Talk:Love bombing

message: I made the following changes to the History section...
* The UC is older than the COG. I took out references to "love bombing" having "apparently" been used first by the COG.  For the same reason I put the UC info above the COG info. For the same reason I took out "(and apparently ignorant of the early use of the term within the Children of God)" 
* Took out "With no indication of the source of his claim" as OR.
:You can't simply delete primary sources identifying use of the term that don't fit your theory. Let the evidence be offered to the reader. Also, if you had read the statement Loomis made in the context of the sentences before and after, you would (hopefully) not have been able to misunderstand what he was claiming. It had nothing to do with whether or not the term was independently invented by COG. -DoctorW 20:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the History section 

message: There are a lot of uncited statements in this article.  However the statement "In this context, a reader could infer that the critic's intention is to suggest that the organization has some "cult"-like characteristics" is IMO a blatant personal interpretation.  I propose that it be removed.  Tanaats 22:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did that. Steve Dufour 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reader could infer? 

message: The movie Ticket to Heaven (with Kim Cattrall in her pre "Sex in the city" days :-)) has another form of "love bombing" at 0:25:00 and at 1:03:30. The cultists claim that they will bomb satan with love. Then they all chant "bomb with love! bomb with love! bomb with love!" --Tilman 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you could start a section on "love bombing in popular culture".  Steve Dufour 04:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am wondering is wether this form of "love bombing" was actually used in the Oakland Moonie recruitment compound, or wether the filmmaker simply made it up. Much of the film is clearly based on the Moon organisation. --Tilman 09:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in the 1970s the idea that we should love Satan would be considered very wrong in the Unification Church, so that part was made up. Steve Dufour 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ticket to Heaven]] 

message: I was looking for information on the UC's leading blogger (if that's what he is) to start an article on him if possible. I ran into this:   It seems to be him but I didn't know he was an expert cook. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Damian Anderson

message: As a compromise, I'm willing to accept a presence in this article of a reference to your article, an explanation of it, and a quotation, as long as the most egregious, unscholarly, prejudicial claims (that have no basis in empirical studies of cult members) are left out. This would include the misleading implication that cult members have vulnerable dopamine systems, use of the exaggerated word "hijacked," and comparisons with "drug-induced rewards." Likewise, no implication that the field of evolutionary psychology has adopted or accepted this explanation would be appropriate. -Exucmember (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: This has to be the worst attempt at psychology I have seen so far on the wikipedia. Its a complete mixup of various terms. Its really sad that everyone thinks he can be a psychologist. Its pretty obvious to anyone how and why love-bombing works and this attempt at explanation only makes it extremely confusing. I am removing this two sections:
:Electrical engineer and anti-scientology activist Keith Henson has attempted to explain in evolutionary psychology terms how love bombing works. It is based on the idea that the brain evolved in a social context and that attention from others acts as a reward for reasons rooted in stone age evolution.
Comments: Brain evolved in various contexts throughout the evolution. It is obvious and common knowledge that attention acts as a reward but the reasons for it are NOT rooted in stone age. Evolution didn't start in stone age!
:Memes...which manifest as cults and related social movements, have "discovered" the brain's reward system.... Successful cult memes induce intense social interaction behaviour between cult members. This trips the attention detectors. Tripping the detectors causes the release of reward chemicals.... Anyone who has ever had the feeling of being higher than a kite after giving a public speech is well aware of the effects of attention.From Sex, Drugs, and Cults. An evolutionary psychology perspective on why and how cult memes get a drug-like hold on people, and what might be done to mitigate the effects, The Human Nature Review, 2002 Volume 2: 343-355.
Comments: Memes manifest as cults and social movements?? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Memes discovered reward system? Reward system manifests itself all the time no need to discover it. "This trips the attention detectors."? What kind of language is this? Well I guess its a language of electrical engineer trying to talk about psychology. It may be understandable to him but not to others.
This whole confused passage should be phrased as:
:"Cults exploit the fact that people love when others pay attention to them."
Please don't reinsert it, the article is much better without it. 
Enemyunknown (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Material added by electrical engineer Keith Henson about his own psychological theory is ridiculous. Cult members might like it though, because it makes their critics look bad. -DoctorW 17:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an orginal research 

message: Applause to all of you: I did not expect to find this article here.  There will need to be a new section on the use of lovebombing by violent street gangs to groom new prostitutes. There should also be a reference to the book "Gangs and Girls: Understanding Juvenile Prostitution." by 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090310.wbkgirlsandgangs/BNStory/globebooks/home
Michel Dorais and Patrice Corriveau, the English translation of whose book is reviewed in the Globe and Mail.
Again, applause to you all and many thanks. Rumjal.
rumjal 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New reference and new section needed

message: It should not be confused with the method developed by the Clinical Psychologist Oliver James, described in his book Love Bombing - Reset your child's emotional thermostat, which offers a means for parents to rectify emotional problems in their children.
The source does not appear to be saying that.  Why should we imply that Oliver James's version of "Love bombing" is not the real "Love bombing" ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Will take care of that. BTW the positive use by Unification Church members should come first before the critical use. This was the historical progression. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What isn't Love bombing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Love bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040818214228/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/mdtaskforce/loomis_testimony.htm to http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/mdtaskforce/loomis_testimony.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Love bombing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020617171034/http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/ggalant/ to http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/ggalant/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150823040834/http://narcissistsupport.com/red-flag-2-love-bombing/ to http://narcissistsupport.com/red-flag-2-love-bombing/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems to me that this is a particularly unscientific article, which doesn't define exactly what 'love bombing' is. While there is no doubt (certainly in my mind) that this phrase exists, there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut definition of what it is. More importantly, it hasn't been defined in terms of what it isn't. Many people 'shower their love' on others, simply because that's their nature. They're 'shiny, happy people'. Does that mean they are guilty of 'love bombing' in the negative sense? Or in any sense?
I suspect it would be hard to define this phrase, given the sheer breadth of human interaction and personalities. If a person shows a lot of affection, verbally or otherwise, to another person who they happen to desire, would their actions in showing affection be considered negative? Manipulative? Or just old-fashioned attempting to 'woo' or flirt with someone they fancy? --82.21.97.70 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is 'love bombing'? 

message: I noticed that there are some rather long direct quotes that are only sourced to websites or articles connected to the speaker.  Especially the one from Rev. Moon and the one from Keith Henson. I don't think this is supposed to be WP policy.SpecInterest (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Bmitch18 (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse