DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Interpersonal relationship

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2018 and 2 May 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leibnesc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mckeandrp.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship

[edit]

This page- which "Friendship" redirects to- contains some relevant info, but seems to discuss romantic relationships more than it does normal friendship; there's nothing here on the formation of friendship, what defines a friendship, the typical emotional dependance of humans on friendship, how friendships drift apart, and so forth. I'm sure Wikipedia can do better than this in an issue so fundamental to society. (And I'd try to do something myself, but 1. I'm not sure on whether to edit "Friendship" into its own article or edit this one, and 2. I'm... tired... X_X so this may have to wait a bit.) --AceMyth 01:50, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

About normal friendship: there is some relevant material in Affection, however there is a note that it is really out-of-date.

moving

[edit]

'interpersonal relationship' is probably slightly more correct. (Most psychology textbooks and references tend to use 'interpersonal'. plus interpersonal is more exact than 'personal', which merely implies people are involved) Anyone oppose moving this article to 'Interpersonal relationship'?

--Johnkarp 11:10, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think friendship deserves its own page. Letting it be a sub-category under "Interpersonal relationship" dont seems right. But that would require that someone actually wrote something about friendship, of course. Kasper Hviid 11:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lover

[edit]

"Lover is a village in Wiltshire between Fordingbridge and Whiteparish."

Is this really necessary? It's not even like "Lover" redirects to here. Maybe a disambiguation page at Lover is necessary. sars 10:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Define

[edit]

Interpersonal relationships are not defined in this article. Please make this a proper article.

Possible Sources for Information Regarding Pathological Relationships

[edit]
  • Abusive

Dutton, D. G. (2006). The abusive personality: Violence and control in intimate relationships. Guilford Press.

Strube, M. J. (1988). The decision to leave an abusive relationship: empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological bulletin, 104(2), 236.

Emery, R. E., & Laumann-Billings, L. (1998). An overview of the nature, causes, and consequences of abusive family relationships: Toward differentiating maltreatment and violence. American Psychologist, 53(2), 121.

Herbert, T. B., Silver, R. C., & Ellard, J. H. (1991). Coping with an abusive relationship: I. How and why do women stay?. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 311-325.

  • Codependent

Granello, D. H., & Beamish, P. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing codependency in women: A sense of connectedness, not pathology. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20(4), 344.

Cowan, G., & Warren, L. W. (1994). Codependency and gender-stereotyped traits. Sex roles, 30(9-10), 631-645.

Cowan, G., Bommersbach, M., & Curtis, S. R. (1995). Codependency, loss of self, and power. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(2), 221-236.

  • Narcissistic

Brodey, W. M. (1961). The family as the unit of study and treatment: Workshop, 1959: 3. Image, object and narcissistic relationships. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 31(1), 69.

Brunell, A. B., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Narcissism and romantic relationships: Understanding the paradox.

Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of personality and social psychology, 77(6), 1254.

Add a new section

[edit]

Jessie0131 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC) I think it will be a good idea to put a new section that discusses the study of interpersonal relationships from different perspectives of social sciences.[reply]

Could you put your content in the body of the text? The lead is strictly for summarizing pre-existing information in the body. Also make sure you're using more than one source, don't rely just one, especially not for four paragraphs. You also can still improve the tone quite a lot, this reads like a blog in places as opposed to an encyclopedic entry. Sentences like "Gossip is also detrimental for interpersonal relationships because some people might think others’ sensitive things are interesting to talk about, but they don’t understand how powerful the gossip can be. People could twist the fact of what happened and turn them into different stories. The person or people who have been gossiped about might be tortured mentally because of the gossip" don't really belong on Wikipedia.--Megaman en m (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

four ways in which ones acceptance of resonsibility can influence effective communication

[edit]

1. family 

   when takeing responsibility at home ur the only on who support and provide, not because your are forced  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:15:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2022

[edit]
185.24.153.229 (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put the Wiki page link for this word : Oedipus complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oedipus_complex

 Done Cannolis (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Communication Studies

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 2 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taliyyah, KNHUNT (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Proudbahamian242johnson, Chri.Konstantinou.

— Assignment last updated by CommDocBDS (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The antithesis of a personal relationship

[edit]

is a business one. In fact in many cases there are prohibitions on mixing the two and it is generally considered ill advised to mix the two. The occurrence of business sublist under other kinds is in conflict with this. On a numbers basis the vast majority of business relationships aren't even between individuals and when they are they still are only personal to the extent they deviate from their business purpose. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

There's a new article on Relationship quality, written as an essay unlinked from elsewhere, which overlaps with the contents here, and might be better merged to a more widely read page. So, merge for context and overlap. Klbrain (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u 4 ur help 🙏❤️ 105.113.94.74 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I'm the original author of the Relationship quality page (written for a class wiki project). I agree that there is a large amount of overlap with the Relationship Satisfaction section of this page and would not be overly opposed to a merge. However, I do worry that the length and scope of the Relationship quality article (which delves into measurement approaches of relationship quality and its numerous covariates across romantic, friend, and familial relationships) is too detailed/lengthy to easily slot into this article.
Perhaps instead, the Relationship Satisfaction section can be retitled to Relationship Quality and a brief synopsis of the Relationship Quality page can be given (i.e., the Theoretical Perspectives on Relationship Quality section from Relationship Quality page) with a link to the fuller Relationship quality page ("those interested in learning more about the measurement of relationship quality can find more here").
Whatever form it takes, I only ask that it is properly stressed to the reader that A) many aspects of relationship quality/satisfaction are still hotly debated by scholars (e.g., determinants, covariates, even definitions), B) that there are several theories of relationship quality which have garnered support (empirically and popularly within psych research -- though, again, there are still many debates), and C) that the quality of our close personal relationships have been consistently linked to several important physiological and psychological outcomes.
-hiwony Hiwony (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah -- and D) that measurements of relationship quality differ across the type of relationship (i.e., measurements and conceptual definitions of RQ/Relationship satisfaction differ between friendship and romantic partner.
-hiwony Hiwony (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal withdrawn by proposer; I'll add an excerpt too. Klbrain (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive focus on romance and family at the expense of other forms of relationships

[edit]

Is it just me or does the article focus too much on romance and less on family relationships, almost completely ignoring such important topics as friendship, career, any form of conflict, etc.? In theory, the article describes any relationship between people in general, but out of context it may seem that it is exclusively about romance or family. Up to adding the article to the love forms template. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for removing "physical attraction" from "love"

[edit]

I was asked by @BlockArranger to explain why I wanted physical attraction removed from "Other components commonly agreed to be necessary for love are physical attraction, similarity, reciprocity, and self-disclosure" in the romance section. The source talks about physical attraction in terms of factors that influence mate selection and relationship instigation, it doesn't claim that physical attraction is necessary for love. In fact, none of the components listed are "commonly agreed to be necessary" for love; perhaps the sentence could simply be changed to "Other components commonly associated with love are physical attraction, similarity, reciprocity, and self-disclosure". Wrenched (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you go ahead and WP:BEBOLD. I might check back at the result, but don't wait for me; others also have the option of making statements if they so wish. Thanks for discussing this matter with me in more detail! BlockArranger (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be editing Wikipedia based on your personal beliefs about love. The source can definitely be taken to mean that some people find physical attraction to be necessary for initiating a relationship, and the word "love" (without specifying which type) can be used to refer to this. If you don't think physical attraction is a condition for love sometimes, you should read Colours of Love, by John Alan Lee. [1] The statement in the article could be reworded, but if you think it's contentious, you should study more. I wouldn't use the word 'necessary', because different types of love have different preconditions, so without specifying what type it can't be stated what the preconditions are, but for example, physical attraction is necessary for what Lee calls eros love. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'm editing based on the fact that I have a PhD in Sociology and my doctoral thesis was on intimate relationships, but surely someone who claims the sociological definition of love is "an unrealistic, irrational and idealized kind of love" knows more than I do about all this. Wrenched (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the authors being cited are far more credentialed than you are. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I know it's hard to be 14 and deep, but also I do not care. Your information is incorrect, it's not even what your sources say, and you write like you're sitting your GCSEs. You can face that and deal with it, or you can continue to double down and have a public tantrum. It won't change the fact that I have expertise that you lack, and that it's really ruffling your feathers that I called out your nonsense.
Anyway good luck with life! Wrenched (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EXPERT. Nobody here cares if you have a degree or not. I don't know what you've been reading, but you also just obviously don't really know anything about love. The fact that you don't know "romantic love" has multiple definitions, or that there are types of love that require physical attraction, etc. If you really have a PhD, you have a very narrow education on love, and you have to stop assuming that you know everything about this. You seem very arrogant, and you aren't going to do well here. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Wrenched (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what any one of you think, really. The point is that this encyclopedia must be WP:VERIFIABLE. Please argue about the quality of sources; I suggest review articles because they are frequently published and are WP:SECONDARY, as well as being more accessible to readers than books. Furthermore, I would like to remind that there are rules stating that on talk pages, one must behave in a WP:CIVIL manner and respect WP:ETIQUETTE. While being an expert doesn't verify anything by itself as a fact, it can be helpful in navigating the sea of source literature. BlockArranger (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This person is mad about me deleting made up information they wrote in another page, not about this edit. They're here because they've decided to harass me over it on every possible corner of this site. I'm not gonna be civil to somebody who is cyberstalking me on wikipedia of all places. Wrenched (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]