
Emotionally focused couple therapy can help love last - raleighm
https://aeon.co/essays/how-emotionally-focused-couple-therapy-can-help-love-last
======
mlthoughts2018
> “Real love stories reflect the wisdom of attachment science, which states
> that love is an ancient survival code designed to keep a few precious others
> that we can count on close. We are wired by millions of years of evolution
> for this kind of connection, and it is as essential to us as our next
> breath.“

I _hate_ stuff like this because it’s some of the most “just-so” evolutionary
reasoning there is. It reminds me a lot of the way “ancient” or “evolutionary”
stories are used to justify fad diets.

No amount of statistical studies on current couples therapy outcomes can
confirm such a highly specific evolutionary marketing tag line. Not to mention
that, like with many parts of social science, we should be hugely skeptical of
the research basis for this technique.

I’d need much more compelling discussion of the study methodologies before
finding it worthwhile to invest in really reading them and deciding if there
is credibility to it, or if the outcomes are due to confounding factors or
selection effects.

But hearing just-so reasoning about attachment bonds is a non-starter. What
about forager societies with loose sexual norms and cultures that did not
emphasize monogamy or long-term partner bonding?

~~~
Erlich_Bachman
I wish I could upvote this many times. This "just so" reasoning about
evolution is basically pure pseudosience, and yet it is so prevalent in so
many books, seminars, videos of today... It's like people assume that if they
just think up of some reason that would losely make some vague sense and use
some of evolutionary terms, if there is a way to picture a mechanism that they
are describing and if that mechanism in the picture would have some
evolutionary mechanics - that it automaticallt means that it applies to
reality, to our physical historical evolution and the exact way that it played
out; that they understand the evolutionary traits of those
behaviors/qualities...

It's like they think that just because evolution itself is basically a status
quo in the scientific community, then any other random preposterous bs
argument that you make about it, or just use the evolutionary terms in, would
somehow automatically by association have as much predictive power/internal
coherence/pure basic connection to reality as the evolution itself. It's a
disgrace this is so prevalent nowadays... It is a clear sign that whoever
writes the content is no real scientist.

~~~
StavrosK
What irks me is that the every time someone finds an evolutionary reason for
something, it is just as easy to find an evolutionary reason to explain the
opposite of it, which makes the explanation useless.

For example, "men evolved to be promiscuous because having many children gave
the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes sense until you realize "men
evolved to be faithful because nurturing their children gave them the biggest
chance at surviving offspring" makes just as much sense.

When your theory can explain everything, it can explain nothing.

~~~
kebbekaise
Both of those explanations vaguely make sense. And indeed both strategies are
seen in nature.

Neither approach is strictly better than the other. It's situational.

You gotta look at how many resources are available how easy and predation
pressure and probably lots of more factors.

~~~
MiroF
But this isn't falsifiable.

------
tony
I got the book by the author ( _Attachment Theory in Practice: Emotionally
Focused Therapy (EFT) with Individuals, Couples, and Families_ by Susan M.
Johnson) on kindle but haven't read it yet. I was on a book buying binge a few
weeks ago for anything related to attachment theory.

More on EFT:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotionally_focused_therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotionally_focused_therapy)

Regarding attachment theory itself: A major paper in adult attachment theory
is _Romantic Love Conceptualized as an Attachment Process_ ,
[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d36/ac75d7081fcd86d467f6d2...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d36/ac75d7081fcd86d467f6d2ef408d60c8ffca.pdf).

For further reading, stuff by Cindy Hazan, Phillip Shaver, Mario Mikulincer is
good

Attachment theory originally was focused on early stage development in
children by John Bowlby. Later it was expanded as a way to conceptualize
relationships beyond the child and caregiver, things like friendships, work
colleagues, bandmates, etc.

Examples where modern attachment theory could be used formulate a hypothesis
(or analyze if you have more than conjecture):

\- why a band breaks up

\- why CrunchPad failed ([https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/30/crunchpad-
end/](https://techcrunch.com/2009/11/30/crunchpad-end/))

\- in interpersonal relations, contradictory, anxious, afraid, erratic
behavior - or on the other hand - secure and trusting around someone or a
group.

Attachment can explain lasting, functional relationships.

I guess in HN-speak, there could be dyads between startup co-founders, founder
<-> employee, investor <-> founder, employee <-> employee. Those cooperational
things bubble up into group dynamics and product formation / stuff shipping.

New startup idea: Founder therapy :)

~~~
gregsadetsky
I really enjoyed _Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can
Help You Find and Keep Love_ by Levine and Heller [0].

The description of the “types” (avoidant, secure, anxious) was very eye-
opening, especially while scoring your own “traits” / tendencies / “patterns”
for each type. You sorta know what it means when you answer “very likely” to
many questions that point to the same type.

As far as I understand, the book is based on this same Attachment theory —
it’s a lighter read / introduction to it, but still very good to get the point
across. (I didn’t find it as useful to help deal with / compensate for the
non-secure type’s thought patterns — not as much as David Burns’ wonderful
_Feeling Good_ , for instance)

[0] [https://www.amazon.ca/Attached-Science-Attachment-Find-
Keep/...](https://www.amazon.ca/Attached-Science-Attachment-Find-
Keep/dp/1585429139)

~~~
istjohn
If you like David Burns, let me recommend his _Feeling Good Podcast_. One of
the most impactful episodes is one where he works with a woman dying of
cancer. You can hear him apply his techniques to a seemingly hopeless
situation in real life. It was eye-opening for me, even having read _Feeling
Good_.

~~~
gregsadetsky
Thank you for the recommendation! From [0] (first question on the page), I
gather that you’re referring to Marilyn’s case?

Thanks again

[0] [https://feelinggood.com/2019/03/11/129-ask-david-how-can-
i-d...](https://feelinggood.com/2019/03/11/129-ask-david-how-can-i-develop-
greater-joy-and-happiness-does-neuroticism-exist/)

~~~
istjohn
Yes, it was Marilyn. She's in two episodes recorded two years apart. The one I
listened to was the second one[0].

[0] [https://feelinggood.com/2019/09/23/159-live-therapy-with-
mar...](https://feelinggood.com/2019/09/23/159-live-therapy-with-marilyn-what-
if-i-die-without-having-lived-a-meaningful-life/)

------
kweinber
EFT is one of the few couples therapies that has any sort of scientific track
record. I looked into it a few years ago and it may have saved my marriage.

I highly suggest a therapist to guide you. They serve as a referee and coach
(an impartial person who can call bs or timeout) to get you out of bad
communication patterns between you and you significant other. I doubt you
could turn this into an app because both partners are effectively learning to
relate to each other in a more sustainable way.

I highly recommend this for married couples needing a tune-up and pre-marital
couples who didn’t grow up in an environment with parents in a stable
relationship.

~~~
Ixiaus
I wish I knew about EFT so much earlier in my life. Even just understanding
the basic ideas has helped me immensely.

------
paulryanrogers
> It has taken more than 4,000 years, starting from the first love letter –
> carved in stone for a Sumerian king in the 8th century BCE – to crack the
> code of love.

Comes off a bit self aggrandizing. Still, time will tell if this method really
works

------
shadykiller
How about using MDMA for couples therapy ?

~~~
mynegation
That was totally out of the left field. Is this a random joke or do you have
any interesting links to share?

~~~
berberous
Not the OP, but he’s not joking — it’s an area with an increasing amount of
interest and research, although obviously tremendously hampered by the legal
issues. I don’t have any links, but you can find plenty on google.

There are also studies using it to treat PTSD in veterans.

~~~
nothrabannosir
Which is ironic, because that was the original use of MDMA to begin with. It
started as a therapeutic drug.

------
onreact
I've got her "Hold Me Tight" book here but have stopped reading it a while
ago. Good reminder to finish it now.

My impression - even with my parents - was that couples always replay
conflicts following certain patterns. Turns out it's really the case.

"we cracked the code of love" would have been a better headline for that
article. It's an actual quote from it.

------
hospadar
Brings to mind SSC's excellent review of all therapy books ever:
[https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/20/book-review-all-
therap...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/11/20/book-review-all-therapy-
books/)

------
bananamerica
This may be true, but one could argue: is making love last always the best
option?

------
wiggler00m
Is there an app for this?

------
xwdv
Monogamy is still one of the biggest societal pressures that people struggle
to escape, at the expense of their own happiness and emotional well being. And
in some cases there are real punitive consequences for not conforming to it.
You should not force exclusivity wherever it does not occur naturally. Not
everyone can be 100% fulfilled from one relationship.

~~~
hacknat
I do think that monogamy should be considered "ideal" in some sense
(especially for raising children), but I do think we need to understand that
not everyone's upbringing, which forms their (surprise, surprise) attachment
style, will allow this to be a healthy constraint.

The statistics, obviously, bear out that a large number of, even happy, people
cannot hack it under the constraints of monogamy. Either monogamy needs to be
better defined or we need to drop it as a societal pressure/constraint on
relationships. Probably a little bit of both is needed.

~~~
EliRivers
_I do think that monogamy should be considered "ideal" in some sense
(especially for raising children)_

Naively, I'd wonder if children could be raised better by a group of adults
rather than a couple.

~~~
hacknat
Certainly a couple, by themselves, is the 2nd worst choice for raising a child
other than a single parent, by themselves. Children _need_ to be raised by
lots of caring adults. However monogamy does provide a sort of back-stop
safety protection against adults prioritizing their own relationships with
each-other over their relationships with their children (who are naturally
less interesting and invigorating relationship partners). Non-monogamous
raising of children probably has its own advantages and dangers, the point is
to make sure that children are always protected and nurtured to the best of
their caregivers' ability. I worry about diffusing responsibility for raising
children too much, at the expense of them developing a secure attachment.
However, as long as all the adults in a child's life are prioritizing that
child developing a "secure" attachment style, I could give a shit who is
fucking who.

And yes, this is very much my business, because how you raise your children
dictates what kind of society my children will live in, so please raise them
right.

~~~
shantly
Two adults earning incomes and a third (and maybe also a fourth) keeping house
and taking care of the kids sure seems a lot better for everyone concerned
from my perspective (normal 2-parent household with three young kids).

~~~
hacknat
I don't necessarily disagree, but lets be wise to the dangers that can present
themselves in this situation, and then lets make sure to legislate against
them (seriously).

------
viburnum
Nope, mutual attraction is what couples need. People invent unsolvable
problems in their relationship when they lose attraction.

~~~
anon4242
Nope, this is silly. Mutual attraction is what leads you to become couples in
the first place. The physical part of attraction is what leads you to notice
the other person and then building an emotional bond with each other will
increase the attraction. So attraction is a symptom not a cause. Like any
emotion attraction comes and goes. IMHO believing this folly is what leads to
so many people breaking up when they could be very happy together and why so
many people are lonely these days.

My own experience after 15 years of marriage is that attraction comes and goes
for both me and my wife. But by not doing anything rash when that happens we
have both discovered that it also comes back. Sure the first few times it
happened it was quite scary, but then we've found a rhythm with the ebbs and
floods.

~~~
dnissley
To be fair there are a lot of very unhappy coupled folks out there as well
stuck with essentially the opposite problem: the attraction has left the
building and hasn't been there for a very long time and waiting for it to come
back is likely an exercise in futility. See r/deadbedrooms etc.

~~~
anon4242
Well, rereading what I wrote I was maybe not so clear on that.

If you are just _waiting_ for the attraction to come back, chances are that it
doesn't, even though it certainly could. It all depends on the reason that
attraction disappears. Sometimes it's related to the things you do and
sometimes it isn't. The key, I believe, is to always try to be a better spouse
than you were a year ago, or even a month ago. But that of course presupposes
that there exist mutual trust and respect between you. It won't work if only
one part is trying to be a better self for the other.

