#robert sternberg

[timetravelingthroughspace]

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love

[ginisbetterthanfirewhisky]

Why Harry and Ginny is a well-written pairing

Harry/Ginny was my first OTP even before I knew what "shipping" was. It annoys me to no end when people criticize the pairing on the basis of what they saw in the films or by taking book scenes out of context *cough* the fangirl argument *cough*. So I wrote a little essay of sorts on why they are a perfect pairing and do not deserve the flak they receive.

Here goes!

Their Personalities

The two common tropes that come to mind in literary romance are "opposites attract" and "birds of a feather". At first glance, Harry and Ginny certainly seem to belong to the latter category- they share a love for Quidditch, a dry sense of humour and have both been possessed by Voldemort. However, they have some differences which make them complement each other.

Harry, having had a bad childhood, doesn't like conflicts or arguments. Apart from the brief caps-lock in OotP (which was completely justified, by the way), Harry is of a calm nature. He's the peacemaker in the debate-loving Ron/Hermione's bickering. That's not to say that he's timid or mild-mannered- far from it, actually. Harry is very sarcastic and sassy ('No need to call me sir, Professor', anyone?), not to mention a terrific and eventually confident teacher. He is also somewhat of a brooding, self-depreciating pessimist.

Ginny, on the other hand, is sunny and full of personality. She is an optimist (remember when she reminded a dejected Harry in OotP that he was only under the ban till Umbridge was at Hogwarts? Or the 'anything's possible if you've got enough nerve' scene?) who can easily snap Harry out of his self-loathing. She doesn't walk on eggshells around him ('Lucky you'), nor does she unnecessarily humour him or put up with his (rare and unintentional) rudeness ('No need to take that tone with me'). She has a fierce temper that is cancelled out by Harry's calm nature. She understands Harry when no one else does, and the same goes for her (Not even Hagrid can convince Harry to leave a dead Dumbledore's side, but a single touch from Ginny makes him follow her blindly. Similarly, in the Battle of Hogwarts, one glance at Harry is enough for her to understand him and stop struggling against her mum).

Their Sense of Humour

As I said, they have a very similar, dry sense of humour. Very often in the books, they catch each other's eye when they hear something funny because they know the other will laugh too. This non-verbal communication even happens before OotP, when Ginny comes out of her shell.

Some examples examples include the eye-catching over Percy's attempts to impress Penelope in PoA, Lockhart's behaviour and Hermione and Luna's stark differences in OotP and Ron's uncharacteristically suave behaviour in DH.

The "Real" Kind of Love

I'm sure most of us know about Robert Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love, where the presence of three factors- intimacy, passion and commitment- determines whether the romantic relationship between two characters/people is an ideal or "consummate" kind of love. In the books, there's plenty of evidence to prove that all three boxes in the Triangular Theory are checked. This Mugglenet article lists book quotes to prove this point.

All this proves that Harry/Ginny indeed is a well-written pairing and that JKR can write romance well, contrary to popular belief. The main focus of HP is not romantic love, which more or less excuses the lack of screentime for their romance.

~Interesting Essays~

Giving Her the Power: A Characterization of Harry/Ginny (written pre-HBP)

D’you Really Think They’re Suited? Why Hermione is Not the Right Girl for Harry (again, pre-HBP)

Harry and Ginny: More Than Meets the Eye (pre-HBP)

A Rationalist's Guide to Chocolate Orange (Pre-HBP)

Why Harry Picked Ginny, Rather Than Hermione, As A Romantic Partner (Pre DH)

Ginny Weasley: A Gryffindor and a Match for Harry (Pre DH)

[thequotejournals]

Passion is the quickest to develop, and the quickest to fade. Intimacy develops more slowly, and commitment more gradually still.

Robert Sternberg

[misspeculiar-key]

Robert Sternberg's Theory of Love

(Source)

[redshift-13]

Adaptive Intelligence is a dramatic reappraisal and reframing of the concept of human intelligence. In a sweeping analysis, Robert J. Sternberg argues that we are using a fatally-flawed, outdated conception of intelligence; one which may promote technological advancement, but which has also accelerated climate change, pollution, the use of weaponry, and inequality. Instead of focusing on the narrow academic skills measured by standardized tests, societies should teach and assess adaptive intelligence, defined as the use of collective talent in service of the common good. This book describes why the outdated notion of intelligence persists, what adaptive intelligence is, and how it could lead humankind on a more positive path.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/adaptive-intelligence/3A004EE4E80B7B38EA6853FD59904093

Anything by Sternberg is worth reading, in my experience.

The above quote about the book gets at an insight that’s profound in its implications (probably more than we can possibly imagine), is relatively easy to summarize, but is among the hardest problems to solve: the human created world reflects human consciousness.

People lacking in wisdom will create a world that seems stupid and self-defeating and anti-human.

Low levels of creativity will create a routinized and dreary place.

Low levels of compassion and empathy will result in a world that’s harsh, merciless and painful.

Low levels of literacy mean that all human problems will be reproduced again and again.

Low levels of critical thinking result in a world of superstition, credulity, and constant self-defeating behavior.  High levels (properly defined) would presumably result in a world in which decision making in general would be more tightly constrained to self and collective interest.

Low levels of historical literacy contribute to, among other things, an inability to objectify and possibly transcend the dysfunctional patterns of our existence.

Etc.

All of these and many more simple propositions about the nature of consciousness and the inferences for the world we can draw from it, belie great complexity.

Maybe the most obvious overall problem in terms of viewing the progressive transformation of the world through the transformation of the mind, and vice versa, is that mind and world exist in highly complex interrelationship.  And, for anyone approaching this high-level, complex, systems problem, there are likely a range of competing theoretical approaches (environmental vs. developmental, e.g.) for understanding it, and there isn’t necessarily any agreement on the who, what, how and why’s of the human subject, the world, and their change.

But, you don’t have to have all of that figured out to realize that focused upgrades in human consciousness, like Sternberg’s theory of adaptive intelligence, are possible and that they’ll have positive consequences.  

Among the most important vocations for progressives, it seems to me, are educational visionaries.  Sternberg should be on their study list.

[askagenderfluidandgenderflux]

Triangles of Looooove

Yo this is made specifically for that anon we just had but also bc I can’t find what I was looking for so I did some quick googling and here’s what I did find:

The thing I was thinking of was based on Robert Sternberg’s triangular module of love.

Basically, there are three ‘types’ of love: passion, intimacy, and commitment.

Combinations of these types of love are called different things, and having all three is called ‘consummate love’.

I would also argue that intimacy can mean a lot of different things- for some it could mean phsyical intimacy (sex), for some it could mean emotional intimacy (deep conversations, being able to know what the other person is trying to say, etc), etc. 

I hope that makes any sense at all?? You might be able to do some googling on your own and find more, I only had a couple minutes to sit down here.

[marriagefamilyshareapy]

I am ridiculously happy about getting this book. I have loved this theory of Sternberg’s since I took Sociology of Family in 2016- so much so I wrote my term paper around it. I didn’t buy the book, because I had access to it as an ebook from CCIS. Alas, that ended with graduation, so now I own an in-hand copy :-)

[thenotsolittlemisspeculiar]

Theory of Love

Photo Source

Let’s assume that there is intimacy, passion, and commitment—but the crux of the matter is, how do you keep the flame burning or the spark alive?

Bonus:

Find out how you perceive and express love through this Love Language test. (Note: This may subject to change as we grow hence retaking the test is advised.)

And always remember that communication is key.

I retook the test on September 6, 2018 and this was my result. Here are the ones from August 31, 2017 (I took the test twice the first time I tried it; result 1 and result 2) and April 29, 2018.