Romantic Fiction, Reality Shaping and The Work

[iamthatis]

I think JP's advice applies well in all this - couples should regularly talk about this sort of thing, how the relationship is going, what can I differently, what can you do differently, etc. He says 90 min a week, and it should be scheduled, otherwise it'll be put off for 'more important things'. That's one disadvantange of these romance novels - they're generally focused on the heady beginnings of a relationship, and don't get into on what perhaps matters most in real relationships, which is the long term upkeep of asking for and giving each other love when all the honeymoon phase chemicals have worn off.

Didn't finish the thought! The evidence in Cupid's Poisoned Arrow and in the ideas of the Taoist love-masters means that the whole honeymoon chemical roller coaster thing can be mitigated. The bonding pathways are strengthened and the lover continues to be very, very interesting. Way less hot/cold hormonal swings due to the effects of orgasm on male neurochemicals. It's almost like sex becomes it's own form of The Doctrine of the Present when male climax is no longer the main goal. Super interesting.

 

[Mari]

It's almost like sex becomes it's own form of The Doctrine of the Present when male climax is no longer the main goal. Super interesting.

Reminds me also of what the Cs said about separating limiting emotions.

It matters insofar as we can start to know ourselves and notice what our love languages are. Deprogramming doesn't mean that we'd lose those, I think - instead, we become conscious of them as needs. In becoming conscious of them, we can also become conscious of asking to have those needs met by a lover. And we can also become conscious of trying to meet another's needs when they ask. It's a practice of giving all to those who ask.

Maybe our love languages would change over time, because some could be based on programming. The same thing applies IMO - noticing how one feels, noticing when the needs change, and learning how to ask to have those changing needs met by a lover, and also learning to meet changing needs.

Yes; my thinking - what I couldn’t fully express in my previous post - was in the line that what seems to me is that, in the context of romantic relationships, so called Physical Touch is the basic/primal need all people (should?) have, and the rest of LLs is a standard human variaty of different preferences and characteristics of people in general, whether it is programmed or simply are what they are, and they come on top of basic need for touch.

Yes, it helps to know those as well, as then one can be able to give more to their loved ones in a language they understand.

 

[SasaM]

Reminds me also of what the Cs said about separating limiting emotions.


Yes; my thinking - what I couldn’t fully express in my previous post - was in the line that what seems to me is that, in the context of romantic relationships, so called Physical Touch is the basic/primal need all people (should?) have, and the rest of LLs is a standard human variaty of different preferences and characteristics of people in general, whether it is programmed or simply are what they are, and they come on top of basic need for touch.

Yes, it helps to know those as well, as then one can be able to give more to their loved ones in a language they understand.

Why do you think Physical Touch is or should be basic or primal type to other versions of Love Languages? What is the basis, empirical or other, for that claim?

For many males, me included, it is not touch that is primarily viewed, accepted and given, as love. Is that naturally so or is it a consequence of programming and eventual trauma, as your statement seemingly indicates?

 

[Mari]

Why do you think Physical Touch is or should be basic or primal type to other versions of Love Languages? What is the basis, empirical or other, for that claim?

For many males, me included, it is not touch that is primarily viewed, accepted and given, as love. Is that naturally so or is it a consequence of programming and eventual trauma, as your statement seemingly indicates?

As I´ve said in my first post, these are my musings based on what I´ve read and connected in my head, and I´m not stating categorically that his is an undeniable fact. Perhaps I wasn´t exactly clear.

If you see in my first post where I´ve quoted from the Tao book, a lot of emphasis is put on the touch from early infancy, and for the adults in general.
It makes sense (to me), as I´ve seen it also in Connection Survival Style from the book Healing Developmental Trauma, where "individuals with the Connection Survival Style have disconnected from their bodies, from themselves, and from relationship" due to the trauma in infancy (neglect? abuse? both?), and it is the first of the trauma styles from the book.

If I look at it from pure biological wiring, in all the higher primates the touch is also the basis on how they form the connections in their groups.
So there is a lot of primal/based/rooted substance to the touch.

Further, in the Tao book, a lot of emphasis is given to a prolonged coupling, and with people who have problems (or unresolved issues) with touching and/or being touched, I see this kind of love making very difficult.

OSIT...

 

[iamthatis]

Why do you think Physical Touch is or should be basic or primal type to other versions of Love Languages? What is the basis, empirical or other, for that claim?

For many males, me included, it is not touch that is primarily viewed, accepted and given, as love. Is that naturally so or is it a consequence of programming and eventual trauma, as your statement seemingly indicates?

I think Mari is making a good inference from the data. It's said that our gut is our 'first brain' or earliest brain. I'd also include the skin in that. The human ear is fully developed about halfway through the pregnancy. Other pathways develop later - heart/emotional centre, brain/intellectual centre, visual. As far as I know, none of these are online at birth, and they are all dependent on skin-to-skin contact for their development.

It's also long been known that without touch, babies die or are severely damaged. So it seems reasonable that touch is fundamental. It's also fundamental for learning how to love, both giving and receiving. You might consider checking out Kathy Kain's book Nurturing Resilience:

Touch is essential not only to healthy human development, but to survival. In 1971, Ashley Montagu published his landmark book, Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin, which proved to be one of the first detailed discussions of the importance of skin-to-skin contact for healthy development of infants.

Montagu points to earlier researchers who noted that some orphanages had infant mortality rates of 30–40 percent, even when infants’ basic physical survival needs were satisfied. The researchers attributed the high mortality rate to insufficient physical nurturing (via touch), as well as insufficient relational nurturing with appropriate stimulation and responses by caregivers (Montagu 1971). More current research has confirmed the importance of skin-to-skin contact (sometimes referred to as “kangaroo care”), particularly in the first few days and weeks of life. Skin-to-skin contact can improve the connection required for breastfeeding, boost weight gain and growth rates, improve immune function, and increase the stability of hormone levels (Bigelow et al. 2014).

For babies born prematurely, this skin-to-skin contact can play a huge role in the infants’ survival, partly because an infant’s thermoregulation is better calibrated with skin-to-skin contact than it is in an incubator. This is because mothers who have recently given birth have a warmer skin temperature, up to two degrees higher than the rest of their body, on the area of their chest where the baby would naturally rest while being soothed or breastfed, which helps the baby maintain his body temperature more effectively.

We know from the research conducted with Romanian orphans that those who lived in orphanages for longer than eight months had higher levels of cortisol and lower levels of oxytocin and vasopressin (hormones affiliated with support for bonding and regulation of emotions)—even as long as twelve years later—than did babies who had been in the orphanages for less than four months (Nelson et al. 2011). Of course, it’s not only touch that may have contributed to those differences. There are many factors that influence development and many different ways neglect can manifest in later development.

However, there is now sufficient research to show clearly that skin-to-skin contact does indeed make significant differences for the infant in long-term development and health outcomes. Particularly for newborns, touch helps calm the nervous system and improves sleep (Bigelow et al. 2014).Skin-to-skin contact also supports bonding and promotes physiological changes, in both the caregiver and the infant, that support better overall regulation. Tiffany Field’s research at the Touch Research Institute has clearly shown that massage therapy, whether in newborns or senior citizens, provides the following benefits (Field 1998, 2017):

-Facilitates weight gain in pre-term infants
-Enhances attentiveness
-Alleviates depressive symptoms
-Reduces pain
-Reduces stress hormonesImproves immune function

Skin-to-skin contact is our earliest experience of co-regulation outside the womb. It is fundamental to the essential process of learning mutuality. Babies thrive when caregivers are actively engaged with them, and this includes engagement through responsive touch. Some cultures are highly touch-oriented, whereas others have lower rates of social touch, but touching infants is universally common. Early, positive experiences of touch and physical connection with caregivers provide some of the critical architecture for self-regulation and resilience.

Touch also helps us develop our interoceptive abilities. As stated earlier, Porges (1993) refers to interoception as the “infant’s sixth sense” and assigns it a critical role in survival. As discussed in chapter 2, accurate interoception helps regulate our physiological systems and helps usperceive safety and connectedness, the very underpinnings of resilience development. As was discussed in the previous chapter, infants learn during the co-regulation process that the caregiver not only affects them, but that they in turn have an impact on the caregiver; they learn that they have agency and active influence over their environments and the people who share those environments. Caregivers are responsive to babies; they areusually drawn to touch and enjoy cuddling infants. One of the most commonly repeated cycles between caregivers and babies—and even between strangers and babies, for that matter—is that of smiling. The baby smiles, and the caregiver smiles back. The baby begins to learn that she isthe causal agent in this “smile cycle.”

The same holds true with touch and co-regulation. The baby is not only learning how to regulate himself; he is learning he can influence the regulation of his caregiver. Much of the earliest experience of this comes from subtle somatic cues, including tactile responses, as well as experiencing the caregiver’s somatic responses, such as heart rate and breathing changes, or changes in muscle tone. Touch research shows that healthy touch during our early development helps us develop empathy and deepens our ability to understand the social cues of those around us (Field2014).

If we have reliable access to this early experience of co-regulation, we will more effectively develop our individual ability to notice cues regarding our own experience of regulation: settling, the pleasure of feeling well-fed, a sense of safety, and so on. As was discussed in previous chapters, the foundational development of the autonomic nervous system, which gives usfull access to the ventral parasympathetic physiology, occurs during these early phases of our lives and requires the attentive responsiveness of our caregivers. Caregivers literally nurture our resilience.

As we also know from many different sources of research (Carter andSanderson 1995), neglect, including lack of skin-to-skin contact, profoundly impacts our development, often throughout our lifetimes. Our stress chemistry is negatively impacted, our immune systems don’t function as well, and we experience greater difficulty regulating both our physiological and emotional responses.

Research tells us that the long-term effects of neglect can be greater than those of physical or sexual abuse for the child. These changes are documented through MRIs and PET scans. The structure and chemical activity of the brain show a decrease in both size and structural connectivity. Such early neglect or abuse can also be blamed for hypersensitivity in stressful situations, as well as the inability to respond to nurturing and kindness (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000; Shonkoff, Boyce,Cameron, et al. 2004; Shonkoff et al. 2012).

 

[SasaM]

As I´ve said in my first post, these are my musings based on what I´ve read and connected in my head, and I´m not stating categorically that his is an undeniable fact. Perhaps I wasn´t exactly clear.

If you see in my first post where I´ve quoted from the Tao book, a lot of emphasis is put on the touch from early infancy, and for the adults in general.
It makes sense (to me), as I´ve seen it also in Connection Survival Style from the book Healing Developmental Trauma, where "individuals with the Connection Survival Style have disconnected from their bodies, from themselves, and from relationship" due to the trauma in infancy (neglect? abuse? both?), and it is the first of the trauma styles from the book.

If I look at it from pure biological wiring, in all the higher primates the touch is also the basis on how they form the connections in their groups.
So there is a lot of primal/based/rooted substance to the touch.

Further, in the Tao book, a lot of emphasis is given to a prolonged coupling, and with people who have problems (or unresolved issues) with touching and/or being touched, I see this kind of love making very difficult.

OSIT...

Thanks for added explanation.

Agree that physical touch is important, especially in childhood or infancy period, and that it could point to trauma if there are issues there. Empirically though, only one of my three longterm ex partners, so not really statistically significant sample, has had touch as primary or basic type of the Love Language. While in cases of my family and other males who I've been in interactions with, that could be in part explained by upbringing and previous traumatic experiences, it was interesting to note similar trend with my female ex partners. OTH, there could have been underlying trauma issues there too.

 

[SasaM]

As I´ve said in my first post, these are my musings based on what I´ve read and connected in my head, and I´m not stating categorically that his is an undeniable fact. Perhaps I wasn´t exactly clear.

I've seen it in the intro part of that post, haven't read it in full though, and was wondering about the grounds for statements in today's post I replied to.

Apologies if my questions came across as criticism or disagreement or even as an attack, that certainly was not the counscious intention why they were asked. Apparently, my presentation and self-representation might benefit from a bit, or a lot, of fine or even gross tuning, not to appear like a bear or a dog is coming with its jaw open after the person I'm engaging the conversation or discussion with.

Sorry again, hopefully that old one, dog that barks does not bite, might decrease unnecessary stress hormone levels apparent increase.

 

[Mari]

I've seen it in the intro part of that post, haven't read it in full though, and was wondering about the grounds for statements in today's post I replied to.

Apologies if my questions came across as criticism or disagreement or even as an attack, that certainly was not the counscious intention why they were asked. Apparently, my presentation and self-representation might benefit from a bit, or a lot, of fine or even gross tuning, not to appear like a bear or a dog is coming with its jaw open after the person I'm engaging the conversation or discussion with.

Sorry again, hopefully that old one, dog that barks does not bite, might decrease unnecessary stress hormone levels apparent increase.

No worries!

Many times I have difficulties to put my thoughts into words, so my worry was that I wasn´t clear enough.

To each their own [neurosis ].

 

[nicklebleu]

Why do you think Physical Touch is or should be basic or primal type to other versions of Love Languages? What is the basis, empirical or other, for that claim?

I think that the need for humans to experience physical touch is well established - eg the above cited Spitz’ notice how orphans wither away when loving touch is missing.

I myself have made similar observations - when I have a patient in my care that is very anxious, I often take their hand and hold it, maybe lightly stroke it, and in a very short period of time they start to relax. Of course I also talk to them, it is not just the touch, but the whole of my being that is put into the holding of their hands.

I think humans are hardwired for touch, and the fact that a lot of people, predominantly males, have issues with touch is more of a cultural problem that anything else. Interesting to also see that other cultures (Middle Eastern/ Arabic) have no such barriers - it is quite normal for two males to hold hands while walking together in the streets. To do that the Western culture automatically implies that the two are gay - something that most heterosexual males don’t want to be associated with.

To me it seems that touch is another facet of the hypersexualisation of our times, where the simple gesture of holding hands acquires a sexual component that formerly was not present.

 

[Yas]

This would mean that default language all people are born with is Physical touch, only later when all that baggage falls on our true selves, that first need morphs to whatever. Kind of what the G said that other centres are under influence of a sex centre.

In the context of romance novels, there were numerous examples of men and women who implemented various disguises to mask deeper issues and traumas, and that was reflected in their relationship and their love making.

I was kind of convinced that it would be easier if a couple had the same or similar LL, but now I´m questioning if that´s even a thing, or perhaps better way to put it: does it even matter? In the romances, once the couple is free of his/hers traumas, programming, beliefs, etc - it all falls into place and is reflected in their sex life.

It's an interesting musing, Mari

I think touch is very important to all human beings because of the many reasons some of you have posted above already, like it being our first and foremost way of interacting with the environment and attaching to our primary caregivers. I read recently something about how even our sight takes time to develop when we are babies and how that is also a reason why touch is so important for attachment, and also how attachment is like a basic need for babies. Some of you have mentioned already how babies don't survive without attachment, so, there's that.

But, regarding your question about love languages, I think that it's definitively due in great part to past experiences, trauma, etc., but also in great part to temperament (which is usually understood as qualities and features that a person brings to this world before developing their personality, so, perhaps, genetic?). So I guess it is similar to the attachment styles and what the Cs said about it being 60 percent genetic inheritance and only 40 percent nurture (which, by the way, goes against what most people believe about attachment styles, which makes it even more interesting )

For me, it is very interesting because, even though some features may be greatly influenced by our genes, you can see many differences among brothers and sisters, and that is not only in temperament but also in attachment styles, and I would dare say love languages too. For instance, among siblings, the temperament of one child may be completely different to another, which creates different dynamics between the primary care givers and each child. So, siblings may be very different people with different attachment styles and love languages, even though they have similar genes, same parents, and very similar upbringing. And I think this the case for many siblings around the world, if not most. Then there is also the fact of the circumstances surrounding the birth and early months of each child and how that impacted development, etc. And then, that genes may manifest differently even among family members and also the idea the the soul can influence how these genes manifest, past lives, etc. So, in the end, I think there are lots of things combined that forge a particular individual.

So, to your question, do the love languages really matter? I guess it depends. I'd say that for the most part yes, but not so much that it is a rule of thumb that needs to be followed as dogma. I think that demanding that your partner should learn your love language, for example, wouldn't be conducive to a loving relationship, and unfortunately this is something that you can see people doing around this "love languages" topic. I think what matters about it is that it is a process of discovering the other person and learning about them, learning to love them as they want to be loved. Yes, in a romantic relationship, most people would appreciate physical touch because we are hardwired for it, but, I think that on top of that, some people may like words of appreciation more than others, while others may like thoughtfulness from their partner more, and another may like gifts more. So, apart from physical intimacy, lovers discover each other and learn to build their psychological intimacy this way. Even the fact that a particular love language is related to past experiences is also a window for discovery. It can spark a lover's curiosity about the other person, to learn about how they didn't have a lot of words of appreciation when they were little and that perhaps that's why they need it a bit more from their partner, or how they were neglected and now they don't want to feel neglected, etc. Yes, these might be wounds that need to be healed, and once they heal the love language may change or become less important, but, my point is that perhaps these love languages are just a way in which we can discover the other person more, understand them more, and love them more in the process.

Last but not least, for many people, it is important to develop that emotional and psychological intimacy before being able to fully open themselves to physical intimacy. I know that's not usually what happens in these romance novels, but what you do see in these stories is that usually there is some sort of emotional intimacy that needs to happen by the way of discovering each other and understanding each other so that there is real love. Usually there is physical intimacy between the characters but they feel somewhat disconnected until they finally understand each other and they continue to have physical intimacy but they are now fully connected and open to loving each other, so to say.

 

[Mari]

I played with Grok a bit, and asked him to cross reference between attachment styles and LLs, and NARM survival styles and LLs.

---

Q: Based on available data on 5 NARM survival styles, and 5 Love Languages, how would you connect those? Which survival style would express love in one of the 5 love languages?

A:
No, there are no direct empirical studies or experiments explicitly linking the five NARM (NeuroAffective Relational Model) survival styles—Connection, Attunement, Trust, Autonomy, and Love-Sexuality—to Gary Chapman's five love languages (Words of Affirmation, Acts of Service, Receiving Gifts, Quality Time, and Physical Touch). NARM focuses on adaptive survival strategies formed in response to developmental trauma, emphasizing unmet core needs and resulting distortions in identity, self-regulation, and relationships.

In contrast, love languages describe preferred modes of expressing and receiving affection in adult relationships, often shaped by childhood experiences. However, available data on how developmental or complex trauma (which overlaps with NARM's framework) influences love languages allows for logical connections.

Trauma survivors' love languages frequently compensate for what was lacking in childhood, but trauma can also distort their expression or reception, leading to suspicion, avoidance, or over-reliance on certain languages.

These patterns align with NARM styles, as each style reflects specific unmet needs that could skew toward particular love languages for expression (e.g., to seek safety or control) while struggling with others due to fear or triggers.

Below, I outline potential connections for each NARM survival style, based on their core trauma origins, fears, and adaptations. I've inferred how individuals with that style might preferentially express love through certain languages (as a way to adapt or connect safely) or distort others, drawing from trauma research. These are not definitive mappings but educated correlations—personal experiences vary, and healing through therapies like NARM can help realign healthier expressions.

1. Connection Survival Style
This style arises from early shock trauma and inconsistent caregiving, leading to disconnection from the body and emotions, with core fears of intimacy and isolation. Individuals may intellectualize or spiritualize relationships to avoid grounded closeness.

• Likely to express love through: Words of Affirmation (e.g., sharing intellectual praise or philosophical insights as a distanced form of connection) or Receiving Gifts (tangible items that don't require emotional vulnerability). This compensates for childhood disconnection by offering "safe" affirmations without risking rejection
• Distortions or struggles: May avoid Physical Touch (feels threatening if linked to past harm) and Quality Time (closeness evokes dread or suffocation). Acts of Service could feel obligatory rather than loving.

2. Attunement Survival Style
Rooted in unmet nurturing needs during infancy, this leads to hyper-attunement to others while neglecting one's own, fostering codependency and emptiness. Core fears include rejection for expressing personal needs.

• Likely to express love through: Acts of Service (over-giving practical help to "earn" love, as they did in childhood) or Quality Time (attuning deeply to a partner's emotional world). This mirrors their caretaker adaptation, providing what they lacked.
• Distortions or struggles: Words of Affirmation may feel insincere if praise was absent or manipulative in childhood; Receiving Gifts could trigger suspicion of hidden motives. Physical Touch might be craved for reassurance but avoided due to vulnerability fears.

3. Trust Survival Style
Originates from betrayal or exploitation of dependency, resulting in control-seeking, manipulation, and conditional love. Core fears involve vulnerability and powerlessness.

• Likely to express love through: Receiving Gifts (using tangible items to demonstrate power or apologize conditionally) or Acts of Service (practical actions to maintain control or prove reliability). This stems from childhood where love was performance-based, so they express it transactionally.
• Distortions or struggles: Words of Affirmation could seem deceitful; Quality Time and Physical Touch may be avoided as they expose weakness or invite exploitation.

4. Autonomy Survival Style
Develops from suppressed independence in controlling environments, leading to people-pleasing and boundary issues. Core fears include conflict and loss of approval.

• Likely to express love through: Acts of Service (helping others to gain acceptance, often at personal cost) or Words of Affirmation (offering praise to avoid discord). This compensates for childhood compliance demands by expressing love through yielding and support.
• Distortions or struggles: Receiving Gifts or Physical Touch might feel undeserved; Quality Time could trigger resentment if it highlights unmet autonomy.

5. Love-Sexuality Survival Style
Stems from early heartbreak and shaming of sexuality, causing a split between heart and body, with high standards and criticism. Core fears involve hurt from integrated intimacy.

• Likely to express love through: Physical Touch (often sexualized or idealized, but withholding emotional depth) or Receiving Gifts (symbolizing perfection or seduction). This reflects childhood rejection of natural expressions, leading to compartmentalized affection.
• Distortions or struggles: Quality Time and Words of Affirmation may feel vulnerable; Acts of Service could be seen as imperfect or controlling.

In summary, NARM styles often lead to expressing love in ways that reinforce safety (e.g., tangible or distanced languages like Acts of Service or Gifts) while avoiding those requiring vulnerability (e.g., Physical Touch or Quality Time).
Understanding these can aid healing by addressing root traumas, potentially through integrating love languages mindfully.
If this resonates personally, a NARM practitioner could provide tailored insights.

---

From purely observing myself - and having scored high on Attunement style (although, personally I found myself more aligned with Autonomy style, which I also scored only a few points less than Attunement), it´s pretty much spot on. The only thing that Grok put in Autonomy style LL is Words of Affirmation, which is totally not me - I´m sick and tired of words and they mean very little to me.

---

Next, I asked about Attachment styles and LLs.

Q: Based on available data on Attachment Styles - see here The Attachment Project: Learn Attachment Theory from Experts - and 5 Love Languages, how would you connect those? Which attachment style would express love in one of the 5 love languages?

A:
No, attachment styles and the five love languages are not identical concepts, but they are interconnected based on available data and expert analyses. Attachment styles—secure, anxious-preoccupied, dismissive-avoidant, and fearful-avoidant (also known as disorganized)—originate from early childhood experiences with caregivers and shape core emotional patterns, trust, intimacy, and relational behaviors in adulthood. They influence how individuals form bonds, handle vulnerability, and respond to closeness or separation. In contrast, the five love languages (words of affirmation, acts of service, receiving gifts, quality time, and physical touch) describe preferred methods for expressing and receiving affection in relationships, focusing on communication to align emotional needs. Research and clinical insights show that attachment styles often underpin love language preferences and expressions, as insecure attachments can distort or limit how affection is given or received due to underlying fears, needs for reassurance, or avoidance of vulnerability.

For instance, a 2020 empirical study with 150 adults found that higher attachment anxiety correlated with reduced expression through acts of service but increased interest in partners favoring physical touch, quality time, or gifts, while higher avoidance linked to lower expression across all languages and less partner interest overall.

These patterns suggest attachment styles channel love expression into "safer" languages that align with emotional adaptations, though individuals can have mixed preferences, and healing toward security enhances flexibility.

Below, I outline connections for each attachment style based on data from the Attachment Project and linked sources, including overviews, relational behaviors, and inferred expressions of love (focusing on how each style might preferentially express affection through certain languages as a coping mechanism or comfort zone). These are not rigid; variations exist due to personal factors.

1. Secure Attachment

• Overview: Develops from consistent, responsive caregiving, leading to a balanced foundation where individuals feel worthy of love, trust others, and handle independence and intimacy comfortably. They form healthy, long-term relationships with positive communication and emotional stability.
• Behaviors in Relationships: Trust partners without clinging or withdrawing, navigate conflicts constructively, and maintain secure bonds effortlessly.
• Connection to Love Languages: With emotional security, they are flexible and adept at all languages, expressing affection consistently without fixation or avoidance. They may lean toward relational ones that foster closeness.
• Likely to Express Love Through: Physical touch (e.g., hugs or hand-holding for natural intimacy) or quality time (e.g., shared activities with undivided attention), as these align with their comfort in emotional and physical closeness. Words of affirmation may also be used freely for verbal support.

2. Anxious-Preoccupied Attachment

• Overview: Arises from inconsistent or unattuned caregiving, resulting in fears of abandonment, low self-esteem, and a need for constant validation. Adults overthink interactions, cling to relationships for purpose, and struggle with trust.
• Behaviors in Relationships: Dependency on partners, overanalysis of words/actions, jealousy, and efforts to prioritize the partner's happiness to avoid rejection.
• Connection to Love Languages: Anxiety drives a craving for reassurance, leading to preferences for languages that provide verbal or attentional validation, while potentially avoiding those requiring independence. Empirical data links higher anxiety to less expression via acts of service but greater interest in partners emphasizing touch, quality time, or gifts.
• Likely to Express Love Through: Words of affirmation (e.g., frequent compliments or "I love you" to seek reciprocity and ease fears) or quality time (e.g., insisting on shared moments for connection). Physical touch may be used for reassurance, though expression can feel needy if unmet.

3. Dismissive-Avoidant Attachment

• Overview: Stems from distant, dismissive, or unavailable caregivers, fostering self-reliance, emotional suppression, and discomfort with dependency. Adults prioritize independence, view vulnerability as weakness, and often isolate emotionally.
• Behaviors in Relationships: Pull away from closeness, seek flaws in partners, anticipate failure, and resist intimacy or self-disclosure.
• Connection to Love Languages: Avoidance favors practical, low-vulnerability expressions, avoiding those demanding emotional exposure. Studies show higher avoidance correlates with reduced expression across all languages and less interest in partners with strong preferences, especially words or quality time.
• Likely to Express Love Through: Acts of service (e.g., practical help like fixing something to show care without words) or receiving gifts (e.g., thoughtful items as indirect affection). They may use quality time or physical touch minimally, but often withdraw if it feels too intimate.

4. Fearful-Avoidant (Disorganized) Attachment

• Overview: Originates from traumatic, abusive, or highly inconsistent caregiving, leading to a mix of anxious and avoidant traits, poor emotional regulation, and internal conflict. Adults experience relational instability, low self-esteem, and unpredictable patterns.
• Behaviors in Relationships: Crave connection but push away due to fear, resulting in mixed signals, challenges in dating, and repeating dysfunctional cycles.
• Connection to Love Languages: The push-pull dynamic causes fluctuating or inconsistent expressions, with trauma distorting reception (e.g., suspicion of affection). Insights indicate unpredictable shifts, sometimes craving languages for connection but rejecting them amid withdrawal.
• Likely to Express Love Through: Physical touch or words of affirmation (e.g., intense affection during "pull" phases for reassurance), but erratically—perhaps gifts in moments of craving stability. Expression can alternate with avoidance across all languages due to fear.

In summary, secure attachment enables balanced expression across languages, while insecure styles often limit it to adaptive ones (e.g., practical for avoidant, reassuring for anxious) or create inconsistencies (for disorganized).

Mismatches between partners' styles and languages can exacerbate relational issues, but awareness and therapy (e.g., building security) can improve alignment.

If exploring personally, consider professional assessments for tailored insights.

---

I took attachment test 3 years ago, and again today (found it a bit iffy; how can my General Attachment change so drastically?):

3 years ago:	Today:

(My first reaction was: "Am I turning into my father?! " )

Here is the possibility that LL change depending on who are we talking/interacting with; am I talking to my partner or to my parent? From each you want different things (whether one is conscious about those needs or not).
I.e. as much as I claim I don´t care about Words of Affirmation in relationship, perhaps subconsciously I would love to hear those from my parent?

Anyway, it´s all a huge topic and one of many tools to help to navigate our relationships until we develop a skill of mind-reading.