Finding "the one"

[Aemilius Paulus]

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]

Zathras knows The One, but nobody ever asks Zathras.

[TinCow]

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.

[Aemilius Paulus]

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

[Reenk Roink]

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.

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?

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

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).

[Reenk Roink]

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/...ove_02-13.html.

For a cautionary look at the whole idea: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan...on/op-lehrer20

[Aemilius Paulus]

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 . 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/...ove_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...on/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.

[TinCow]

We disagree on comparatively minor issue of definition, I do not see why this matters so much, but I will provide the quotations

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Strike For The South]

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

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.