Hi everyone,

I’m new here — my name’s Zane. I’ve been quietly reading posts for a while and finally decided to join and share something that’s been occupying my thoughts. I’ve recently been diving into some books that blend psychology, influence, and emotional dynamics, and one in particular really stood out to me:
The Forbidden Laws of Human Influence by Elias Varnor.

It’s not a clinical psychology book per se, but it taps into many psychological principles especially around emotional manipulation, identity, and internal survival behaviors. One passage especially hit hard and I wanted to start a discussion around it:

“If your love feels like anxiety, it’s not love — it’s survival.”

This idea challenges a lot of what we normalize in relationships. How often do people chase validation from emotionally inconsistent partners and call it ‘passion’? How often do we confuse uncertainty with intensity as if unpredictability equals depth?

Varnor argues that many of us are trapped in relationships that activate our survival mechanisms the need to prove, wait, earn rather than relationships that offer psychological safety, calm, and visibility. That resonated deeply with me, especially thinking about how attachment styles can play into this. We might internalize the belief that we must fight to be loved because we were never shown what love without conditions feels like.

The book also touches on how influence often begins within ourselves not in how we control others, but in what we tolerate and accept within our own minds. It’s honestly one of the more subtly challenging books I’ve read in this space. If you’re interested in influence, emotional dynamics, or the psychology of self-worth, I recommend giving it a look.

Curious to hear your thoughts:

• Do you agree with this framing of anxious love as survival?

• How do you personally distinguish between healthy calm and emotional numbness?

• Have you ever experienced a relationship that felt like "breathing" instead of "proving"?

Looking forward to your insights,
— Zane

1 hour ago, Zane said:

Hi everyone,

I’m new here — my name’s Zane. I’ve been quietly reading posts for a while and finally decided to join and share something that’s been occupying my thoughts. I’ve recently been diving into some books that blend psychology, influence, and emotional dynamics, and one in particular really stood out to me:
The Forbidden Laws of Human Influence by Elias Varnor.

It’s not a clinical psychology book per se, but it taps into many psychological principles especially around emotional manipulation, identity, and internal survival behaviors. One passage especially hit hard and I wanted to start a discussion around it:

This idea challenges a lot of what we normalize in relationships. How often do people chase validation from emotionally inconsistent partners and call it ‘passion’? How often do we confuse uncertainty with intensity as if unpredictability equals depth?

Varnor argues that many of us are trapped in relationships that activate our survival mechanisms the need to prove, wait, earn rather than relationships that offer psychological safety, calm, and visibility. That resonated deeply with me, especially thinking about how attachment styles can play into this. We might internalize the belief that we must fight to be loved because we were never shown what love without conditions feels like.

The book also touches on how influence often begins within ourselves not in how we control others, but in what we tolerate and accept within our own minds. It’s honestly one of the more subtly challenging books I’ve read in this space. If you’re interested in influence, emotional dynamics, or the psychology of self-worth, I recommend giving it a look.

Curious to hear your thoughts:

• Do you agree with this framing of anxious love as survival?

• How do you personally distinguish between healthy calm and emotional numbness?

• Have you ever experienced a relationship that felt like "breathing" instead of "proving"?

Looking forward to your insights,
— Zane

Not really. I think love between demanding individuals always involves a certain amount of challenge and proving of one to the other. I think this is healthy and strengthens the bond, even though a certain amount of anxiety is generated in the process. A relationship without challenge would become complacent and dull after a while - and love might fade. (Full disclosure: I was married to an intellectually sharp Parisian woman with definite standards and expectations. She was just what I needed to keep me on my toes.🙂)

Edited July 4Jul 4 by exchemist

I get what the OP is saying, but the options he's offering are the two ends of a spectrum, where various encounters between a couple fall at various points on the continuum. The median of these ppints will vary between couples, but it is an oversimplification to suppose the entirety of any couple's interaction will reside upon either extreme. Of course toxic relationships devoid of love exist, but are likely statistical outliers.