The Science of Love

Xyde writes "Economist.com has a story just in time for Valentine's day called 'The Science of Love'. Presumably the difference between love and lust is little more than a bunch of chemicals, which can be controlled with injections (in voles anyway). Quite an interesting read."

Comments

No thank you!

[Dutchmaan]

I don't know about you.. but you won't catch me going to any doctor asking for a love injection!

Re:No thank you!

[Patik]

you won't catch me going to any doctor asking for a love injection!

You don't get love injections at the doctor's office, you get them at the state prison.

Re:No thank you!

[DJStealth]

You may as well go and buy coke off the streets, as according to the article:

"So the brains of people deeply in love do not look like those of people experiencing strong emotions, but instead like those of people snorting coke."

Re:No thank you!

[p-adically yours]

oh my god, for the millionth time it's viruses, not virii!!!

Hey, try to get people to say formulae instead of formulas. Or Matrices instead of Matrixes.

Ah, the prolonged death(or germanization) of latin.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ah, valentines day.

[sparklingfruit]

The one day of the year where I am not the tarket market.

Love injection? No need. Attractiveness injection? Now there's a seller.

Do it yourself

[Lucky Kevin]

But don't all guys give love injections?

Re:Do it yourself

[darkmeridian]

Imagine:

Girlfriend: Hey, that was the quickest, most painless vaccination ever....

YOU: >> Hang head in shame Let me check my spam log for that e-mail....

Utah

[Anonymous Coward]

As Dr Fisher explains, "you can feel deep attachment for a long-term spouse, while you feel romantic love for someone else, while you feel the sex drive in situations unrelated to either partner." This independence means it is possible to love more than one person at a time, a situation that leads to jealousy, adultery and divorce--though also to the possibilities of promiscuity and polygamy, with the likelihood of extra children, and thus a bigger stake in the genetic future, that those behaviours bring. As Dr Fisher observes, "We were not built to be happy but to reproduce."

Ah, that explains politics in Utah.

Re:Utah

[JPriest]

Now I know what is "wrong" with me :)

Re:Utah

[Galvatron]

Actually, I was reading something the other day about how despots in ages past would have dozens, hundreds, even thousands of wives. Today, the President of the United States can't even get away with two! What could be responsible for such a dramatic shift? The explanation given was democracy (the argument against the women's rights theory was that monogamy was pretty entrenched in word and in deed by the Victorian era, when women still had no power). The lower status males will simply use their power to destroy a sexual rival. Essentially we've achieved sexual communism, where no one is allowed to rise higher than a single wife.

All that being said, there are perfectly legitimate women's rights reasons why polygamy is wrong. No woman wants her husband to take a second wife, and even among the "mormons" (in quotes because the recognized church would say they're not mormons) in Utah who do have multiple wives only achieve that status by bullying, threatening, or simply psychologically dominating their first wives.

Re:Utah

[Atryn]

All that being said, there are perfectly legitimate women's rights reasons why polygamy is wrong. No woman wants her husband to take a second wife...

Your post reflects the continuing issues of women's rights. There is nothing in the word polygamy that implies a man having multiple wives. There is nothing wrong with polygamy except for those whose moral and/or religious beliefs forbid it. Just as a man could have multiple wives, a woman could have multiple husbands.

Now, that being said, it isn't very likely that any woman would want multiple husbands. While some emotional and economic benefits exist for polygamy in general, the downside of jealousy is always there. And on the sex issue, very few women have enough of a sex drive to want multiple husbands, whereas that problem is common for men. Evolution is so cruel.

Re:Utah

[Galvatron]

You are correct of course, I should have used the gender-specific word "polygyny," rather than the gender-neutral "polygamy." However, since the only society on record that I know of that has ever practiced polyandry is Tibet, and even then it's only when the two men are brothers (and the younger brother is expected to look for a new wife ASAP), in human societies polygamy is defacto polygyny.

Again, I would argue against your statement that there is nothing wrong with polygamy. Most forms of polygamy set up situations where one person in the preexisting marriage (almost certainly the woman) is pressured to go along with a situation she detests. If one wanted to set up polygamy laws such that once a marriage has been formed, it cannot be ammended (so you've got to marry all your wives at once, or not at all), then that might be arguable.

Re:Utah

[svyyn]

Again, I would argue against your statement that there is nothing wrong with polygamy. Most forms of polygamy set up situations where one person in the preexisting marriage (almost certainly the woman) is pressured to go along with a situation she detests

Your argument against polygamy seems to be more of an argument against coercion and control in a relationship, not against having multiple partners. The problem is that the religions that have historically promoted polygamy as polygyny have been deeply misogynistic, Sky-Father religions in which women were regarded as property. That kind of polygamy is simply unhealthy for all partners. In a healthy polygamous relationship, all partners love, though are not necessarily sexually active with, all other partners.

If you make a drawing of the relationship, then there are lines connecting every individual, there aren't only lines radiating from a central point as in traditional polygamy. However, this means that the number of connections, the number of positive relationships, has to grow geometrically with the number of people, and so this naturally tends to limit the number of people who can be a part of the same healthy polygamous relationship.

If one wanted to set up polygamy laws such that once a marriage has been formed, it cannot be ammended...

In my experiences, healthy polygamous relationships grow gradually. It is highly unlikely that a group of people will spontaneously meet each other and all fall in love. It is much more likely for two people to meet, and then both meet a third person, and then all three perhaps meet a fourth. The key here, of course, is that everyone enters the relationship willingly and thoughtfully.

Re:Utah

[drox]

No woman wants her husband to take a second wife...

Not neccessarily true. In many societies, a husband is pressured to get a second wife *by his first wife* when she feels he's wealthy enough to merit one. With two wives to share the workload, life gets easier for both women, and their husband may be less tempted to stray.

Re:Utah

[drox]

Now, that being said, it isn't very likely that any woman would want multiple husbands.

I guess that would depend on what husbands provide for them, and whether it's any different from what a mere sex partner provides.

While some emotional and economic benefits exist for polygamy in general, the downside of jealousy is always there.

And this is different how? Would a wife be more jealous of a second wife or of a mistress? Would a husband be more jealous if his wife had a second husband or an ongoing affair? Seems there's plenty of jealousy to go around, even when the law (or economic neccessity) dictates only one spouse.

And on the sex issue, very few women have enough of a sex drive to want multiple husbands, whereas that problem is common for men.

Presumably women are getting something more than just sex from their husband(s). Else why marry the guy? They could just have an affair. With marriage they get legal recognition of their union, a father for their children, a whole extended family of inlaws, and in many societies, monetary benefits that continue even after hubby dies (retirement income, etc.). If all these things doubled when a second husband is added to the family, it's easy to see the appeal of polyandry. I'm actually sort of surprised it isn't more widespread, but then marriage is a legal institution and men have been writing the laws through most of history. But their oft-noted reduced sex drive (compared to men) hasn't stopped many women from cashing in on multiple partners, even without the benefits of legally marrying them.

Re:Utah

[ClioCJS]

Uhhhhhhh.... Ever hear of polyamory? Look it up sometime. It's not just a man thing, and you're wrong. Though what you said works well as a rule of thumb but not as an absolutism/tautology.

Re:Utah

[Galvatron]

I still think it's rare to the point where the exeptions are likely to prove the rule. I've read interviews with these people, and there's almost universally conflict when the second wife arrives, even if the first wife thought she'd be okay with it. Polyamory can often be different because you can have multiple couples who keep their relationships seperate (ie, you stay with girl 1 during the week and go out with girl 2 on Saturday night or whatever. In fact, women especially seem to have a tendancy to regard one man as her partner, and other men more like affairs or flings. Not all living together can help jealousy tremendously).

There are other arguments against legal recognition of polygamy as well, such as divorce. If wife 2 and wife 3 decide they can't stand each other, who has to get divorced? Is if fair that some of the family assets are taken away from wife 1? Does it matter if one or more of these women has children? It's a road that can never lead to justice, and I think the fairest route is simply to priviledge only the first marriage with legal recognition. If more people want to live in the same house and have sex with each other, that's fine, but divorce proceedings for communal marriage are an unreasonable burden on society.

Re:Utah

[ClioCJS]

I think what you describe is more "swinging" and less "polyamory", tho there is more stigma attached to the word swinging. But it's all subjective, and yes, the legality of a legalized polyamorous divorce would be every divors lawyer's wet dream.

Re:Utah

[Atryn]

Would a wife be more jealous of a second wife or of a mistress? Would a husband be more jealous if his wife had a second husband or an ongoing affair?

I've often wondered about this. I believe there would need to be further research to say one way or the other. It would not surprise me, however, if there did exist hormonal differences between men and women that caused men to be more possessive/territorial than women in general. If you look at history, SOMETHING caused men to be the dominant sex, and my guess would a combination of physical and hormonal differences.

Modern life has changed a lot of this as we aren't dependent on the "brawn" of men to go out an hunt for food, fight off enemies, etc. With the advent of technology, women can just as easily provide for the family and fight off enemies. I believe these fundamental technological shifts are what has paved the way for the women's rights movement to emerge. I also happen to believe that is a Good Thing(tm).

Presumably women are getting something more than just sex from their husband(s).

Of course, and I wasn't asserting the woman would have the problem. The fact is the male sex drive is generally much stronger than the female sex drive. My wife is pregnant currently, and this has dampened her sex drive even further. A "good" husband (as I like to think of myself) is able to handle this reduction in sexual activity for the duration. Now, take the multiple husband scenario to an extreme. If the woman were expected to bear the children of multiple husbands (which she can only do one at a time) she would be pregnant most of the time and what's left of her sexual capability would be split amongst all husbands.

I tend to believe that this is possible with the right people, the right expectations and a true three-way relationship with everyone emotionally involved with everyone else. However, if you get to 4+ folks, I think you need more than one female partner involved. I hate to reduce it to these sexual issues, but that is one of the large defining drives of man and is built in hormonally through evolution.

Re:Utah

[drox]

While I can agree with much of what is said above, the following statement doesn't seem to support the argument.

If the woman were expected to bear the children of multiple husbands (which she can only do one at a time) she would be pregnant most of the time and what's left of her sexual capability would be split amongst all husbands.

Through much of history, women were pregnant (or nursing a young child, which also reduces sex drive) for most of their adult lives anyway, whether they had one partner or many. For women, fertility is not a function of how many partners she has (unless it's zero) or even how often she has sex (unless it's never) but more of her health and longevity (not taking into account contraception). The difference multiple partners would provide is: with one partner, the children would all have the same father, while with multiple partners (married or not) each might have a different father. But either way she's pregnant or nursing most of the time, so the guys aren't going to be getting much action.

With a single father, he's probably going to be more willing (though perhaps less able) to provide for them all, as they're his own flesh and blood.

With multiple fathers (again, with or without marriage) they're probably going to be more able but less willing (as they don't know if they're supporting their own child or some other guy's).

Let's all be thankful for contraception, eh? Good news for women, who don't have wear out their bodies by being pregnant or nursing all the time, and good news for men, who can cash in their resulting increased sex drive.

Because really, who wants a child (or even the possibility of a child) every time he/she has sex?

Re:Utah

[Atryn]

...and good news for men, who can cash in their resulting increased sex drive.

LOL... if that one were true, you wouldn't see me spending so much time on slashdot.

Re:Great news.

[mobby_6kl]

> the victim i keep in my basement *will* love me.
Don't you love yourself already? ;)

Great news.

[Anonymous Coward]

Injections cause love? This is great news! Finally I can love my abductor, Conner, who's keeping me in his basement.

Re:Great news.

[dzym]

But first you must put the lotion in the fucking basket.

Re:Great news.

[Surlyboi]

Not the hose again!

Re:Great news.

[t_allardyce]

Hes keeping you in his basement with a net connection? You rekon he could kidnap me too?

Re:Great news.

[t_allardyce]

who here wants to shove a stick of dynamite up bush's ass?

just in time

[elcausado]

...has a story just in time for Valentine's day called...

Its amazing how research these days has such a superb sense of timing. ;-)

A poem.

[SharpFang]

Found in fortune file.

Tell me why the stars do shine
Tell me why the ivy twines
Tell me why the sky's so blue
And I will tell you why I love you.

Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine
Phototropism makes ivy twine
Rayleigh Scattering makes sky so blue
Sexual hormones are why I love you.

I find it kind of frightening

[drinkypoo]

How long before some conservative mad scientist :) releases a retrovirus which makes us all pair-bond for life, inescapably? If I were still with my first love, I'd have to fucking kill myself now.

Re:I find it kind of frightening

[sadomikeyism]

Now we are going to see the radical political groups engage in biowarfare, releasing cold viruses that compete against each other, turning the population gay one week, straight the next, and so on.

If God is Love, and a scientist can give it or take it away, does this mean the scientist is playing God, or IS God????

Re:I find it kind of frightening

[qrash]

Conservative and scientist usually don't go together IMHO, so you needn't worry about that!

Re:I find it kind of frightening

[p-adically yours]

Conservative and scientist usually don't go together IMHO, so you needn't worry about that!

here at my univ we have a Biochem department populated with creationists. I know several engineering students who are extreme fundamentalists (the bible says jump then I must jump! Right now! Again and again!).

So, I would say you should worry. L: -----

The difference between love and lust ...

[gunix]

Well, this axiom holds...

Attraction = Lust + i*Love

Lust is the "real" part, and "Love" is the imaginary part.

Re:The difference between love and lust ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder attraction is so complex!

Re:The difference between love and lust ...

[bersl2]

By this equation,

e ^ (0 + i(pi)) = -1

which proves that love is detrimental.

Re:The difference between love and lust ...

[GuyWithLag]

It's a strange attractor.....

Re:The difference between love and lust ...

[bersl2]

Yes; but this way, the joke is more apparent.

Re:The difference between love and lust ...

[cavac]

You could also formulate
L = (BSTG / BSGF) ^ (BE / DV) * (NS + 1)

Where L is the Lust you currently feel, BSTG the the Bra size of your target, BSGF is MAX_BREASTSIZE(girlfriends) you already have, BE is the number of Beers you already drank, NS is the number of months you've had no sex and DV is the number of divorces you had been through.

As you can clearly see, Beer (or other alcohololic drinks) and divorces have the highest influence. But as shown in the next formula, alcohol may also have a bad side effect:

AS = (V + 1) * L / (B + 1) ^ 3

AS is the ability to have sex, L is the lust and B is the number of Beers you had (which is very likely more than in the first formula). V is the number of Viagra's you took. You see, the more you drink, the more V you must swallow - although i'd recommend against V when you drunk B for reasons of SF (the survival factor of that night) because:

SF = (100 - AG / B ^ V) * RN

Where SF is your survival factor, AG is your age, B the Beers, V the Viagras and RN a boolean (0 or 1) to remember your spouse's name the morning after...

Therefore everyone claiming that having one-night-stands is easy isn't either
a) drinking alcohol
b) a good mathematician
c) or just plain lucky so far

Greetings from the statictical front
Rene

Re:The difference between love and lust ...

[3rd_Floo]

Man and I just thought that it was related to a 2d3 roll all this time!

Re:The difference between love and lust ...

[cavac]

Well, i'm still working on the flaws in the formulas, so i'm still forced to do more field tests in the bar around the corner :-)

Re:The difference between love and lust ...

[p-adically yours]

Greetings from the statictical front

Ah an emissary from the dark side of the force!

You know, my stats prof said that stats isn't really math. My cs prof looked at me funny and went on to prove that it was. Gave me a headache for a few hours. You try to visualize 64k dimensional space.

- Your Friendly Neighborhood Math Major

Re:The difference between love and lust ...

[p-adically yours]

So as the number of divorces you've had approaches zero, you lust goes to infinity...

hmm. You could do a Laplace smoothing.

Re:The difference between love and lust ...

[p-adically yours]

No wonder attraction is so complex!

And irrational!

*ouch*

I'm not sure...

[tverbeek]

...I'm ready to accept the idea that voles are capable of what we call "love", no matter what you inject them with. Even in humans, mating for life and loving someone aren't necessarily the same thing.

Re:I'm not sure...

[Bozdune]

"Vole" is just love spelled sideways, sort of. I buy it.

Re:I'm not sure...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, yeah. Forgot that humans are soooo great. We do all kinds of things that other animals can't do. Like, see, hear, smell, touch, and think! Yep, we humans sure are superior.

*Yawn*

Call me when all non-human animals start their first World War.

Re:I'm not sure...

[Tango42]

The word you're looking for is anagram. Vole is an *anagram* for love. "Spelled sideways" is just plain stupid.

Re:I'm not sure...

[Tango42]

Hmm... that came out as more of a flame than I meant it too... Apologies.

Re:I'm not sure...

[Bromrrrrr]

Bah, complex words take all the charm out of conversation, I'll take "spelled sideways, sort of" over anagram any day :)

Re:I'm not sure...

[frisket]

But I don't want to have a relationship with a vole.
At least, not tonight...

Re:I'm not sure...

[Bozdune]

You're probably too young to remember the Libby's ad, starring Libby the Kid, who always finished the ad by saying "I'm Libby the Kid. That's Billy the Kid spelled sideways, sort of."

Nice of you to re-post. Obviously you are a gentleman/gentlelady.

Re:I'm not sure...

[ShadowBlasko]

"Call me when all non-human animals start their first World War."

Now, this is not *world* war, but war in a sense.

If you ever get to Lake Cumberland Kentucky, go to the lodge near State Dock some evening in May or June around 8pm. Thats when the guests are leaving the buffet and walk out onto the deck, food in hand, for the evenings entertainment.

About 20 feet below, every evening, Groundhogs and Raccoons battle each other over position, and cute postures, trying to get food from patrons. This often becomes bloody, and the raccoons have taken to using weapons.

They will run with sticks, or brushes in their mouths, and push the groundhogs off the stumps, which gives the raccoons a better chance to "impress" the crowd, and get food thrown at them.

The groundhogs upped the ante, and *ate* the stumps down to nubs, eliminating the raccoons "performance stages".

The Raccoons then went to plan B, and started sending their *babies* in to fend for food. The babies come out, everyone "ooh's and ahhh's" and throws food. Then the babies take the food back to the adults, who wait just at the treeline.

Not to be outdone, the groundhogs began digging tunnels with entrances out near the patio and deck, under the bushes. When the food is tossed, they dart out (as well as a groundhog can dart) and snatch it before the baby raccoons can get it.

It calmed down a little in the late 90's when the lodge started making an honest effort to keep people from feeding this battle of animal will.

It still goes on however. Last time I was there, about two years ago, the raccoons had taken to climbing up the gutter drains, and walking up to customers and then just *tugging* on their clothing until they were *handed* food. (wimps).

Since the groundhogs don't climb so well, I dunno how they will beat this tactic. Although they still get their fair share, as many people are (and probably should be) unwilling to hand feed wild animals. Therefore what is thrown to the ground still goes to the groundhogs.

If thats not animal warfare, I don't know what is.

By the way, the groundhogs really did gnaw those stumps down to nothing. They stopped as soon as the stumps were gone, and have not been seen gnawing on any other wood. Just the "stages" that the raccoons performed on.

Re:I'm not sure...

[gabba_gabba_hey]

Hmm, normally I'd agree with you. However, after the week i've had I was about ready to give up on the whole relationship with another person thing and renew my former sordid affair with my right hand. Now I'm thinking voles may offer a distraction I hadn't previously considered ;)

Re:I'm not sure...

[0111 1110]

Somehow I think the quality of the cuisine at this lodge has room for improvement.

Re:I'm not sure...

[eatdave13]

That's why people don't listen when you speak.

Why on earth would I want . . .

[kfg]

an enamored vole following me around?

KFG

Re:Why on earth would I want . . .

[Scrameustache]

an enamored vole following me around?

Enamored vole: The self-propelled snack!

Definition of economics

[azzy]

I remember back at school when I studied economics, the textbook claimed the definition to be: The study of human behaviour. I suppose that people being in love, that it affects their behaviour.. means that it falls into the definition of economics.. that and the extend to which valentines day is now just a market driven spend spend spend event.

Re:Definition of economics

[Scrameustache]

valentines day is now just a market driven spend spend spend event.


Considering that its a completely artificial "holiday" created to give the economy a consummerism boost exactly between xmas and easter, you shouldn't be surprised.

My favourite valentines tradition is discovering yet another bogus origin story to valentine's day.

Do these injections...

[Anonymous Coward]

...have to be administered directly to the cardiac muscle? If so, that would explain Cupid's strange behavior.

Strategy B

[Tablizer]

Me: "Boss, please don't send my job to India."

[Poke!]

Boss: "Oww! What was that?.....Don't worry darling, you are safe with me."

Re:Strategy B

[abes]

And then comes Plan B to deal with the after effects.

Re:Strategy B

[Anonymous Coward]

Who ever said it's a male/female? Who needs "Plan B" crap with gay sex?

Whom Do You Love?

[Kehl]

Ok you get your Spouse a love injection but how does that tie there love to you?
Imagine waking up one morning only to find shes ran off with the milkman! :/

Re:Whom Do You Love?

[Dr Tall]

I would think you're supposed to administer it while you're out at dinner together or having sex, etc.

Re:Whom Do You Love?

[sckeener]

they cover that in the article. Basically during your life you form a 'blueprint to love' (their words.)

So if you gave the injection (which there would be at least 3 types,) you would just send the target down their roadmap to love. If you are in their path, good for you; however, if someone else meets more of their internal rankings, then you are a speed bump towards their intended target.

this was their explantion for people who seem to date the same type of person over and over again.

Screw love

[Anonymous Coward]

I rather see an article on the science of casual sex.

Re:Screw love

[Lobsang]

Rather than an injection (ugh) that makes someone love me, I'd rather have a painless spray that makes ladies want to have casual and immediate sex with me.

That, yes, would rule. :)

Re:Screw love

[digitalsushi]

Yeah but would it undo the cootie spray she put on just prior for protection?

Re:Screw love

[eatdave13]

It's called deodorant. I swear to God it works.

Silly. Think: Mare!

[SharpFang]

Although, when she's in heat, you'd rather wish her to stop, as this can get quite exhausting, but just in case...

Re:I would give half my life

[Kehl]

Lollipops and candy usually work for me!

Followed by ..... would you like to see my puppies =)

Some great new spam!

[simcop2387]

(i am not trolling i don't think)

Are you one of the 80% of men who has a lower than average ability to get your partner to fall in love? Well boy do we have a product for you! Liagra! With Liagra you can finally get both your secretary and your wife to love you and each other!! only 6 easy payments of $49.95!

i wonder how long before we see this

er...

[xankar]

wait, i thought beer was already invented.

Re:er...

[JeremyALogan]

no no no... you're thinking of roofies

Re:I would give half my life

[kyknos.org]

i meant 15-30 years old :o)

Seduction

[zensufi]

Well, there are sites such as fastseduction.com that provide guides that are based upon the premise that lust and love are remarkably similar and can be installed in people by using using certain patterns of behavior. Click, whirr, anyone?

Re:Seduction

[seminumerical]

The fast seduction site is very interesting. I mean the extent that people will go to systemize a body of knowledge! acronyms, theories, etc. about picking up girls and closing the deal.

Re:Seduction

[eatdave13]

Yes. That's exactly it. Let me clue you in...

Don't give them the chance to get to know you. Really. Don't. They probably won't like you. I'm not saying that in a pessimistic or mysoginistic way, it's just the simple truth. You probably won't like them either if you wait to get to know them. Think about it. Would you be willing to deal with someone's flaws (yeah, everybody has them, and most people have bad ones) if there was nothing there? No, you'd walk away unless you're the type that falls in love with someone you don't even really know. And no, you don't really know someone until you've had sex with them. Trust me on this one if you've never had sex, and if you have stayed with someone for more than two weeks after sleeping with them you know what I'm talking about.

Fuck them the first chance you get. Wear a rubber. Don't get attached too fast. Don't be too nice. Don't be a jerk. If it feels uncomfortable, don't do it, even if you think you should. That applies to buying her flowers just as much as it applies to getting a thumb in the ass. I've seen girls get completely freaked when their weekend boyfriend called too much or bought them flowers for no reason. If it's time to buy flowers, you'll know, and it could be 2 weeks or two years. It's never, ever 2 days. Be confident in what you're confident in. Don't try false confidence unless you're real good at faking things, 'cause you'll fuck it up.

Those stupid tricks really do work if you have the right mentality, but if you haven't been practicing pretty much your whole life you'll just come across as creepy. I can't pull that crap off, but there's plenty of guys who can.

Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is, just go get laid. Pretend you're interested just enough. The rest will come later. That's just the way the human race has always worked. You've watched too many movies and listened to your mother talk too many times.

The ultimate love chemical....

[Anonymous Coward]

...Is the ink they print money with.

Re:The ultimate love chemical....

[Anonymous Coward]

somehow i dont think paiting yourself with ink will get the girls all over you

Sounds like a Kiss song

[fsandford]

"Calling Dr. Love, I got the cure your thinking of" Sorry, I may be too old.

Genes versus moral choice

[Nakito]

Here is a key empirical observation from the article: Mating between prairie voles is a tremendous 24-hour effort. After this, they bond for life.... However, another vole, a close relative called the montane vole, has no interest in partnership beyond one-night-stand sex. What is intriguing is that these vast differences in behaviour are the result of a mere handful of genes. The two vole species are more than 99% alike, genetically.

Imagine the implications for churches if it turns out that fidelity is based on genetic propensities rather than moral choice. On the other hand, if the concept of "original sin" is to be believed, perhaps that is what they have been saying all along.

The heck with injections

[ackthpt]

Q: What's the difference between a dog and a fox?

A: A sixpack.

"Alcohol: Helping men get sex for thousands of years."

Re:The heck with injections

[JebusIsLord]

you ruined the joke, it's "beer, helping ugly girls get laid since 4127 BC"

Re:The heck with injections

[shadowbearer]

Damn, I haven't heard that one in better than twenty years. Thanks for the laugh :) Brings back memories, it does. Considering the jokes we used to laugh about in college, it's a wonder any of us ever got laid back then :)

Woof.

SB

Re:The heck with injections

[p-adically yours]

A: A sixpack.

sadly, this one took me a minute.

----

Re:The heck with injections

[p-adically yours]

so lust is like a radioactive element that decomposes into love?

weird.

Re:The heck with injections

[PD]

Get help. You may be an alcoholic. It should take approximately a half hour to finish a sixpack.

Re:I would give half my life

[kyknos.org]

why the hell michael jackson? who is that?

I know this is tongue-in-cheek article, but ...

[Richard Allen]

I'm not sure I'd draw the same conclusions as the author here. They start off by saying that sex will enduce certain chemicals which will in turn help to cause a feeling of lust or love in the voles. Then they go on to say if they inject certain chemicals in voles, it will cause them to "fall in love". But people (believe it or not) often fall in love sometimes without having sex. In other words, their thoughts produce the chemicals, which obviously is opposite of saying the chemicals produce the thoughts. It's a which comes first, the chicken or the egg problem. I think injecting chemicals in people would produce the euphoric state they mention in the article, but there needs to be thought processes along side of that to produce love.

I'm probably missing something here from their logic. Please correct me if so. Thanks.

Re:I know this is tongue-in-cheek article, but ...

[Requiem Aristos]

It's a feedback loop; thoughts producing chemicals and chemicals producing thoughts are not mutually exclusive events. You can have both; it's like a program that can edit its code while running.

To take another topic, you can feel depressed because of the right (wrong?) chemicals in your brain. You could also feel depressed if you think thoughts that create those same chemicals. To "cure" depression, you could inject chemicals to balance things out, or you could think thoughts that do the same thing. The injection technique is likely more effective for many.

Re:I know this is tongue-in-cheek article, but ...

[Tim]

"To "cure" depression, you could inject chemicals to balance things out, or you could think thoughts that do the same thing. The injection technique is likely more effective for many."

They're about equal in effectiveness, actually. Current studies on depressed patients treated with cognitive therapy, antidepressants, or a combination of both, show that both methods have about equal efficacy, with the combined approach working best.

Re:I know this is tongue-in-cheek article, but ...

[tumbaumba]

They start off by saying that sex will enduce certain chemicals which will in turn help to cause a feeling of lust or love in the voles. Then they go on to say if they inject certain chemicals in voles, it will cause them to "fall in love".

It is the same idea as the one used in psychotropic medications like zoloft, prozac and alike. When you are happy and not depressed you develop some chemicals in your brains. So if you are depressed we just give these chemicals. Now if whole of your been tells you to be unhappy because your grand mother just died, but you artificially maintain those "happy" chemicals what happens? Most of the time nothing, but once in a while someone goes completely berserk and kills all his family members, himself or does something crazy like this.

Re:I know this is tongue-in-cheek article, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

with the combined approach working best

Which is sort of logical. While cognitive therapy can teach you to recognize and eventually avoid distorted thinking, it does not do much to help get out of a depression you're in. Medication can help to get out of the cycle of depressed thinking => depression => more depressed thinking. When back in a 'normal' frame of mind, it is a lot easier to see the patterns and avoid slipping back.

The wikipedia article you mentioned does a good job of describing the therapy and the thinking behind it and I'm sure you know this, but because of the gist of this thread I'd like to clarify that it is NOT about thinking happy thoughts to be happy. Peter Pan is NOT involved in any way :). It is more about being realistic about your thoughts and not projecting your own feelings on others.

Anyway it worked like hell for me, I've been of medication and any sort of therapy for about a year now and I find it increasingly harder to imagine how I felt 2 years ago.

Anyway, posting this AC because it is a bit personal, so please don't hate me.
Shit everybody hates AC's, they must all hate me. I'm sure the editors can find out who I am and they'll all laugh at me (oops *dashes back to the meds* :)

Re:I know this is tongue-in-cheek article, but ...

[tumbaumba]

I call bullshit! I never heard of any killing spree that was attributed to using anti depressants. Prove your point or I will regard you as a troll.

See here. I did not believe it until I saw it first hand. I.e. the person became uncontrollably aggressive, braking dishes, shaking, trying to hurt himself, not once mind you. Those side effects happen rare, but when they happen, trust me, you don't want to be around.

Re:I know this is tongue-in-cheek article, but ...

[vldmr_krn]

In other words, their thoughts produce the chemicals, which obviously is opposite of saying the chemicals produce the thoughts. It's a which comes first, the chicken or the egg problem.

The chemicals are the thoughts (feelings, actually).

Maybe too far..

[TimTurnip]

I'm as interested in science as the next geek. I'm stoked that I understand that lightning is a result of static, and not God striking down his wrath...I'm also happy that I'm not worried about California falling off into the ocean, thanks to Ms. Schneider's geology teaching.

But this might be going a little too far. Love is one of those things that I'm comfortable not understanding - and uncomfortable understanding.

Call me crazy...but I'm happy knowing that I love my fiancee, and thinking that it's because of her humor/mannerisms/beauty/etc.

Re:Maybe too far..

[ari_j]

s/humor\/mannerisms\/beauty\/etc\./not rejecting me/

Re:Maybe too far..

[Planesdragon]

I'm stoked that I understand that lightning is a result of static, and not God striking down his wrath...

Maybe you would be even more stoked if you understood that lightning is a result of differential charges between clouds and the surface, not the clouds and the surface rubbing up against each other.

Oh, and the lightning bolt itself isn't God's wrath. God's wrath is when a bolt 'randomly' hits YOU.

Re:Maybe too far..

[Bromrrrrr]

Well I guess this is a point that the scientists in question must poor over when they drive home to their spouses.

Seriously though, people still enjoy roller-coaster rides, even though the physics are very well understood. Being a geek you must have realized at some point that love is really just a chemical reaction in your brain. Giving a name to the chemicals doesn't change anything. Just sit back and enjoy the ride!

Granted though "how is your oxytocin today?" doesn't sound anywhere near as endearing as "do you love me?":)

Re:Maybe too far..

[danila]

You are happy, so what? The point is you are addicted to certain chemicals and are unable to think objectively about your fiancee and the time you spend with her. When I was in love, I felt the same way, but right now (and before) I can think objectively and I can tell you that I prefer it this way.

I am happy knowing that I can behave in a way best for me and not for my genes. I am happy that I can prevent myself from falling in love again and just live alone nicely. You, on the other hand, are doing what you were programmed to do and I can feel nothing but pity towards you.

It's self-administered...

[The Tyro]

for some people, particularly women. Interesting to note that the article mentions oxytocin as one of the chemicals that promotes person to person binding... yet they fail to mention breast-feeding.

Mothers who advocate breast feeding often say that it's a bonding experience for them and their baby... perhaps they're more right than they know, since Oxytocin is released in the human body by nipple stimulation.

If Oxytocin truly promotes interpersonal bonding in people, that opens up all kinds of interesting avenues of research.

Re:It's self-administered...

[4of12]

Oxytocin.

That would be different from Oxycontin, then.

love is chemical

[Doc Ruby]

The difference betwen Windows and Linux is just the order and quantity of bits in RAM. Every human experience is just the difference of a few chemicals in the brain. But why go to such lengths, when love (or lust) can be injected into your target with $10 of organic chemicals, inserted as flowers into her hands? Try it today, in a cocktail therapy with labial skin molecules applied topically.

"When I see the way you paint your lips
and I smell your perfume
when I see the brand new color
that you've dyed your hair, too
I know, you know, it's more than physical
My love, my love, my love, love is chemical"
- Lou Reed, "My Love Is Chemical"

(my love is chimerical)

Re:love is chemical

[GWTPict]

Because she has hay fever and they make her sneeze. Chocolate however.......

Great acticle, full text (now slashdotted...)

[Andreas(R)]

The science of love

Scientists are finding that, after all, love really is down to a chemical addiction between people

OVER the course of history it has been artists, poets and playwrights who have made the greatest progress in humanity's understanding of love. Romance has seemed as inexplicable as the beauty of a rainbow. But these days scientists are challenging that notion, and they have rather a lot to say about how and why people love each other.

Is this useful? The scientists think so. For a start, understanding the neurochemical pathways that regulate social attachments may help to deal with defects in people's ability to form relationships. All relationships, whether they are those of parents with their children, spouses with their partners, or workers with their colleagues, rely on an ability to create and maintain social ties. Defects can be disabling, and become apparent as disorders such as autism and schizophrenia--and, indeed, as the serious depression that can result from rejection in love. Research is also shedding light on some of the more extreme forms of sexual behaviour. And, controversially, some utopian fringe groups see such work as the doorway to a future where love is guaranteed because it will be provided chemically, or even genetically engineered from conception.
How love makes voles of us all
Feb 12th 2004
St Valentine's day revenge
Feb 10th 2000
Another way to say "I love you"
Sep 24th 1998
Ask Dr Tatiana
Dec 18th 1997

The Journal of Comparative Neurology publishes an abstract of Dr Young's article on prairie voles. Northern State University has a profile of the prairie vole. Test how loved-up you are with Economist.com's love quiz.

The scientific tale of love begins innocently enough, with voles. The prairie vole is a sociable creature, one of the only 3% of mammal species that appear to form monogamous relationships. Mating between prairie voles is a tremendous 24-hour effort. After this, they bond for life. They prefer to spend time with each other, groom each other for hours on end and nest together. They avoid meeting other potential mates. The male becomes an aggressive guard of the female. And when their pups are born, they become affectionate and attentive parents. However, another vole, a close relative called the montane vole, has no interest in partnership beyond one-night-stand sex. What is intriguing is that these vast differences in behaviour are the result of a mere handful of genes. The two vole species are more than 99% alike, genetically.

Why do voles fall in love?

The details of what is going on--the vole story, as it were--is a fascinating one. When prairie voles have sex, two hormones called oxytocin and vasopressin are released. If the release of these hormones is blocked, prairie-voles' sex becomes a fleeting affair, like that normally enjoyed by their rakish montane cousins. Conversely, if prairie voles are given an injection of the hormones, but prevented from having sex, they will still form a preference for their chosen partner. In other words, researchers can make prairie voles fall in love--or whatever the vole equivalent of this is--with an injection.

A clue to what is happening--and how these results might bear on the human condition--was found when this magic juice was given to the montane vole: it made no difference. It turns out that the faithful prairie vole has receptors for oxytocin and vasopressin in brain regions associated with reward and reinforcement, whereas the montane vole does not. The question is, do humans (another species in the 3% of allegedly monogamous mammals) have brains similar to prairie voles?

To answer that question you need to dig a little deeper. As Larry Young, a researcher into social attachment at Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, explains, the brain has a reward system designed to make voles (and people and other animals) do what they ought to. Without it, they might forget to eat, drink and have sex--with disastrous resu

Re:I would give half my life

[AhBeeDoi]

I don't care what the weather is like, keep your raincoat on.

Fascinating quote - Snort coke or fall in love?

[mikeymckay]

"Parts of the brain that are love-bitten include the one responsible for gut feelings, and the ones which generate the euphoria induced by drugs such as cocaine. So the brains of people deeply in love do not look like those of people experiencing strong emotions, but instead like those of people snorting coke."

Additional Reading

[giminy]

I'd suggest reading about the economy of orgasms as well.

Science is wonderful, isn't it?

Re:I would give half my life

[Morologous]

Based on your spelling I would recommend that you do not procreate.

Reminds me..

[mog007]

love and lust is little more than a bunch of chemicals

Of a scene from an underrated movie "Trial and Error" where a woman is on the stand for showing the difference between a cocaine molecule and table a sugar molecule is a few atoms, and she responds: "Yes, but that's practically nothing, I mean, how big is an atom?"

Fool me twice...shame on me...

[skoaldipper]

Yeah, right...

These ain't scientists. They're researchers in the marketing department. I fell for your female attracting hormone scents in the back of magazines years ago. And all I got for it was a rash and had to bathe myself in tomato sauce to remove the stink. And, by the way, if you ever had to rub yourself all over with tomato sauce for hours, you will discover true love. Trust me on that one...

Now, it's off to the grocery store. I see my pantry is running low on Hunt's again.

Causation?

[JayBlalock]

Why is it that whenever neurologists discover some section of the brain or chemical that causes physiological condition X to come about, they seem to automatically assume that they have found the actual CAUSE of Condition X? Maybe I'm just silly, but I can't so blindly accept that brain in such an easily-mapped organic machine.

Re:Causation?

[rark]

more than that, the comments in the first paragraph were a little, er, loose with the science. In schizophrenia the social implications come from the brain not getting other information correct. It's difficult to handle social interaction when your reality is different from everyone else's. Whether or not this is the case in autism is more debateable, but I think if you floated the idea that autism is caused or would be significantly helped by an increase in bonding hormones, you'd have to provide far more evidence than handwaving to be taken seriously. There's too much evidence for other causes (like scrambled sensory input during the years where social interaction schemes are first put down -- this also explains why some infants/toddlers in institutions where they do not receive significant interaction from caregivers display 'autistic like' behavior -- they do so because they don't get the interaction that an autistic child does get, but can't take advantage of because of the sensory scrambling -- I'm not saying that this set of theories is correct either, but there's a hell of a lot more evidence that that approach than a hormonal imbalance).

But it sort of quietly echos the refrigerator mother hypothesis, which is well disproven now. It also implies that people with autism or schizophrenia have some innate issue with falling in love or bonding, caused by their illness, which isn't generally the case and is a problematic assumption made by people who don't have these conditions who then manage to project them on those that do.

bah. rantrant

Re:Causation?

[GWTPict]

You do realize that indulging in independant thought like that could get you into a lot of trouble? Hallmark employ a lot of ex special forces types...

perhaps

[The Tyro]

if you've got endless cash, and the ability to purchase medical devices and pharmaceuticals without a presciption then you're golden.

However, I should point out that most pharmacies will NOT sell syringes, needles, and a bag of Pitocin to you (Pitocin is synthetic Oxytocin). In fact, I think they'd be quite skittish if they found out you were planning on using them on your hot date...

Besides, without any research to reference, do you know how much oxytocin to give? 1000 Units? 10000 Units? Do you know where and how to administer it (IM, SQ, SC, IV)? Can you adminster it to a woman without being charged with assault/battery? How many dates are going to let you shoot them up with some random drug? (well, OK... I guess there are some of those women out there, but you don't want one of them falling in love with you...)

*sigh* I wasn't going to say it, but you could just use the time-honored (and poor man's) method of producing oxytocin... in a word: foreplay.

This discussion can now officially go nowhere but downhill...

Re:I would give half my life

[kyknos.org]

go away :o) my english spelling is probably better than your spelling of czech language

Re:I would give half my life

[armando_wall]

Come one, man... go out there! Czech girls are pretty and very nice. I met one once, and she was amazing... no need to pose or pretend.

Go ahead, break the paradigms, do something! You can do it, man!

What about spiritual love?

[Goeland86]

I'd like those guys to explain to me how they will explain how people can fall in love over the net if their theory is so strong... How do you start getting "addicted" to loving someone you haven't met in real life before? I mean, how would they explain the fact that before even meeting the other person you have realistic dreams (not involving any kind of sexual scenes)? I have been chatting with webcams and talking on the phone with a girl since October, and I know she is the one, and I haven't seen her anywhere in my life before... Anybody else thinks that science is and will always be limited, whereas the human mind can go against it?

Re:What about spiritual love?

[kyknos.org]

how true you are. i exactly know what you are talking about. i think that love is completely software implementation - yes, it uses various inputs from different hardware sensors but no one from these sensors is essencial. but the whole available imput is parsed by soul kernel and can lead in love

Re:What about spiritual love?

[Goeland86]

mmm, I'm not sure it's as simple as you describe it... I think there's one more dimension to the soul that science will never be able to grasp. Life in general is not just a bunch of chemical reactions behaving to logical laws, however complex they might be. There's something more behing it. Otherwise everything that happened and is to happen would be written or determined already. Freedom of thinking is not something that is a series of chemical reactions. At least not entirely. Those scientists are just dumbass capitalists that have not grasped the fact that there will always be something beyond comprehension, although it may not be god.

Re:What about spiritual love?

[kyknos.org]

i thing you are right. however it wont stop me from trying. i want love desperatelly

Re:What about spiritual love?

[cybpunks3]

When you fall in love in a long distance relationship you are falling in love with your imagined ideal of the other person. It's not based on anything tangible.

That's why when people meet it breaks the spell.

Let me know how well the relationship goes after you've met her in real life.

Re:What about spiritual love?

[Goeland86]

well, all I'm trying to point out is that science can't explain everything related to life. Besides, I am not desperate. I wasn't particularly looking online for women. In fact, I was actually trying to not end up in the situation I am in now. Seeing each other, yes. But the study is related to smell and pheromones, which, unless I am a total ignorant, are not yet transmitted over the web! How then can you explain romantic love without those pheromones in this particular study? That is the objection I have to make.

Re:What about spiritual love?

[Goeland86]

I can tell you how it went for one of my friends, who has already been through this, and for whom it went quite well. His girlfriend moved over from Scottland to live with him in Alsace (eastern France). She's only 17, and he's 19. That's how well you can fall in love distantly, and then have an even better experience in real life. I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining or expecting too much about her, nor her about me. Talking, whether through IMs or telephone can make you know alot more than you'd think about someone else.

Re:What about spiritual love?

[Goeland86]

What the fuck are you talking about???? I'm saying that love doesn't depend on smell. You probably didn't understand what I was saying, dumbass! Besides, I understand science, I like it, that's my major in college. I'm just saying there are limits to it. So you're the animal barking at me because you misread what I was saying. And no matter how far science goes, it will NEVER be able to explain some things. One example simple example : what exists outside our universe? Since you know about science, I don't need to explain the expansion of our universe since the big bang.

Re:What about spiritual love?

[Scrameustache]

how people can fall in love over the net if their theory is so strong... How do you start getting "addicted" to loving someone you haven't met in real life before?

Same way you get a hard-on from watching porn.
Reality is perception, wether you percieve the person from right in front of you or from afar via the net, your brain still secretes the same chemicals.

I have been chatting with webcams and talking on the phone with a girl since October, and I know she is the one, and I haven't seen her anywhere in my life before...

Yeah, never heard THAT before...

Re:What about spiritual love?

[Poligraf]

"Spiritual" side of love is IMHO based on "Games people play".

It basically means that you are recognizing that the other can become your "playmate" since you both play the same game at the compatible roles.

In order to make this overly dry explanation real, think about a sadist finding a masochist or a "girl" finding a "father" (traditional model of the patriarchal society), alchogolic finds a woman that is willing to fight with him over his addiction et al.

You can find this whole model with a lot of examples in Eric Burne's books (notably "Games people play").

Re:What about spiritual love?

[Creepy Crawler]

>>>"Spiritual" side of love is IMHO based on "Games people play".

>>>It basically means that you are recognizing that the other can become your "playmate" since you both play the same game at the compatible roles.

I hate to make a brash assumption, but you dont have a SO, do you? I'd admit talking to a girl (you sure?) on a webcam is wholly different than meeting her in person and going out to supper, but saying the "Spiritual side of love" is a game....

When you're with your true partner, there's something much stronger than some sexual bond or common likes. There's a bond that can sense anything: pain, love, hate. What's sad is that I cant describe how wonderful it is to have "it". Love. It's sort of trying to describe color to a blind man.

Re:What about spiritual love?

[Poligraf]

Unless you read the book, you won't understand. The connotation for "game" Eric Berne uses is a bit different.

And, believe me, everyone who plays these "games" does not think he plays games; it is all-encompassing occupation made with a full seriousness, just like you describe it ;-).

Re:What about spiritual love?

[Hektor_Troy]

I'll second that motion. With personal experience.

Ouch ... :-/

But hey - at the time, I knew it was true. Like you said yourself - reality is perception :)

Sometimes you have to take what you can get.

[MongooseCN]

Sometimes you have to take what you can get.

Re:I would give half my life

[kyknos.org]

hell do not describe czech girls to me i know them :o) i am czech

beware of reductionism

[pingel]

My thought exactly. This attitude is an unfortunate legacy of Copernicus. People should examine the biases they exhibit when saying such things. Should we feel less special because we have (at best) a really vague description of some underlying chemical process? Can't we be a little more sophisticated than to constantly redefine a center of the universe that pushes human experience into a role of unimportant random events?

To be clear, it's the word "just" in the post that I find questionable -- not the science itself.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Re:Just chemicals

[KYeti]

A great book by Mil Millington

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/08 12 966678/qid=1076794438//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104 -1945870-9039113?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

called A Certain Chemistry focuses on this very subject.

Its the tale of a guy who cheats on his long-term g/f told from the perspective of god. Its a great book for anyone who's just been dumped or has turned all bitter. ^_^

It explains alot of the chemical theories behind love and lust.

Although personally i dont have a problem with love being controlled by chemicals. Humans are, after all, just animals. I read a new scientist article that read "conciousness is a illusion", (no article avadable, but here are the responses http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opletters.jsp? id=ns23634) that basically says conciousness is just a whiteboard we use to work out things like morals, and socal interaction. Most of the time, we are not conscious at all.

Does it make love any less real? Does it somehow detract from the magic of it? i doubt it.

*first post, be kind

This Sentence:

[Master of Transhuman]

> which can be controlled with injections

The injections for humans are chocolate, booze and pot.

Someone once said, "Love is for animals. Only humans can truly appreciate lust."

nerd love

[ratfynk]

tar -xzvf loveMachine.tar

cd ~/LoveMachine

./configure -with vibrojoy

make...

make install...

./LoveMachine vibro -on

Gattaca

[menscher]

"We may be able to do things like look at their gene sequence, look at their promoter sequence, to genotype people and correlate that with their fidelity."

So, women may not yet be able to check our genes for risk of contracting alzheimers, but they can now find out if we'll cheat on them? This is looking dangerous....

It's probably worth pointing out that genetic predisposition does NOT indicate what will happen in a particular case.

Re:What a bunch of friggin nerds!

[LordK3nn3th]

Yes, it seems to be almost like a brain disease. I wish one day I loose all conceptions of lust.

The Economist?

[Doc Ruby]

This paper is published in The Economist magazine as basic research behind the Bush administration's $1B program for oxytocin in Halliburton "flu injections" program to "defend the traditional institution of marriage".

Re:I would give half my life

[yourmom16]

He's a singer, who these daysisknown mainly for accusations that he molests children.

Spiritual Self-Love.

[blindpoetx]

This isn't about the transferral of chemicals between two people, it's about biological processes that cause "love" in your body.

With online dating, reading text input can stimulate your body to produce the chemicals in question. Now dreams are entirely different topic.

Re:My my my... isn't it sad how they deny?

[LordK3nn3th]

Oh, you mean those things that can be reproduced with drugs and brain stress? Nah, rather not...

It's a Brave New World

[blindpoetx]

I'm not going to mention anything about Big Brother, but these love injections sound a lot like soma... but better.

Consider cults, political movements, miltia, etc. If you can get *real* love and devotion from your followers, and the followers recruit followers..if the cult was set up right it would become an awfully powerful church.

Re:It's a Brave New World

[Creepy Crawler]

Meet the Catholic Church..

Yes, I'm one of them (Catholic ;-)

Re:What a bunch of friggin nerds!

[pair-a-noyd]

Actually, you speak out of ignorance.
I have been married once before and raised two children on my own. I'm now a grandfather.
My son is a minister. And all this despite everything.

I divorced my ex because she turned out to be a slut and a whore and would not accept responsiblity for her own actions.

So you see, I'm far from naive and I do not go into my new marriage blindly. I stayed single for 10 years after I divorced the ex, feeling that I did not want to ever do it again. But love has struck and I care not how or why. I will not look the gift horse in the mouth. I am just happy that things have taken the turn that they have and I don't give a *SHIT* what anyone else thinks.

And to all the "need-a-life" mods that flagged my OP as a troll, get a life.. You're pathetic...

New finding: Mathematics is just electrical curren

[noidentity]

A new finding has been made in the field of mathematics: it's just electrical currents. Scientists studied computers engaging in mathematics and found that if they disabled the electric currents inside, it ceased the behavior. When they re-enabled the electric currents, the behavior resumed. They have done other studies on other species of computers, including small nomadic units and large plant-like machines which couldn't even move, and found the same results. They have concluded that "mathematics is nothing more than electrical currents". They dismissed those who specialize in the field of mathematics as weasel-wording when they described that mathematics is at a different abstraction level than electrical currents. The mathematicians pointed to a similarly-flawed study about human love, but the scientists had already stopped listening.

In related news

[KrackHouse]

Breast milk kegger at my place, bring leather pants and an open mind. Later, Vitamin D

Danger: propensity is not choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of no misinterpretation of the biological sciences more dangerous than the notion that propensity is choice.

Human beings - especially though perhaps not uniquely - through self-reflection have the capacity to choose actions contrary to our biological propensities and inclinations.

You are not a slave to your genetic and biological predispositions and inclinations.

To be a self is to constitute in one's mind and through one's actions what it is to be an individual person.

It is the drive to dignify, love, and exude - to be - this inner self, this individual person, by which propensity and inclination are overcome.

Re:New finding: Mathematics is just electrical cur

[johnstein]

hahaha. Nothing like a good farce to put a rather wordy article in perspective :)

-John

I gotta challenge this one

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't used to believe in love, I always equated it as basically what this story is trying to get people to believe - "love" was just biology fucking with us to get us to breed. There was nothing else behind it. Then, I met the love of my life and that little world-view got tossed on its ear. There /is/ something "else" behind real love, and I cannot dare to hope to explain it to those who had never experienced it. It wasn't just lust! It was well beyond sexual, even from the start. I was more then merely smitten with her personality, I became addicted to her very being. I wished to know everything about her, and began to care more about her then myself. Its easy to think we love only to be loved, that as with biology everything is essentially selfish - but I'd sacrifce it all for her on the drop of the hat. Love must be real because I can see two distinct periods in my life, before her and after, and who I am now bears little to nothing in common with who I was before. Shes challenged me to my very core, my long held assumptions questioned- everyting is different. She is my one, and not because being apart may drive me nuts. I felt, this will sound corny, "complete" with her. It all came full circle. I'm sure there is plenty of biology involved in all of this, we are biological creatures, but science can never explain the human soul. Its much more then just our minds, or our ego.

Re:I gotta challenge this one

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

Yup. Sounds like crack to me. ;~)

Re:I gotta challenge this one

[0111 1110]

Nice Incredible Connection pattern. Mind if I use that? Actually I seriously am going to write that down. If you can come up with any other descriptive language I'd appreciate that too. Not bad at all. I'll just combine it with my microminiature oxytocin atomizer. Love at First Sight (tm).

BTW, what you don't yet realize (you won't have the perspective until your current relationship is over) is that your feelings for her are mostly something you have done to yourself. Love is like a form of self-hypnosis. You must jump through some fairly well predefined steps in order to get where you are. This doesn't discount that she may be a better target than some other girls though.

If you actually take the time to understand more about the science of love, you may have a better chance of keeping her in that state and even increasing her feelings over time.

It is nice to convince yourself that you have found the one and to idolize everything about her, but in the back of your mind you should not forget that such beliefs themselves will increase your oxytocin levels and allow you to get an even better "high".

It can be a very tempting circular reinforcement pattern. The more you believe she is special and idolize her, the stronger those euphoric, addictive feelings of love, the stronger those feelings of love, the more tempting it is to reinforce the beliefs, etc. Nothing wrong with that. It's the best feeling in the world. But a reality check from time to time on the euphoria can be a nice safety net when things go wrong.

Just be aware of how tempting it can be to ignore reality in order to increase the intensity of your experience. I find that females are less prone to this trap for some reason, probably having to do with their greater selection of potential mates. They always know in the back of their mind that there is someone even "better" (by whatever standards she uses) out there who she might meet at any time.

Re:I gotta challenge this one

[Scroatzilla]

Dude, that's a perfect valentine's day card: First the big long "I didn't used to believe in love" on the cover, in gold-leaf cursive. Then the inside "Yup. Sounds like crack to me," in some crappy cartoon font.

Re: Hog riding

[Tokerat]

Sometimes you have to take what you can get.

I'd rather take one for the team...

I thought this was about love...

[Slur]

...but it's about attachment! They really should make this distinction clear so love doesn't keep getting such a bad rap.

Remember when O.J. said "If I did kill her it's only cuz I loved her, right?" No, O.J.! It's because you were deeply attached to your idea of her.... and you froze your brain with cocaine years ago.

*sigh* If it was "love" you would have let her live.

See, "love" runs in the opposite direction, resisting the impulses that chemical attachment might cause. Well, that's my take on it anyhow.

Re:I thought this was about love...

[0111 1110]

*sigh* If it was "love" you would have let her live.

This makes me wonder if you have ever been in love. While you are in the relationship love can rarely have negative consequences for the one who is loved. In the relationship we do a good job of convincing ourselves that we want them to be happy etc.

But love is the most powerfully motivating emotion that our species can experience. Those same intense feelings can lead to murder (and often do) when one is "betrayed" and/or abandoned by the loved one.

Like the experience of love itself, one cannot relate to it until they have been through the appropriate circumstances. No, I have not actually killed anyone, but my desire to do so was almost as strong as my previous desire to nurture her. That's why I sometimes tell people that, while loving someone is a totally safe experience (except for the risk of suicide), being truly loved intensely enough is one of the most dangerous experiences we can have.

Most of us never know the risks we take in these situations. Losing a love is one of the most painful experiences possible to us and the former lover is the one wielding the red hot poker and electric prods etc. Think about how people who have actually been tortured feel about their former torturers (who were usually just following orders--it wasn't even personal) and how much they would love to get payback. Watch Roman Polanski's, Sigourney Weaver's and Ben Kingsley's Death and the Maiden for a well made fictional account of this kind of experience.

Re:I thought this was about love...

[Slur]

You're describing attachment.

These scientists are friggin' idiots!

[Poligraf]

They certainly aren't idiots themselves, but they are digging in a wrong direction.

Try not to perceive it as a flamebait, but the whole point of many branches of Western applied science is to allow idiots to stay idiots and not change themselves.

For example, eat Viagra each time before sex instead of learning Daoist or Tantric techniques and getting a rock-solid erection. Or eat Prozac instead of using psychology in order to get out of depression by eliminating its root causes.

Another example - medicines that allow someone who have never exercised and ate crap at McDonalds to live till their retirement age.

Thus, the entire civilization becomes one of degenerates (or, even better word, CONSUMERS. I consider this word an insult) on prescription drugs because there is only a certain small percentage of people who will do something that is not required for survival. Then longer I look at this world, then more I get disappointed in the effectiveness of a certain socialized institutions. This makes me wish the world be more succeptible towards libertarian ideas that are based on self-responsibility for your being.

And now the right direction ;-).

Everything said above brings us to one word that describes the place that is the key: Psyche.

Psyche is the part of us that manages the levels of hormones, chemicals et al, and in most cases it is the level where the problems should be attacked.

Here is the explanation why geeks don't get women. This is a "physical"/"lustful" side of love.

(when reading it, think of Kramer versus George Costanza as the example of high/low rank, and of Klingons versus Vulcans as the example of high/low primativeness)

There is another one - "spiritual"/"psychological" that can be understood upon reading "Games people play" by Eric Bern.

As one can understand, all of this "chemical crap" that we eat in a form of medicine and supplements is just a way of bypassing the psyche and emulating its work. Smarter readers will understand that modern Western medicine often heroically fights with the shit that our own subconscious brought us into (think of a very typical situation with people who nobody needs, and who get sick in order to get attention of their relatives, professionals from medical institutions or good samaritans. Also read this ). And the general population pays through the socialized healthcare. And everyone is happy since everything is a good business for certain groups whithin the society. At the same time majority is swayed by the false ideals of humanism et al.

Sorry for being that vicious and arrogant, but I'm really tired of idiots with bright eyes cheering yet another expensive achievement of the pharmacology that allows somebody to do even less real work for themselves gobbling pills instead.

And, finally, here is the way to change your bad luck and become what you can become: link

One does not need to become religious, but the "correctional" part of mysticism might help one to get both the body and mind healthy and live much more fulfilled life that will sure have some love in it ;-).

Re:These scientists are friggin' idiots!

[rock_climbing_guy]

I realize that this is a bit offtopic, but I'm going to ask this here. The parent post referred to trantric techniques. Anyways, if the poster is a tantra practitioner, I would be interested in a reference to a good source on the practice and benefits of tantra.

Re:These scientists are friggin' idiots!

[simran]

Daoist techniques, tantra techniques, and cetera can also be thought of as technologies that you are using to manipulate what you term as "psyche." Just because you are using physical & mental techniques to generate the chemicals yourself doesn't make them any less an intervention.

so here I am....

[filtur]

So here I am posting to Slashdot on Valentines day....
Where can I get these injections?(I still have 3 hours left)

Economics of Love

[darkmeridian]

Modern economics is based to a surprising degree on human psychology and our innate behavior. (Apologies to any voles reading this post.) There is enough food to feed everyone; yet not everyone is fed. We can clothes the world; yet some still freeze. This is not a political post. The point is that there is just something innately greedy about humanity in general that makes economics in large part a study of psychology. There is a tendency for us to value the rare to bizarre lengths.

Why are diamonds so sought after? Because they are rare. Why do I have crushes on tall girls with red hair and green eyes? Because they are rare. (And hot.) So, yeah, love and economics share common principles.

Chemistry of Casual Sex

[darkmeridian]

The chemistry is pretty simple. You start with some alcohol...

Powder form

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

So when will I be able to spike a drink with this stuff?

Re:Powder form

[0111 1110]

My thoughts exactly. I am already thinking of emailing Mexican pharmacies etc. about this stuff. Actually Vasopressin is already easily available through that British online pharmacy (although it's not cheap).

While I don't think that just spiking a drink with this stuff will get a girl to love you. Seems like it can't hurt, especially when combined with other strategies.

How long before Oxytocin/Pitocin attains the same reputation as those "date rape drugs". Time to stock up before it becomes a "scheduled" substance.

Re:Powder form

[StarsAreAlsoFire]

That you know that about vasopressin scares me somewhat. FWIW, I was _joking_

ObSimpson Quote

[ColaMan]

Prof. Frink: "Brace yourselves gentlemen.... according to the gas chromatograph, the secret ingredient is... love!? Ok, who's been screwing with the machine!"

Re:Hope chemical approach will work

[Bambi Dee]

maybe it'll be possible to chemically induce *falling in love*, but (as can be witnessed all the time) that alone doesn't guarantee a healthy relationship... much less, I would assume, if the candidates' heads had to be tampered with to get them to fall in love in the first place. Experiments on voles notwithstanding.

Still, I must say I'm not quite as opposed to the "chemical approach" as I thought I was. If two people already get along very well as "just friends" and wish to ...upgrade... their relationship ~ well, why not. (I'm pissed off with all that pointless animal torture involved, though.)

Then again ~ don't you think most people would find the idea that your love for them has been chemically induced rather... disheartening? ("I suck so much he has to inject this stuff in order to love me!")

Your program, I suspect, will not pass the Turing test, ever -- not with you: you will, after all, always know that it's just that - a program that *you* *wrote*. Don't let that stop you, though... it's quite a fascinating idea (I guess it's pretty common among computer-savvy lonely people? I might've tried doing the same had I felt I was up to it, which I'm not. It's easier to fall in love ;)

Well... I'm sorry if I overstepped some boundaries here. Just felt like giving some feedback.

Well...

[Trejkaz]

Well I am not a doctor, but I can assure you that if I were, I would encourage everyone to come and get a love injection!

This is news to me

[Big Nothing]

There's a difference between love and lust? Hmm... whaddayaknow.

Love is in the air

[0111 1110]

Having to spike a drink or inject someone is not the most practical strategy. What we need is an easily atomized form of Pitocin. Is there any plant that possesses a natural form of this chemical? If so, drying the leaves, and rolling them up with tobbaco might serve as a means of dispersal. Getting it into a smoke form would be ideal.

Another delivery system could be transdermal if the oxycotin molecule is small enough to make it through the dermal layers. You could combine some of it with chapstick for more powerful kisses. If you could get it to evaporate with a solvent while retaining its efficacy, cologne could also be an option. I wonder if oxycotin has it's own distinctive smell though. That could be a give-away.

Re:Presumably?

[eatdave13]

Then you've only ever experienced one of them.

stars on thars?

[Lonesmurf]

DR. suess would be proud.

or scared. I'm not sure which.

No Tantra here, use Dao! ;-) (more in the post)

[Poligraf]

Somehow I feel that Daoist techniques are cleaner and closer to my perception of the world.

Here you'll find the literature

As for the sex itself, you might find a used book "Sexual secrets. The Alchemy of Extasy" by Nik Douglas and Penny Slinger.

Benefits - in short - more energy. Every time you ejaculate, you lose some significant amount of energy. Ability to split orgasm and ejaculation allows you to save this energy, have a rock-solid erection for pretty much unlimited amount of time and even have multiple orgasms (me personally haven't achieved the multiples yet). This will become the foundation for the next step - orgasm of the entire body and exchanging the energy with the female. Chinese Daoists were even using such a sex as a medicine.

Hope it helps.

P.S. If you go Mantak Chia's route, you'll need to open the Microcosmic Orbit, it will help a lot (I'd start doing it simultaneously with practicing the preparation sexual exercises). The description is in the book called "Awakening healing energy through the Tao".

P.P.S. I can't help it, but if one can master these techniques, they will consider whatever they had beore to be not better than a goatse.cx ;-)))))

Re:ObSimpson Quote

[p-adically yours]

You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike. There is a lot of hype here.

what was the name of those bloody things that ate you if you stayed in the dark too long? (assuming this is a Zork reference...)

Read your Bloch

[querencia]

Self-Reflection is clumsy and verbose. And your performance suffers.

Item 35: Prefer Interfaces to Reflection.

Re:Maybe too far.. The Sun goes around the Earth

[Valluvan]

Yes. The Sun is going around the Earth in your Universe. If you are uncomfortable understanding, you are more harmful to your world than you think.

And, understanding may increase the love you feel for your fiancee. Knowledge never goes too far. Fools without it do.

The loss of beauty due to science is the theme you are harping to (and, apparently many others are feeling the same way since you have been modded up). I recommend "Unweaving the Rainbow" by Dawkins. And, some of Feynman's quotes about beauty in science.

Difference between lust and love....

[ShaggyBOFH]

spit and swallow.

---

Love chemicals

[weeboo0104]

Presumably the difference between love and lust is little more than a bunch of chemicals,

Yeah, Booze and Extasy.