had CFI close to .95, something that few (if any) psychiatric survey has achieved. The new 10 dimensions were also extracted with explorative factor analysis, so are not arbitrary at all. Still, the two used programs for CFA (R and MPlus) had big problems with the dominant two factors in the dataset.



Factor analysis of a very wide set of traits never can be circular.

But that is how limerence should operate. When it is one-sided or unrequited, it's unhealthy and done in the wrong way. In order to be (and remain) healthy, there is a need for constant feedback going both ways. In that regard, it is not much different from a regular relationship.

I think most of the bad cases of limerence are based on doing it the wrong way. For instance, you cannot start the process after you have been rejected, or tried to date somebody. In fact, dating and asking out are fundamentally incompatible with limerence, so should never be mixed-up.

Not at all. Trying to meet somebody again is never stalking unless you have been informed that he/she is not interested. So it is pretty easy to separate stalking from trying to meet a (willing) crush again. Also, if you always require feedback on your actions, you will never enter the stalking domain at all, because if you get positive feedback it cannot be stalking.

Ok, the problem is when the poor guy or gal seemingly stalking the crush believes they're getting positive feedback when they're not. As Boo pointed out earlier thete is often a lot of obsessing over miniscule one off interactions when limerence becomes full blown. A limerence sufferer can believe there is interest where there is no interest.

Unfortunately this can lead to stalker like behaviour, even though it's well meant flattery and innocent attempts to meet the crush, it can he taken the wrong way by the crush and can get the limerence sufferer into trouble.

Be careful out there.

Have you seen the films? I'd recommend it if not. Nothing to do with limerence, but one of the more interesting attempts to map a relationship.

I have been in a situation of one-sided infatuation/obsession, and in a mutual one. neither was particularly pleasant. Have you ever seen a bird throw a shell to try and break it, to get at what's inside? That's what the mutual one felt like. That we both were trying to crack the other open, desperate for some nutrient we sensed was in each other.

I suppose what we have here is your somewhat idiosyncratic approach to/experience of relationships being writ large upon the universe as A Thing. I don't think there is a 'wrong' or 'right' way of doing limerence. Frankly, I don't think it's limerence if one tries to do it 'right'; it seems to me that's the whole point. Limerence is something that happens, rather than something that is done. What you're proposing is possibly comparable to lucid dreaming, but more like deciding to still believe an illusion is just that, despite having the mechanics of the thing clearly explained to you.

As I said earlier: I think there are (at least) two variations on the theme. One is the unrequited lover sincerely wants their beloved. The other is the unrequited lover wants to go on wanting. What they want is not the beloved, but the longing, the yearning, the desire for the beloved; to actually 'get' what they (on the surface) want would be experienced as a loss.

I see what you're talking about as the second. And, if you can find someone to mutually obsess over/be infatuated with, both working to keep each other in a suspended state of longing and yearning never to be resolved into an actual 'ah s**t, we're out of milk' prosaic give-and-take relationship then, sincerely, good for you. But, I don't think it's something that would work for or suit most people.

And I'm slightly concerned as to how you get to that state without some sort of verbal or written communication/agreement.



If you are getting feedback from a willing crush, that person is not a stranger. A stranger is someone who does not know you exist.

By the way, I do not include a courteous smile and her looking at you wondering why you keep staring at her as 'positive feedback'.

And it doesn't require being told 'no. Stop that' to be stalking. There's leeway, wiggle room, in terms of seeing someone and then being around where they are likely to be so you can approach them, but anything else is creepy.

I experienced limerence for the 1st time after I got in my 1st relationship. It was pretty great & certainly not a waste of time. I love indulging in it now with my celeb crush but I do wish I could meet her & have an actual relationship with her so I have to settle for the limerence for now.

Not my experience. I've been in at least 3 mutual limerences, and all of them were highly pleasant. I've been in none that was one-sided.



By wrong and right I refer to the motivation of getting into one. If you do it because you've been rejected, don't dare to ask her/him out or don't think she/he would like you, you are doing it for the wrong reasons. If you do it because it's natural to you and pleasant, you do it for the right reason.



I didn't answer that one before because frankly, I have no idea about what you are talking about. My motivation is clear. I won't do it unless I know it is mutual, and I do it because I like to get to know a girl that way. If I'm satisfied with the game, I anticipate it will end in an LTR, otherwise, it will slowly fade over time.



There are multiple ways, and it depends on the context. In school, it is pretty easy to set it up. All you need to do is to get the interest of a girl, and then you will try to meet at places in school. If you don't know each other's and you initially met outdoors, then it's a lot more complicated and time-consuming, but it is still possible.



That's not how the eye contact game between NDs work. It's a mutual thing with looking at each others in an alternating way. That's actually an excellent way to make sure there is mutual interest, and then build the feedback part of limerence on top of it.



It's pretty obvious that you don't know how the ND eye contact game works, because if you knew, you wouldn't be writing that kind of thing.

Sure, you need to be careful and have a good strategy for how you determine interest and positive feedback. Without that, you can easily get into trouble.

So, how? If there is no word-based communication, presumably you follow them around a lot and try and find out their daily routines? And this isn't stalking because you've presumed non-verbal/written interest/consent?



I don't know how the game works because I don't think there is such a game for NDs. NTs use eye contact all the time, to good effect, and I don't see why NDs shouldn't. but I don't think there is a particular thing found only and always with NDs.

To be honest, I have my concerns as to how much of this is in your head. If you're going around staring at people, and relying on your abilities to 'read' them such that you think it's mutual, but there's never a word or physical contact/gesture between you - that sounds very dodgy.

If I stare at a woman, I will make them uncomfortable. Presuming they don't outright approach and ask what I think I'm doing - they may well be too scared too - they will return the visual contact. They will try to work out what I'm up to, and what they should do about it. I would not presume them trying to weigh up my threat level and work out if they shold tell their friend or their boss there's a weird fella looking at them a lot to be the 'positive feedback of a willing crush'. Most people who stare and make eye contact do not stop there. They approach, and are either welcomed or declined, making the matter clear.

But then, I like words and communication, and I like physical contact. I would not be satisfied with staring at someone and obsessing over them.

You got that one backwards. Wanting to figure out a potential partner's routines is mostly a female ND trait, not a male ND trait. This is a gender-biased trait (and only in the ND population), related to ND relationship preferences.



There is a particular way NDs use eye contact that has a considerable connection to being ND. It is also part of the ND relationship traits. NDs even are enough aware of this so you can ask them about it. The way it works is that NDs will look more at people they like (while NTs will mostly look at people they talk to).



You don't stare. Typically, it is done with quick glances, which has to do with NTs misinterpreting is at staring if you look too much.



Typically, yes, so you need to learn to do it in a smart way. First, you need to find the longest time you can look at an NT without her interpreting it as staring. Second, you need to use peripheral vision to detect if she looks back at you. Third, you only do repeated glances when you detected she looked back at you. It's really simply.



Sure, if you don't know what you are doing.



That's the real creeps. People that approach you after having made eye contact with you. Those are not NDs as they break all the rules.

Besides, Hopper, you know you are doing it right when her female friends area involved in helping her play the game, and you definitely know you are doing it wrong when her guy friends want to talk to you.

Limerence is basically having a crush right? Unrequited infatuations do not seem very healthy unless something comes out of them. I mean I've had crushes but to dwell on them doesn't seem like a good idea. A lot of mixed signals sent to people here...

Not sure if limerence just means having a crush, or whether it means the crush becomes a problem that interfers with your life in some way.

Oh, right.

All the same, that doesn't answer how you communicate with someone via eye contact such that you can arrange to meet them somewhere. Or is it that the women you were staring at figured out your routine, and knew where to be to meet you?



Oookay. I think I see the confusion here. It's just one of language, of definitions.

So for you, 'neurodiverse' people are distinct from autistics? Because I'm autistic. And the general idea, as I understand it, is that the existence of autistim makes up a large part of the argument for the very idea of 'neurodiversity'. That is to say, in those terms, one could not be autistic without being 'neurodiverse'. I can only presume you hold these definitions as quite distinct. Because I have never sought to use eye contact in any way like you describe, and I find the idea of little appeal.

I just don't generally look at people. If I'm talking to someone, I find it too confusing. I have held eye contact, in silence, when with a lover, and found it pleasantly overwhelming. But the way you say NDs use it - nope, don't get it.



Then find-replace 'stare' with 'repeatedly glancing at people'.



Or, I could just not do that. Again, this holds no appeal for me personally, and I've only seen it met with bafflement amongs the autists here. I find it interesting as a case study, though. I did take umbrage at your casting your assertions so wide but, as I say, if we're just talking about different types of people, that's fine.



Yeah, I'm SUCH an newbie. God, the embarrasment!



They're really not, you know. It's a perfectly common and useful form of human interaction.



Good to know, I guess.

I don't like staring at people, or being stared at by them (unless, as mentioned, we are already intimate enough to be lovers). Seduction and bonding is, for me, through words and discourse (which is what life is for me, really). Sharing ideas and histories and perspectives, etc. I can't fall for someone, can't be interested in them, until I know we share a likeness in these areas. The only way I know of to find out, and for any relationship to build, is to talk to them. It can be by letter, by email or over the phone - all three have worked for me.

It's why I like the 'Before' films so much, seeing as they largely revolve around two people talking.

Again, and putting aside my scepticism, if you've found looking at and obsessing over people (in a mutually agreeable way) is your thing, then good for you. It's a cold world, so find that warmth as you can.