TVING's dating reality series Transfer Love 4 asks the question again: can former partners restart in the same space?
The setup of living with an ex (an ex-partner) creates both empathy and discomfort for viewers.
This season shows a different texture as emotional roller coasters and tangled relationships interact.
Audience reactions are extreme, prompting a conversation about the value of engagement and the risks of over-immersion.
Transfer Love 4 asks: Can a past love restart?
Show overview
Face to face.
Transfer Love 4 brings people who have experienced breakups together in one house to find new connections.
Contestants keep the identity of their ex (called X) secret while pursuing fresh relationships, but having an ex under the same roof creates daily emotional ripples.
This premise makes viewers feel the question “what if I met my ex again?” in real time.
The series began in 2021 and has steadily evolved the storytelling of dating reality.
Meanwhile, the fourth season, released on October 1, 2025, deepens those complexities based on earlier seasons’ lessons.
Here, personal histories, trauma, and possibilities for growth appear at once.
All of these scenes act like a mirror that prompts viewers to reflect on themselves.
Why it matters
To the point.
This show is more than light entertainment. It exposes how relationships and emotions actually work.
Running into an ex forces comparison and reassessment, revealing where past choices and present feelings collide.
The resulting narrative invites both empathy and critique.
Meanwhile, online spread magnifies the show’s double-edged empathy.
Viewers can easily become absorbed, and they can just as quickly judge.
As a result, the program sometimes becomes a catalyst for mental reactions and stress, not just amusement.
This raises questions of responsibility for both producers and audiences.
Arguments for: empathy and growth
The power of empathy
Simply put.
Many viewers see themselves in the contestants’ stories.
Being forced to live with an ex exposes raw feelings and regrets, and viewers often respond with compassion and understanding.
That compassion can move beyond emotional consumption to genuine self-reflection.
Supporters see this as the show’s biggest strength.
They argue Transfer Love 4 functions as a platform for personal growth.
The process of confronting past wounds and trying new relationships can provide educational value and emotional healing.
Watching private failures examined publicly can comfort many viewers.
Furthermore, the show highlights different choices and boundary-setting in relationships.
Cases about why people broke up and how they decide to love again accumulate into informal experiments.
These examples serve as indirect lessons for audiences, enriching criteria for how to approach romance.
Consequently, viewers may rethink their own relationship rules and boundaries.
Finally, advocates emphasize positive engagement.
Strong immersion can sharpen emotional understanding and help people recognize their own patterns through other people’s experiences.
Thus immersion can transform passive viewing into reflective practice.
In that way, dating reality can expand private emotional work into public conversation.
Arguments against: over-immersion and fading dopamine
The downside of immersion
A brief warning.
Critics first point to what they call a loss of dopamine.
This phrase summarizes viewers’ sense that the quick thrills of earlier seasons—fast-paced excitement—have faded in this season.
Complex relationships, they say, add emotional exhaustion.
Another issue is over-immersion.
Some viewers become emotionally overconnected to the show and worry that the line between screen and real life blurs.
Online fandoms can turn into collective judgment and harassment.
Over-immersion increases the mental burden on contestants.
Moreover, critics argue complex narratives can backfire.
If the relationship knots become too tangled, viewers struggle to follow the story’s core.
That fatigue can reduce sustained viewership and weaken fandom over time.
These trends signal a need to reconsider production direction.
Finally, ethical concerns remain.
Concealing an ex while encouraging new encounters draws criticism as potential emotional exploitation.
Questions persist: are contestants fully protected and consenting, and how far can producers intervene?
Opponents argue the show’s narrative value must be reassessed against these ethical costs.
Side-by-side and case analysis
Real cases and what they mean
State the point.
This section lines up examples that support both sides.
For instance, one contestant who let go of old attachments and found stability in a new relationship strengthens the pro argument.
On the other hand, another contestant who became distressed by an ex’s presence and chose to leave supports the critics’ view.
Comparing cases shows more than surface entertainment.
Success stories often reflect personal reflection plus favorable conditions.
Conversely, failure cases involve time pressure, editorial choices, and external backlash.
Therefore, production style and editing philosophy clearly shape the story’s contour.
Meanwhile, the platform itself matters.
Public release combined with instant online reaction interferes with contestants’ emotional recovery.
When fandom expectations and negativity collide, contestants face greater stress.
Thus ethical guidelines and aftercare systems from producers and platforms become crucial.
In-depth: dopamine, immersion, and viewership
How emotions work
Diagnose succinctly.
Dopamine is the brain chemical tied to expectation and reward (a neurotransmitter related to pleasure and motivation).
The early thrill of a show links to dopamine release, and rapid events plus clear conflicts trigger that response.
But as relationships become more complex and the narrative stretches, dopamine responses can fade.
Immersion, however, is not only about brain chemicals.
It depends on story clarity, character empathy, and editing rhythm working together.
So a dip in dopamine can be offset by stronger storytelling or better pacing.
Yet if producers lose emotional balance, over-immersion and viewer fatigue can occur simultaneously.
Viewer protection matters as well.
Pre- and post-show mental health support for contestants is essential.
Online reactions affect recovery, so platforms should link policy with support systems.
Entertainment and humane responsibility must go hand in hand.
Internet response and cultural context
Fandom and critique
Observe briefly.
Online communities tend to split their evaluations by season.
Some emphasize empathy and healing, while others point to fatigue and overcomplication.
Those positions do not exclude each other and reveal the show’s complex place in culture.
Cultural context matters, too.
Korean dating and marriage norms, sensitivity to public evaluation, and fast social media reactions add layers to how the show is read.
Therefore, critique should move beyond entertainment to wider social debate.
Transfer Love 4 becomes an occasion to discuss values and ethics around relationships in public.
Production and ethics: what should change?
Ask the priorities
Be direct with proposals.
Producers should give greater weight to contestant safety and welfare.
The key is balancing compelling storytelling with participant protection.
Formalizing pre-screening, midpoint check-ins, and post-show care must be a priority.
Editorial responsibility matters as well.
Editing shapes narrative flow, but it must avoid amplifying contestants’ emotional harm.
Viewers need a coherent structure that respects contemporary sensibilities.
Ethical production builds long-term trust.
Conclusion: what remains
State it plainly.
Transfer Love 4 is an experiment that redraws the edge of dating reality.
It is a complex product woven from empathy and growth, immersion and over-immersion, and ethical worries.
The show triggers personal reflection about love while also questioning the responsibilities of creation and consumption.
Summarize the essentials.
First, the program can serve as a space for empathy and learning.
Second, tangled storytelling and excessive immersion bring fatigue and ethical risk.
Third, producers and platforms must systematize contestant protection.
Ultimately, these debates return to audience attitudes and cultural consensus.
What do you think?
In one line, say how the show changed your view of relationships.
Between emotional consumption and responsibility, which side will you choose?
