Finding "the one"

[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.

[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.