View Full Version : Finding "the one"
pevergreen
02-23-2010, 14:34
No I'm not asking advice on how to get a lady.
I have a christian friend. She believes that God will magically come along and show her who she should be with. God created her and him for each other. They were meant to be together.
Some people think that they are fated to be together. It was destiny.
Does it work like that?
I want to say no. From personal experience, as Tim Minchin said "the affection simply grows over time".
Yet I believe that I experienced such an event. I believe that myself and this lady were put there by something out of our control to see each other.
Or am I just being silly?
If it makes any difference, that happened around a year ago, so I'm not coming home after it annoyed or anything.
HoreTore
02-23-2010, 14:40
No, there isn't a "one", that's rubbish.
It's simply a matter of finding someone you like a lot, and then being together. If she waits for perfection, she will die a spinster.
God won't come down like the national lottery hand and go "It could be you!"
Basically, in real terms, the idea of "the one" is that there is some one out there who you could get along with. You should show this lady friend a good time, pevergreen and make her feel you are the one.
Lucky should you find it, friend of mine is one of these incredibly handsome guys, he can get just about every girl, including the hot ones that are smart and funny. But he prefers his rather bland but nice (and she is nice, very smart and funny) girl he met ages ago, she's the one for him. We used to mock him a bit for us taking the pretty ones upstairs but he is perfectly happy.
Louis VI the Fat
02-23-2010, 15:01
God helps those who help themselves.
Set up an elaborate 'sign from above'. She'll believe it was a sign from God. You will get married and live happily ever after. And if there is indeed an almighty God, He thus obviously meant it to be so it was a sign from Him in the first place.
By that logic, non-Christians would never get married.
pevergreen
02-23-2010, 15:07
Set up an elaborate 'sign from above'. She'll believe it was a sign from God. You will get married and live happily ever after. And if there is indeed an almighty God, He thus obviously meant it to be so it was a sign from Him in the first place.
I don't believe in screwing with someones beliefs like that.
Louis VI the Fat
02-23-2010, 15:09
I don't believe in screwing with someones beliefs like that.Would I be wrong in assuming you are a Protestant?
HoreTore
02-23-2010, 16:00
Yet I believe that I experienced such an event. I believe that myself and this lady were put there by something out of our control to see each other.
This one needs an extra comment:
I've felt that too. In 2005, I met the perfect woman completely by accident, there is nothing that suggests we would ever have met each other if not for that one day(and night...).
3 years after that I finally realized that she's miles away from perfect, and now I just don't care about the b:daisy: anymore...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-23-2010, 16:07
God helps those who help themselves.
Set up an elaborate 'sign from above'. She'll believe it was a sign from God. You will get married and live happily ever after. And if there is indeed an almighty God, He thus obviously meant it to be so it was a sign from Him in the first place.
That's not really very funny, Loius. Some people really do die alone because they believe they haven't found the "one". Me, I'm still not sure I didn't meet, her, fail to fall in love with her properly, and then royally screw up.
Fisherking
02-23-2010, 16:11
Would I be wrong in assuming you are a Protestant?
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Tellos Athenaios
02-23-2010, 16:16
The sign from above could be as simple as you taking the initiative and asking her, for all we know. It won't happen if you both keep waiting for a written admission from God that “it is meant to be; now get on with it already”. Not even biblical relationships work that way.
I have a christian friend. She believes that God will magically come along and show her who she should be with. God created her and him for each other. They were meant to be together. [...]
Does it work like that?
In a word, no, and there's no scriptural basis for it. That's some kind of Barbie Dream Pony logic mixed up with the Gospel.
On the Biblical front, the good book describes polygamy and monogamy without ever suggesting that one is better than the other. Even incest and rape (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrincest.htm) are given air time, with no indication that these are bad things. Your friend's belief that Heavenly Father will pick out a perfect match for her has more to do with the movie Pretty Woman and the novels of Jane Austen than anything in scripture.
Taking it from a practical perspective, we're all capable of loving many, many people. Honestly, think about the odds if there were only one suitable match out there for you. What if she was born in Madagascar? What if she dies in a car crash before you meet her? What if she's put in an arranged marriage before you find her? In all these scenarios, you're borked.
No, the truth of the matter is that there are many, many people with whom we can be happy. It's a question of finding such a person and doing the work necessary to have a successful relationship.
This Cinderalla-inspired junk where the girl finds Mr. Perfect and is swept off her feet ot live happily ever after, well, it's a joke that has been selling books, movies, toys and TV shows since the dawn of time. No relationship to reality.
Fisherking
02-23-2010, 16:35
I believe in lust at first sight, some times it even changes into love.
I even believe in signs but those are seldom two way and I wouldn’t waste a lot of time waiting around for one.
I even had one of sorts. When I met my wife and we had known each other for a few weeks, she felt she loved me, but could not bring herself to tell me.
One day we were talking and I felt as though I was literally struck by lighting. I blurted out I love you and immediately felt filled with joy and love. This was her opening to tell me how she felt too.
Still through all of that, I don’t think there is only one and you should not wait around for them to show up on your door step.
Rhyfelwyr
02-23-2010, 16:50
I'm think she's just conflating other things with her Christian beliefs, it's not uncommon for non-religious people to have this belief in fate and "the one", you see it all over the TV etc.
I do believe that these things work out the way they are meant to, but then again, whenever I pick a blue t-shirt over a red one, I think that is was meant to be that way...
Sounds to me like you should give her an intense religious experience. :eyebrows:
Hosakawa Tito
02-23-2010, 17:00
God helps those who help themselves.
Set up an elaborate 'sign from above'. She'll believe it was a sign from God. You will get married and live happily ever after. And if there is indeed an almighty God, He thus obviously meant it to be so it was a sign from Him in the first place.
Perceptions are reality. Louis is just trying to show how you can make it work for you.:laugh4:
Scienter
02-23-2010, 17:39
I don't think 'fate' brings people together. Chemistry does. Or lust. Or a friendship that turns into something else. I don't think there's one and only one 'perfect' person for everyone. If I had never met TinCow, we'd both be involved with other people. It's unromantic but true.
I'm not well versed in the Bible, but I think that your friend is being naive if she thinks that God is going to cause her to cross paths with a man who is perfect for her. Passively waiting for the right man to come along is a recipe for being single.
If I had never met TinCow, we'd both be involved with other people.
Ow! Tincow you forgot to chain it to the radiator bad idea, now we demand intimate details, say Scienter it couldn't have been that bad now tell everybody what you told me.
Strike For The South
02-23-2010, 18:40
The love you feel is a combonation of genetic differences and charictaristices that you find suitable in a mate.
So +1 on this idea
Set up an elaborate 'sign from above'. She'll believe it was a sign from God. You will get married and live happily ever after. And if there is indeed an almighty God, He thus obviously meant it to be so it was a sign from Him in the first place.
God never lays out a guide to dating and to assume he does in naive
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-23-2010, 19:32
The love you feel is a combonation of genetic differences and charictaristices that you find suitable in a mate.
So +1 on this idea
God never lays out a guide to dating and to assume he does in naive
...but he did write a sex-manual. Odd, isn't it?
Strike For The South
02-23-2010, 19:36
...but he did write a sex-manual. Odd, isn't it?
Sex is power.
HoreTore
02-23-2010, 19:36
...but he did write a sex-manual. Odd, isn't it?
Sex-manual?
Explain thyself to us heathens, christ-follower!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-23-2010, 19:48
Sex-manual?
Explain thyself to us heathens, christ-follower!
Well, more like classy porn really. Surely you've heard about the "Song of Soloman"?
The Wizard
02-23-2010, 20:09
I seriously thought this thread was about the Matrix or some sort of Arthurian legend before reading the OP.
Rhyfelwyr
02-23-2010, 20:50
I seriously thought this thread was about the Matrix or some sort of Arthurian legend before reading the OP.
Here is the one:
https://img196.imageshack.us/img196/9600/thematrixretarded.jpg (https://img196.imageshack.us/i/thematrixretarded.jpg/)
I seriously thought this thread was about the Matrix or some sort of Arthurian legend before reading the OP.
I thought Prussian Iron was the threads creator.
Does it work like that?
Wouldn't that mean that beaten wifes were meant to get beaten all since their conception? Ouch! :laugh4:
Ow! Tincow you forgot to chain it to the radiator bad idea, now we demand intimate details, say Scienter it couldn't have been that bad now tell everybody what you told me.
Did you just refer to my wife as "it"?
The Wizard
02-23-2010, 22:36
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v519/Odomaris/memes/phhwoaarr.jpg
etc
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 00:30
Yep, as many noted, there is a hefty amount of, well, sorry to say, BS in the idea of 'the one'. There are three main justifications for it, as far as I can think of on the spot.
A) For one, romantic love, as nearly all of us likely already know, is a recent phenomenon. Sure, it has been around for as far back as we know, but it was never something that was actually practised, notwithstanding rare exceptions. Arranged and forced marriages were the norm. Societies were built on this idea, grounded deeper than any fundamentalist claims of the family as being the fundament of our society (which is true, but a family is far, far less necessary than arranged marriages were in the old times) . Therefore, what we have is a recent phenomenon, which BTW, does not work well at all. The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60% (forgot by how much, I just knwo it is more). In contrast, it is a well-established sociological fact that arranged marriages are by far longer lasting, and even happier.
The sociologists insist the lack of expectations as well as the higher rigidity brings the couples together, encouraging the solution of differences and problems. This is the same reason why cohabitation has such an adverse effect (although small in comparison to an arranged marriage), because it does the converse, loosening the importance of the marriage bond, and suggesting that there is always an easy way out. Whatever the fundamentalists may be, they have the right ideas (i.e. the ideas which keep the marriage together, and running happier) about marriage, down to the inequality of husband and wife, as much as I loathe to admit.
Not to mention, the marriages that do end, usually do so before the first eight years - the first 4-7 years is the crucial point. This means that after eight years a family is on average, much safer. However, a couple may make it through the eight years with an ongoing conflict only to split up few years after that. Alternatively, an extramarital affair may occur - after all, close to 20% of all US divorces are due to infidelity, with nearly one out of four men cheating during their marriages.
B) Secondly, true love does start out as lust - something once again pointed out numerous times before me. I will clarify, however, and point out that love is nearly entirely a chemical state of mind - even the long-term affection as a matter of fact. For example, lust, or initial love - whatever you call it, starts out with dopamine and serotonin. Another interesting fact is that a person in love exhibits prolonged significantly heightened levels of serotonin. Dopamine is the more instant-acting chemical while serotonin maintains your obsession over longer periods of time. Now, what the interesting fact I was going to say is that the state of the brain suffering from love is very, very similar to that of an OCD person, down to the levels of serotonin.
Verdict? Love is a mental disorder. And it is, one cannot deny this - people do all sorts of stupid things under the influence of this drug. Finally, even the long term love is a result of chemical imbalance, namely the excess of the hormone of oxytocin. Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.
C) The third and final point is that love, long- and short- term, can be 'artificially' induced relatively easily given the right conditions. I cannot find the exact study now, but I did read in one of my sociology/psychology books that researchers put together a large number of pairs, (one male, one female) and put them to work on%2
Louis VI the Fat
02-24-2010, 00:37
Alright, I'm growing tired of this. The role PM I sent you was edited. This is my full role PM. The bits I cut out from the other version have been bolded for your convenience:
Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief
Your role is:
The Italian
Fortunes made in no time are like shirts made in no time; it's ten to one if they hang long together.
~ Douglas William Jerrold
Back home, you lived the high life expected of the son of a wealthy Genoese merchant. You were educated in the finest schools and knew nothing but the best of everything. Art, literature, mathematics, etiquette, nothing has escaped your knowledge. Some of your competitors may think otherwise, but you know the end of Genoa’s mercantile power is looming. The Mediterranean is no longer the hub of trade, wealth now flows from the Americas, India, and beyond. Hoping to found a trade house of your own, you set off to explore the opportunities of the New World. But everywhere you went you found the British, French, or Spanish in unassailable control of the markets.
You were drowning your sorrows in one of the finer taverns in Charleston when the attack came. While all others around you were running for their lives, your financial mind came to an epiphany. The only part of the New World not controlled by Genoa’s rivals was right before your eyes: the Pirates. In the confusion of the sack, you slipped aboard the Presence, disguised as one of her crew. You were trying to determine how best to propose a mutually profitable trade agreement with the captain when those perfidious British removed the only man with the power to negotiate with you. Ever the innovator, you adjusted your goals accordingly. If you can gain control of the ship's stores and survive until the ship reaches Nassau, perhaps other pirate captains would be willing to entertain your proposals.
Your goal: To survive, and to be the Quartermaster at game’s end. You may tell the other sailors whatever you wish to accomplish this mission, for this is the only way you can personally obtain a victory.
Powers: As a highly educated man, you have skills that will serve you well during your time aboard:
- You may investigate one person a night. Results may vary.
- You may roleblock one person per night. In addition to this, you will also find out how much gold they currently have.
You may do one of these two activities on a single night, but neither of them will earn you any treasure. In addition, you cannot perform the same individual action more than three consecutive nights. In lieu of this, you may also take part in the usual townie group activities (kill with at least 3 others, protect with at least 2 others) and obtain treasure. However, as you are concerned with wealth on a massive scale, the pittance available on board this particular ship means very little to you. Striking a trade agreement with the pirates of Nassau will bring you more wealth than a simple pirate could ever dream of.
Base gold: 100
It does not need to be immediately, but I will require promotion to the QM spot eventually. I will do anything for this. Share my investigation results, kill Crazed Rabbit together with you as per our secret night action clause, share those pictures of my wife I told you about.
So Rabbit or my wife will be upset. Is that any of my concern? Sorry, but I have to look after myself. I know that this will remove my ability to kill at night, but I've got to try and achieve my objective. :shrug:Ah, bummer. I thought I remembered TinCow referring to his wife as 'it'. Alas, he doesn't. So much then for my hopes of compromising him with my long memory and pesky large inbox.
Strike For The South
02-24-2010, 00:48
A) For one, romantic love, as nearly all of us likely already know, is a recent phenomenon. Sure, it has been around for as far back as we know, but it was never something that was actually practised, notwithstanding rare exceptions. Arranged and forced marriages were the norm. Societies were built on this idea, grounded deeper than any fundamentalist claims of the family as being the fundament of our society (which is true, but a family is far, far less necessary than arranged marriages were in the old times) . Therefore, what we have is a recent phenomenon, which BTW, does not work well at all. The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60% (forgot by how much, I just knwo it is more). In contrast, it is a well-established sociological fact that arranged marriages are by far longer lasting, and even happier.
Once again......Correlation /=/ Causation. Arranged marriges don't end in divorice because in many socities where they arrange marrige divorce is illegal or taboo.
Romantic love is also a very far reaching thing. It is most deffintley not a recent invention.
The divorce rate is also nowhere near 60% and its dropping
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
The sociologists insist the lack of expectations as well as the higher rigidity brings the couples together, encouraging the solution of differences and problems. This is the same reason why cohabitation has such an adverse effect (although small in comparison to an arranged marriage), because it does the converse, loosening the importance of the marriage bond, and suggesting that there is always an easy way out. Whatever the fundamentalists may be, they have the right ideas (i.e. the ideas which keep the marriage together, and running happier) about marriage, down to the inequality of husband and wife, as much as I loathe to admit.
In arranged marrige its not about happiness, divorce never enters into there pshyche. Its that simple. Besides plenty of people run out of these things. Ancient Indian literature is littered with myths of princess runing away from there husband to be.
Not to mention, the marriages that do end, usually do so before the first eight years - the first 4-7 years is the crucial point. This means that after eight years a family is on average, much safer. However, a couple may make it through the eight years with an ongoing conflict only to split up few years after that. Alternatively, an extramarital affair may occur - after all, close to 20% of all US divorces are due to infidelity, with nearly one out of four men cheating during their marriages.
Do you have a source for that?
B) Secondly, true love does start out as lust - something once again pointed out numerous times before me. I will clarify, however, and point out that love is nearly entirely a chemical state of mind - even the long-term affection as a matter of fact. For example, lust, or initial love - whatever you call it, starts out with dopamine and serotonin. Another interesting fact is that a person in love exhibits prolonged significantly heightened levels of serotonin. Dopamine is the more instant-acting chemical while serotonin maintains your obsession over longer periods of time. Now, what the interesting fact I was going to say is that the state of the brain suffering from love is very, very similar to that of an OCD person, down to the levels of serotonin.
Mostly correct information. Do you have a source for your OCD=love claim?
Verdict? Love is a mental disorder. And it is, one cannot deny this - people do all sorts of stupid things under the influence of this drug. Finally, even the long term love is a result of chemical imbalance, namely the excess of the hormone of oxytocin. Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.
Love is the result of the biological imperative to reproduce, you were right about the chemicals. Humans are inclined to mate with someone with the most gentic differences to ensure the best litter so to speak.
The chemicals that get released are a necesary part of continuing the species.
Same reason why an orgasm is so pleasureable.
C) The third and final point is that love, long- and short- term, can be 'artificially' induced relatively easily given the right conditions. I cannot find the exact study now, but I did read in one of my sociology/psychology books that researchers put together a large number of pairs, (one male, one female) and put them to work on a physical assignment for two hours. Turns out the attachment created by merely working together caused most to feel attraction to the opposite of the pair, regardless of physical attractiveness differences (which were not too great). Quite a bit went on to date and a few even married. Alternatively, an even more effective strategy is working or even simply being together under frightening events (roller-coasters and horror flicks actually do count - hint hint for all the Orgahs dating the opposite sex).
This is true. Of course one can feel a deep attraction for many people
Rhyfelwyr
02-24-2010, 01:04
Humans are inclined to mate with someone with the most gentic differences to ensure the best litter so to speak.
Wouldn't that mean we should be more attracted to people of different races?
Strike For The South
02-24-2010, 01:10
Wouldn't that mean we should be more attracted to people of different races?
No "race" is mostly a social construct.
Skin pigmentation has to do with Vitaman D and the amount of sun one gets. Of course this is dependent on how much melanin one has.
The amount this has to do with genetics is peanuts compared to some dieases/mental conditions.
I could have more in common with a Kenyan than you.
Skin color is useless when examining the genome
The Wizard
02-24-2010, 01:20
I think he meant for genetic diversity, considering someone far away is likelier to have a completely different gene pool than you do.
Ah, bummer. I thought I remembered TinCow referring to his wife as 'it'. Alas, he doesn't. So much then for my hopes of compromising him with my long memory and pesky large inbox.
Interesting, I have a large inbox as well, and my version of that PM seems oddly different.... Must be a forum bug or something.
Louis VI the Fat
02-24-2010, 01:51
Trying to wriggle your way out of it, are we now?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-24-2010, 01:58
Did you just refer to my wife as "it"?
*English diplomacy on*
It must be wonderful to be able to share things like the Backroom with your spouse.
Now, back to the OP....
pevergreen
02-24-2010, 02:27
Would I be wrong in assuming you are a Protestant?
No, agnostic. Was a lutheran as a kid.
In a word, no, and there's no scriptural basis for it. That's some kind of Barbie Dream Pony logic mixed up with the Gospel.
On the Biblical front, the good book describes polygamy and monogamy without ever suggesting that one is better than the other. Even incest and rape (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrincest.htm) are given air time, with no indication that these are bad things. Your friend's belief that Heavenly Father will pick out a perfect match for her has more to do with the movie Pretty Woman and the novels of Jane Austen than anything in scripture.
Taking it from a practical perspective, we're all capable of loving many, many people. Honestly, think about the odds if there were only one suitable match out there for you. What if she was born in Madagascar? What if she dies in a car crash before you meet her? What if she's put in an arranged marriage before you find her? In all these scenarios, you're borked.
No, the truth of the matter is that there are many, many people with whom we can be happy. It's a question of finding such a person and doing the work necessary to have a successful relationship.
This Cinderalla-inspired junk where the girl finds Mr. Perfect and is swept off her feet ot live happily ever after, well, it's a joke that has been selling books, movies, toys and TV shows since the dawn of time. No relationship to reality.
Which is pretty much what another christian friend of mine said. And of course, thats much more reassuring.
but I don't want to date anyone for fun or just as friends. God is all the love I need really, and if His plan for me includes a relationship with someone (as a precursor to marriage), it could only be with a christian who would help me grow in faith and love of God. Thats the easiest to find quote about the subject from her, she said it a few days ago.
The scary thing for me though is, that while we were at school (graduated 14 or so months ago) she was a female version of AP. Then in December 07 she magically converted after years of anti-christian behaviour. And it completely changed her. Now, I don't think that it can't happen, i just, yet again, don't believe why she thinks she has to give up, as she says, 'smart things' to be happy. (science etc, she used to speak about stuff so complicated only 1-2 out of 20 could understand her) However, she still studies french and russian.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 02:47
Once again......Correlation /=/ Causation. Arranged marriges don't end in divorice because in many socities where they arrange marrige divorce is illegal or taboo.
Aww, come on, you cannot discount all of statistics in that manner. It does not work like this. You are no expert yourself, either, to have the authority to say whether there is a statistical fallacy here. Professionals already examined the study and found its conclusions satisfactory. Parroting the same phrase over and over stops working at a certain point - although I do admit you had a very valid point about divorce taboos causing faulty correlation - a point which was considered by the researchers as well. Arranged marriages work, and that is a sociology 101 fact, and not just a bunch of studies or obscure facts. The evidence is too overwhelming - mainly the statistics, which differ very significantly from the average society based on romantic love. I am aware of the taboo on divorce in those societies, but once again, if you read more carefully, the marriages are overall defined as more successful. Jesus, I should not even be arguing this. You are still in the Uni - go to your resident sociology/psychology professor and ask him.
Romantic love is also a very far reaching thing. It is most deffintley not a recent invention.
You failed to read my qualification. I said so myself, that it is not a recent invention - the most ancient myths mention plethoras of love stories. No, my point was that romantic love was never practised on a cultural scale. There were always a number of ramifications which led to what is usually termed as an arranged marriage. Now, I cannot speak for every single society, but at the very least, the civilised societies did not feature romantic love as a valid method of marrying off the daughters. I am pretty sure the Minoans were not an exception to that either, despite their somewhat matriarchal culture.
The divorce rate is also nowhere near 60% and its dropping
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
Gah, did you even read my post? So far, all the things you have said show more misunderstandings on your part as opposed to possible holes in my argument. Not to mention, you really misused that statistic there. That is the divorce rate per 1,000 people, meaning all people - people who die early, children, elderly, mentally retarded, incarcerated individuals, etc, etc. That divorce rate does not even discriminate between married and non-married persons. But that is fine if you expected me to divide the latter statistic by the former. Even if you do that, you will get 50% (rounded from 49.something) total divorce rate in proportion to the total marriage rate.
However, I am not done yet. Due to the fact you seemingly did not read my post, you missed out an important qualification - namely, the one where I pointed out the divorce rate of over 60% is found in first-time marriages. ('The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60%' - AP). Therefore, almost precisely half of the US marriages end in a divorce, but the second-time marriages fail at a significantly lower rate than the first-time ones, which answers for the >60% statistic. Since second marriages are quite relatively common in US, my qualification had a crucial effect.
In arranged marrige its not about happiness, divorce never enters into there pshyche.
Hmm, an unsupported assertion... You do not think that factor, namely the factor of the divorce taboo never crossed the minds of the sociologist researchers? At least one study, (but undoubtedly at least several more analogous studies existed) I remember, focused on parent-arranged marriages in the Western society. Variables were taken into account.
Its that simple.
Nothing, especially on such large scale, is that simple. Logic, stereotypes, cultural assumptions, guesswork, and 'common' sense do not substitute for statistics emanating from peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Besides plenty of people run out of these things. Ancient Indian literature is littered with myths of princess runing away from there husband to be.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You are joking me, right? You downplay my statistics in every manner, inquire on the sources, examine for variables/biases, cite the causation-correlation problem, nitpick (all of which is perfectly understandable) and now you say this??? :laugh::laugh::laugh: Not funny. 'Cause ancient literature is a scientifically, statistically rigorous source. Without a doubt there are plenty of people who get the short end of the stick in such situations, but mentioning ancient myths is about as accurate as personal experiences. Not anywhere close to valid in the eyes of a sociologist, in other words. A historian has the license to interpret and cite such evidence as a valid support for his/her own hypotheses on the ancient societies, but a sociologist is no historian, not even close in this regard. Of all the things, why mention matters millennia-old? You do not think the treatment of women changed since then? :tongue:
Do you have a source for that?
For the infidelity, that statistic is everywhere, as the statistics correlate adequately. If you wish to check it, do so, and believe me, you will not find lower numbers, at least not likely. The 1/4 statistic for marital infidelity is very conservative - not only because it is low, as far as other studies go, but also because its method of data collection is rather unique - 1/4 of the divorces were found to have been caused by male infidelity. This leaves out the millions who manage keep the affairs secret, who have not yet spilled the secret, and those who decided to stay together even in the face of infidelity.
Mostly correct information. Do you have a source for your OCD=love claim?
The quick answer would be the February 2006 National Geographic article 'Love: The Chemical Reaction''. If NG does not satisfy you, which is understandable, since it is no scientific journal, much less a peer-review one, it is possible to examine the sources cited by the article. But this is chemistry observations, and it is difficult to go wrong here - or at least in comparison to a very impure and subtle science of sociology.
Love is the result of the biological imperative to reproduce, you were right about the chemicals. Humans are inclined to mate with someone with the most gentic differences to ensure the best litter so to speak.
The chemicals that get released are a necesary part of continuing the species.
Same reason why an orgasm is so pleasureable.
Yes, of course, I agree with that. Stimuli must be present to ensure the biological act of reproduction and the care for the offspring.
This is true. Of course one can feel a deep attraction for many people
Right. My point was that this attraction is arbitrary - in the sense that it is not so much the physical/personality traits that affect us, but the circumstance as well.
Wouldn't that mean we should be more attracted to people of different races?
Heh, you are a sharp one, eh? You are correct, but the mechanism which ensures genetic diversity is not played on the personal level, but on the societal one. Well, mostly.
We have the basic aversion to incest, which is the result of the Westermarck effect - which is the aversion to erotic attachments to the persons with which the subject has/had close contact with in the first few years of one's own life. Basically, it is the sexual desensitisation to the people in your family (including the extended one). This phenomenon is very much present in relatively small, close tribal-like structures, most notably the kibbutz. This instinct in effect shields the child from reproduction with the people he is close to - evolution presumed it would likely be one's own intimate genetic relatives.
But really, on a larger scale, it is played out through the practise of exogamy, where one has to seek a mate outside of the tribe - and this is a societal pressure, because the genetics do not discriminate on such a macro-level (we are programmed to seek certain traits, but those traits are universally shared - we show no particular affinity for people with apparent genetic differences). This societal pressure, however, does not normally cause particularly asymmetric bonds, in the genetic sense. That would be too troublesome. In fact, just the opposite happens - the basic human personality trait of being comfortable around like individuals ensures that we do not socialise too much with people unlike ourselves. To sum it up, we are fine-tuned to where the chances of marriages to relatives are highly unlikely, but once that danger passes, we show no preference for genetic strangers.
Centurion1
02-24-2010, 03:06
You failed to read my qualification. I said so myself, that it is not a recent invention - the most ancient myths mention plethoras of love stories. No, my point was that romantic love was never practised on a cultural scale. There were always a number of ramifications which led to what is usually termed as an arranged marriage. Now, I cannot speak for every single society, but at the very least, the civilised societies did not feature romantic love as a valid method of marrying off the daughters. I am pretty sure the Minoans were not an exception to that either, despite their somewhat matriarchal culture.
True love is an ideal popularized in western society with the advent of medieval king Arthurian myths and legends.
People do not have that one person. If i had enough commitment and an aversion to the concept of divorce there are probably a million people i could marry. Of those million i could probably be happy (very subjective) with a few thousand. True happiness is subjective and in marriage is often based of children, physical attributes, social standing, comfort of home life, and personality compatibility.
Love itself is an objective word. Maybe th eman who beheaded his wife loved her but is his love the same as the man who stays married to the woman on the feeding tube for 20 years. Love is different for everybody.
As to people preferring certain races. So what. I prefer certain races women over others so do 90% of men. hell i even prefer certain nationalities over others.
Not to say people cannot fall in love to say you cant is ridiculous some people meet someone and they do seem to click. But god didnt make them talk to that person some sort of trait (likely physical) attracted them in the first part.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-24-2010, 09:50
but I don't want to date anyone for fun or just as friends. God is all the love I need really, and if His plan for me includes a relationship with someone (as a precursor to marriage), it could only be with a christian who would help me grow in faith and love of God.
Ah.... heard this one before. She's a romantic and, it appears, devoutely evangelical.
On a related note, I was once not dissimilar to AP (though a bit more positive generally) what happened was I met a girl similar to the one you are describing.
Ah.... heard this one before. She's a romantic and, it appears, devoutely evangelical.
On a related note, I was once not dissimilar to AP (though a bit more positive generally) what happened was I met a girl similar to the one you are describing.
So what you are saying is that we should set up AP with this girl? A bit of global match-maker....
"This summer. A Russian asexual. A soft-spoken Australian Romantic. One a child of chaos. The other a lamb of god...." [/Voice-over]
Rhyfelwyr
02-24-2010, 11:51
So what you are saying is that we should set up AP with this girl? A bit of global match-maker....
"This summer. A Russian asexual. A soft-spoken Australian Romantic. One a child of chaos. The other a lamb of god...." [/Voice-over]
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Anyway, I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and say I used to be like AP as well. Although, I'm far too much of a stereotypical Scotch Presbyterian hard-hearted ****** for any of this soppy rubbish!
There doesn't really seem to be much of an idea of romance in the Bible. From what I remember, Paul does leave his love life up to fate as this girl does, although he seemed to think of singleness as more of a blessing. Indeed, he says somewhere that people should only get married if they think they won't be able to avoid fornication otherwise. And then there's that bit where Jesus says some men become eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. So all in all, I don't think her very modern, idealised views on love have any biblical roots.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-24-2010, 13:25
So what you are saying is that we should set up AP with this girl? A bit of global match-maker....
"This summer. A Russian asexual. A soft-spoken Australian Romantic. One a child of chaos. The other a lamb of god...." [/Voice-over]
No! For starters, I was never asexual (celibate, yes), and then it didn't end well, we were never in love (likely the problem); also, she was raised Christian.
Pever, how old is this girl?
pevergreen
02-24-2010, 13:54
Both girls are 18.
also, i guess it doesnt get around in the backroom, but its pevergreen.
:stare:
Both girls are 18.
also, i guess it doesnt get around in the backroom, but its pevergreen.
:stare:
pevergreen is frightfully protective of his little p. Though, he doesn't like to boast about it in female company.
However, there might be a lesson that might be learnt around here. It is not the size of the p that matters, it is how you use it.
pevergreen
02-24-2010, 14:12
pevergreen is frightfully protective of his little p. Though, he doesn't like to boast about it in female company.
However, there might be a lesson that might be learnt around here. It is not the size of the p that matters, it is how you use it.
Nice joke. :bow:
Actually I did bring it up to that first girl, I'm going to call her J. She laughed. :laugh4:
Moving away from that...I dunno what we're talking about anymore.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-24-2010, 14:37
Both girls are 18.
also, i guess it doesnt get around in the backroom, but its pevergreen.
:stare:
18, ahhh. Too young for me. :beam:
Scienter
02-24-2010, 14:41
No, agnostic. Was a lutheran as a kid.
Thats the easiest to find quote about the subject from her, she said it a few days ago.
Originally Posted by That first friend I was talking about in the OP
but I don't want to date anyone for fun or just as friends. God is all the love I need really, and if His plan for me includes a relationship with someone (as a precursor to marriage), it could only be with a christian who would help me grow in faith and love of God.
I don't mean to be insensitive here, but if this is how she feels, do you think that she would be compatible with you if you're agnostic? She sounds very devoted to her religion, to the point where she wouldn't date outside of it. Also (keep in mind I have no idea how old you are), since she is very religious, my guess is that most er... physical aspects of a relationship would be out of the question. Do you know why she became a Christian? Did something happen to her? In my experience, those who convert to Christianity tend to be quite zealous. If you guys are both young (college?), maybe this is a phase for her and she'll be back to her "old self" if she doesn't find what she's looking for through religion.
I think the important question is: Is she cute?
Do you know why she became a Christian? Did something happen to her? In my experience, those who convert to Christianity tend to be quite zealous. If you guys are both young (college?), maybe this is a phase for her and she'll be back to her "old self" if she doesn't find what she's looking for through religion.
:yes:
As a former Christian, those types of Christians tended to freak me out. So enthusiastic. Yet, often with time people give up their faith, especially if it is gained during adolescence, (myself included), much like how many young ladies go through the vegetarian phase.
Honestly she sounds harmless, but a little naive. If anything I think she'll end up getting her heart-broken by someone down the line, but that's for her to experience. And in my honest opinion I don't think she's a fool for believing in "the one true love", some people need that sort of idealistic hope to help them get through life. It's a similar to the hope her faith provides her.
If you want to go after her, do so. If it doesn't go anywhere what has either of you lost?
https://img535.imageshack.us/img535/624/54781651.jpg
rory_20_uk
02-24-2010, 16:37
I hope he rents her by the hour rather than goes for a lifetime contract.
~:smoking:
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-24-2010, 16:45
So we're all ignoring the fact that pever said he wasn't after her?
Myrddraal
02-24-2010, 17:35
B)For example, lust, or initial love - whatever you call it, starts out with dopamine and serotonin. Another interesting fact is that a person in love exhibits prolonged significantly heightened levels of serotonin. Dopamine...
Verdict? Love is a mental disorder. ... Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.
Sounds ground shattering, but it really isn't. All emotion is related to the chemical balance of our minds. Does this mean that emotions are somehow less valid? That love is nothing but a mental disorder? That the only normal state of mind is cold and without emotion? Of course not, the relationship between emotion and chemical balance is undeniable, but that relationship is a little bit more complicated than "the drugs in your brain caused you to fall in love". Have you considered that these chemicals are not released at random, causing you to fall in love at some random time? Imagine that you were alone feeding your fish when that random burst of chemicals came? Perhaps, it would be more sensible to say "dopamine was released because you found this person attractive" rather than "you found this person attractive because of a burst of dopamine in your brain". Yes yes, I know it's not as sensationalist as "we are all slaves of the Mind Chemicals!" so I must be wrong.
To simply say: there is dopamine in the minds of those in love => love is a mental disorder is at best sensationalist, at worse crass.
Chemical Interactions are to Emotions as Interactions in Physics are to God.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-24-2010, 17:53
Chemical Interactions are to Emotions as Interactions in Physics are to God.
An explication of the divine mystery, you mean?
As to "love is a mental disorder". People in love exhibit a lot of the traits that Obbsessives do, including chemical balances. However, we have always known love and obsession are divided by the finest of lines. So none of this is actually news.
Myrddraal
02-24-2010, 18:09
Chemical Interactions are to Emotions as Interactions in Physics are to God.
Neat. I wonder how far you could stretch that analogy.
Rhyfelwyr
02-24-2010, 18:12
As I understood it, serotonin levels were more related to the compulsions associated with OCD, rather than the obsessive thoughts themselves.
Neat. I wonder how far you could stretch that analogy.
Not sure, I just came up with it.
As you know, emotions are the "sum of the parts" in the body that cause them to happen, I was just thinking "Perhaps, God is just the sum of the parts of the Universe". However, this would imply Universe = God, and thus, the term God comes redunant. But it was an idea at least.
Rhyfelwyr
02-24-2010, 18:13
That sounds like pantheism.
Strike For The South
02-24-2010, 19:31
Aww, come on, you cannot discount all of statistics in that manner. It does not work like this. You are no expert yourself, either, to have the authority to say whether there is a statistical fallacy here. Professionals already examined the study and found its conclusions satisfactory. Parroting the same phrase over and over stops working at a certain point - although I do admit you had a very valid point about divorce taboos causing faulty correlation - a point which was considered by the researchers as well. Arranged marriages work, and that is a sociology 101 fact, and not just a bunch of studies or obscure facts. The evidence is too overwhelming - mainly the statistics, which differ very significantly from the average society based on romantic love. I am aware of the taboo on divorce in those societies, but once again, if you read more carefully, the marriages are overall defined as more successful. Jesus, I should not even be arguing this. You are still in the Uni - go to your resident sociology/psychology professor and ask him.
Idk about happiness but Ill just say the when people come from these socities they almost all choose the romantic love aspect. It is one of the first part of there culture that is shed and as a middle class emerges in India there is less an less of the old rules.
Perhaps romantic love is only for the decadent?
You failed to read my qualification. I said so myself, that it is not a recent invention - the most ancient myths mention plethoras of love stories. No, my point was that romantic love was never practised on a cultural scale. There were always a number of ramifications which led to what is usually termed as an arranged marriage. Now, I cannot speak for every single society, but at the very least, the civilised societies did not feature romantic love as a valid method of marrying off the daughters. I am pretty sure the Minoans were not an exception to that either, despite their somewhat matriarchal culture.
The plebs of acinet Greece and Rome all had arranged marriges?
Gah, did you even read my post? So far, all the things you have said show more misunderstandings on your part as opposed to possible holes in my argument. Not to mention, you really misused that statistic there. That is the divorce rate per 1,000 people, meaning all people - people who die early, children, elderly, mentally retarded, incarcerated individuals, etc, etc. That divorce rate does not even discriminate between married and non-married persons. But that is fine if you expected me to divide the latter statistic by the former. Even if you do that, you will get 50% (rounded from 49.something) total divorce rate in proportion to the total marriage rate.
However, I am not done yet. Due to the fact you seemingly did not read my post, you missed out an important qualification - namely, the one where I pointed out the divorce rate of over 60% is found in first-time marriages. ('The chance of a couple ending the first marriage in a divorce, in US, is higher than 60%' - AP). Therefore, almost precisely half of the US marriages end in a divorce, but the second-time marriages fail at a significantly lower rate than the first-time ones, which answers for the >60% statistic. Since second marriages are quite relatively common in US, my qualification had a crucial effect.
All the data seems to contradict you. The more you get married the more likely the divorce is.
http://www.divorcestatistics.org/
Hmm, an unsupported assertion... You do not think that factor, namely the factor of the divorce taboo never crossed the minds of the sociologist researchers? At least one study, (but undoubtedly at least several more analogous studies existed) I remember, focused on parent-arranged marriages in the Western society. Variables were taken into account.
Nothing, especially on such large scale, is that simple. Logic, stereotypes, cultural assumptions, guesswork, and 'common' sense do not substitute for statistics emanating from peer-reviewed scientific studies.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
You are joking me, right? You downplay my statistics in every manner, inquire on the sources, examine for variables/biases, cite the causation-correlation problem, nitpick (all of which is perfectly understandable) and now you say this??? :laugh::laugh::laugh: Not funny. 'Cause ancient literature is a scientifically, statistically rigorous source. Without a doubt there are plenty of people who get the short end of the stick in such situations, but mentioning ancient myths is about as accurate as personal experiences. Not anywhere close to valid in the eyes of a sociologist, in other words. A historian has the license to interpret and cite such evidence as a valid support for his/her own hypotheses on the ancient societies, but a sociologist is no historian, not even close in this regard. Of all the things, why mention matters millennia-old? You do not think the treatment of women changed since then? :tongue:
You dont have established links or sources, your only stats are the ones you choose to give us. Which is fine (and I consider NG repuetable for a debate likes this) but clearly both of us are seeing what we want to see
So we're all ignoring the fact that pever said he wasn't after her?
Yes. There wouldn't be much of a discussion otherwise.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 19:38
Sounds ground shattering, but it really isn't.
Who said it was earth-shattering? Of course it is not, the chemicals still have to be touched off. But the point is, once they are touched off, we lose quite a bit of independent thought. We become addicted to the chemicals in a certain sense. They are a mind-altering chemical, and they do affect us more than we would be comfortable with. This is not an intellectual decision we make here. We do not weight the pros and cons, logically examine the situation. Well, we do, but the deleterious influence of the chemicals prevents many from thinking straight – males in particular.
I used the bio- chemical argument in tandem with the socio-cultural and the psychological arguments to create a case for the lack of probability for randomness or logical thought which could be influenced by some higher entity. Nowhere did I reach the same conclusion as you did.
All emotion is related to the chemical balance of our minds.
Aber naturlich. This was my argument, and I used this to dispel any romantic or deterministic arguments which the OP pointed to. That is the purpose of this thread, n’est-ce pas? Alternatively, if one believes that God is so involved and so prone to meddling that he actually manipulates the chemicals and genetically imprinted responses for the sake of our romantic harmony, then that implies that God regularly alters the very rules he created. This line of thought will swiftly veer off into absurdity, also known as ‘Last Thusdayism’ where there is no limit to how much a deity twists the universe to fit into various dogmas. Really, I see little choice but to accept agnosticism or atheism as a reality.
I was not implying lust was somehow special, as what you seem to have taken it as.
Does this mean that emotions are somehow less valid?
Not necessarily the point I was making, or at least not the main one. My main point was as I have stated it before. No such thing as true love. As for this point, I will say that all emotions are simply releases of various chemicals, and that yes, in part, that makes them less valid. Mainly lust and love, however. Emotions are mainly expressions, and while they influence us, they do not do so directly, and depend much on our own rational thought to trigger them.
In this respect, lust is slightly different, as it has a direct effect on whom we choose as a mate and with whom we stay in a romantic relationship. It has a direct, intended effect. Oxytocin makes sure the parents stay attached to the children to care for them, as it makes evolutionary sense from the mammalian perspective. Mothers are slaves of oxytocin. So often their logic is unimaginably warped by the desire to keep their offspring safe, which goes far into irrationality. This has profound societal impacts, such as on policymaking.
My mother, for instance, sees no reason why any cost should be spared in things such as airport security. I give her all sorts of arguments, yet she cannot accept the fact that some people will have to die, and that airport security hurts us far more than the actual acts of terrorism. A person who has no regard for his life is immensely dangerous, and there are not many ways we can stop such a fanatic. I know this is teenage-ish cold logic, but I do not mind dying, for instance. If you think I have no experience with death, then how about spinal meningitis when I was 14? I realised I could have died back then, but it did not matter to me, and I was fortunate to have survived with no after-effects. Nor does it matter to me now. Death is a part of life, and there is no reason why cost:benefit ratio cannot be considered in such cases. Of course, life should have a high value, but the current situation is inexcusable.
But really, my prime example of the oxytocin overdose would be the child-protection laws, due to their close relationship with maternal/paternal instincts. US sex offender laws, namely. They contradict all common and legal sense. We already had a thread on this in the past, and I have mentioned those Economist articles. I will not go into great detail on this, but if anyone wishes to see if my assertion is valid, you can request my sources.
To sum it up, the lust/love chemicals have far too much intended, direct effect on us for me to regard them in the class of regular emotions. Our ‘normal’ emotions are dependant on personality and make plenty of sense, notwithstanding the fact that they are illogical often times. These emotions have no intended direct effect. Sure, they are influential, but they have no set purpose, but instead feature numerous applications and are not as biologically essential. They are a much milder version of the long-term attachment to, say, children. That is designed to be a biological prison, to ensure a certain evolutionary behavior.
That love is nothing but a mental disorder?
Yeah, I know it sounds sensationalist, but it is true. Brain scans show a flurry of highly irregular and peculiar patterns which do not compare to any normal state of emotions. Namely serotonin. The brain is literally alight and working around the clock, feverishly when under that short-term intense infatuation ‘spell’. As I said, the only parallel is obsessive-compulsive disorder. Every bio-psychological disorder has a distinct brain signature. So does the first one-two weeks of new love.
That the only normal state of mind is cold and without emotion?
I very much understand the point you are making, but regular emotions are not the same as no emotions. Emotions are normal, and the brain signatures are fairly balanced, with normal activity. The scientists are not comparing lust with a blank slate – they are comparing it with regular brain activity. Severe depression and certain powerful disorders have an immense effect on those brain activity patterns/signatures. So does love, and its signature is very similar to OCD. The activity is intense, and can never be rivalled by regular emotions, which register a comparatively insignificant and momentary impact on the brain activity.
Of course not, the relationship between emotion and chemical balance is undeniable, but that relationship is a little bit more complicated than "the drugs in your brain caused you to fall in love". Have you considered that these chemicals are not released at random, causing you to fall in love at some random time?
This point, is undeniably true. But I never attempted counter this point. It would be most stupid of me to say that chemicals cause love. No, they maintain it, and perpetuate it, but they are still triggered by outside forces. Since I am not a professor on a lecture, I did not go into every detail and thus left off the part about the causes of the release of those chemicals.
Your conclusion was that I view us as total slaves to chemicals. No, the chemicals are still released based on non-random factors, but alas, too much of that is genetics. Infatuations are not logical and we do not have much control over them. The only decisions we really make are the personality/intelligence/interestingness-of-a-person type factors. But those carry influence after the initial impact of lust has been made, as research shows. Sadly, these factors are secondary.
Imagine that you were alone feeding your fish when that random burst of chemicals came? Perhaps, it would be more sensible to say "dopamine was released because you found this person attractive" rather than "you found this person attractive because of a burst of dopamine in your brain". Yes yes, I know it's not as sensationalist as "we are all slaves of the Mind Chemicals!" so I must be wrong.
Yes, you are correct, but this often goes into a circle. Dopamine is released because one finds a person attractive, but the dopamine perpetuates that, it reinforces the infatuation which is based on inaccurate data of first impression and such. Infatuations are not logical, you have to admit. It is not as simple as you would have it. Once again, I re-iterate, nothing is simple in psychology, or any field of study for that matter. We are neither the first nor the second quote you made.
Think of it as a drug addict – a regular person jabs the needle with the heroin in the arm, and finds the first ‘squirt’ pleasing. So he/she continues the injection. However, after this first time, the rest of the injections are done as much because of the addiction as they are because of love. Yeah, you are screaming bloody murder by now, most likely, due to the perceived sensationalism of this claim, in particular due to the parallel I make between narcotics and love. However, you are dead wrong. Numerous drugs stimulate the release of the same ‘pleasure’ chemicals present in love. Dopamine is the main culprit here. Cocaine and love both stimulate the release of it. Love addiction exists, and the main defining characteristic of dependency – especially the physical withdrawal symptoms, are very much present in love – they are called breakups. Sure, my claims sound sensational, and in a manner this is intentional, to reinforce the effectiveness of my argument, but this does not make them false – au contraire.
To simply say: there is dopamine in the minds of those in love => love is a mental disorder is at best sensationalist, at worse crass.
I believe I already answered this in the aforementioned paragraphs :yes:. Love is a mental disorder. The brain is in a highly disordered state, and the body is very noticeably affected (sleepless nights, obsessions, passion, other torrents of emotions). You could claim that love=addiction/narcotic is sensationalist, which it can be, but the claim that love=disorder is perfectly substantiated by hard science.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 19:53
The plebs of acinet Greece and Rome all had arranged marriges?
Of course :inquisitive:. Did you honestly think they married for love? I see why you would reason in this manner, as arranged marriage sounds like something that is more or less an upper-class thing, but I can assure you, it is not. You need to polish up your history before invoking it in a debate...
All the data seems to contradict you. The more you get married the more likely the divorce is.
What do you mean, you just supported my own point?! Yes, a second marriage is more likely to end in a divorce, but there are less of those than the first marriages. When I said the rate is lower, I meant the gross number, not the percentage. As a percentage of all marriages, the first ones fail more - because there are more of them. That was my point. The statistic is in relation to the total number of marriages, and not the number of first marriages. Same topic, different method. But I was indeed wrong about 60% 'all marriage' statistic. It is 50%, and it looks as if I read the marriage statistics in the past and confused the second marriage statistic as the total divorce rate.
You dont have established links or sources, your only stats are the ones you choose to give us. Which is fine (and I consider NG repuetable for a debate likes this) but clearly both of us are seeing what we want to see
OK, so I admitted I was mistaken about the 60%. But what other statistics do you doubt? I gave you what I read in sociology textbooks, which you can check any time you pick one up. You gave me a vague reference to ancient Indian myths, which you have not read (perhaps a few excerpts, but certainly not the entire vegas or other epics), and which I will not read, and which I may not even be able to access.
the claim that love=disorder is perfectly substantiated by hard science.
No, because love is normal and part of human biology. A disorder, by definition, is an abnormal state.
Myrddraal
02-24-2010, 20:02
I see you weren't being crass, but still sensationalist I think :wink:
Infatuations are not logical and we do not have much control over them
I have to accept that we don't have much control, but just because we have little control over them does not mean they are not logical. Sure we are slow to see defects in those that we love, but is even that illogical? But this isn't the main part of my opinion, that is:
They are a mind-altering chemical
This is the attitude I find odd. They are part of our minds. They are not mind-altering just because they are present in an altered mind. It is love/lust/emotion that causes this state of mind, these chemicals reflect that state of mind. See the point? The implication in your argument that emotions are less valid because they trigger the release of chemicals in our brains isn't correct imo.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 20:29
No, because love is normal and part of human biology. A disorder, by definition, is an abnormal state.
That is the popular definition. Very scientifically irrigorous. Abnormal state in what sense? And keep in mind I was speaking of passionate, lustful serotonin-type love, those first couple of weeks. After two weeks at the most, usually, the brain stops the serotonin overdose as it cannot keep up - it simply burns out. That is why serotonin-induced infatuation is a disorder.
The brain is never meant to sustain such activity, and it is highly irregular. But given the right conditions, it will start up. Same with Down's Syndrome, for instance, in the sense that the right conditions (usually an old mother at the time of conception) will cause Down's Syndrome, which is an abnormal, but chronic state.
However, not all love is serotonin-induced. Only the passionate infatuations, as I said. Dopamine and oxytocin are the mainstay, mainly the latter. There is little abnormal about them, and the brain activity is at regular levels during steady dopamine and oxytocin intake.
That is the popular definition. Very scientifically irrigorous. Abnormal state in what sense? And keep in mind I was speaking of passionate, lustful serotonin-type love, those first couple of weeks. After two weeks at the most, usually, the brain stops the serotonin overdose as it cannot keep up - it simply burns out. That is why serotonin-induced infatuation is a disorder.
The brain is never meant to sustain such activity, and it is highly irregular. But given the right conditions, it will start up. Same with Down's Syndrome, for instance, in the sense that the right conditions (usually an old mother at the time of conception) will cause Down's Syndrome, which is an abnormal, but chronic state.
However, not all love is serotonin-induced. Only the passionate infatuations, as I said. Dopamine and oxytocin are the mainstay, mainly the latter. There is little abnormal about them, and the brain activity is at regular levels during steady dopamine and oxytocin intake.
Both lustful love and longterm love are biologically normal. They are part of the evolution of animals. Lustful love can be seen in nearly every animal in existence; it is called rutting and mating and is a regular feature of nature documentaries. Animals evolved lustful love to encourage procreation. As for longterm love, that is generally restricted to higher-order animals which produce fewer offspring and is an evolutionary adaptation to improve the survival odds of those offspring. It is very common between female animals and their offspring, as well as between mated pairs in species which are largely monogomous. Humans are just smart animals, nothing more. We are subject to behavior by instinct just as much as any other creature. It may not be logical in a purely philosophical sense, but it is most certainly not abnormal for a creature to act in accordance with its instincts.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-24-2010, 20:46
That is the popular definition. Very scientifically irrigorous.
That's how scientists define these things though. For most psychological disorders, one of the requirements for someone to be diagnosed with it is "significantly interferes with quality of life" or "causes distress" in a way that is not expected during normal development.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 20:57
Both lustful love and longterm love are biologically normal. They are part of the evolution of animals. Lustful love can be seen in nearly every animal in existence; it is called rutting and mating and is a regular feature of nature documentaries. Animals evolved lustful love to encourage procreation. As for longterm love, that is generally restricted to higher-order animals which produce fewer offspring and is an evolutionary adaptation to improve the survival odds of those offspring. It is very common between female animals and their offspring, as well as between mated pairs in species which are largely monogomous. Humans are just smart animals, nothing more. We are subject to behavior by instinct just as much as any other creature. It may not be logical in a purely philosophical sense, but it is most certainly not abnormal for a creature to act in accordance with its instincts.
Once again, two different definitions of normal. And once again, your argument is logical yet not scientific at all, even if you base yourself on valid observations.
Normal can mean many things in the popular sense. You make the argument normal is anything that happens often, or in this case, nearly every time. I would not accept your rationalisation, but since infatuation seems to occur at least once in every person's lifetime, I can accept your argument. But from a popular point of view. As I said before, a neurologist will not acquiesce to your argument of 'normal' when he/she looks at the PET scan (IIRC, that is what they mainly use to monitor brain activity patterns, and not the EEG or the CAT scans).
That sort of activity is anything but normal for a human brain. It happens to almost all of us, but hardly often, it is not regular, such as say, the menstruation cycle (which would be abnormal if it was not so relatively regular) and not for long - if anything, the inability of the brain to maintain this voluntary state should tell if it is normal or not.
Once again, two different definitions of normal. And once again, your argument is logical yet not scientific at all, even if you base yourself on valid observations.
Normal can mean many things in the popular sense. You make the argument normal is anything that happens often, or in this case, nearly every time. I would not accept your rationalisation, but since infatuation seems to occur at least once in every person's lifetime, I can accept your argument. But from a popular point of view. As I said before, a neurologist will not acquiesce to your argument of 'normal' when he/she looks at the PET scan (IIRC, that is what they mainly use to monitor brain activity patterns, and not the EEG or the CAT scans).
That sort of activity is anything but normal for a human brain. It happens to almost all of us, but hardly often, it is not regular, such as say, the menstruation cycle (which would be abnormal if it was not so relatively regular) and not for long - if anything, the inability of the brain to maintain this voluntary state should tell if it is normal or not.
You are simply making up your own definitions. If you want to argue about scientific and medical abnormalities, you need to use the scientific and medical definitions for those terms. My job is almost entirely devoted to medical disabilities, and I actively specialize in mental health claims. As a result, I have medical books sitting all around me. Here is the definition of disorder:
disorder - a derangement or abnormality of function; a morbid phsical or mental state. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 547 (30th ed. 2003).
mental disorder - any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom. Mental disorders are assumed to be the manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. The concept does not include deviant behavior, disturbances that are essentially conflicts between the individual and society, or expected and culturally sanctioned responses to particular events. Id. at 549 (emphasis added).
I also have a copy of DSM-IV sitting next to me. Love is not listed in it.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 21:06
That's how scientists define these things though. For most psychological disorders, one of the requirements for someone to be diagnosed with it is "significantly interferes with quality of life" or "causes distress" in a way that is not expected during normal development.
I was not speaking from a psychological perspective when I said infatuation is abnormal. Not at all, and it should have been obvious once I began citing the chemicals and their effects on the brain. Broadly speaking, a psychologist touches upon that, but it is the specialty of a neurologist. A neurologist will tell 'you infatuation is not normal.
And I am not defending myself because I am stubborn. I have admitted my mistakes likely more often than anyone I know here in the Backroom. I agreed with SFTS that the 60% stat was incorrect. But I am serious about this. A psychologist and a neurologist have exceedingly varied views. Psychology is often criticised for calling almost anything a syndrome. A neurologist will see if there are physical manifestation of the alleged disorder and whether they correlate before declaring something a medical disorder.
P.S. Not to mention, DSMD-V (or DSM-V) is soon to come out, who knows what surprises it will hold? :tongue::laugh4::clown: EDIT: No, I did not see your post about DSM-IV yet, not when I wrote this postscript :tongue:
You are simply making up your own definitions. If you want to argue about scientific and medical abnormalities, you need to use the scientific and medical definitions for those terms. My job is almost entirely devoted to medical disabilities, and I actively specialize in mental health claims. As a result, I have medical books sitting all around me.
OK, but now you are accusing NG of doing the same, since I did not just make this up, but found out in the NG article. I would be more careful about this.
Here is the definition of disorder:
disorder - a derangement or abnormality of function; a morbid phsical or mental state.
I would need to consult DSM-IV before I debate this, but nevertheless, I fail to see how the serotonin overdose does not count. It is a derangement and abnormality of the brain resulting from the excessive intake of serotonin. Do you not know how radically the brain chemistry is altered once this occurs? Additionally, I do not see why morbid had to be thrown in - not all disorders could fall into the 'morbid' bracket, especially not from the first glance.
mental disorder - any clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome characterized by the presence of distressing symptoms, impairment of functioning, or significantly increased risk of death, pain, disability, or loss of freedom. Mental disorders are assumed to be the manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual. The concept does not include deviant behavior, disturbances that are essentially conflicts between the individual and society, or expected and culturally sanctioned responses to particular events. Id. at 549 (emphasis added).
That is the psychological definition, why do you thrust it at me continuously? Is it so difficult to admit that the highly irregular and disorderly activity of the brain is not a neurological disorder, albeit not in necessarily a pathological sense due to its origin? Does the release of mind-altering drugs not result in a disorder of the brain?
I also have a copy of DSM-IV sitting next to me. Love is not listed in it.
Once again, psychology. Nor would I ever expect it to be there. But even from a psychological perspective, infatuation can be characterised as a disorder, although not actually defined as such because it is not a deviation from normality. Does the striking similarity between OCD and infatuation not count? Oh, and use 'infatuation' if you may, instead of 'love', because infatuation is unique in its neurological characteristics.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-24-2010, 21:13
I was not speaking from a psychological perspective when I said infatuation is abnormal. Not at all, and it should have been obvious once I began citing the chemicals and their effects on the brain. Broadly speaking, a psychologist touches upon that, but it is the specialty of a neurologist. A neurologist will tell 'you infatuation is not normal.
Yeah, and a neurologist will tell you that people get aroused when standing on the edge of a cliff. And an professional writer would tell you something about the use of the word "normal" and the implications depending on context :beam:
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 21:21
Yeah, and a neurologist will tell you that people get aroused when standing on the edge of a cliff. And an professional writer would tell you something about the use of the word "normal" and the implications depending on context :beam:
Arousal is nothing compared to infatuation. Infatuation lasts for two weeks, as I said, at the most, in the most cases. That is not a momentary mood swing/spike. There is a world of difference. That is why the prolonged effect of infatuation is a disorder, whereas simple arousal is not - simple arousal cannot be naturally maintained for so long, not without the natural serotonin uptake. This is akin to saying forgetting something once is a disorder, when you need something more profound and repetitive, such as Alzheimer's, amnesia, or other forms of dementia.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-24-2010, 21:23
Arousal is nothing compared to infatuation. Infatuation lasts for two weeks, as I said, at the most, in the most cases. That is not a momentary mood swing/spike. There is a world of difference. That is why the prolonged effect of infatuation is a disorder, whereas simple arousal is not - simple arousal cannot be naturally maintained for so long, not without the natural serotonin uptake. This is akin to saying forgetting something once is a disorder, when you need something more profound and repetitive, such as Alzheimer's, amnesia, or other forms of dementia.
That's not the point though.
Would you say to someone that you get aroused standing on the edge of a cliff? Do you get aroused giving a speech in class? You would have to say that in order to be consistent.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 21:28
That's not the point though.
Would you say to someone that you get aroused standing on the edge of a cliff? Do you get aroused giving a speech in class? You would have to say that in order to be consistent.
You have different stimuli. That breaks the consistency. The stimuli in the case of infatuation is the same, and very direct - sexual attraction.
Additionally, the arousal is different in both cases. The symptoms are different. Similar, but not the same. Or so I believe - but even if I am wrong in this regard, there is still the aforementioned point.
OK, but now you are accusing NG of doing the same, since I did not just make this up, but found out in the NG article. I would be more careful about this.
As far as I can tell, you are either distorting or misunderstanding the NG article. The only information you have given us on it is its title: Love: The Chemical Reaction. That title doesn't give any information other than that love is a chemical reaction, which has absolutely no relationship to it being abnormal. There are many, many normal chemical reactions in the human body.
I would need to consult DSM-IV before I debate this, but nevertheless, I fail to see how the serotonin overdose does not count. It is a derangement and abnormality of the brain resulting from the excessive intake of serotonin. Do you not know how radically the brain chemistry is altered once this occurs? Additionally, I do not see why morbid had to be thrown in - not all disorders could fall into the 'morbid' bracket, especially not from the first glance.
That is the psychological definition, why do you thrust it at me continuously? Is it so difficult to admit that the highly irregular and disorderly activity of the brain is not a neurological disorder, albeit not in necessarily a pathological sense due to its origin? Does the release of mind-altering drugs not result in a disorder of the brain?
Once again, psychology. Nor would I ever expect it to be there. But even from a psychological perspective, infatuation can be characterised as a disorder, although not actually defined as such because it is not a deviation from normality. Does the striking similarity between OCD and infatuation not count? Oh, and use 'infatuation' if you may, instead of 'love', because infatuation is unique in its neurological characteristics.
Unless you're claiming some kind of expert knowledge in this field, you need to provide actual information for all of this. Cite the actual quotes from the body of your NG article and find medical treatises which back up your statements.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 21:35
As far as I can tell, you are either distorting or misunderstanding the NG article. The only information you have given us on it is its title: Love: The Chemical Reaction. That title doesn't give any information other than that love is a chemical reaction, which has absolutely no relationship to it being abnormal. There are many, many normal chemical reactions in the human body.
Unless you're claiming some kind of expert knowledge in this field, you need to provide actual information for all of this. Cite the actual quotes from the body of your NG article and find medical treatises which back up your statements.
Do you subscribe to NG? Well, I suppose you do not if you are asking me this, so I will come back home and cite it for you. Yeah, I would not try to make up facts such as these. Science debates are tricky in this regard, which is why I normally stay away.
BTW, Lauren Slater wrote the article, and she has master's from Harvard as well as a doctorate from Boston Uni, so she is not some sensationalist quack or anything of that sort. I checked online for the article, but my suspicions were proven correct, alas, when I read the article only appeared in its full version in the print edition.
Gregoshi
02-24-2010, 21:41
Zathras knows The One, but nobody ever asks Zathras.
Do you subscribe to NG? Well, I suppose you do not if you are asking me this, so I will come back home and cite it for you. Yeah, I would not try to make up facts such as these. Science debates are tricky in this regard, which is why I normally stay away.
BTW, Lauren Slater wrote the article, and she has master's from Harvard as well as a doctorate from Boston Uni, so she is not some sensationalist quack or anything of that sort. I checked online for the article, but my suspicions were proven correct, alas, when I read the article only appeared in its full version in the print edition.
I do not doubt the legitimate nature of the article, only the conclusions you are drawing from it.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-24-2010, 21:46
I think I read that article like 5 years ago. Or maybe they rewrote it.
Anyway, you wouldn't describe yourself as aroused by giving a speech to class because, although you technically are aroused, that is not the common usage of the word. But you insist on arguing for your technical definition here and dismiss the "popular usage". That's inconsistent.
The technical discussion is very relevant to the idea of "the one", and I don't think people have an issue with your statements there. But you are attempting to describe it as a bad thing in general and not worthwhile (that is your implication with words like imbalance and disorder, and saying things like "people do all kinds of stupid things under the influence of this drug). But this argument is basically guilt by association--OCD is bad, therefore love is bad. That's a weak argument.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 21:50
I do not doubt the legitimate nature of the article, only the conclusions you are drawing from it.
We disagree on comparatively minor issue of definition, I do not see why this matters so much, but I will provide the quotations :shrug:
Reenk Roink
02-24-2010, 21:54
I have a christian friend. She believes that God will magically come along and show her who she should be with. God created her and him for each other. They were meant to be together.
Some people think that they are fated to be together. It was destiny.
Does it work like that?
Well, every single thing was predestined from eternity by God so technically, everything works like that and if she finds "the one" who she should be with and it’s for real and not gonna end up badly sometime later…
However, that doesn’t seem to happen for a lot of people.
Aemilius Paulus, holy crap dude, you really got brainwashed with all that anti-vitalist and reductionist bull**** they implicitly smuggle in intro psychology and neuroscience books. :shocked2: :shame:
Let's just have a go at some of your more outlandish statements:
I will clarify, however, and point out that love is nearly entirely a chemical state of mind - even the long-term affection as a matter of fact. For example, lust, or initial love - whatever you call it, starts out with dopamine and serotonin. Another interesting fact is that a person in love exhibits prolonged significantly heightened levels of serotonin. Dopamine is the more instant-acting chemical while serotonin maintains your obsession over longer periods of time. Now, what the interesting fact I was going to say is that the state of the brain suffering from love is very, very similar to that of an OCD person, down to the levels of serotonin.
Verdict? Love is a mental disorder. And it is, one cannot deny this - people do all sorts of stupid things under the influence of this drug. Finally, even the long term love is a result of chemical imbalance, namely the excess of the hormone of oxytocin. Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.
Leaving behind the idea of love being a mental disorder (some others have already jumped on you on that case, appealing to current scientific consensus which you seem to acquiesce to as an authority), love is also not at all even a chemical state of mind. This is exactly what the reductionists would have you believe, and furthermore such an idea cannot even be called scientific (if that distinction carries weight with you). It just happens that many neuroscientists and psychologists hold a metaphysical belief in reductionism, and furthermore, it is widely prevalent in the scientific community and they allow it to influence their conclusions.
Love also isn’t a ”drug” (the chemicals you mention are naturally occurring chemicals that are not introduced into the body so that’s just a poor term to use). Essentially you fall hard into the problem of associating chemical levels with emotions. Like SFTS pointed out earlier (in a different avenue, I’m going to extend its use) correlation does not equal causation. Your reply back will probably be that ” the scientists agree with the conclusions” which doesn’t at all change the fact that correlation does not equal causation (just another meta-reasoning fallacy that science falls into by attributing natural causation to statistical correlation).
The quick answer would be the February 2006 National Geographic article 'Love: The Chemical Reaction''. If NG does not satisfy you, which is understandable, since it is no scientific journal, much less a peer-review one, it is possible to examine the sources cited by the article. But this is chemistry observations, and it is difficult to go wrong here - or at least in comparison to a very impure and subtle science of sociology.
I remember hearing about that NG article. Never bothered to read it in full before and thank god I didn’t. I did google it, skim it, and then skim this reply to it: http://www.ppzq.net/kaz/Alchemy/LSreview.html
I tend to agree with the reviewer (his pro scientific slant aside) that the author of the article you mentioned is just stretching at a lot of things to draw far fetched conclusions. The love = OCD thing that you purported earlier is particularly attacked here.
Right. My point was that this attraction is arbitrary - in the sense that it is not so much the physical/personality traits that affect us, but the circumstance as well.
How do you conclude this?
Of course it is not, the chemicals still have to be touched off. But the point is, once they are touched off, we lose quite a bit of independent thought.
What do you mean by independent thought? Do you believe that we can actually have thoughts divorced from our brain chemistry at all? Our own ‘free will’ thoughts for lack of a better term? :inquisitive:
We become addicted to the chemicals in a certain sense. They are a mind-altering chemical, and they do affect us more than we would be comfortable with. This is not an intellectual decision we make here. We do not weight the pros and cons, logically examine the situation. Well, we do, but the deleterious influence of the chemicals prevents many from thinking straight – males in particular.
You use terms like ‘addicted’ and ‘deleterious’, I’d wager that’s a contentious idea to hold among reductionist neuroscientists for one.
Then again it seems you seem to assume that the best decisions are based on (paraphrasing you here) some ”rational” and ”economic” sense. Ok.
This was my argument, and I used this to dispel any romantic or deterministic arguments which the OP pointed to.
How did you do this at all? You seemingly jumped from the conclusion that ”All emotion is related to the chemical balance of our minds” as Myrd put it to your own conclusion that it is the chemical balance that not only cause love but are used to define love.
Alternatively, if one believes that God is so involved and so prone to meddling that he actually manipulates the chemicals and genetically imprinted responses for the sake of our romantic harmony, then that implies that God regularly alters the very rules he created. This line of thought will swiftly veer off into absurdity, also known as ‘Last Thusdayism’ where there is no limit to how much a deity twists the universe to fit into various dogmas. Really, I see little choice but to accept agnosticism or atheism as a reality.
Why is this absurd at all? Perhaps it doesn’t fit into your paradigm that all must be nice and ”logical” ? Ok.
Also agnosticism makes no ontological claims about the reality of God.
My main point was as I have stated it before. No such thing as true love. As for this point, I will say that all emotions are simply releases of various chemicals, and that yes, in part, that makes them less valid.
I wish you had stated this before, you typed a whole bunch of stuff which kinda meandered in different places, and while one got the impression that this was your belief, it wasn’t really clear.
Aside from you own belief that all emotions are releases of chemicals which I have addressed earlier, why does it make them ”less valid” and what does that even mean? I mean, I guess you will find neuroscientists and psychologists who share you metaphysical underpinnings and your conclusion, but I don’t know how many would agree with the less valid thing. But first you need to elaborate more on what exactly you mean.
I very much understand the point you are making, but regular emotions are not the same as no emotions. Emotions are normal, and the brain signatures are fairly balanced, with normal activity. The scientists are not comparing lust with a blank slate – they are comparing it with regular brain activity. Severe depression and certain powerful disorders have an immense effect on those brain activity patterns/signatures. So does love, and its signature is very similar to OCD. The activity is intense, and can never be rivalled by regular emotions, which register a comparatively insignificant and momentary impact on the brain activity.
This would be a very interesting line of inquiry to pursue. What is used as the baseline as defining ”normal brain activity”?
Also here I believe you begin to conflate the word normal and use it in two senses to conclude that since the brain activity is supposedly abnormal when experiencing love, then it is not normal behavior and thus a mental disorder.
This point, is undeniably true. But I never attempted counter this point. It would be most stupid of me to say that chemicals cause love. No, they maintain it, and perpetuate it, but they are still triggered by outside forces. Since I am not a professor on a lecture, I did not go into every detail and thus left off the part about the causes of the release of those chemicals.
Your conclusion was that I view us as total slaves to chemicals. No, the chemicals are still released based on non-random factors, but alas, too much of that is genetics. Infatuations are not logical and we do not have much control over them. The only decisions we really make are the personality/intelligence/interestingness-of-a-person type factors. But those carry influence after the initial impact of lust has been made, as research shows. Sadly, these factors are secondary.
And here you go and change what I thought was your previous position to one that takes away the idea of chemicals causing the emotion though it keeps the idea that the emotion is defined by the chemical balance.
And at this point I kinda got tired of going through the posts saying much of the same covered before.
I think this puts it best:
Sounds ground shattering, but it really isn't. All emotion is related to the chemical balance of our minds. Does this mean that emotions are somehow less valid? That love is nothing but a mental disorder? That the only normal state of mind is cold and without emotion? Of course not, the relationship between emotion and chemical balance is undeniable, but that relationship is a little bit more complicated than "the drugs in your brain caused you to fall in love". Have you considered that these chemicals are not released at random, causing you to fall in love at some random time? Imagine that you were alone feeding your fish when that random burst of chemicals came? Perhaps, it would be more sensible to say "dopamine was released because you found this person attractive" rather than "you found this person attractive because of a burst of dopamine in your brain". Yes yes, I know it's not as sensationalist as "we are all slaves of the Mind Chemicals!" so I must be wrong.
To simply say: there is dopamine in the minds of those in love => love is a mental disorder is at best sensationalist, at worse crass.
:bow:
Strike For The South
02-24-2010, 21:59
Main Entry: re·duc·tion·ism
Function: noun
1 : explanation of complex life-science processes and phenomena in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry; also : a theory or doctrine that complete reductionism is possible
2 : a procedure or theory that reduces complex data and phenomena to simple terms
We disagree on comparatively minor issue of definition, I do not see why this matters so much, but I will provide the quotations :shrug:
It matters because you have been insisting that you are holding to the scientific and medical definition of the terms, and the rest of us are using the wrong terms. When people start throwing around medical and scientific evidence, that evidence needs to be accurate because by its nature it has the propensity to shut down debate by sheer weight of authority. This particular issue caught my attention because it is closely related to what I do professionally. I am often similarly animated when I see what I consider to be inaccurate statements of the law.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 22:01
Anyway, you wouldn't describe yourself as aroused by giving a speech to class because, although you technically are aroused, that is not the common usage of the word. But you insist on arguing for your technical definition here and dismiss the "popular usage". That's inconsistent. I disagree. I just told you why that arousal does not constitute a disorder. It is not due to my momentary and hypocritical espousal of popular definitions.
The technical discussion is very relevant to the idea of "the one", and I don't think people have an issue with your statements there. But you are attempting to describe it as a bad thing in general and not worthwhile (that is your implication with words like imbalance and disorder, and saying things like "people do all kinds of stupid things under the influence of this drug).
You are surely joking, right? I am a sane man. But I call things what they are. Infatuation is a disorder, even if it may be 'good', and 'patriotism' is still nationalism, even if patriotism is the milder, and generally thought of as beneficial. I do not say it is bad, because it is so natural and common, but why would you want to be infatuated, hedonistic pleasure aside? The stuff scrambles your brains not much worse than alcohol. But it lasts longer...
But this argument is basically guilt by association--OCD is bad, therefore love is bad. That's a weak argument.
But I am not saying it is guilty in that sense. And just what do you mean, 'guilt by association'? When you say that Obama is like Hitler because both shared one insignificant factor - speaking out against smoking, let us say - this is guilt by association. But when one disorder is nearly the same, neurologically, as the other, that is a valid comparison. You are acting like SFTS does sometimes with his favourite tactic of correlation=/=causation. Yes, both instances are fallacies, and yes, SFTS is at times correct, but you need to know how to apply both - throwing them and hoping it sticks is not a valid tactic.
I mean, really? When two things share a certain amount of similarities, a scientist will draw a link... Since both the neurological cause and the psychological symptoms of OCD and infatuation are startlingly similar, then it is logical to link the two. That is called compare & contrast. When there are more comparisons than contrasts, then 'guilt by association' fallacy is not quite applicable. The hypothesis may still be incorrect, but at least it was no argumentative fallacy.
Strike For The South
02-24-2010, 22:09
But I am not saying it is guilty in that sense. And just what do you mean, 'guilt by association'? When you say that Obama is like Hitler because both shared one insignificant factor - speaking out against smoking, let us say - this is guilt by association. But when one disorder is nearly the same, neurologically, as the other, that is a valid comparison. You are acting like SFTS does sometimes with his favourite tactic of correlation=/=causation. Yes, both instances are fallacies, and yes, SFTS is at times correct, but you need to know how to apply both - throwing them and hoping it sticks is not a valid tactic.
.
You propurted that arranged marriges have a lower divorce rate than non arranged marriges because they were arranged.
A quick bout of google-fu shows that is not the case and that social and cultural factors rule the roost when it comes to divorce.
Then you point to some "study" where "professionals" have taken this into account. I have yet to see this study and think you are fudging the facts to fit with your stoic world view
It is not a favorite tactic of mine you just seem to use the fallacy often.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 22:09
Aemilius Paulus, holy crap dude, you really got brainwashed with all that anti-vitalist and reductionist bull**** they implicitly smuggle in intro psychology and neuroscience books. :shocked2: :shame:
Look, I could care less about erotic love, as I have yet to experience it (or I never will, who knows). I like toying with certain theories, and I have gotten quite caught up in this argument. But to say that I actually sincerely believe in the things? I would not go there. I find it nearly impossible to explain how I feel on this topic, but the impression several people here formed is an erroneous one. I am, however, glad that I do not experience infatuation.
As for the rest of your post, I have already answered it most of it in my posts and I will not repeat, at least not right now - perhaps later this evening (6 hours away for me).
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 22:12
You propurted that arranged marriges have a lower divorce rate than non arranged marriges because they were arranged.
A quick bout of google-fu shows that is not the case and that social and cultural factors rule the roost when it comes to divorce.
Then you point to some "study" where "professionals" have taken this into account. I have yet to see this study and think you are fudging the facts to fit with your stoic world view
It is not a favorite tactic of mine you just seem to use the fallacy often.
No, that was one of the points where you correctly applied it, and I did say that you had both success and (IMO) failures in the usage of this tactic. My response was that the factor was already noted by the researchers. It is a blatantly obvious factor too. Instead, I was referencing to that thread on religion where you mis-applied the correlation-causation dilemma.
Also, I already explained why the arranged marriages are more successful, even with the cultural factors aside. The inverse of why cohabitation makes the marriages more unsuccessful. You can re-read that point if you wish, and pick up a sociology/psychology book, where this is a common example.
Strike For The South
02-24-2010, 22:17
No, that was one of the points where you correctly applied it, and I did say that you had both success and (IMO) failures in the usage of this tactic. My response was that the factor was already noted by the researchers. It is a blatantly obvious factor too. Instead, I was referencing to that thread on religion where you mis-applied the correlation-causation dilemma.
.
Once again......Correlation /=/ Causation. Arranged marriges don't end in divorice because in many socities where they arrange marrige divorce is illegal or taboo.
Aww, come on, you cannot discount all of statistics in that manner. It does not work like this. You are no expert yourself, either, to have the authority to say whether there is a statistical fallacy here. Professionals already examined the study and found its conclusions satisfactory. Parroting the same phrase over and over stops working at a certain point - although I do admit you had a very valid point about divorce taboos causing faulty correlation - a point which was considered by the researchers as well. Arranged marriages work, and that is a sociology 101 fact, and not just a bunch of studies or obscure facts. The evidence is too overwhelming - mainly the statistics, which differ very significantly from the average society based on romantic love. I am aware of the taboo on divorce in those societies, but once again, if you read more carefully, the marriages are overall defined as more successful. Jesus, I should not even be arguing this. You are still in the Uni - go to your resident sociology/psychology professor and ask him.
I think we differ on the usuage of the word correct
Sasaki Kojiro
02-24-2010, 22:21
I disagree. I just told you why that arousal does not constitute a disorder. It is not due to my momentary and hypocritical espousal of popular definitions.
Whether arousal constitutes a disorder is irrelevant. The point is that words have implications, which you must consider when making a statement unless you want to say something misleading.
But I am not saying it is guilty in that sense. And just what do you mean, 'guilt by association'? When you say that Obama is like Hitler because both shared one insignificant factor - speaking out against smoking, let us say - this is guilt by association. But when one disorder is nearly the same, neurologically, as the other, that is a valid comparison. You are acting like SFTS does sometimes with his favourite tactic of correlation=/=causation. Yes, both instances are fallacies, and yes, SFTS is at times correct, but you need to know how to apply both - throwing them and hoping it sticks is not a valid tactic.
Let's say that obama didn't drink and was a vegetarian. His not drinking and not eating meet would be nearly the same as hitler's not drinking and no eating meat, correct? But one does not then conclude that obama is bad, because hitler is bad.
You arguments have all been about comparing love to bad things, and that is the basis for your negative opinion of it.
I mean, really? When two things share a certain amount of similarities, a scientist will draw a link... Since both the neurological cause and the psychological symptoms of OCD and infatuation are startlingly similar, then it is logical to link the two. That is called compare & contrast. When there are more comparisons than contrasts, then 'guilt by association' fallacy is not quite applicable. The hypothesis may still be incorrect, but at least it was no argumentative fallacy.
"Love is similar to OCD" is not the part people are arguing with you about. People talk about love all the time and compare and contrast it to many things. They are disagreeing about the conclusion-->
why would you want to be infatuated, hedonistic pleasure aside? The stuff scrambles your brains not much worse than alcohol. But it lasts longer...
Marriage is the single most reliable happiness indicator.
-edit-
The comparison to alcohol is a good one. Most people, I feel safe saying, greatly enjoy the effects of alcohol. When you talk about "brains being scrambled' you sound like a D.A.R.E officer*.
*guilt by association :p
Reenk Roink
02-24-2010, 22:29
Look, I could care less about erotic love, as I have yet to experience it (or I never will, who knows). I like toying with certain theories, and I have gotten quite caught up in this argument. But to say that I actually sincerely believe in the things? I would not go there. I find it nearly impossible to explain how I feel on this topic, but the impression several people here formed is an erroneous one. I am, however, glad that I do not experience infatuation.
As for the rest of your post, I have already answered it most of it in my posts and I will not repeat, at least not right now - perhaps later this evening (6 hours away for me).
Fair enough although I think it was understandable how many of us interpreted your views on neuroscience and emotions given some of the statements you gave. My bad for attributing to you views you don't really espouse.
Then again, I think there are several major points of contention with your posts and some of the others including myself. I pointed out the idea that emotions are somehow defined by chemical balances in the first place and the comparison of love and OCD and the labeling of love as a mental disorder.
For the first, it really boils down to how you interpret the correlations of certain experimental results of chemical balances alongside admittedly subjective reports of emotions in an abstract sense.
For the second, I believe the author of the article you mentioned wrote a poor piece that stretched the conclusions of the work of the neuroscientists she cited. Again, I submit this critique of the entire article for your review: http://www.ppzq.net/kaz/Alchemy/LSreview.html
Lastly, I believe you were guilty of equivocating the word normal when applied to the chemical balances of the brain during certain emotions being different from baseline, and then jumping to the conclusion that since the brain activity wasn't at baseline during this emotion, it must be abnormal and then again equivocating the use of the word and then jumping to the conclusion that love is a mental disorder.
For some more sober pieces espousing the same general idea you brought up that emotions are basically chemical reactions, I would turn to: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/jan-june09/love_02-13.html.
For a cautionary look at the whole idea: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/20/opinion/op-lehrer20
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 22:38
Whether arousal constitutes a disorder is irrelevant. The point is that words have implications, which you must consider when making a statement unless you want to say something misleading.
You still missed my point in the midst of making yours. I already said why my comparison was valid and yours not in my opinion, so I do not see how I could be misleading.
Let's say that obama didn't drink and was a vegetarian. His not drinking and not eating meet would be nearly the same as hitler's not drinking and no eating meat, correct? But one does not then conclude that obama is bad, because hitler is bad.
Splendid tactic, but science does not work like that, or not necessarily in this case (at the same time, it does not matter). I knew you would make this comparison, but simply offering more data, but how absurd do you want to make your argument? When both the cause and the symptom in two different medical conditions, that is a big thing. When two politicians share two personal preferences, that is guilt by association, as the data is irrelevant.
Relevant association is needed, and you would be hard-pressed to say my evidence was not relevant. It may have been the wrong conclusion on my part, but whatever you say, the evidence was relevant and I do have a basis for a valid hypothesis, no matter how much you play around with words.
If say, Hitler's economic policy as well as his take on government regulation of deleterious substances were both the same or very similar to that of Obama's, then the comparison is gaining validity, even if Obama still does not measure up due to his apparent lack of clear racism and genocidal tendencies.
You arguments have all been about comparing love to bad things, and that is the basis for your negative opinion of it.
"Love is similar to OCD" is not the part people are arguing with you about. People talk about love all the time and compare and contrast it to many things. They are disagreeing about the conclusion-->
Oh, well then, that should not be a problem, as my conclusion is still fairly the same on the usefulness/nature of love.
Marriage is the single most reliable happiness indicator.
Of course. But if you were to say that infatuation results in marriage, then you would be using the very tactic you crusaded against - correlation=/=causation. Infatuation is very much a part of us, mainly in our younger, less wise age. Saying it is a good thign because marraige is a good thing is inaccurate. Much more often than not, infatuation fails to lead into marriage. From what I read, infatuations are startlingly common among teenage males. Very few actually lead to anything.
Aemilius Paulus
02-24-2010, 22:55
For the second, I believe the author of the article you mentioned wrote a poor piece that stretched the conclusions of the work of the neuroscientists she cited. Again, I submit this critique of the entire article for your review: http://www.ppzq.net/kaz/Alchemy/LSreview.html
Point - counterpoint. There is always two sides to any argument :shrug:. As a matter of fact, I did not like the article either, for its unscientific tone, but the data was alright. Anyhow, the most important point is that you referred to some poorly-written (the html is very simple and the general stylistic similarities point to the possible home-written nature of the site) and questionable, unsourced site, and I referred to a Harvard and Boston doctorate-holder, author of numerous, writing for one of the leading popular science (among many other things) magazine in the US. Sure, popularity and credentials far from guarantee veracity, but face it - your source is not hot at all, unless you can find something notable about the author.
Lastly, I believe you were guilty of equivocating the word normal when applied to the chemical balances of the brain during certain emotions being different from baseline, and then jumping to the conclusion that since the brain activity wasn't at baseline during this emotion, it must be abnormal and then again equivocating the use of the word and then jumping to the conclusion that love is a mental disorder.
Wrong conclusion from my posts, but you are not the first one to think in this manner. I am too tired to explain it any longer.
For some more sober pieces espousing the same general idea you brought up that emotions are basically chemical reactions, I would turn to: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/jan-june09/love_02-13.html.
Yes, I read the article and all of it makes good sense, especially the part about the the quacks marketing the chemicals, which should not have any effect on humans.
For a cautionary look at the whole idea: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/20/opinion/op-lehrer20
Inappropriate&insufficient credentials with regards to Mr. Jonah Leher, and on a different topic. No doctorate on psychology or neuroscience - only an undergraduate in both neuroscience and English - and an unrelated are of study which he did not even finish (Lit and Theology for two years). Anyone can argue on this topic - you and I are doing it right now - but very few are actually qualified. Dr. Slater certainly is, regardless of what she wrote in the article.
Reenk Roink
02-25-2010, 03:04
Point - counterpoint. There is always two sides to any argument :shrug:. As a matter of fact, I did not like the article either, for its unscientific tone, but the data was alright. Anyhow, the most important point is that you referred to some poorly-written (the html is very simple and the general stylistic similarities point to the possible home-written nature of the site) and questionable, unsourced site, and I referred to a Harvard and Boston doctorate-holder, author of numerous, writing for one of the leading popular science (among many other things) magazine in the US. Sure, popularity and credentials far from guarantee veracity, but face it - your source is not hot at all, unless you can find something notable about the author.
The data was just data from other scientists (of course the author herself doesn't have the capability to work in the laboratory). How it was interpreted was terrible. And that interpretation is one of your conclusions most unfortunately. :sad:
As to the veracity of my source, you are quite mistaken if you believe it is poorly written, as the syntax and grammar conform to the highest standards of the modern style and the diction is elegant while at the same time managing the highest levels of perspicacity. The vivid color scheme shows a great command of aesthetics as well as graphical user interface design.
Anyhow, the author of my source visibly has a better grasp of the science than Ms. Slater (note how the original studies are referenced and this time actually analyzed with sobriety). One therefore is led to the conclusion that Ms. Slater gave head to a lot of people to get those degrees she holds, because she certainly couldn't have been able to obtain them due to mastery of her subject matter.* Thus her credentials are absolutely meaningless (as if they weren't before, as I judged the articles' content themselves, and not the author - just personal preference).
*For those wondering about this comment do note that Slater in her article begins by awkwardly describing an equally awkward sexual escapade which furthers my conjecture on how Slater got her doctorate. :rolleyes:
Wrong conclusion from my posts, but you are not the first one to think in this manner. I am too tired to explain it any longer.
I did have a hard time drawing conclusions from your posts, as there were many contradictory assertions as I've noted above. :help:
Inappropriate&insufficient credentials with regards to Mr. Jonah Leher, and on a different topic. No doctorate on psychology or neuroscience - only an undergraduate in both neuroscience and English - and an unrelated are of study which he did not even finish (Lit and Theology for two years). Anyone can argue on this topic - you and I are doing it right now - but very few are actually qualified. Dr. Slater certainly is, regardless of what she wrote in the article.
I'm afraid that Slater's qualifications become completely irrelevant with the drivel that she wrote and I've already cast probable doubt on the legitimacy by which she obtained her credentials above.
As for the erudite Jonah Leher and his background, firstly, it is plainly apparent that the topic of the article has nothing to do with psychology or neuroscience per se anyway. It has to do with the philosophy of the methods of neuroscience, namely reductionism, which an English degree would go much farther than a psychology/neuroscience degree in preparing one for. You see, I've noticed in my own studies that scientists (especially the weak 'sciences' like psychology) in general are not really able to think abstractly about the metaphysical values they adhere to. At least with an English major you know somebody is capable of deeper analysis and better writing than Slater.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-25-2010, 03:13
Doctorate is not that impressive. And articles in popular magazines are often superficial, with "interesting" conclusions tacked on. Many times psych studies con only provide a narrow amount of information, and it's interpreted however the article writer feels like interpreting it.
@AP: just to be clear, what is the conclusion you draw from "love is a mental disorder"? What I was pointing out was that you were using a bunch of loaded words that all implied a certain conclusion (just as "aroused" implies sexual arousal). You may not be using guilt by association intentionally, but that is the effect. I don't think I've really been pushing the "correlation is not causation" angle.
Strike For The South
02-25-2010, 03:16
I think we differ on the usuage of the word correct
Well am I wrong?
You say I was correct even though you said I wasn't earlier.
I want to know which one of these it is
Isn't "The One" also a Jet Li film? About dimensions, and reality in a sort of highlander style twist?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-25-2010, 03:42
Isn't "The One" also a Jet Li film? About dimensions, and reality in a sort of highlander style twist?
Yes, though it was an abnormal film I think. I got a bit aroused during the fight scenes at least.
Aemilius Paulus
02-25-2010, 04:59
Gah, I will answer to-morrow - I am too sleepy to think clearly now, only read. That is what I get for staying up four nights in a row rediscovering the MiNO I once so passionately detested. I have no other time to play, period, so the night seemed the only choice. After four nights, the sleep deprivation finally began showing as the evening today set in (it is 22:00 local time)... Lucky for me I am a stranger to caffeine - I heard people using it find they are dependent on it in such circumstances.
Ironside
02-25-2010, 15:11
That's how scientists define these things though. For most psychological disorders, one of the requirements for someone to be diagnosed with it is "significantly interferes with quality of life" or "causes distress" in a way that is not expected during normal development.
:inquisitive: ......... Q.E.D. :logic:
Seriously, you never had or know someone who have been "generally distressed" because they've fallen in love with someone they would never consider to have a relationship with? Or to put it short "I love him/her, but I just don't like him/her".
Sasaki Kojiro
02-25-2010, 17:45
:inquisitive: ......... Q.E.D. :logic:
Seriously, you never had or know someone who have been "generally distressed" because they've fallen in love with someone they would never consider to have a relationship with? Or to put it short "I love him/her, but I just don't like him/her".
...in a way that is not expected during normal development
Aemilius Paulus
02-25-2010, 18:21
:inquisitive: ......... Q.E.D. :logic:
Seriously, you never had or know someone who have been "generally distressed" because they've fallen in love with someone they would never consider to have a relationship with? Or to put it short "I love him/her, but I just don't like him/her".
Yeah, well, he never read Romeo & Juliet in his high school :laugh::tongue:.
Love has caused more distress than any other single psychological disorder on Earth, and it is foolish, inexperienced, or simply being in denial to not admit this, - IMHO.
EDIT: I will however hasten to note that at the same time love caused more or the greatest happiness than any single thing, but the previous point I made is no less valid. For every true, happy love people have tens of failed ones which brought great pain - is this not true for the modern Western society? Now, the 'true' love is what you get for the price of paying with the failed liaisons, and it is worth it, as most say, but to say that love does not fit into the definition of causing distress and significantly interfering with life is absurdity of the highest degree - or merely stubbornness/denial, as I said before.
to say that love does not fit into the definition of causing distress and significantly interfering with life is absurdity of the highest degree - or merely stubbornness/denial, as I said before.
I think most of us agree with you that love causes distress and often significantly interferes with life. The disagreement is not with this assessment, but rather with your assertion that this implies some kind of medical or scientific abnormality.
Louis VI the Fat
02-25-2010, 19:57
Love has caused more distress than any other single psychological disorder on EarthThat's the whole bloody point of it! Let your passions rage, love, feel, live!
Centurion1
02-25-2010, 20:03
Love has caused more distress than any other single psychological disorder on Earth
It has also made more people happy than any other psychological disorder. and i do not believe you can classify it as a disorder. More like a state of mind.
Aemilius Paulus
02-25-2010, 21:21
but rather with your assertion that this implies some kind of medical or scientific abnormality.
Aww, come on, you do not think taht is what I meant, do you? Do I look like some sort of freak? Sure, I am not into girls, but I am not stupid either, and I do not think it is an abnormality. Little is more normal than love, in fact. However, it sure does appear abnormal when examining it from a purely neurological perspective, as I said. And yes, I will cite that article, it is just that I am too lazy to start copying it. Still, for you to think that I actually believe love is some sort of an abnormality speaks volumes about how my posts managed to mislead people.
It has also made more people happy than any other psychological disorder. and i do not believe you can classify it as a disorder. More like a state of mind.
Hey, not fair, your supposed refutation was a mere repletion. I myself, in the same post, said the same thing. And anything is a state of mind, so I do not see how that applies to this.
Aww, come on, you do not think taht is what I meant, do you? Do I look like some sort of freak? Sure, I am not into girls, but I am not stupid either, and I do not think it is an abnormality. Little is more normal than love, in fact. However, it sure does appear abnormal when examining it from a purely neurological perspective, as I said. And yes, I will cite that article, it is just that I am too lazy to start copying it. Still, for you to think that I actually believe love is some sort of an abnormality speaks volumes about how my posts managed to mislead people.
You're right, I have no idea how we managed to get that idea.... :rolleyes:
Love is a mental disorder. And it is, one cannot deny this - people do all sorts of stupid things under the influence of this drug. Finally, even the long term love is a result of chemical imbalance, namely the excess of the hormone of oxytocin. Oxytocin is presnt in all sorts of long-term attachments, including but not limited to lengthy marriage, sibling-sibling, parent-child, and close friend relationships.
Love is a mental disorder. The brain is in a highly disordered state, and the body is very noticeably affected (sleepless nights, obsessions, passion, other torrents of emotions). You could claim that love=addiction/narcotic is sensationalist, which it can be, but the claim that love=disorder is perfectly substantiated by hard science.
That is why serotonin-induced infatuation is a disorder.
I was not speaking from a psychological perspective when I said infatuation is abnormal. Not at all, and it should have been obvious once I began citing the chemicals and their effects on the brain. Broadly speaking, a psychologist touches upon that, but it is the specialty of a neurologist. A neurologist will tell 'you infatuation is not normal.
...
I fail to see how the serotonin overdose does not count. It is a derangement and abnormality of the brain resulting from the excessive intake of serotonin.
...
But even from a psychological perspective, infatuation can be characterised as a disorder, although not actually defined as such because it is not a deviation from normality. Does the striking similarity between OCD and infatuation not count?
Aemilius Paulus
02-25-2010, 21:53
You're right, I have no idea how we managed to get that idea.... :rolleyes:
Why do you say so? I realise my posts were misleading, and I said so myself. Or do you enjoy rubbing it in? :devilish:
Only a prepubescent child can call love abnormal. I already in my posts yesterday that love is more normal than normal from a simple human perspective. Just not from mainly the neurological one - which does not matter for any human being save for the ones who stud this.
Centurion1
02-26-2010, 02:42
Hey, not fair, your supposed refutation was a mere repletion. I myself, in the same post, said the same thing. And anything is a state of mind, so I do not see how that applies to this.
a disorder is not a choice. you can choose to be in love. you wyourself are asexual does someone suffering from say bibolar disorder have any real choice in the matter do they wake up one day and go i have bibolar disorder.
i think not.
Aemilius Paulus
02-26-2010, 03:56
you can choose to be in love.
Hahaha, I rest my case.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-26-2010, 12:15
Why do you say so? I realise my posts were misleading, and I said so myself. Or do you enjoy rubbing it in? :devilish:
Only a prepubescent child can call love abnormal. I already in my posts yesterday that love is more normal than normal from a simple human perspective. Just not from mainly the neurological one - which does not matter for any human being save for the ones who stud this.
a disorder is not a choice. you can choose to be in love. you wyourself are asexual does someone suffering from say bibolar disorder have any real choice in the matter do they wake up one day and go i have bibolar disorder.
i think not.
Clearly, neither of you have been in love, and you don't seem to even realise what love is (which does not mean you do not feel it).
Romantic love is an extension of the more common forms of love we feel for friends and family. Long-term love for a partner is actually something truly extrordinary because it involves inducting someone new into your close family and (to an extent) excluding your blood-kin.
Centurion1
02-26-2010, 14:13
Clearly, neither of you have been in love, and you don't seem to even realise what love is (which does not mean you do not feel it).
Romantic love is an extension of the more common forms of love we feel for friends and family. Long-term love for a partner is actually something truly extrordinary because it involves inducting someone new into your close family and (to an extent) excluding your blood-kin.
no i have not pvc thank god im only 17. but i can understand the concept. It is not right to qualify it as a medical disorder is all im saying people do fall in and out of love no matter how deeply enamored they are with each other.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-26-2010, 15:20
no i have not pvc thank god im only 17. but i can understand the concept. It is not right to qualify it as a medical disorder is all im saying people do fall in and out of love no matter how deeply enamored they are with each other.
People fall in and out of relationships more than in and out of love. Love is involuntary; you meet someone, you love them. It's like a key in a lock; they're the key, you're the lock, the key goes in, the bolt drops.
HOWEVER, this doesn't make it a mental disorder.
Clearly, neither of you have been in love, and you don't seem to even realise what love is (which does not mean you do not feel it)..
AP doesn't :devilish:
Centurion1
02-26-2010, 16:46
HOWEVER, this doesn't make it a mental disorder.
Thats all i am trying to say.
Edit: also there are multiple people on earth whom you can truly love.
Aemilius Paulus
02-26-2010, 16:51
Clearly, neither of you have been in love, and you don't seem to even realise what love is (which does not mean you do not feel it).
Of course I was not. But why do you say so about Centurion? Or are you simply saying that he felt lust but not long-term love? That is possible, yes, at his age.
Romantic love is an extension of the more common forms of love we feel for friends and family. Long-term love for a partner is actually something truly extrordinary because it involves inducting someone new into your close family and (to an extent) excluding your blood-kin.
Of course, my focus was on lust, which has numerous characteristics of certain disorders. The long-term actual love is a splendid thing - nor does it have a neurological profile of a disorder, nto at all. As I said, the brain cannot maintain lust, but long-term love is a different matter. As for romantic love being an extension, well, I am not quite sure what you mean by extension, but if I am correct in interpreting your post, you have the right idea. Chemical profile of long-term romantic love is no different from the love felt for friends and family - just stronger, with more oxytocin.
Kagemusha
02-26-2010, 16:58
That's the whole bloody point of it! Let your passions rage, love, feel, live!
QFT :bow:
Centurion1
02-26-2010, 21:50
Of course I was not. But why do you say so about Centurion? Or are you simply saying that he felt lust but not long-term love? That is possible, yes, at his age.
oh i have lusted......... but i am not foolish enough to fall in love at my age.
a completely inoffensive name
03-03-2010, 06:19
I found love once.....then I accidentally disconnected from Chat Roulette.
Does it work like that?
Or am I just being silly?
pever...you're just being silly. :P
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.