Finding "the one"

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[Reenk Roink]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

[Beskar]

Isn't "The One" also a Jet Li film? About dimensions, and reality in a sort of highlander style twist?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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]

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]

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.

......... Q.E.D.

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]

......... Q.E.D.

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]

......... Q.E.D.

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 .


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.

[TinCow]

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]

Love has caused more distress than any other single psychological disorder on Earth

That's the whole bloody point of it! Let your passions rage, love, feel, live!

[Centurion1]

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]

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.

[TinCow]

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....

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]

You're right, I have no idea how we managed to get that idea....

Why do you say so? I realise my posts were misleading, and I said so myself. Or do you enjoy rubbing it in?

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]

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]

you can choose to be in love.

Hahaha, I rest my case.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why do you say so? I realise my posts were misleading, and I said so myself. Or do you enjoy rubbing it in?

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]

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]

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.

[Subotan]

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

[Centurion1]

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]

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]

That's the whole bloody point of it! Let your passions rage, love, feel, live!

QFT