Finding "the one"

[Aemilius Paulus]

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.

[TinCow]

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]

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? EDIT: No, I did not see your post about DSM-IV yet, not when I wrote this postscript

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]

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

[Aemilius Paulus]

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

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]

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]

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.

[TinCow]

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]

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

[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.