Talk:Interpersonal attraction

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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): Jmutt18, ELA75808, Cwilsonbahun, Madalineeck, CinderellaAriel12, ChosephChocifer, Bluejay94, Jschmaus, Babybluejay, For.my.information, Always learning1, Belizwill354, MattSeikel, Ajc01036, Psychologysydney, Has84474, Mnpackfn85, ShortKort, Jwilson808xo, Human Capital 2016, Seyer Lat, Khm23183, Ihatesnow402, Begira12, Jay4312, Dreuu.

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

Smell?...
Better clarify/correct the following: "Interpersonal attraction is related to how much we like, smell, dislike, or hate someone." H15 H16N355 &#124;  K1N6 M3 (T47K)  22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Stupid links
Has anyone noticed that these links are kind of stupid? Ladder theory? Is that mainstream? It smacks of original research. Kultur 01:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I’m fairly knowledgeable in this area, e.g. I recently wrote interpersonal chemistry, interpersonal ties, and human bonding. The Project Manhattan link looks stupid, e.g. it doesn’t look like a free content website.  I'll add a good book reference for now.  The bulk of the article reads about right, as a starter introduction.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * fastseduction.com would be a free content link that is also more generic than Project Manhattan. Mathmo Talk 20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely some POV in that Ladder Theory article. A focal point of the theory revolves around so-called "nice guys" attempting to garner a female's attraction by appealing to her through supplicating gestures, typically through which the man appears weak, becomes a doormat, and is likely fated to stay "just friends" with the woman forever.

Reword or destroy. --Knightskye 04:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this article for the first time. While it is very interesting, a lot of it is extremely clumsily written. I have come across several sentences that do not scan grammatically, and in some cases the intended meaning is not even clear as a direct result of the faulty sentence structure. Also there are some references to concepts that have not previously been defined or introduced - for example 'the result' where no experiment has been introduced, and there is too much jargon that is left undefined either in this page or in another. I think this article needs some major reworking to make it read in proper English. Philip Graves (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Standards??
A dose of grammar and minimal proof reading would not go amiss in this article. 212.159.59.5 (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So do it. >.> MichaelExe (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's one word - "proofreading". You're welcome.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Strange Reference
I didn't take the liberty of actually editing this out, but the book referenced in the section "Increased female attraction to men in relationships" (reference 11) cannot be found anywhere online, or even on the publisher's website. (Johnson, Claudia. Names and Your Future. Random Publishing House, 2010.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedWasp (talk • contribs) 22:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment has nothing to do with a strange reference, but I really don't know how to create a whole new subject line. Interpersonal attraction means an attraction between two people. It says it ranges from friendship to romantic relationships. Should sexual attraction be included? I know there is an article completely devoted to it, but sexual attraction is part of interpersonal attraction. Or is sexual attraction and romantic attraction the same thing? -Ryan (RyanDanielst@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.176.232 (talk) 19:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The page Chemistry (relationship) should be merged into this page as it duplicates the topic. This page should remain as it is more detailed and has been here longer. The other page seems to be better referenced with footnotes but is mostly written in quotes. Moving or replacing some of that content here might improve the problems with lack of footnotes and possible original research. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Firstly, "[it] has been here longer" is not a sufficient argument for why one article should survive over another. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, I oppose this emrge proposal as I believe that both articles have enough merit to both survive. They refer to related, albeit different concepts, and though both could use a lot of work, that is no reason to get rid of one or the other. P.S. yes, I am the author of the Chemistry article, but this is my unbiased view regarding the matter.--Coin945 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not suggesting that "[it] has been here longer" is the only reason why it should be the one to go, it is not sufficient on its own but supports other reasons, the main one I can see being that the Chemistry article is almost entirely quotes. Another is that chemistry has been viewed 297 times in the last 30 days and this one has been viewed 17592 times in the last 30 days.
 * From reading through both articles I cannot see how they differ enough to warrant two separate articles. They should be combined to make one better, more comprehensive article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: It's not clear to me either how the two terms differ in common usage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

i do not think it should be merged. The two are in no way the same thing, and simply because one does not get viewed as often s not sufficient reasoning to get rid of it. Also, just becuase it is mostly quotes does not mean that the information is not there. The point of an article is to give the information, and regardless of how it is presented, the information is still being presented. i think that more information should be added to chemistry is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.57.120 (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support:"Interpersonal Attraction" and "Chemistry(Relationship)" are obviously the same thing. "Chemistry(Relationship)" is a layman designation of the psychological process of "Interpersonal Attraction".  Bind the two with searches for "Relationship Chemistry" being redirected to "Interpersonal Attraction".  Otherwise, identify every place where they don't refer to the exact same thing and present a compelling argument for why they are not the exact same thing.Zerooskul (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture?
Why is that picture included? Doesn't seem necessary. And it takes up a lot of real estate. And although it appears in the measurement section it has nothing to do with measurement. My vote is to remove it. --1000Faces (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Hi all! I propose to merge Attractiveness into this article, Interpersonal attraction. Both refer to the same subject, attraction between people. The attractiveness article does also refer to a handful of other concepts, but those (to me) seem to be due to poor writing. Regarding the direction of the merge, "attractiveness" could also refer types of attraction so it isn't appropriately differentiated, whereas the name "interpersonal attraction" is specific to the psychology/sociology concept. Also, while we're here anyway, if anyone has any opinions on the merge proposal from 2012, comment on it because we might as well wrap that up too. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support both merge proposals: Interpersonal attraction, because its a near synonym, and Chemistry (relationship) because its a subtopic best discussed with the context of the broader topic. Klbrain (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

"Attractive" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Attractive and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Allosexual perspective
This article is not very generous to asexual perspective which could give some more informative substance to it. Pingijno (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)