Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Savannah Rockwin
20 April 2017
2
The good news is that Dead Seas can learn to talk and Babbling Brooks can learn to listen.
We are influenced by our personality but not controlled by it. Pg. 68
Homogamy, from the filtering theory, is practical and realistic; people gravitate towards
what is familiar. We are affected by certain variables that we dont always like to admit: social
class, propinquity, religion, and even physical attraction. I found that exogamy was neither
realistic nor applicable in my own life. I was shocked to learn the notion that people with such
fundamental differences end up married. Thats when I realized that exogamy could surpass just
A rigid dichotomy exists between Dead Seas and Babbling Brooks. Dead Seas, or the
listeners, sustain a large reservoir for a Babbling Brook. They are perfectly content receiving
information; however, Dead Seas tend not to reciprocate with their own information.
Nevertheless, the two personality types prevail attractive to each other as the Dead Sea is happy
to listen and the Babbling Brook is happy to babble. Though, somewhere down the road their
differences illuminate this improper flow of communication. Luckily, the author affirms a simple
remedy towards this problem. A transactional model of communication would suffice to help the
Dead Sea talk and the Babbling Brook listen. Our personalities do not dictate our success in
relationships, but rather the effort that we put into managing those core differences.
I have only dated the Dead Sea personality, and each time it has posed a pattern of
unexplainable difficulties. After recognizing how this phenomenon situates itself in my own life,
I was able to understand why I could never work past it. Chapman iterates that by reversing the
roles, you can maintain a successful and healthy relationship through a mutually beneficial
environment. Rather than just listening, I understand now that I could take a step further and ask
questions about the Dead Sea. If a person is comforted by the words of others, it may be helpful
to assist them in the transition into becoming their own form of a Babbling Brook.
3
It {forgiveness} is a choice to show mercy, not to hold the offense up against the offender.
If I were to ever get a tattoo (which I probably wouldnt because my parents would kill
me) it would say perdono, an Italian word for forgiveness. This perception from Words of
Affirmation made me pause and reread the authors argument several times. I was hopeful that
going over his reasoning I would come to agree, though I found myself increasingly angered at
this idea. By definition of forgiveness, Chapman is close. That is to say its about showing
mercy, but rather shall you ask yourself, whom am I showing mercy to? When it comes to love
this theory is deeply flawed and could not be written another way because the principles behind
it are wrong.
It is not an expression of love for another, as Chapman states, but an expression of mercy
and peace for your own soul. Forgiveness is not about the person in the wrong, but rather about
the person doing the forgiving. We dont grant others our forgiveness because they asked for it,
or because they deserve it, or because the pain they caused you isnt worth it. Rather, because a
person cannot truly move on without forgiving. It speaks to ones level of maturity, and his/her
The day of my sixteenth birthday I found out my ex-boyfriend had cheated on me. I
forgave him for this, because I too thought forgiveness was an expression of love. I believed my
love could remedy his absence of love for me. A few months later, he cheated on me again. It
was not until I was wronged for a second time that I realized that someones behavior speaks to
their character, not yours. But more importantly, your forgiveness speaks of you, and not them. It
is a disservice to Chapmans readers to make them feel as if they do not have love to give if they
You will probably have to rely heavily on your faith in God to do this,- Pg. 149
In the chapter, Loving the Unlovely, Chapman discuses the reality of being in a failing
marriage. His solution to his patient, Ann, encompasses one main premise. Chapman pulls from
Anns religious background by using quotes from Jesus sermon. Chapman raises the
observation that even sinners love those who love them as a guiding principle for all
From the start, Chapman is alluding to the notion that Ann should try and love her
husband Glenn, who is noted to mistreat her, more than she has been. He goes even further to
confirm that one cannot make a person kind by being kind, one can only hope. The major
suggestion our author poses to Ann is that she should learn to speak her husbands primary love
language, which is physical touch. I strongly disagree with Chapman here because while it
supposedly made a difference in their marriage, he is essentially saying human nature operates
on a give to get rationality. And even then, there is not guarantee. Is it morally correct to tell a
woman to have sex with her husband, who is outwardly unwilling to make the relationship work,
to save their marriage? Even more so, why is Glenns inability to love deserving of Anns
efforts? There comes a certain point where there is no benefit to taking on the burden of trying
Though, in Chapmans misguided economy of love, does filling someones love tank
fundamentally solve long term problems? This false conception of how to best love others is
ignorant and lacks transformative properties. The construct plays into selfish behavior and
imbeds the perception that human desires are necessities rather than lust. This notion can be
Love says, I love you too much to let you treat me this way. It is not good for you or me.
In a perfect world, and every fairytale book, love is a sanctuary that grants partners
immunity to the harsh realities and obstacles their differences create. Cinderella and her prince
overcame their differences in social hierarchies the same way Beauty was able to fall in love
with the Beast. The only validity fairytales hold about relationships is that love is oriented
I agree that loving someone too much to allow them to treat you poorly is an act of
choice. It acknowledges that despite how you feel for them, you care too deeply to allow
circumstances to hurt either of you. This idea lends itself to protecting the sanctity of love in that
it considers the real world. Often, it is difficult to find harmony or resolution among people
whose differences bare a burden too heavy to sustain. As I agree with this quote and explain
what it means to me, I find that its application might be more difficult than articulating
definitions.
In high school, I was in an emotionally abusive relationship that escalated to one instance
of physical violence. It was my first real relationship, and he struggled with serious issues like
anger management. For a long time I stayed with him because he told me that if I loved him then
I would not leave him. However, when things became physical I realized I was not helping him
or myself by staying in a toxic relationship. We broke up not because I didnt love him, but
because I loved both of us too much to allow that to continue. I dont think I realized this was the
theory I was following until I read this quote. Similarly, the same goes for people in relationships
where the partner suffers from a mental disability. Leaving them doesnt negate your love, but
rather may symbolize the love you have for others, such as protecting children from any
crossfire.
6
Chapmans work The 5 Love Languages. Prior to this class, I had heard about this book and
almost even picked it up to read once after I entered into a new relationship. As I finally got the
chance to read this book, I was a bit disappointed with a few of Chapmans arguments and found
the real life application of his theory to be unrealistic. Interestingly enough, each example
Chapman offers as an example is a failing marriage. His main thesis contends that each person
has a love tank, and if you fill your partners love tank you will have a happy relationship.
Through one of the five love languages, one can express the kind of love their partner needs.
While I agreed in theory with more than I disagreed with, there are a number of flaws that this
book encounters.
I believe that this theory can provide temporary relief to a distressed marriage.
me and my then boyfriend would argue over the fact he was not a good texter and did not say
any affectionate things. He didnt understand and mistook what I was saying and thought my
love language was quality time, as he said that he didnt have to do those things because we just
had a visit with each other. Eventually, his attempt at words of affirmation was only temporary
The problem with Chapmans advice is that some people are just not made to be what
others need. Are our love languages desires rather than needs? And if so, could I have gotten past
my exs inability to communicate or express his feelings for me? The book is all fluff and
fairytale endings, and I never read anything about a time where his theory didnt work. This book
Works Cited
Chapman, G. (2015). Quality time. In E. C. Newenhuyse (Ed.), The 5 love languages (pp. 55-
Chapman, G. (2015). Loving the Unlovely. In E. C. Newenhuyse (Ed.), The 5 love languages
Chapman, G. (2015). Acts of Service. In E. C. Newenhuyse (Ed.), The 5 love languages (pp. 92-