Somewhere between your first crush and your first real heartbreak, you probably experienced something that felt like love but operated more like a software bug. You couldn’t stop thinking about this person. Their lukewarm reciprocation would launch you into euphoria. Their silence would flatten you for days. You were convinced it was the most profound emotional experience of your life.

Congratulations. You may have had “limerence.” And if the psychology establishment wants to make that sound like a diagnosis, I’m here to push back a little.

The Word You Didn’t Know You Needed

Psychologist Dorothy Tennov coined the term in her 1979 book Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love, after interviewing hundreds of people about romantic obsession. She needed a new word because the old ones — infatuation, crush, being in love — didn’t quite capture the particular flavor of madness she was documenting. Limerence, she argued, is involuntary, intrusive, and organized entirely around one terrifying question: does this person feel the same way about me?

The hallmarks are pretty recognizable: the obsessive thinking, the mood swings tied completely to the other person’s behavior, the magical thinking, the replaying of every interaction like game film. Tennov was clear that this isn’t a choice. It happens to you. You don’t decide to be limerent any more than you decide to be constipated.

Modern psychology has more or less kept the word around, and the internet has recently rediscovered it with the enthusiasm of someone who just learned that their chronic condition has a name. There are Reddit communities, self-help frameworks, and no shortage of articles suggesting that limerence is something you should identify, manage, and ideally cure yourself of.

Puh-leaze. That’s where I get off the bus.

Pathologizing Puppy Love

Here’s my actual take: limerence, at least in its garden-variety form, is just what falling hard for someone feels like when you’re young and unjaded. It’s not a disorder. It’s not a trauma response dressed up in romantic clothing. It’s the emotional equivalent of being a newbie — you feel everything at full volume because you haven’t yet developed the scar tissue that turns down the gain.

Worth noting: the American Psychiatric Association agrees, at least implicitly. Limerence does not appear in the DSM-5-TR — the official diagnostic manual for mental disorders. It’s not a condition. It’s an experience. There’s a difference. Tom Bellamy, a neuroscientist at the University of Nottingham and author of Smitten: Romantic Obsession, the Neuroscience of Limerence, and How to Make Love Last, makes the boundary explicit: “People sometimes tie it with borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, OCD, and even stalking. None of that is grounded in research.”

We as a whole have become adept at turning normal human experiences into clinical conditions that require intervention. Sadness became depression. Worry became anxiety disorder. Now apparently, the gut-punch intensity of early infatuation is limerence, a state you should probably discuss with a therapist and track in a journal.

I’m not dismissing Tennov’s work. The research is real, the phenomenon is real, and yes — in its most severe form, limerence can become genuinely destructive. Journalist Amanda McCracken, who spent years cycling in and out of obsessive infatuations, put it plainly after finally seeking help: “Limerence was a safe place for me to hide from the vulnerability of real intimacy.” That version — limerence as a long-term avoidance strategy rather than a passing storm — deserves attention.

But most of us didn’t have that. Most of us had the version where you were seventeen, completely undone by someone, certain this was the most important thing that had ever happened, and then eventually — through reciprocation, rejection, or simple time — it passed. (Or it became that smoldering torch that flames back up whenever you have a row with your partner.)

Love Is the Follow-Through

The useful distinction Tennov actually drew — and the one that gets lost when limerence becomes a self-help buzzword — is between the obsessive “I want you to want ME” (tanks, Cheap Trick) state and the kind of love that shows up in the boring, unglamorous middle of a long relationship. Limerence is almost entirely about you and your internal state. Love, the kind that matters, is mostly about the other person.

Limerence asks: Do they want me?

Love asks: What do they need?

Bellamy, who experienced this firsthand when he met his wife, describes the transition well: “If you have two limerent people, it’s fantastic. Eventually, however, the limerence fades, and the two people must transition to a different form of love. This will involve affection, communication, respect — all the things we associate with healthy, mature love.”

That’s not a small difference. Limerence is a beautiful, consuming, somewhat selfish state. Love, as a practice rather than a feeling, is a decision you make on the days when you don’t particularly feel like it. Which doesn’t mean limerence is worthless. It’s the kindling. The problem is when people mistake the kindling for the fire and can’t understand why it keeps burning out.

A Word in Defense of Feeling Everything

There’s a version of emotional maturity that looks a lot like emotional deadening. You learn to recognize limerence, you label it, you manage your expectations, you don’t do anything rash. This is probably wise. It is also, at some level, a small tragedy.

Giulia Poerio, a psychologist at the University of Sussex who studies limerence, captures the paradox neatly: “It’s a real cognitive invasion of your mind. It’s also enjoyable, which makes it somewhat addictive.” That’s the thing about limerence that the self-help literature never quite admits — it feels terrible and wonderful at the same time, and some part of you doesn’t entirely want it to stop.

The completely undone feeling — the ridiculous, embarrassing, can’t-eat, checking-your-phone-every-four-minutes feeling — is one of the more vivid experiences available to human beings. It’s not particularly rational. It’s not particularly dignified. But it is alive in a way that’s hard to replicate once you’ve got enough experience to know better.

So yes, understand what limerence is. Know that it’s not a reliable signal of compatibility. Know that it can attach itself to people who are objectively wrong for you. Know that it will eventually end, one way or another, and that surviving it doesn’t mean something went wrong. And it is certainly not a mental affliction. It’s just a normal part of this thing we call life.

References

• What is limerence, and are you confusing it with love? — The Washington Post, March 2026
• Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love — Dorothy Tennov (Amazon)
• Smitten: Romantic Obsession, the Neuroscience of Limerence, and How to Make Love Last — Tom Bellamy (Amazon)
• Limerence — Psychology Today
• Love and Limerence: Dorothy Tennov’s Research into the Confusions of Bonding — The Marginalian

The post Is it Love or Is it Limerence? first appeared on Sevenelles.

A recent Pew Research Center survey reveals that the United States is the only country among 25 polled where a majority of residents view their fellow citizens as morally or ethically “bad.” Fifty-three percent of American adults hold this negative view, contrasting sharply with other nations like Canada, where 92 percent see their compatriots as good.

Experts attribute this phenomenon to several factors. Political polarization plays a significant role, with 60 percent of Democrats and 46 percent of Republicans viewing fellow Americans negatively. This partisan divide has intensified over time—a 2022 Pew poll showed substantial increases in Americans describing opposing party members as immoral, dishonest, and close-minded compared to 2016.

Scholars suggest that nearly every moral issue has become politicized in America, with political leaders and social media amplifying divisions. Christian author Karen Swallow Prior notes that antagonistic political parties demonize each other, lowering perceptions of collective goodness. Additionally, America’s religious diversity has historically prevented agreement on shared moral standards, allowing morality to be weaponized politically.

Sociologist Scott Schieman observes that Americans exhibit a stronger “negativity bias” than Canadians, who tend to direct criticism toward elites rather than fellow citizens. Scholar Victoria Barnett argues that intense political polarization, especially when framed through religious teaching, erodes trust across society.

Historical Gallup polling confirms Americans have consistently rated the nation’s moral values negatively since 2003, suggesting this pessimistic outlook isn’t entirely new but has deepened amid current political contradictions.

Read the Full Article

The post U.S. Is the Only Country to Say Most Fellow Citizens are Bad People first appeared on Sevenelles.

Daniel Smith’s essay in The Atlantic explores the author’s struggle with the profound boredom of parenthood despite experiencing fierce, protective love for his children. When his first daughter was born, he discovered an unexpected paradox: while his love was instantaneous and complete, he disliked being a father. The activities that once sustained him—reading, seeing friends, solitude—vanished, replaced by exhausting routines and mind-numbing repetition.

The author confesses that much of parenting consists of “blunt, basic, run-of-the-mill boredom”—playgrounds, picture books, endless requests to “do it again.” He felt deficient for finding child-rearing tedious when society celebrates it as life’s greatest adventure. After divorce and remarrying, he now has three children and confronts the same feelings again.

Drawing on philosophers and poets like Kierkegaard, Frost, and Joseph Brodsky, the author reframes boredom not as something to suppress or escape, but as an emotion to move toward and understand. Brodsky’s commencement address argued that boredom teaches us our “utter insignificance” and that the most meaningful aspects of life—enduring relationships, serious work, art—all display patterns pregnant with boredom.

The essay concludes with a tender Sunday morning scene: the author shopping with his young son, noticing small moments of connection over hot chocolate. He realizes that boredom and meaning are inseparable—boredom is “the price we pay for a life rich with meaning.” Accepting rather than fighting this reality makes the feeling more endurable, transforming it from a shameful deficiency into an inevitable companion of love and commitment.

Read the Full Essay

The post Boredom Is the Price We Pay for Meaning first appeared on Sevenelles.

“Mutual hatred is a national wound that we will have to work to heal, and that will require letting go of who we’ve become. It’s the only way forward for all of us.”

Article Summary:

Esau McCaulley reflects on the dangers of consuming anger and the potential for personal and national healing through compassion and forgiveness. Drawing from his personal experience with an abusive father, he explores how rage can become a defining identity that prevents growth and understanding.

Initially, Esau harbored deep resentment towards his father, who was absent and struggled with addiction. Over time, he realized that his anger had become a form of self-definition, preventing him from moving toward a positive vision of life. When his father eventually apologized, the author was challenged to reimagine his identity beyond being a victim.

This personal journey parallels the author’s observations of current political polarization, particularly regarding issues like immigration and ICE. He suggests that many people, including those in the MAGA movement, might be trapped in cycles of anger and self-righteousness, similar to his own past experience.

Using a biblical parable about a Pharisee and a tax collector, the author illustrates the importance of humility and mercy. He argues that true healing requires acknowledging one’s own flaws and extending compassion to others, even those who have caused harm.

Read the Full Article

The post It’s So Hard Not to Be Consumed by Rage first appeared on Sevenelles.

In this article, Dana Milbank explores how curiosity can help reduce political polarization, particularly during family gatherings like Thanksgiving. Recent psychological research suggests that people can become more open-minded and less partisan by practicing curiosity.

Studies show that partisans often overestimate the uniformity of views within their political groups. Those who score higher on curiosity are more likely to recognize diversity of thought within their own party and be more receptive to different perspectives.

Researchers discovered a method to induce curiosity by encouraging people to write letters about engaging with someone holding opposing political views. This exercise helped participants realize that their political group is more intellectually diverse than they assumed.

The key to productive political dialogue is asking “how” questions instead of “why” questions. By approaching conversations with genuine curiosity and humility, people are more likely to explore ideas constructively. This approach can help people recognize areas of potential agreement and reduce hostile interactions.

Curiosity is not just a personality trait but a skill that can be developed through practice. Researchers suggest simple techniques like asking questions, finding wonder in surroundings, and breaking routine can enhance curiosity.

While acknowledging that deep political divisions won’t be instantly resolved, the article argues that individual efforts to be more curious can gradually improve political discourse. By approaching differences with openness and a desire to understand, people can reduce dehumanization and foster more meaningful conversations.

The ultimate goal is not to change core beliefs but to create space for mutual understanding and respect across political lines.

Read the Full Article

The post Defuse Political Tension in Your Family With One Simple Question first appeared on Sevenelles.

In this column, Maggie Penman shares her experience regarding the challenges of making and maintaining friendships in adulthood, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The author describes attending a RealRoots meetup, a social networking event designed to help people connect and combat loneliness, which has become a significant health concern in the United States.

The piece offers several key insights into building meaningful friendships:

1. Vulnerability is crucial: By sharing genuine, personal experiences, people can create deeper connections. The RealRoots event demonstrated how open, honest conversations can quickly foster empathy and understanding among strangers.

2. Shared activities are important: Engaging in activities you enjoy can naturally lead to friendship opportunities. Whether it’s working out, playing pickleball, or pursuing a hobby, shared interests provide a foundation for connection.

3. Intentionality matters: Friendships require active effort and prioritization. Journalist Billy Baker emphasizes the importance of making friendship a deliberate part of one’s daily routine, similar to other essential life activities.

The article highlights the changing social landscape, where traditional friendship networks have been disrupted by factors like busy work schedules, geographic mobility, and the pandemic. New platforms and approaches are emerging to help people combat loneliness and form meaningful connections.

The author’s personal experiences, including attending the RealRoots event and reaching out to a colleague, illustrate the potential rewards of stepping out of one’s comfort zone and actively pursuing friendships.

Ultimately, the piece encourages readers to be proactive, vulnerable, and open to forming new social connections.

Read the Full Article

The post Making Friends as an Adult is Hard. Here’s the Secret first appeared on Sevenelles.

The Big Joy Project, a global study involving over 17,000 participants from 169 countries, demonstrated that brief, science-based activities can significantly boost emotional well-being and happiness in just one week.

Participants received daily five to ten-minute joy-boosting activities via email, which yielded surprising benefits. After the program, individuals reported improved emotional well-being, increased positive emotions, better stress management, enhanced sleep, and a greater willingness to help others.

The study highlighted seven key “joy snacks” that can improve one’s mood:

1. Seeking awe by experiencing something vast or extraordinary
2. Practicing gratitude by listing things and people to appreciate
3. Performing acts of kindness
4. Celebrating others’ joys
5. Reflecting on personal values
6. Considering one’s potential positive impact
7. Shifting perspective on challenging experiences

Researchers found that these brief interventions were particularly beneficial for individuals from less privileged backgrounds, suggesting that joy-focused practices are not a luxury but a crucial coping mechanism.

The study emphasized that joy is a skill that can be developed through intentional, small daily practices. While the research lacked a control group, the participants’ overwhelmingly positive responses indicated the potential effectiveness of these interventions.

You can sign up and try out the Big Joy Project here.

Read the Full Article

The post 7 Simple Ways to Be a Bit Happier Each Day first appeared on Sevenelles.

In this Op-Ed article, Ryan Zickgraf explores the modern media landscape through the lens of Neil Postman’s cultural criticism, arguing that democracy is not being overthrown by totalitarianism, but is instead being undermined by entertainment and technological distraction.

Postman predicted that America was drifting towards a Huxleyan dystopia where technology and media would trivialize serious discourse. Unlike Orwell’s vision of oppressive control, the current threat is a society narcotized by digital diversions like TikTok, social media, and constant stimulation.

The piece suggests that contemporary political discourse is characterized by performative panic and shallow engagement. Figures like Donald Trump exemplify this media-driven environment, where attention and spectacle matter more than substance. The traditional mechanisms of rational debate have been replaced by a “hallucinated collective monologue” where everyone talks but no one listens.

Interestingly, the article identifies a potential countermovement among Generation Z. While one segment of this generation is fully immersed in digital mediation and experiencing unprecedented loneliness, another group is actively rejecting technological saturation. These tech refugees are seeking meaning through traditional practices like attending church, engaging in analog hobbies, and prioritizing in-person connections.

The article concludes with cautious optimism that this generational shift might help restore meaningful social engagement.

Article Excerpts:

“Meanwhile, there’s a more profound crisis that nobody’s marching about: the collapse of faith in anything — not in leaders, not in institutions and barely any faith in friends, family or community. It’s the self-flattering effect of our me-first libertarian ideals and the user-centric technology that surrounds us. In America, there are no kings but no subjects, either. We are each kings unto ourselves.”

“Each social media platform brings with it a new grammar of cognition. The written word still defines X, but in a way that favors brevity and snark. TikTok rewards emotion and mimicry. Instagram curates identity through visual branding. YouTube teaches us to talk quickly and passionately, and AI interfaces such as ChatGPT threaten to flatten language into plausible-sounding filler that imitates thought without demanding it.”

Read the Full Article

The post The World is Choking on Screens. Just As This Book Foretold. first appeared on Sevenelles.

David Brooks’ article in The Atlantic explores the moral decay in modern society through the lens of philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre’s work, examining how Western culture has lost its shared moral framework. Historically, people derived meaning from inherited social roles and community standards of excellence, where individuals sought to fulfill their responsibilities with integrity and purpose.

The Enlightenment shifted this paradigm by prioritizing individual autonomy and privatizing morality. While this brought increased personal freedom, it also created a moral vacuum where traditional ethical guideposts were removed. Without a shared moral order, people increasingly make decisions based on personal preferences and emotions rather than consistent ethical principles.

This moral fragmentation has led to several problematic societal trends: increased polarization, the inability to resolve disagreements constructively, and the tendency to use political identity as a source of meaning. Donald Trump is presented as a symptom of this moral breakdown—a figure who embodies hyper-individualism and acts solely based on personal desire and power.

The author argues that recovering from this moral crisis requires restoring a coherent moral vocabulary and rebalancing individual autonomy with community responsibility. This doesn’t mean rejecting the Enlightenment entirely, but recalibrating cultural values to emphasize character, shared purpose, and moral education.

Article Excerpt:

“One of the problems with living in a society with no shared moral order is that we have no way to settle arguments. We have no objective standard by which to determine that one view is right and another view is wrong. So public arguments just go on indefinitely, at greater levels of indignation and polarization. People use self-righteous words to try to get their way, but instead of engaging in moral argument, what they’re really doing is using the language of morality to enforce their own preferences.”

Read the Full Article

The post Why Do So Many People Think Trump Is Good? first appeared on Sevenelles.

Michal Leibowitz’s opinion piece in the NYT explores the changing dynamics of parenthood and generational attitudes towards having children, focusing on millennials and Gen Z. Inspired by Philip Larkin’s poem “This Be the Verse,” the author examines why younger generations are increasingly hesitant to become parents.

Multiple factors contribute to declining fertility rates, including economic challenges, career priorities, climate change concerns, and societal shifts. A key underlying reason is the heightened scrutiny of parenting through a therapeutic lens, where childhood experiences are increasingly analyzed as the root of adult psychological struggles.

The narrative highlights how modern culture has expanded definitions of trauma and abuse, creating nearly impossible standards for parenting. Therapeutic language has permeated popular culture, with social media platforms proliferating content about childhood wounds and intergenerational trauma. This has led to a trend of adult children more readily cutting off relationships with parents for perceived emotional shortcomings.

Ironically, parents today invest more time and effort into child-rearing than ever before, yet still face criticism. The parent-child relationship has transformed from one of mutual duties to a more one-sided expectation where children feel entitled to judge their parents’ performance.

The author’s personal experience, including struggles with an eating disorder and subsequent reflection on her parents’ love, provides a nuanced perspective. Her pregnancy becomes a turning point in understanding parental sacrifice and love.

Ultimately, the article suggests that having children is becoming an intentional choice rather than a societal default, reflecting broader cultural shifts in how we view family, personal responsibility, and intergenerational relationships.

Article Excerpt:

“There are few decisions more fraught for members of my generations — the cusp of millennial and Gen Z — than whether or not to become a parent. In 2023 the U.S. fertility rate fell to a record low. Some of the decline can be explained by a delay in having children or a decrease in the number of children, rather than people forgoing child rearing entirely. But it still seems increasingly likely that millennials will have the highest rate of childlessness of any generational cohort in American history.”

“There are plenty of plausible explanations for the trend. People aren’t having kids because it’s too expensive. They’re not having kids because they can’t find the right partner. They’re not having kids because they want to prioritize their careers, because of climate change, because the idea of bringing a child onto this broken planet is too depressing. They’re swearing off parenthood because of the overturning of Roe v. Wade or because they’re perennially commitmentphobic or because popular culture has made motherhood seem so daunting, its burdens so deeply unpleasant, that you have to have a touch of masochism to even consider it. Maybe women, in particular, are having fewer children simply because they can.”

Read the Full Article

The post There’s a Link Between Therapy Culture and Childlessness first appeared on Sevenelles.