Love Under a Microscope

smooth wombat writes "As today is one of the top five marketing-induced spending days, the obvious question is, what is love? Anthropologist Helen Fisher studied the brain's circuitry and found that the brain sees romantic love as a reward similar to chocolate, money or drugs. Does this mean that the mystery of love is less magical now that science has studied it under the microscope? According to Dr Fisher: 'You can know every ingredient in a piece of chocolate cake, and you still sit down and eat that chocolate cake and it's wonderful,' she said. 'In the same way, you can know all the ingredients of romantic love and still feel that passion.'"

Comments

Love is a survival trait.

[TripMaster Monkey]

What is love?
Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me, no more

Haddaway, What Is Love

Oh oh catch that buzz
Love is the drug I'm thinking of
Oh oh can't you see
Love is the drug for me

Brian Ferry, Love Is The Drug

From TFA:

Romantic love is not only an emotion, it's a basic mating drive, and it's stronger than the sex drive.

Since the odds of survival for a human child with two parents is (or at least was) much higher than the odds of a single-parent child, it shouldn't be surprising that humans have a strong drive to forge lasting relationships. Natural selection in action, and all that.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Geneus]

Depending on your views towards evolution isn't every human action and drive a result of natural selection. What can not be brought back to some sort of animalesque instinct?

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[pclminion]

Since the odds of survival for a human child with two parents is (or at least was) much higher than the odds of a single-parent child, it shouldn't be surprising that humans have a strong drive to forge lasting relationships. Natural selection in action, and all that.

Yeah, but a community-based social structure is also effective for child rearing. I suspect that the actual trigger for human monogamy was sexually transmitted disease, and that it's more of a social meme than a biological trait.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[voice_of_all_reason]

I suspect that the actual trigger for human monogamy was annoyed wives

fixed

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Koiu Lpoi]

This article right here is why I used to want to go into psychology.

The subheading of TFA: "Romance may be tied to reward system that can cause addiction".
Well, no kidding! If love isn't an addiction I don't know what is. I could have told them that and saved them quite a bit of money.

Another from TFA: "It became apparent to me that romantic love was a drive -- a drive as strong as thirst, as hunger. People live for love, they kill for love, they die for love, they sing about love."

I bet she cited Shakespeare in her report.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[CFTM]

I have no formal education in this field so I may very well be talking out my ass, but I find it a bit of a stretch to equate monogamy with sexually transmitted diseases. STD being lethal is a much more modern thing [Yes syphilis does kill and it's been around for awhile] but I just don't see STD's being pervasive enough for this to occur. AIDS has only really become an issue for Homo Sapiens in the past 50 years or so, so clearly it was not a factor and with the exception of syphilis I can't think of another STD that is deadly [again, if you let things go they become worse but I don't see how this contributes to monogamy].

Your analysis, does not hold up in my mind, I'd love to read your response, maybe I'm missing something...

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[hackwrench]

What will really burn your biscuits is whether every human action and drive a result of natural selection or the other way around. They still haven't established which way causality swings. Does spirit yield natural selection or natural selection spirit. An oversimplification, sure, but perhaps less of one than that made by tha scientific establishment.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[ackthpt]

Since the odds of survival for a human child with two parents is (or at least was) much higher than the odds of a single-parent child, it shouldn't be surprising that humans have a strong drive to forge lasting relationships. Natural selection in action, and all that.

Then what about all the animals in the wild kingdom (no, not with Marlon Perkins) which mate then split, leaving mom to do all the work? Seems it's our society, economy, attitudes and plain damn bad luck which have a stronger influence, as these comprise our environment.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Expert Determination]

Quia est in eo virtus dormitava cujus est proprietas sensus assoupire.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[pclminion]

The spectrum of human societies goes far beyond your narrow view which appears to be limited to the metropolitan West. Community rearing is sometimes found in small, hunter-gatherer and tribal societies. It seems to work fine.

There are even societies where monogamy is not the norm.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Koiu Lpoi]

Because is upon to go valor to be dreaming cujus is ownership feeling assoupire?

My online latin translation doesn't work well. I must ask you explain it to me.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[pclminion]

STD being lethal is a much more modern thing [Yes syphilis does kill and it's been around for awhile] but I just don't see STD's being pervasive enough for this to occur.

Note that I said I believe this is a social meme, not an evolved trait. STDs do not have to be lethal to be undesirable. Perhaps ancient societies observed that monogamy seemed to reduce the occurrence of these diseases, and therefore changed their social norms to favor monogamy.

I'm not an expert, just putting out my ideas.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[lawpoop]

If you look at people around the world and throughout time, monogamy for life is the exception, rather than the rule. People have what anthropologists call "serial monogamy" -- they are monogamous for a time, and then break up and get new partners. They have sexual relationships with several people during their lifetime, but they are monogamous with each partner when they are with them.

I have a degree in anthropology and we spent a lot of time talking about the development of the state. Time was (about 6000 years ago), that there were no kings or any authority that could definitively tell another man what to do. Certainly, there were influential elders and other people who would make their voices heard, but ultimately men and women were free to do what they wanted. There was no judge or president that had ultimate authority to decide someone's fate. If someone wronged you, you could take revenge, and people might even agree with you, but it was ultimately your decision.

Then, at various times around the world, states develop, where there is someone who can ultimately force someone to do something -- on pain of imprisonment or death. It seems to be driven by the 'domestication' of a food crop as a farm staple (wheat, rice, corn), which can be stored, paid as tax, and then redistributed to men bulding pyramids.

I suspect that the ideal of a lifetime monogamous commitment was developed by the new State Authorities in order to get men working on pyramids instead of going hunting all the time and fighting over women. Remember, it's the state who marries people. In olden days, if someone slept with your wife, it was considered theft. So, the state was in charge of women and sexuality which freed up men's time and effort, so they could be sent off to construction camps or to fight in foreign lands.

So, the bottom line of this circular story is that Kings wanted as many young chlidren as possible so they could raise armies and conquer other kings, and have plenty of labor to build pyramids and other structures proclaiming their greatness. If you have farming and state intervention in re-production, this assists greatly in fertility.

If you look at hunter/gatherers, their reproduction patterns are like modern nuclear families. A woman might have 3-4 children. The 10-12 children was a part of the farming social structure.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Expert Determination]

A fuller quotation, in English, is

I am asked by the learned doctors to give the cause and reason why opium produces sleep: To which I respond, because there is a dormitive virtue in it, of which it is the nature to still the senses.

The "dormitive virtue", of course, has no explanatory power. It's just a fancy way of restating that it makes you go to sleep. This researcher into love also seems to have a theory that is little better than what your or I already know.

Anyway, I quoted it in Latin because you know what they say: Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I suspect that the actual trigger for human monogamy was annoyed wives who wanted their children to inherit in a paternalistic system

There, fixed better.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Rude Turnip]

"What can not be brought back to some sort of animalesque instinct?"

I would say realizing that all these feelings are drug-induced (albeit internally-produced) and being able to see past them is a human trait.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Eccles]

Don't be fooled -- women cheat just as much as men. (After all, each hetero cheater has to cheat with someone...)

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[mOdQuArK!]

Perhaps ancient societies observed that monogamy seemed to reduce the occurrence of these diseases, and therefore changed their social norms to favor monogamy.

Since a lot of the STDs seem to involve cold sores, warts, rashes, discharges of disgusting fluids (perhaps blood) from the genital region, if not outright death, I suspect that would tend to encourage finding a mate who had none of these symptoms & trying to stay with them, i.e., otherwise known as monogamy.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Digital Vomit]

I suspect that the actual trigger for human monogamy was sexually transmitted disease, and that it's more of a social meme than a biological trait.

While I agree that STDs could've played a part, I disagree in that it is the only trigger. Humans are a social animal, and children raised in an environment with close exposure to both sexes are more likely, IMO, to develop proper behavioral attitudes. Simply put, a child learns about members of each sex and how to interact with them. Children raised under only one parental relationship with no substitute will lack this experience and may develop abnormal social behaviors that negatively affect the stability of a social group as a whole.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[WeirdWiseWires]

Something doesn't have to be fatal to cause natural selection, it just has to prevent you from getting laid!

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[wolff000]

"It takes a parent to raise a child, not a village."

I agree and disagree on this. In todays modern world it only takes a parent or parents to raise a child. This does not apply to tribal cultures. Especially ones where the men typically being the hunters may leave for a few days to weeks at a time to collect food. This of course requires the village to compensate. They have to help each other with daily duties, as child care. I believe, and this is strictly my opinion on the matter, that if you live in a village it does take a village to raise a child. For most all of society today we no longer live in villages so we have to do the raising ourselves.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[cutedinochick]

Well, it's way more complicated than that. A lot of times the female leaves the male to do all the work (obvious: seahorses), and sometimes they both leave (sea turtles), or they both stay - humans aren't quite the only monogamous couples (but nearly), though we're not entirely monogamous either (how many people only have sex with their spouse and never with anyone else until the spouse dies? That's considered monogamy - only some birds really do this, very few mammals if any). But with humans, and some other animals, both parents being around apparently leads to greater survival of the offspring (agreeing with TripMaster Monkey), which may be a result of the complexity of our society as well, though of course an entire community helps in raising a child as well, little different from most primate societies, with their complex social hierarchies. I also wonder if since we can see this in the brain we can tell if other animals seem to feel romantic love as well. I especially like the chocolate cake reference. Mmmmm...

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[m0nstr42]

Monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) is *prevalent* though. Especially in "successful" societies, genetically speaking, which was the basis of the argument - that monogamy is selected for evolutionarily, with the implication that societies where monogamy is the norm will dominate the population as a whole. So the argument holds, whether you've sensitively considered every secluded tribal society or not.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[jamesh]

To further elaborate on your point, it only has to prevent the propogation of your genes to the next generation. This can be caused by many things, eg:
. Not getting laid (warts etc making you undesirable)
. Infertility (a few STD's do this)
. Producing no viable offspring (still born etc or born very sick and dying shortly after. a few STD's do this too)
. Dying before your offspring can take care of themselves (eg the STD doesn't have to kill you straight away).

All in all i think that STD's would provide some natural selection pressure, but i think you'd have to do a bit more study to try and find a causal link between STD's and monagamy...

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[lost in place]

This being Slashdot, I figured someone would say "this is just a survival trait; natural selection in action." But from the original article is an interesting bit:

For the study, Fisher developed a questionnaire about passionate love, including such questions as "Would you die for your partner?" She said she was shocked by the answers to that query: All of the subjects said they would.

What especially surprised her was the casual way in which they responded.

Note she didn't phrase it: "for your offspring", "for your family", or "for your partner after you'd reproduced". It becomes far less obvious that this is clearly just a survival trait. Yes, evolution works in mysterious ways, and that's about all you can say about evolution's role here.

(I'm all for a well-researched evolutionary explanation, but off-the-cuff natural selection claims like this are really no different from saying "It's the will of God".)

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[HeroreV]

Hello. I don't really have anything to say, but the events I've experienced throughout my life have shaped me into such a way as to create the thought process that has decided to commit the act of producing this reply. Free will is an illusion. Now send me all your pr0n on 16-gigabyte USB thumb drives. You have no free will to decide not too.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Dabido]

I'm pretty sure there are more female hookers servicing cheating men than there are giggilos servicing cheating wives.

Not everyone who cheats, cheats with one other person only.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Alien Being]

Love is like oxygen
You get too much you get too high
Not enough and you're gonna die
Love gets you high

Sweet, Love Is like Oxygen

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Thing 1]

Props on the low UID.

Barbs for the logic.

To be clear: there are three parties. Two are married. One of those is cheating. The state of marriage for the third party (and even whether s/he is in a relationship which forbids outside sexual contact) is unknown -- and, also, orthogonal.

In my experience, at least, it's generally not two cheaters having a relationship. It's generally one cheater, and a bystander (managed/manipulated by the cheater to be ignorant of the cheater's existing relationship).

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Eccles]

I'm pretty sure there are more female hookers servicing cheating men than there are giggilos servicing cheating wives.

Yes, but there are plenty of unmarried men out there who get an ego boost from sleeping with someone else's wife. Open source here kills the proprietary market. The exact (unknowable) statistics might have men cheating more than women, but a multiplicity of sources claim that the percentages are pretty close (and depressingly high.) Past differences may have been due to more to women being at home with the children and pregnancy concerns pre-pill rather than any stronger moral sense or the like. Moreover, an unmarried person sleeping with a married person may not be cheating per se, but they certainly are behaving immorally under the tenets of the religions practiced by the vast majority of people.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[woolio]

it's more of a social meme than a biological trait.

ditto... And the trend toward capitalism + individualism probably only re-inforced it...

How many women want to be raising children from three men, without their support? How many men want to be supporting and caring for someone elses children [e.g. children born after "marriage"]?

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[ozmanjusri]

My next door neighbor seems like a nice enough guy and all, but I'm not letting him watch my children.

That's OK. He prefers to watch you anyway.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Eccles]

I've known at least three adulterous, married people. In all three cases, the person's (unmarried) partner was well aware of the other person's married state.

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[Randolpho]

I wish I hadn't just blown my mod points, you deserve several +1, Funny moderations.

I still have coffee dripping out my nose. Damn, that's hot!

Re:Love is a survival trait.

[RockDoctor]

If you look at hunter/gatherers, their reproduction patterns are like modern nuclear families. A woman might have 3-4 children. ... which is something that's got to change if Homo sapiens is to survive for any significant period into the future. (I'm a geologist - I don't worry unduly about time periods less than a millennium or several.) As it is, my bet would be that we're already a number of gigadeaths on the wrong side of sustainable numbers.

And before anyone accuses me of being a doom-mongering tree-hugger, I'm actually a doom-mongering oilfield geologist. Sorry to disturb your stereotypes.

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

What if the secret ingredient in that cake is "love"? How do they explain that?

Re:Hmmm

[nizo]

What if the secret ingredient in that cake is "love"? How do they explain that?

Time to fire the chef and take the "love" in for DNA testing to prove it belongs to him?

Re:Hmmm

[Rob T Firefly]

Then you hide the oven as part of a larger plan to drive the captain insane.

Re:Hmmm

[Buddy_DoQ]

Even idiots know that much!

It makes real cupcakes with a 40watt bulb, but the secret ingredient is love... Damnit!

-Captain Murphy
Sealab 2021

R.I.P.

Re:Hmmm

[korbin_dallas]

They would see 'Patented by Mom."

Mom's Robot Oil, made with 10% MORE Love.

Damn those anchovies.

Re:Hmmm

[jeko]

Maybe it's just been that kind of day, but I laughed for five minutes straight at this...

Re:Hmmm

[gstoddart]

What if the secret ingredient in that cake is "love"? How do they explain that?

Time to fire the chef and take the "love" in for DNA testing to prove it belongs to him?

Man, the idea of the chef putting his 'love' into the cake means I will never eat cake again. (*)

Buddy puts his baby butter in the batter? Bastard!

(*) OK, so I don't like cake now, but you've just cemented that for me with that visual.

Re:Hmmm

[Thing 1]

With a gas chromatograph. Glayven!

Re:Hmmm

[meringuoid]

What if the secret ingredient in that cake is "love"? How do they explain that?

Clearly, it means that somebody's been screwing with the gas chromatograph.

Further developments

[Rob T Firefly]

When asked to confirm the above findings by Dr. Haddaway, a pair of scientists dressed in bright purple and blue labcoats nodded furiously, in rhythm.

As the old saying goes...

[guitaristx]

Never trust a skinny chef. If a chef won't eat their own concoctions(sp?), you probably shouldn't either. If knowing the scientific details of love makes it less rewarding, it's probably not that great to begin with.

Frist Psot?

Re:As the old saying goes...

[rovingeyes]

I was reading your first line and I thought probably you had a bad relationship before. Then I saw this gem:

"Frist Psot?"

I take it you're a virgin...;)

Love is friendship set on fire

[jaymzter]

Roses are red
Violets are blue
All of my base
Are belong to you

Re:Love is friendship set on fire

[C-Diddy]

Perhaps the most important and though-provolking poem I have ever read. :-)

Re:Love is friendship set on fire

[nizo]

Thats what happens when you don't have a good prenuptual agreement.

Re:Love is friendship set on fire

[Landshark17]

No no, it goes like this:

Roses are FF110000
Violets are FF000011
All of my base
Are belong to you

Re:Love is friendship set on fire

[blue_adept]

roses are red,
violets are blue,
in soviet russia
the bases find you

Re:Love is friendship set on fire

[Borg453b]

While i cannot mod this post, I will say that on this loneliest of days - it brought a smile to my lips.

Re:Love is friendship set on fire

[Sr. Pato]

Oh my f'ing God. If I only hadn't replied to this topic, almost everyone in this thread would be getting +5 Funnys up the ass. Including you :-)

Re:Love is friendship set on fire

[PakProtector]

Roses are FF110000
Violets are FF000011

Someone needs to brush up on their RGB color values...

Re:Love is friendship set on fire

[maxwell demon]

Never heared about rgba? Or about genetic manipulation?

His roses are solid red (with a very little green touch). Probably natural, but who knows.
His violets are absolutely red, but almost transparent. For sure genetically manipulated.

Re:Love is friendship set on fire

[skochak]

Roses are red
Violets are blue,
In Soviet Russia
Poems write you!

Love is

[Dr. Eggman]

Love is like a box of chocolates. You sneak one or two before you decide to buy. Then eventually you do buy, take it home and eat them all in one sitting. Finally, your left with your body feeling sick, your wallet feeling light, and holding an empty box.

Re:Love is

[Anonymous Crowhead]

You're not describing love. You're describing getting hookers.

Re:Love is

[nizo]

From the parent:
You sneak one or two before you decide to buy.

Where are these free "try before you buy" hookers of which you speak?

Re:Love is

[pclminion]

Actually, I think he's paraphrasing the Smoking Man from the X-Files:

"Life is like a box of chocolates. A cheap, thoughtless, perfunctory gift that nobody ever asks for. Unreturnable, because all you get back is another box of chocolates. So you're stuck with this undefinable whipped mint crap that you mindlessly wolf down when there's nothing else left to eat. Sure, once in a while there's a peanut butter cup or an english toffee but they're gone too fast and taste is fleeting. So you end up with nothing but broken bits of hardened jelly and teeth-shattering nuts. If you're desperate enough to eat those, all you got left is an empty box filled with useless brown paper wrappers."

Re:Love is

[smilingman]

Love is like a box of chocolates. You sneak one or two before you decide to buy. Then eventually you do buy, take it home and eat them all in one sitting. Finally, your left with your body feeling sick, your wallet feeling light, and holding an empty box.

Only on Slashdot would that get modded "insightful". I think I can hear a lonely, brokenhearted moderator crying somewhere...

Re:Love is

[mmmuttly]

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come."

- Matt Groening

Slashdot Love

[biocute]

It's like I knew I will get fired one day for reading Slashdot during office hours, I still read it.

It's like I knew the next story will only be out in 20 minutes, I still hit F5 every second.

It's like I knew a story is a dupe, I still "read more" and reply to it.

If this is not true love, what is?

Re: Slashdot Love

[Black Parrot]

> It's like I knew the next story will only be out in 20 minutes, I still hit F5 every second.

You mean I don't have to type in the URL again every time? No wonder I never get the coveted FP.

For a philosophical start...

[DoofusOfDeath]

This touches on the issue of mind / brain duality.

Is our mind something that's simply a meta-effect of the brain, so that for instance if you view/control my brain you can fully know / control my mind?

Also note that the answer to this has serious implications for free will, the justice of retributive punishment, etc.

Re:For a philosophical start...

[Philosinfinity]

I honestly didn't realize that duality was much of an option concerning the mind/body problem. I thought most people too either the type or token physicalist view or took a phenomenological view of this argument. Cartesian duality (and from what I understood most other versions) suffer from issues in causality. By this, if a mind is a purely mental thing, it cannot control the brain, and the other way around.

Re:For a philosophical start...

[RatBastard]

What duality? Oh, that Cartesean claptrap. Sorry, but the brain IS the mind. That's the brain's job. And yes, if we could see your brain at work in fine enough detail, we might be able to know what you are thinking. But that would require extensive mapping of the unique neural pathways in your brain. While we know what certian regions of the brain do, we don't know the exact links in your brain. Every brain is different in the fine details. and we can already control your mind at a very simple level. It is common in brain surgery to stimulate parts of the brain in order to find the part you need to operate on. This direct stimulation has been known to bring up memories, play music, create smells, etc... (within the confines of the experience of the person who's brain is being stilulated, of course). This is nothing new. With a fine enough map of your brain direct stimulation could be used to provoke any desired responce.

I'm not sure bow this touches on free will at all. Or justice.

Re:For a philosophical start...

[JohnFluxx]

Ever since science and philosophy became separate subjects, has philosophy actually produced any useful science at all, or is it all based on coming up with bad logic based on stupid ill-defined definitions.

Re:For a philosophical start...

[Philosinfinity]

It touches on free will because if the brain is in fact the mind (which I agree that it is), then it follows the rules of physics. Thus, physics is the cause of all action, not the thinking thing. What becomes amusing is the followup idea that if everything comes down to physics, our words are merely objects of that deep causal chain. Conversations then becomes something called "the clicking game."

Drugs, yep.

[Adult film producer]

Nothing better than making love with your mate/spouse than after smoking a good joint.. the sense of touch is enhanced, the the beat of the music just flows...., the orgasm is better... so ya I'll pick the drugs option. Start it out by going to an open-air concert if the weather is accomodating in your area, make sure it's a quality strain of bud and pre-roll them before you go out.

Re:Drugs, yep.

[drewzhrodague]

Seconded. Even better if she rolls the joint for you =_)

So Food = Love?

[Assmasher]

We are a very loving nation apparently...

Re:So Food = Love?

[truthsearch]

We put love into food:
Food = Love

Food and love have the same value:
Food == Love

Food and love are equal, but different:
Food !== Love

National Geographic article

[jasonmicron]

I read such a topic 3 weeks ago in National Geographic. The article was pretty well written. Chemical imbalances, irregular brain patterns and oxcotin (i think that was the chemical).

Check out this video. Pretty cool.

Re:National Geographic article

[knowitall77]

Oxytocin is the hormone. You're thinking of the pain med.

A corollary to the "What is Love" question

[CheechBG]

Since I lack the philosophical education to completely explain what "Love" is (other than a simple chemical addiction from the brain ;) ) I will not attempt to answer that here.

What I will leave you with is a artist's parody of this same query.

Go ponder that for a while. :)

http://whatishl.ytmnd.com/

Re:A corollary to the "What is Love" question

[CheechBG]

and, before anyone asks, I did not make said YTMND. I am not trying to viewbomb the site, I just think it's funny as hell. :)

Leave it to the Scientific Establisment to think

[hackwrench]

they have all the answers. Condition a system so that any unknown variables are in a state of gimbal lock and they begin to think that the variables they observe changing are the only variables. Impose your own notions as to cause and effect, and behold! you have an experiment with repeatable outcomes with little insight as to the nature of reality.

Love under a Microscope

[ackthpt]

It says in 65nm letters (soon 45nm at Intel)

Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
All my base,
Are belong to you!

And some time after I posted this original poem on /., in 2000. ThinkGeek decided to do a shirt on the a variation of it.

I don't know what to think.

A later version dedicated to Rob and Kathleen (in 2002) can be found here

chocolate cake analogy

[evenprime]

That chocolate cake analogy is good. Just like a cake you can mix all the right ingredients and still make a big mess of it instead of something good.

Re:chocolate cake analogy

[Keichann]

FLCL - "Bad Ramen can be good too"

'nuff said.

love and chocolate

[revery]

So... how long before Lady Godiva and I can legally marry?

Love has many definitions...

[Vellmont]

And the only one that applies to this research is romantic love. Not that the article doesn't explicitly say that, it certainly does. But I think it's worth bringing up though. Some people use the word love as if it's singly defined, but many cultures define love differently.

Re:Love has many definitions...

[Vellmont]

Well, I think the researchers were studying romantic, or that "strong emotion" love. I don't think that varies across culture, as it's just biology.

Chocolate luuuuvvv....

[CODiNE]

I gotta say, I've never understood this... when people eat chocolate they actually FEEL something? They get the warm and fuzzies? I sure don't... it tastes nice and all, but that's it. Maybe in a similar way to how I'm immune to caffeine (Drink 3 Jolts and go right to sleep) I don't FEEL the chemical for love? People have said I'm cold and heartless a few times, I guess chemical sensitivity affects our personalities more than we think. Perhaps some don't feel love or other positive affections and simply have no desire to be a nice person. A new way to stay out jail perhaps? Instead of "He had a bad childhood" we'll hear "He simply doesn't have the chemical receptors for love."

Re:Chocolate luuuuvvv....

[Vellmont]

I gotta say, I've never understood this... when people eat chocolate they actually FEEL something?

I'm not big on chocolate, but a really nice meal is really quite enjoyable. It's just like any other pleasureable activity. So yes, I'd say I feel something when I eat a very good meal. I'm not sure describing the feeling as love is totally accurate, but it's not completely off the mark. Both things have a large pleasure component.

Re:Chocolate luuuuvvv....

[javaxman]

when people eat chocolate they actually FEEL something? They get the warm and fuzzies? I sure don't...

Not milk chocolate. Serious, dark chocolate. Even then... meh... the effect is certainly less in men than it is in women, for example, and yea, there's probably a genetic variation from person to person.

Then again, maybe you just pay less attention to the cues provided by your physiology; your emotions and the chemically-induced changes they bring about in your metabolism are unimportant to you intellectually, and so you've become very good at tuning them out, to the point where you've forgotten that they ever were there, or they just bug you and you'd rather not pay attention... very Vulcan of you. Or slightly autistic... either way...

Perhaps some don't feel love or other positive affections and simply have no desire to be a nice person. A new way to stay out jail perhaps?

A new way to stay out of jail? When was the last time "he had a bad childhood" worked in *your* country? Ach... disturbing... no, what you've described is what they call a "sociopath", actually... which they're now calling "Antisocial personality disorder" and perhaps you should look into that wikipedia article I just posted... ;-) he, nice sociopath... he... /backs away slowly...

Re:Chocolate luuuuvvv....

[CODiNE]

Not milk chocolate. Serious, dark chocolate. Even then... meh... the effect is certainly less in men than it is in women, for example, and yea, there's probably a genetic variation from person to person.

Meh... I don't like dark chocolate... that could be it right there.

unimportant to you intellectually, and so you've become very good at tuning them out, to the point where you've forgotten that they ever were there, or they just bug you and you'd rather not pay attention... very Vulcan of you. Or slightly autistic... either way...

Aren't geeks all mildly autistic anyways? Y'know all those autistic kids borne of geek/geek relationships in Silicone Valley... isn't being a geek simply an obsession with details that other folks wouldn't find interesting?

which they're now calling "Antisocial personality disorder" and perhaps you should look into that wikipedia article I just posted... ;-) he, nice sociopath... he... /backs away slowly...

Now THAT'S interesting... notice the MacDonald trio :
a longer-than-usual period of bedwetting
cruelty to animals
pyromania.

2 outta 3 ain't bad... I ran over a pigeon once and felt so bad about it all day I couldn't eat, guess I'm no Panzram. :-) ...

(No I don't still wet the bed)

Re:Chocolate luuuuvvv....

[javaxman]

Meh... I don't like dark chocolate... that could be it right there.

Almost definitely. I never really understood the whole "chocolate buzz" thing myself, really ( and I *love* dark chocolate, myself ) until my wife hooked me up with these little squares of stuff labeled as "99% pure cocoa". Dude. Woa. I ate three of those and definitely felt a bit of a buzz. Nothing like anything serious, of course, but definitely undeniable ( and pleasant ).

Aren't geeks all mildly autistic anyways? Y'know all those autistic kids borne of geek/geek relationships in Silicone Valley... isn't being a geek simply an obsession with details that other folks wouldn't find interesting?

Definitely not, to answer both questions. I'm pretty certain the trend/implication goes the other way, i.e. an autistic ( or at least mildly so ) kid who is reasonably smart will tend towards geekdom, but not all those who are simply smart and geeky share autistic traits. The relevant wikis are on autism spectrum and Autism... and I'll give a link to the 'alternative' neurodiversity view while I'm at it. Anyway, the long and short of it is that there are plenty of simply very smart people who, while they might at first seem a bit socially awkward, that's due to the time they spend working on projects and whatnot, and they're damn sociable, to the point of being very outgoing, and not physically restricted in any way that a little exercise wouldn't fix up. Geeks are musicians, atheletes, and generally well-rounded people smack in the middle of the spectrum of expected neurobiological behaviors. Or they can be. On the other hand, some folks are put off by any commotion, loud noises, don't like to look people in the eyes, have a hard time communicating effectively, but might excel at spatial problems and certain types of mathematical of symbological thinking problems and yea... those folks might fit a diagnosis of Sensory Integration Dysfunction or other mild ( or more severe ) autism.

On the other hand... meh, we know jack squat about how the brain really works, and there are those who say with some authority that all of the above fields are talking about relatively normal variations in brain function ( that's the neurodiversity crowd ). While I'm tempted on some level to side with those folks, there's no denying the severity and limitations of function that can come with real autism and even milder forms of things like SID.

In any case, feeling bad about the pigeon definitely lets you off the hook for the antisocial personality disorder...

Pyromania, shit, I thought that was just normal male boy behavior... it isn't? Oh... I mean, I'd feel bad if I made anything important or valuable to someone *else* burn, does that make it better :-) ?

BTW, we're still somewhat on topic here, we're talking about neurobiology and the chemistry of emotions... of which 'love' is a powerful hybrid.

What is love?

[wrf3]

The Greeks had four words for love: agape, phileo, eros, and storge. We English speakers seem to conflate everything around eros and thereby miss the point. Love is the act of the will whereby another individual is placed ahead of yourself. That's why Christians are commanded to "love their enemies" and why the Apostle Paul wrote that the greatest act of love was when God gave His Son as the sacrifice for the sins of the world.

No naturalistic scientist could ever write:

    Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant
    or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
    it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.
    It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
    Love never ends.

Re:What is love?

[C-Diddy]

Wonderful post. I love the idea that "love is an act of the will." We mostly think that love is ultimately fulfilled only by the acts we undertake between the sheets. That love can be a deliberate act of the will is shocking to most of us "post moderns."

Re:What is love?

[Rude Turnip]

There is also amor, which is a more personal version of agape. Amor, being the reverse spelling of roma, which represents the Roman Catholic Church of the time, was a relatively new Western concept promulgated by the troubadors. Any Star Wars fan (meaning most of you) should hang his head in shame for not knowing this stuff, as it's Joseph Campbell 101.

Re:What is love?

[StalinsNotDead]

love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude.

So what you're saying is, love is not your typical Slashdoter, then?

Re:What is love?

[Vellmont]

Yah, a naturalist scientist would probbably write something like this:

Love is beautiful
Like birds that sing
Love is not ugly
Like rats
In a puddle of vomit

Love is beautiful
Like the sunshine
And the dancing wind
Love is not ugly
Like pus
And lice
And tobacco snot
Love is beautiful

Love is beautiful
Like all the little animals
In a forest full of green
That smells like pine
And wonder
Love is not invisible brain control

And pain
And malicious intent
And lying all the time
Although it can be all of these things
And more

Love is a many splendoured thing
It is not a shipload of slaughtered pigs
Rotting and festering
In the bleating desert

Love is what love is
And love is not
What love is not

Re:What is love?

[LordLucless]

No, he's describing perfect love. When you're loving someone, this is what you should aim for. It's a perfectly good definition of love - it's just that we humans aren't too good at placing another before ourselves all the time, in every way.

Re:What is love?

[XenoRyet]

A scientist could in fact write a poem such as the one you quoted. Nothing about being a scientist is mutualy exclusive with being a poet.

It's just that a scientist would never consider such vauge, amorphous musings to be a definition.

Your point about english generaly not having a good way to describe the various aspects of love is a valid one. It's too bad you had to sully it with a cheap potshot at the scientific community.

Re:What is love?

[LordLucless]

I think he's talking about the attitudes relatedhere. If you believe there is nothing more to love than an arbitrary combination of chemicals in your brain, then you are not likely to believe that love is anything special.

Re:What is love?

[jheath314]

Love, like almost all human emotions, has a perplexingly broad spectrum, filled with variation and diversity. I love my parents, I love my fiancee, and I have no doubt I will love my children... but all in very different ways. While I would willingly take a bullet to save any one of them, 'perfect love' doesn't really describe what I feel.

I've never really understood the concept of 'perfect love.' By what standard is it perfect? Leaving out oft-quoted intangible qualities such as how "noble" or "pure" a love should be, defining perfect love solely in terms of total self-sacrifice seems a bit one-dimensional, if not unhealthy. It sounds weird to say it, but love needs to contain at least some traces of selfishness, least it become entirely one-sided and exploitative.

Re:What is love?

[LordLucless]

You say that there are different types of love (for parents, lovers, children, even things like nations, religions, etc). But I'd say the 1 Corinthians quote from the grandparent covers all of them. What should you do if you love someone/something? Be patient with them, be kind to them. Don't be envious of them, boastful, conceited or rude with them. I think that works with any kind of love. And that's not even defined in terms of self-sacrifice - unless it's a sacrifice not to be rude or boastful.

It's perfect in that it's idealistic, I suppose. Nobody can ever keep to it 100%. Sooner or later, your going to get frustrated and say something rude to someone you love, or angry and say a cruel word. Which is why the bit about "love always forgives" is handy :)

Re:What is love?

[raduf]

No naturalistic scientist could ever write:

        Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant
        or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
        it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.
        It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Beautiful. Yet, few people experience what you describe, and fewer still from those who are in love.

Re: What is love?

[Black Parrot]

> > The Greeks had four words for love: agape, phileo, eros, and storge.

> I'm surprised you didn't include ahab, hesed, and raham for the Hebrews.

I'm surprised that no one has mentiond the 97 words English has for 'penis'.

Re:What is love?

[MSenhanced]

Good post. However, I somewhat disagree on one of your terminologies, that being of "Love is the act of the will whereby another individual is placed ahead of yourself." I would like to clarify that statement just a bit. I think the love you are referring to here is [agrape] love, which is unconditional or a long-term love. Agrape love is something that is built over a long period of time whereby that bond created between 2 individuals is greater and more valuable than the love for one's own self (egotism). It looks past any present and/or past conflict between each individual to the great whole. This agrape love isn't "putting someone on a pestal" or idoltry, which is how I believed you explained it. I also think that each version of love can be graphed on a cartesian coordinate system where AGRAPE (+Y-axis), PHILEO (+X-axis), STORGE (-X-axis), and EROS(-Y-axis). Each relationship plots their own graph whereby the ultimate goal is to create and obtain AGRAPE but not at the expense of the others but by summing them up.

Re:What is love?

[wrf3]

Just a quick comment. You write "Agape love is something that is built over a long period of time... whereby the bond between two individuals ...". How would you apply this definition to the command to Christians to "love your enemies"? We are told to love them today -- not in the future, and we are told to love them regardless of their response back to us.

Re:What is love?

[MSenhanced]

Well, I'm glad you asked that. Upon further inspection, I've thought about it some more. I think there are several reasons why with many interpretations that you must find and choose which best (if not all) applies to your life /situation.

1) The Simple Truth - "Love Thine Enemy"

2) I have had friends that have used the expression "Killing with kindness". It means that any ill-treatment by your enemy does not affect you and you are strong in your convictions. It shows you are not quick to judgement. Being kind on top of that to them manifests moral resolve.

3) If you see the term "enemy" as a friend who you disagree/conflict with. Again, it's about looking beyond the present to the greater goal of the relationship. Perhaps a middle ground or balance can be obtained? It's not suggesting to be weak or not fight. Think about a football game where both teams battle it out on the field but are men enough to congratulate and shake hands after the game (i.e sportsmen-like conduct).

4)Sometimes, to achieve [agrape] love, you have to manifest "tough love" as when a parent punishes their kids because they care for them.

Korean women

[antifoidulus]

I love eating them like cake!

there are two types of love

[circletimessquare]

1. the traditional romantic-type love, a crush. a person can't stop thinking about another person, many times a minute even, to the point of mental distress. this is very definitely like addiction

2. long-term love. this is when you operate on a day-to-day basis with the other person as if you were a unit, and you can finish each other's sentences and such. you don't think of the other person constantly, you just coexist with them fluidly (albeit with a certain level of conflict). if the person were to leave or die, you would experience great stress, as if you had lost a limb

i think evolution set this up pretty well. romantic love is the almost gravitational chemically-driven attachment you have with someone else that allows for the binding of two organisms together socially. then, as the chemicals subside, you are left with permanent neurogical patterns and structures in both organisms such that you function as a social unit

good design, i think, albeit with unavoidable failures such as:
1. chemically bonding with someone who does not like you (stalking, obsession), your classic unrequited love
2. ongoing long-term conflict that does not resolve, where you are bound to someone you have serious differences of opinion with. classic marriage counseling fodder and irreconiable differences divorce papers issues

Re:there are two types of love

[FooAtWFU]

I actually recall some article pointing out three aspects of "love" - pure physical attraction (lust, perhaps) which may drive two people towards each other, the "romantic" love which may result in them going crazy about each other long enough to get married and have kids whereupon you get the third part, the "long-term" love which is suitable for raising kids.

Re:there are two types of love

[StikyPad]

You forgot Love #3: You can't stand each other, but you stay together for the kids, and/or the fact that you can't afford that much alimony and child support taken out of that thing your boss calls a check, but you call a nice down payment on the power bill, and still pay for something to eat once or twice a week. A good day is when you can get up and leave for work early enough that it doesn't have a chance to nag you, and a great day is when you can get home early enough to tie one on before it arrives with some new shoes and, surprise!, her mother. Your step kids call you by your first name, and they hate your real kid, who now also calls you by your first name, just because their dad was smart enough to run while he had the chance. You'd have an affair, but an affair won't have you, and that's probably for the best since you're pretty sure your wife is paying money you don't have for a PI to watch you do things you're not doing, and you can't help but wonder if it's tax deductable. Every second Thursday, on your way to the pharmacy, you hatch a plan to collect a tidy sum from a certain life insurance policy, but then you remember you can't afford life insurance, let alone health insurance, so you crumple up the prescription and decide to take an hour vacation by sitting on a park bench and pretending to be homeless. Ah, love.

Like Water for Chocolate

[ajrs]

good date film which also answers your question.

Re:Like Water for Chocolate

[Dareth]

Definately a good movie. Watch it in its original Spanish, with sub-titles if needed.

That Makes Perfect Sense To Me

[Cranky Weasel]

"Fisher studied the brain's circuitry and found that the brain sees romantic love as a reward similar to chocolate, money or drugs."

Explains why when we pursue romantic love our bait often consists of one of chocolate, money or drugs.

If today goes well...

[krough]

Love under the microscope... Love on top of the microscope... Love next to the microscope... Love nowhere near the microscope...

Re:If today goes well...

[karnal]

That sounds like some sort of forensic laboratory gone horribly horribly wrong...

"There's love all over this room.... and it smells funny!"

How to find love?

[Lord_Dweomer]

I count myself among the geeks here who don't have much luck with the opposite sex. I have never loved a girl, and have never been loved by one (romantically that is...moms don't count!). What I'm wondering is....is there any way for me to experience this? Falling in love with someone isn't just something you can set out determined to do...it apparently just happens...with no guarantee that it will happen.

That is a shitty thought, and I want to know what its like to be in love. Can any Slashdotters give me some suggestions?

Re:How to find love?

[C-Diddy]

You have asked an interesting question. I was in my 30s before I realized that "falling in love" and being "in love" are two different things. Someone above wrote that love can be a willful act. I would start with reflecting on what you think love really is before concluding that it "just happens."

Peace and blessings to you.

Re:How to find love?

[freeweed]

Falling in love with someone isn't just something you can set out determined to do

Very true, but sadly, many people seem to behave this way. Hence the preponderence of failed relationships, and incredibly high divorce rates.

Love isn't something you can force, it isn't something you can seek out. It'll happen when you meet the right person. The only possible advice I can offer is: meet as many people as you can, and don't just settle for the first person you have a passing attraction towards.

Re:How to find love?

[Vellmont]

I think you should take advantage of your geek skills, which usually involve problem solving and put them to use. First you need to identify the problem. It sounds like you aren't exactly trying to find someone. Finding someone to care about doesn't just happen (at least not most of the time). That's a dumb hollywood idea. People actively seek out mates.

Most people I know have found someone through friends, but a growing number have found people online. If you haven't found someone through your friend circle, I'd suggest one of the many online dating deals. I've never tried it myself, but it's quite mainstream among the under 35 crowd. I know it's not easy, but keep trying and try not to get discouraged. Finding a mate isn't easy for anyone. There's a reason why the vast majority of movies, Tv shows, music, etc have a large finding and losing love component.

Re:How to find love?

[cexshun]

Ever try the geek dating website?
Geek2Geek

I've browsed it out of curiosity(I'm married), and it seems interesting enough.

Re:How to find love?

[karnal]

and don't just settle for the first person you have a passing attraction towards.

Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't have fun with people you may not see yourself with in 5 years. Have a blast, by all means, but never get hooked.

Once it's the real thing, you'll know!

Re:How to find love?

[Greg@UF]

Start taking regular dancing lessons. Ballroom, Salsa, it doesnt matter much.
Give it 6 months or a year.

You don't need to go with a partner, most classes have more women than men, and there are usually more women waiting.
You're not looking for love in the first 6 months, though it might happen.

But what you will get is a lot fitter, stronger, a lot of exposure to the opposite sex, and chicks really dig guys who can dance.

Dancing is a means to an end, but it's also a huge amount of fun... after you get past the "horribly unco-ordinated stage" which geeks go thru.

Ok, so it's not guarranteed to find you love. But get fitter, get more attractive through learning new skills women like, and get more exposure to women... It's all going to improve your odds.

Re:How to find love?

[LF11]

Two things -- you have to be around girls, and you have to have the balls to talk to them.

As far as being around girls ... learn to dance. Ballroom dance. Lots and lots of girls, and you'll get lots of confidence in those tricky things like, "will you dance this with me?" Plus, if it's a good school, they'll have recommendations for decent places to go and actually dance and/or meet people. Oh yeah, and there's absolutely no competition. None.

BTW, dance is not gay. Yes, you can learn to wiggle your hips. Girls (some (many? all?)) love it, so don't discount it.

Confidence...that's a real tough one. Watch how others interact with girls, and see what you like and don't like. Lose the panicky feeling when you approach a girl. Best advice: talk to lots of women!

Oh yeah, and be upfront. If you want to "be friends," ok, but if you a "girlfriend," make sure there's no confusion.

Being in love is an amazing, spectacular experience. As high as it goes, there can also be an unbelievable low. Just don't do that suicide thing when you hit bottom! :)

Never confuse "lust" with "love." The two are very, very different. Yes, you can have "love at first sight," but usually, it's lust. Lust wears off somewhere between 3 minutes and 3 months. The lucky ones manage not to have kids/get married in those 3 months. Count on needing to know someone for at least 9-12 months before you have any chance of really knowing them enough to make a judgement call concerning kids or marriage.

I don't like to recommend books, but "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is a good book about dating, why it sucks, and how to do it better. Much better. Also, "How to Make Someone Love You in 90 Minutes" is an excellent book. Scary effective, and it's an interesting introductory text to NLP and related ideas. Finally, on the totally tacky end, the Fleshlight people (google it) have an interesting little manual covering the basic "howto" of these things they give you after you buy their product. I can't really vouch for that last one as I'm still a virgin, but it seems effective. The one girl I got to 2nd base with was plenty happy. (The fleshlight people are discreet, as advertised.)

I Kissed Dating Goodbye
http://www.joshharris.com/ikdg/ikdgmain.htm

How to Make Someone Love You...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076112862X/103-21 74958-0551820?v=glance&n=283155

Enjoy!

It's much harder to get out of a relationship than to get into one. Pick wisely.

cej102937

Re:How to find love?

[LF11]

Online dating sites are mostly scams. You'll have better luck asking friends if they know someone who might be interested, or even Starbucks.

You have to put a lot of effort into online dating sites, and there's not much reward. Look for a site that shows when someone last logged in!

Spend a few bucks and get a professional-quality picture of yourself. Obviously, don't misrepresent yourself. You want something that stands out from the 1,800 other cam shots.

cej102937

Re:How to find love?

[Vellmont]

You have to put a lot of effort into online dating sites

I think that's probbably true. But whoever said finding someone was supposed to be easy? I don't have experience with them myself, but I know a few friends it's worked for, so it can't be totally useless. Actually, now that I think about it I can think of 4 couples I know that've found someone online. One couple is married, one couple has been dating for several years, one couple broke up, and the final couple I'm not sure about since they met recently.

Anecdotal yes, but it might be worth a try.

Re:How to find love?

[speculatrix]

The best words of wisdom I can give you from my own experience are:
"being alone is better than a bad relationship".
Yes, it's true; when you're desperate, you'll put up with a lot of things. I had three quite manipulative/abusive girlfriends in succession, and then went for more than two years without one and it was only after I'd achieved closure that I realised the above, and understood it deep down.

To meet the right person is one thing, but to be attractive to them requires that you're not desperate, are interesting with a good sense of humour, and have reasonable personal hygiene. If you have a good social life, some non-solitary hobbies, and don't dress like a tramp, you're mostly there!

Re:How to find love?

[LordLucless]

Just as a disclaimer "How I Kissed Dating Goodbye" is written by a Christian, for Christians. It is just as applicable to non-Christians in its broader scope, but it deal quite a bit with spiritual issues that would probably not be as applicable to a Christian.

Not like any of us will ever find it anyway =P

[kendoka]

At least we can go out and buy tons of chocolate cake and eat it now =)

So this is why

[MikeSty]

This is why Ray Nagin wants a chocolate New Orleans! He really meant a "New Orleans of Love!"

Wikipedia has a good article...

[FooAtWFU]

Wikipedia has a good article, not on "love" per se, but on what psychologists apparently call Limerence, which is sort of the not-quite-really "infatuation" part of love. The part of love that drives you crazy, in short.

• intrusive thinking about the limerent object
• acute longing for reciprocation
• some fleeting and transient relief from unrequited limerence through vivid imagining of action by the limerent object that means reciprocation
• fear of rejection and unsettling shyness in the limerent object's presence
• intensification through adversity
• acute sensitivity to any act, thought, or condition that can be interpreted favorably, and an extraordinary ability to devise or invent "reasonable" explanations for why neutral actions are a sign of hidden passion in the limerent object
• an aching in the chest when uncertainty is strong
• buoyancy (a feeling of walking on air) when reciprocation seems evident
• a general intensity of feeling that leaves other concerns in the background
• a remarkable ability to emphasize what is truly admirable in the limerent object and to avoid dwelling on the negative or render it into another positive attribute.

Re:Wikipedia has a good article...

[GillBates0]

Dude - thanks for the link. I'd mod you up if I had points. Never has a wikipedia article seemed so damn insightful as this one.

Been through "limerence" recently and it's somehow reassuring to know it's a widely studied and observed phenomenon. Every single sentence/observation mentioned in that article made sense to me.

Re:Wikipedia has a good article...

[Digital Vomit]

Definately an insightful post. "Limerance" is the nice feeling you get when you are "in love", but real love exhibits itself as a willful, personal choice, such as when your mate has had all of his/her limbs cut off and his/her skin burnt off in a car accident and you stay with him/her to attend to him/her for the rest of your mate's life.

The study is on the former, but I'd like to see one done on the latter.

Love is like sausage

[StikyPad]

'You can know every ingredient in a piece of chocolate cake, and you still sit down and eat that chocolate cake and it's wonderful,' she said. 'In the same way, you can know all the ingredients of romantic love and still feel that passion.'

'Maybe, but once I found out what was in menudo I could never eat it again,' I said. 'In that same way, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to feel anything ever again. Thanks a lot wh...'

Re:Love is like sausage

[gekman]

Wasn't Menudo a boy band?

Re:Love is like sausage

[StikyPad]

When viewed in that context, it's even less appetizing.

Wrong place

[Swamii]

Does this mean that the mystery of love is less magical now that science has studied it under the microscope?

Asking this question on Slashdot is like asking a group of chimpanzees whether they prefer Spanish Red or White Zin.

Love is required for successful pregnancy

[alohatiger]

Well, if you're a cylon, anyway...

all this love / sex talk reminds me of an old joke

[banditski]

What's the definition of "vagina"??

The box a penis comes in.

Oxytocin junkies

[Tackhead]

> Since the odds of survival for a human child with two parents is (or at least was) much higher than the odds of a single-parent child, it shouldn't be surprising that humans have a strong drive to forge lasting relationships. Natural selection in action, and all that.

...and it should be even less surprising that romantic love - the obsessive attraction to the beloved - fades in both males and females after about two years. Just long enough to meet, mate, spawn, and wean the offspring.

people who were spending 80 percent of their waking hours not being able to think of anybody else.

And...

"Would you die for your partner?" She said she was shocked by the answers to that query: All of the subjects said they would.

I've eaten some pretty fucking good chocolate cake in my day. Ain't never wanted to die for the shit.

There are people who'd say things like that about their preferred batch of ingredients. We call them junkies, the chemical they use is called by many names -- not the least of which is junk. When a junkie is deprived of junk, they go through withdrawal. They experience physical pain, depression, and often behave irrationally or self-destructively in order to get their fix.

I (like most of you) have used oxytocin. Like heroin users, when deprived of their fix (or even when threatened with their supply of the drug being cut off), oxytocin users feel depressed, lethargic, some feel physical pain - right in the chest/gut area, and are also prone to self-destructive and irrational acts.

From TFA:

"You can know every ingredient in a piece of chocolate cake, and you still sit down and eat that chocolate cake and it's wonderful,' she said. 'In the same way, you can know all the ingredients of romantic love and still feel that passion.'"

You can know every ingredient in heroin, and you can still sit down and - oh, wait. Once you know what heroin does to human neurochemistry, you can choose not to take the shit, and if you're a junkie, you still have the choice to stop.

Just because my former drug of choice happened to be secreted by my own endocrine system didn't make me any less a junkie.

Mercifully, the 2-3 year pair-bonding mechanism built into your brainstem puts a limit on the withdrawal: if you stay clean, that's about as long as you're physiologically capable of feeling oxytocin withdrawal symptoms. Once you're through that phase, the cravings disappear, and they stay disappeared unless you do something stupid.

Re:Oxytocin junkies

[thatguywhoiam]

I've eaten some pretty fucking good chocolate cake in my day. Ain't never wanted to die for the shit.

I vote this +5, Supremely Sig-Worthy. Nicely done.

Re:Oxytocin junkies

[dgatwood]

I've eaten some pretty fucking good chocolate cake in my day. Ain't never wanted to die for the shit.

There are people who'd say things like that about their preferred batch of ingredients. We call them junkies, the chemical they use is called by many names -- not the least of which is junk. When a junkie is deprived of junk, they go through withdrawal. They experience physical pain, depression, and often behave irrationally or self-destructively in order to get their fix.

I think there's a very big difference between people who say they are willing to die for their partner and people who are willing to commit suicide as a result of rejection. Don't attempt to compare willing self-sacrifice to save another with irrational, self-destructive behavior. They aren't the same thing. One is driven out of care for another, the other out of care for oneself.

Dying for someone you care about is driven by of a sense of protection, and is a trait that has benefits for the survival of the species. Killing oneself because of being deprived of someone's love is driven by a selfish sense of want, and is a trait that just tends to Darwinianly reduce the gene pool..

Re:Oxytocin junkies

[Citizen of Earth]

Once you're through that phase, the cravings disappear, and they stay disappeared unless you do something stupid. ... like fall in love again.

so that's why things are so fucked up, eh?

[jjeffries]

Love = drugs = food = money?

making love

[SuperGhost]

So if I make chocolate I'm making love? Could it be perhaps the thought that "I love chocolate" tricks these scientists into believing that love is the same as chocolate? What if they asked the subjects to write down what their favorite food is and then see the patient's reaction when they talk about it. I bet it'd be considered love too. I love fish's cause they're so delicious! Love can be fear too... "I think I love you, so what am I so afraid of?"I think the Partridge Family sings that

Re:making love

[maxwell demon]

So if I make chocolate I'm making love?

Also: If you make money, you make love!
Or is it: When you make love, you make money?

But beware: When you make love, you make drugs, and making drugs is illegal!

You're Decieving Yourself

[eno2001]

Love is an illusion created by a mix of chemicals in the brain. It has nothing to do with any deep spiritual connection. It's merely your animal side reacting to the stimuli of oxytocin (not to be confused with Rush Limbaugh's drug of choice: oxycontin). If you expunge the animal side of your nature, you can see the world clearly and without being influenced by such ridiculous concepts as love and passion. Stop lying to yourself. There is no such thing as love. Or is there? Check my sig link to find out for sure...

Re:You're Decieving Yourself

[kadathseeker]

By that argument, human consciousness is just chemicals and therefore not real. That's stupid. ALL human life and emotions are chemical reactions, that doesn't make them less real. Is an operating system not "real" once you understand code and see the source? Some would say that things are even more impressive when you can understand and appreciate them. So then how would I scientifically define "true love"? I would say that two people that are not physically repulsed by each other, that can at least tolerate each other's personalities, habits, and tendancies; that trust and depend on each other (without betraying it), and that live together and overall function well together is as close to real love as anyone can get. Basically it is just two people who can stand each other and trust/support each other. What most people call love is mostly infatuation, I think, (which would explain the divorce rate of the USA) but it can lead to real love.

Most things human are like this - honor, courage, depravity, genius - it is something in realation to other people, with love and friendship being between people. Spirituality exists, it just exists only in the minds of people. So it's not mystically a part of reality, but it exists.

It's still a mystery

[value_added]

If the "mystery of love" has been studied to the same extent as chocolate, than I would suggest that our understanding of how it works and the effects it has on us are a long way from being understood.

Put another way, if you take the 400 or so compounds in chocolate and study them invidually (putting aside the need to study all the possible combinations), you'll end up with something like "Big boobs in the female of the species increases the chances of successful mating." Hardly useful. Or informative.

My guess is that we'll be studying chocolate (and love) for years to come. And given that our science isn't much more evolved from the Poke It With A Stick And See What Happens method, we might as well enjoy the mystery. And the big boobs.

Romantic Love, Perhaps...

[Sr. Pato]

But Love. Deep seeded, infallable, uncorruptable, everlasting love .
Infatuation, maybe.

I'm only using the following example for lack of an equally recognizable one, and religion aside, but the same type of love Jesus would have felt had he existed? To love someone(s) enough to completely fuck yourself over for them in order to prove a point? To love someone enough to never forget them (and the tender emotions held with their memory), throughout your entire life, without regard to what had caused the fallout (be it cheating, offense, abuse, etc)?

Love isn't simply a chemical reaction. It's a philosophical conundrum and, perhaps even, an imaginative creation. For all we know, we could have simply invented the concept of "Love" and are now desperately trying to explain something who's meaning has been lost and contorted with time. If you ever stop loving something (even for a moment), then you never loved it to begin with. Even hate is nothing more than resentful love; you can't hate something without having loved it first.

That's why the only person who's ever heard me say "I Love You" has been my mother. Not even girlfriends get that special treatment. They'll get a "I'm infatuated with you", but nothing more (of course that is, until I find someone I find deserves it).

Happy Heart's Day, btw.

Re:Romantic Love, Perhaps...

[queazocotal]

I should sit closer to the monitor.

I first read that as

But Love. Deep seeded, inflatable, uncorruptable, everlasting love .

for the sake of simplicity

[circletimessquare]

i was limiting myself (being valentine's day) to the kind of loves that exist between two sexually compatible adults

which, of course, reveals the 3rd kind of love i really did leave out: pure unadulterated shallow physical lust

but not much really has to be said about that kind of love. it is what it is. it's very powerful, but not very complicated

the loves you are talking about are on a whole other level of abstraction, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with romance and valentine's day and sex (hopefully... i don't really want to know what you do with the pickles you mentioned ;-)

Re:In other words:

[Quiet_Desperation]

I keep a bowl of various (e.g. dark, 50% cocao, flavoured: raspberry, orange, &c.)chocolates in my living room. I serve wine with dinner (and I make that dinner high-quality, and a bit fancy). I'll often throw in a massage, with scented oils.

You are on the right track, young padiwan. Now you must get another person involved.

Filthy Conspiracy

[derfel]

The word "love" is code for a filthy conspiracy between the male-hating female gender and the oppressive lap-dogs that run the world government and economy. Just kidding. Hang on, I've got to take out the trash... -derfel

We have a word for that...

[Sr. Pato]

Essentially you mean, there is one type of love. The other's called "Infatuation"

hilarious ;-)

[circletimessquare]

i really hope that wasn't autobiographical

Re:hilarious ;-)

[Sr. Pato]

Do you think inspiration just "comes" like that to someone?
Well, it does if you think about it.

why some people don't need "love"

[Spy der Mann]

Some teachers, writers, scientists, philosophers (And yes, dedicated F/OSS programmers too!) they have their rewards when they see their jobs finished.

So, cheer up, if you don't care that much about having a girlfriend, it's not because you're a loser, but because you don't actually NEED a girlfriend.

Of course, this is only MHO.

Re:why some people don't need "love"

[Eli Gottlieb]

It's not because you're a loser persay, it's because you spent so much time hacking you never learned how to get a girlfriend and now you're trying not to care because you know you have no chance in hell.

Some people don't care about one part or definition of love, but needing it in some sense is only human. Ex: I have very little lust (physical desire) in me, but still have a need to being bonded to a mate psychologically. For some people the opposite is true, or some completely weird personality not involving anything I said.

Point is, (unfortunately) love is a basic need of the human psyche in some form or other, and we can't really cover that up by coding well enough.

Love is...keeping your promises.

[fahrbot-bot]

My wife, Susan, and I were together for 20 years.
We were an unconventional, but very happy couple (I am 42, she was 61).

If romantic love is a reward, it's a reward for something deeper.

• Love is dropping everything when she's diagnosed with a brain tumor in November 2005.
• Love is being there for surgery, medication ... everything.
• Love is staying there 24/7 for the week she's in a coma.
• Love is making sure she's never in any pain and never alone.
• Love is holding her in your arms when she dies in January 2006.
• Love is keeping your promises.
• Love is missing her.

Re:Love is...keeping your promises.

[r1_97]

Love is also remembering the good times.

Re:Love is...keeping your promises.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

My heart goes out to you, man. And I know you're right.

Re:Love is...keeping your promises.

[mihaibu]

She will be always with you

Re:Love is...keeping your promises.

[Xophmeister]

Shakespeare couldn't have put it better. I am sorry for your loss.

Re:Love is...keeping your promises.

[fahrbot-bot]

I'm sorry about Alista. I hope you two were able to make the most of your year together.

How did Sue and I meet?

A mutual friend volunteered me to help Sue move into her condo and hang the ceiling fan, hook up the stereo (man, what a cliché) etc... Sue said, "I feel guilty about you doing all this work", and I said, "Why don't you take me out to dinner".

First date: dinner at a local dive landmark near the boardwalk, lots of talking and a walk on the beach.

She was smart, educated (BA in English and an English teacher), funny, and warm with a pretty smile, and beautiful eyes. I was still in college studying CS (am a Unix SA and programmer), not bad on the eyes (not real good, mind you, but not bad), and fairly bright.

When it's right, it's right.

Got married 4 years later, celebrated our 16th anniversary on December 23, 2005. Sue fell into a coma 2 weeks later and died a week after that.

I'd do it all again in a second, even knowing how it would end.

Re:So basically...

[rdwald]

Um, what? Just because AI isn't currently up to the level of reproducing the brain doesn't invalidate a reductionist view of the mind. Read Godel, Escher, Bach for a discussion of how even a reductionist mind requires a very complicated (and not yet produced) AI.

Re:So basically...

[LeonGeeste]

I've read GEB, but thanks for the appeal to authority. I didn't say anything "invalidated" the reductionist view; I just said that it was casually assumed without justification, and no advances predicated thereon have been made, rendering such an assumption tenuous. And I'm still waiting for someone to come up with the Goedel statement that's supposed to crash my brain like the Turing machine it supposedly is.

To paraphrase Eddie Izzard ...

[BlueZombie]

To paraphrase Eddie Izzard ...

"Cake or Love?"
"Cake please!"

At least those who aren't married

[CrazedWalrus]

Heh. Those who have been successfully married for more than a year know this to be true. It's damn difficult to love a person sometimes, because sometimes even the best mate is almost unlovable. If love was no more than a kind of "wanna get some" reflex, most marriages would be annulled after the first week.

Re:So basically...

[rdwald]

Well, if not reductionism, then what? The more we learn about the brain, the more we find surprisingly small systems controling surprisingly specific elements of the mind. And as for no advances predicated thereon, what do you call Prozac and other medications? Find the specific brain system which leads to a given disorder of the mind, develop a pharmacological or surgical technique to correct it, profit. It's not all about computer science.

Sounds like...

[ackthpt]

humans, and some other animals, both parents being around apparently leads to greater survival of the offspring (agreeing with TripMaster Monkey), which may be a result of the complexity of our society as well, though of course an entire community helps in raising a child as well, little different from most primate societies, with their complex social hierarchies.

Sounds like we've created a society highly hostile to the raising of offspring, and the protection and efforts of two or more parents greatly increase success.

Watching TV and seeing what is marketed directly at kids, I would have to say, we really are trying to exploit them. We have met the enemy...

Re:Sounds like...

[cutedinochick]

I probably agree with you, ackthpt, but I'm not sure I understand. I'm not a sociologist, and I was trying to be general and just mention that our society is very complicated to learn, and with primates, this requires lots of interactions with relatives and friends (of varying ranks) to help the offspring learn everything they need to learn to function as adults. I agree that TV is crap, but I guess I was imagining a more "primitive" culture than that which raises its kids with television. And I agree that our society is hostile to the raising of offspring - raising kids is looked at as lowly work rather than the backbone of ours or any culture. I'm not sure what the fundamental difference between our culture and that of most primates is, however - your point about TV and other questionable ways of learning is a very good one.

Re:Drugs, yep. QWZX

[Zen Punk]

That's some deep shit, maaaaaan.

Today? you mean 'yesterday'

[dwater]

> Posted by Zonk on 5:05 Wednesday 15 February 2006
> ... "As today is one of the top five marketing-induced spending days, the obvious question is, what is love?

Don't you mean 'yesterday'?

What is love?

[gekman]

Five feet of heaven in a ponytail...

Yes, I AM a geezer.

The best advice is don't take meds

[WillAffleckUW]

if you want to fall in love.

Of course, if you're a schizophrenic axe-murdering psychopath, um, maybe you don't want to fall in love.

or at least not until you go on a hunting party with our VP.

Sounds like the movie Dopamine

[WillAffleckUW]

Is love a chemical?

A neural pathway in the brain?

A learned response?

A reaction to reciprocal behavior?

Sex?

Remembered instances of happiness (or less pain)?

Maybe it's all of the above - and none of the above.

We use one word when maybe there are many.

According to Marvin Minksy

[Mixel]

Love is a neurochemical suppression of criticism triggered by pattern recognition.

Re:So basically...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Prozac and drugs like it are for raising levels of certain compounds found everywhere in the brain, rather than treating a specific section of the brain.

Nice try, though.

Re:Drugs, yep. QWZX

[Adult film producer]

You might feel like you're correct but there is no absolute right or wrong when a person alters their brain chemistry. If you're judging me from a moral basis, then I have no argument. You will always be right and I will always be wrong. But why are you wanting to pick a fight with people that have no problem altering their own conciousness? It's theirs, not yours. Do you make the same arguments with your friends (if you have any) that consciously and willfully alter their brain chemistry/nervous system when it's caffiene? or chocolate? Or maybe they have passion for bubble baths. You're arguing against a completely natural and healthy need for human beings to transcend the daily reality they live out. What you're doing is completely unhealthy and probably causes more brain damage to yourself than cannabis will ever do.

Now I'm sure you live a very healthy and productive life. You probably don't smoke, don't drink coffee, will never sky dive or eat chocolate and live a perfectly celibate life. I respect that, I never attacked what you make of your life did I?

For the rest of humanity, for the people that have not graduated with honours from their local high school DARE program like you have, we will continue to enjoy what life has to offer us. I have no problem with your personal choice, but please don't be so quick to judge people based on what you personally believe is a moral failing. Your morals are not mine.

No, the trait for monogamy is game theory...

[Colin Smith]

Look at the female's reproductive resource requirements and then look at the male's requirements. The semi-monogamous results are predictable and we can see them everywhere in our society.

Here's a suggestion...

[Eli Gottlieb]

Don't ask other Slashdotters.

Though some of the stuff I've seen under here is genuinely insightful. Perhaps only those who've been in relationships posted?

Q: What is love? A: It's not scientist bashing

[aricusmaximus]

You mention four aspects of love and then focuses on only on a Bible-oriented version of agape. Why not devote equal time to phileo, eros and storge?

I would recommend praticing what you preach, "wrf3". Your attack on scientists certainly is un-agape-like, as well as doing a disservice to the Slashdot community.

- A biologist wrote "The Life of a Cell", a paen to the wonder of biology and creation.
- Einstein loved Mozart and was an accomplished violinist, who played with passion.
- It would be very hard to characterize the famous psychiatrist Carl Jung as an unpoetic character.

Looking around this world one can, after prying their nose out of the Book of Corinthians, definitely find scientific poets, and poetic scientists. And a love of mankind certainly does not preclude a passion and love for nature and the universe.

Perhaps another poem about love is appropriate. Hopefully the this poem titled "Dust" by Rupert Brooke, will be suitable this Valentine's day.

When the white flame in us is gone,
And we that lost the world's delight
Stiffen in darkness, left alone
To crumble in our separate night;

When your swift hair is quiet in death,
And through the lips corruption thrust
Has still'd the labour of my breath -
When we are dust, when we are dust !

Not dead, not undesirous yet,
Still sentient, still unsatisfied,
We'll ride the air, and shine, and flit,
Around the places where we died,

And dance as dust before the sun,
And light of foot and unconfined,
Hurry from road to road, and run
About the errands of the wind.

And every mote, on earth or air,
Will speed and gleam, down later days,
And like a secret pilgrim fare
By eager and invisible ways,

Nor ever rest, nor ever lie,
Till, beyond thinking, out of view,
One mote of all the dust that's I
Shall meet one atom that was you.

Then in some garden hush'd from wind,
Warm in a sunset's afterglow,
The lovers in the flowers will find
A sweet and strange unquiet grow

Upon the peace; and, past desiring,
So high a beauty in the air,
And such a light, and such a quiring,
And such a radiant ecstasy there,

They'll know not if it's fire, or dew,
Or out of earth, or in the height,
Singing, or flame, or scent, or hue,
Or two that pass, in light, to light,

Out of the garden, higher, higher. . . .
But in that instant they shall learn
The shattering ecstasy of our fire,
And the weak passionless hearts will burn

And faint in that amazing glow,
Until the darkness close above;
And they will know - poor fools, they'll know!
One moment, what it is to love.

Wow

[SonicSpike]

Sorry about your loss... The important thing is that yall were happy!

Anthropologist != Neuroscientist

[feijai]

Call me highly skeptical. Helen Fisher is a physical anthropologist. As in population geneticists, primatologists, and paleoanthropologists. This is a far cry from being an expert in studying the "circuitry" that underlies love. In her book, she hooked up with some doctors from SUNY to use MRI brain scanning to "look at what love looks like", but the book is really mostly just anthropology. In truth, we have no idea what the circuitry of love is (yet), but we have long understood the effect of endorphins (caused by chocolate, heroin, running fast, and love) on the human brain and their relationship to one another. Thus her claim is both simultaneously old hat and inexpert.

Re:Anthropologist != Neuroscientist

[WillAffleckUW]

Call me highly skeptical. Helen Fisher [rutgers.edu] is a physical anthropologist [wikipedia.org]. As in population geneticists, primatologists, and paleoanthropologists. This is a far cry from being an expert in studying the "circuitry" that underlies love.

I don't know about that, many of the groups I've seen here at the UW have collaborative research involving fairly diverse researchers from multiple disciplines, and I've seen a number of scientific papers in ScienceDirect, from various medical, biochemical, and genetics journals that make the underlying science seem to be within the realm of reason.

But, lacking a direct link to the article, I'm just saying it's within the current state of information as I understand it and she's not that unusual a person to be involved in such research.

But, yes, an anthropologist is probably not a neuroscientist, although one could have multiple Ph.D. or M.Sc., M.A. degrees in similar fields.

slashdot user seeks girlfriend

[bigberk]

Slashdot user bigberk seeks girlfriend. Willing to offer chocolate, money and drugs to the lucky lady

Hmmmm

[Jesus IS the Devil]

It's Valentines night, and you and I are posting here because...?

Anthropologist + Neuroscientist = Research Team

[WillAffleckUW]

Fisher went on a quest to unravel the mystery of the brain in love. She teamed up with Art Aron, a psychologist and professor at Stony Brook University in New York and Lucy Brown, a professor in neurology and neuroscience at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York.

And here's your answer! Looks like Dr. Fisher may not be a neuroscientist, but her research team indeed does include Dr. Brown, a professor in both Neurology and Neuroscience.

Re:So basically...

[Darth Liberus]

Empiricism: popping people's bubbles since time immemorial.

Just because the evidence hasn't had a practical outcome yet doesn't mean it's just another stupid reductionist scientist blathering on about something absolutely pointless. This is interesting news; you just don't like what it implies.

Re:Q: What is love? A: It's not scientist bashing

[wrf3]

ariscusmaximus asked Why not devote equal time to phileo, eros and storge?

Well, others more eloquent than I have done this. However, I wanted to focus on agape because when I posted, the majority of posts did not deal with agape.

Your attack on scientists certainly is un-agape-like.

Please note that my "attack" was against naturalism and it was simply an observation that naturalism, with it's focus on species survival, cannot logically produce a like-minded statement about love.

Re:So basically...

[LeonGeeste]

Just because the evidence hasn't had a practical outcome yet doesn't mean it's just another stupid reductionist scientist blathering on about something absolutely pointless.

Doesn't mean it isn't, either. Scientists presenting such simple reductionism are generally trying to cloak a philosophical bias.

This is interesting news; you just don't like what it implies.

False, and slanderously so. I *want* the human body to be as simple as possible. That's why I have to be all the more careful about those casually assuming it is, or presenting allegedly simple proofs thereof. It's called looking for disconfirming evidence. Try it sometime.

Re:So basically...

[LeonGeeste]

What the other guy said. Also, if such "disorders" (and the whole idea of classifying any behavior we don't like as a "disease" has it's own boatload of problems) are solely defined by their physical components, why do all psychiatrists demand that the medication only be given with a counseling component? (It can't just be for the money, can it?) And why do people still systematically exaggerate the threat of those who have mentall illnesses yet are on medication? Wouldn't that be like dissociating from someone because he had a cold once and got medicated?

to my fellow geeks....

[dartarrow]

make install! Not love!

Looks like ignorant reductionism to me

[Julian Morrison]

...very much like deciding that tears explain sadness.

I know subjectively, that even my simple emotions are complex, multilayered things. There's the sensation-level feedback which lets me know I'm experiencing an emotion. There's learned-behaviour changes like reinforcement (of love, happiness, etc) or disincentive (from pain, shame, etc). There's thought-ability changes, belief-prioritization changes, even memory recall changes. All in parallel. And that's leaving aside the experience, belief and attention context that triggered the emotion. So, it looks to me like what these guys are doing is picking at one strand (new love's pleasure/reinforcement/habituation mechanism) and thinking they have the totality. Which is just ignorant, and I'd guess it's not accidentially ignorant. More people pushing the "mind is nothing but meat" idea. Not an opinion I share!

What is love?

[zephc]

Love is hot goth-metal chicks

I know I know

[Heembo]

"Love is finding someone to hang out in the foxhole with. And when you leave the foxhole for a spell, you keep your dick in your pants." - Some cheezie movie

Love, and sacrifice

[phorm]

Indeed, I think a big portion of love is sacrifice. At the least you are sacrificing time, perhaps finance, on the trust that you will be with that person.

Some people sacrifice of their own bodies, such as those that donate an organ, etc, to an ailing relative or compatible friend, soulmate, etc.

With the former, the point at which love might be reached is when you know you would sacrifice of yourself in such a way, were it ever required of you. For those that think they are in love, consider... would you sacrifice a kidney, or other bodily organ, degrading the overall health of your body in order to assist or sustain that of the one you love?

Re:Love, and sacrifice

[fahrbot-bot]

Absolutely! Love is sacrifice. Often small, sometimes big. Either can be a defining moment.

Sue's meds had to be administered 4 and 6 times a day (precisely), 7 days a week -- one given IV, which I learned to do. Lack of REM sleep is a small sacrifice -- even over a month and a half.

Except for the GBM (Glioblastoma Multiforme) in her head, she was perfectly healthy. The only thing I could have donated would have been part of my brain (not possible), and it's of some debate as to whether that would have helpful or detrimental to either of us :-)

The ultimate sacrifice would be to switch places, but that's a double-edged sword. Yes she'd be here, but alone and very, very sad. At the moment, it feels like she got the better deal.

Thank you all for the kind words.
- Rick

Obligatory Calvin & Hobbes quote

[hcdejong]

Calvin: What's it like to fall in love?
Hobbes: Well... say the object of your affection walks by...
Calvin: Yeah?
Hobbes: First, your heart falls into your stomach and splashes your innards. All the moisture makes you sweat profusely. This condensation shorts the circuits to your brain and you get all woozy. When your brain burns out altogether, your mouth disengages and you babble like a cretin until she leaves.
Calvin: THAT'S LOVE?!?
Hobbes: Medically speaking.
Calvin: Heck, that happened to me once, but I figured it was cooties!!

lifelong monogamy

[oni]

A very interesting post, but I wonder:

I suspect that the ideal of a lifetime monogamous commitment was developed by the new State Authorities

Is there any actual evidence that a group of people got together in a back room and actually consciously invented lifelong monogamy? Because the idea seems to me just a little bit far fetched. I don't think that people are quite that insightful and forward-thinking.

At any rate, just to support what you said about serial monogamy, there is strong evidence that it was (subconsciously) an invention of women. Men, I think, would be happy roaming about like nomads, and just mating (forcibly if necessary) with any female they happen to meet. Monogamy was like a contract that women made with men. "I will stop resisting and you'll actually have more and better sex IF you agree to stick around and help with the kids." And then once the kids had aged five or six years, the contract stopped serving its purpose and both parties moved on to their next contract.

I think that lifelong monogamy just evolved out of that, as the contract term kept getting longer and longer. The more complex the civilization, the *more* support that children need. Now you've got to buy them clothes, you've got to put them through school, you've got to teach them the complex behaviors that will allow them to fit into this civilization. That takes more than just a few years.

I just think this is a better explanation for lifelong monogamy than the idea that it was invented for a purpose. I think it evolved.

Nonetheless, what you said about the state supporting marriage for its own selfish reasons, I certainly agree with. I just don't think the state invented it.

Re:lifelong monogamy

[lawpoop]

"I suspect that the ideal of a lifetime monogamous commitment was developed by the new State Authorities

Is there any actual evidence that a group of people got together in a back room and actually consciously invented lifelong monogamy? Because the idea seems to me just a little bit far fetched. I don't think that people are quite that insightful and forward-thinking."

Archaelologists have uncovered a room in ancient Egypt that has *heavy* cigar smoke residue on the walls.

No, but seriously, why does it seem far fetched? Governments are making crazy rules all the time. Kings were regularly ordering exterminations of local unpopular minorities, and planning wars and strategies far into the future.

I'm not saying that there was one meeting of all the world kings and priests that in a single room that decided once and for all that there would be life-time monogamy, but that over and over, rulers who were interested in building a larger and more powerful state would have seen the benefit of having men not have to worry about women so much. Especially if other Kingdoms had monogomy, and the local King had to worry about competing with them.

Here's the best evidence I have: marriage license. Why do you need a marriage license? How about the state just let people do what they want and marry whomever? Why do they have to get their nose in it?

"At any rate, just to support what you said about serial monogamy, there is strong evidence that it was (subconsciously) an invention of women. Men, I think, would be happy roaming about like nomads, and just mating (forcibly if necessary) with any female they happen to meet. Monogamy was like a contract that women made with men. "I will stop resisting and you'll actually have more and better sex IF you agree to stick around and help with the kids." And then once the kids had aged five or six years, the contract stopped serving its purpose and both parties moved on to their next contract."

Well, I don't think so. What you say makes it seem like women are totally disinterested in sex, and only interested in child-rearing. I think if you look at the evolutionary psychology evidence, specifically in Pinkerson's _How the Mind Works_, men are very interested in a particular woman for about two years -- just about enough time to pop the kid out and get it walking and talking on its own.

" I think that lifelong monogamy just evolved out of that, as the contract term kept getting longer and longer. The more complex the civilization, the *more* support that children need. Now you've got to buy them clothes, you've got to put them through school, you've got to teach them the complex behaviors that will allow them to fit into this civilization. That takes more than just a few years."

OK, sure, but why does a husband fill that role the best? Why not the mom's parents or her brothers? Neither the husband nor the husband's family can really be sure that the kid(s) are theirs. If it was just about child-rearing, the woman's family would put in the most effort, because they are the only relatives that can be certain that the kid really is related to them. I think it's much better explained by freeing up a young man's time and effort to work for the state.

"I just think this is a better explanation for lifelong monogamy than the idea that it was invented for a purpose. I think it evolved."

What do you mean evolved here? You mean like DNA and natural selection evolved? Because it sure has a spotty record for an inherited trait. Do you mean developed over time in socities? I think you and I would agree on that point. Where we disagree, if I can sum up, is that you would say it is driven by women, where I would say that it is driven by those in charge of running the state. But I don't argue that it was decided at one time, once and for all. It developed over time, in fits and starts, in various places.

Re:lifelong monogamy

[oni]

I find this to be a very interesting topic. Thanks for your insights.

Here's the best evidence I have: marriage license. Why do you need a marriage license?

But your position is that kings and rulers, thousands of years ago invented marriage. To use the idea of marriage licenses to support your position, you need to show that marriage liceses have existed for thousands of years. Is there any evidence that a marriage license was required in order to get married in ancient Egypt or the like?

According to wiki, marriage licenses have existed since only the middle ages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license

So I think that they are evidence not of government trying to force lifelong monogamy, but of the church trying to force a set of morals

Re:lifelong monogamy

[lawpoop]

Well, if you go with the theory of the church running marriage, remember that the seperation of church and state is a relatively recent idea, and it started (I think) in the United States. For example, in many European states, there is an official religion. To this day, in Finland, when a baby is born, it is Lutheran by default, unless the parents specifically ask that it not be. There is also a Church tax that many people choose to pay. It was only voluntary recently.

So when I say that marriage was invented and sanctioned by the state, I'm including the church with that. That's kind of an assumption built into these anthropological arguments, because pluralism and the separation of church and state is a relatively recent development. So it was my mistake for not making that clear. Up until, say, some 400 years ago, the church and state were in lock step, if not two branches of the same organization.

Wikipedia says marriage licenses were issued *since* the middle ages -- that doesn't mean that they *started* then. We know that they go back farther because Rabbis have been marrying people for thousands of years in the Jewish religion. And when there was the first Jewish state, thousands of years ago, the state and religion were the same thing. The 10 commandments were a legal code, not a moral code.

The marriage license itself, as in a piece of paper, is not really what I am talking about. I'm talking about needing permission and co-operation from the government that rules you. Basically what I am saying that if some stranger who is not necessarily a relative and has some position of authority is the only one who can say that "you two are now married", that is the state having a monopoly on marriage. Whether the official is a priest, a judge, a general, or bureaucrat, it's the Powers that Be Running marriage instead of the individuals or their families making decisions.

Abstract model that explains love [among other ..]

[gr8dude]

Back a few years I read a great book - Creierul, O enigma descifrata, translated from Romanian, it means "The brain - a deciphered enigma". The author named the concept "MDT: Modeling Device Theory"; the brain is treated as a device that is designed to make predictions about the real world, based on the input from the organs and the experience of the person (which is structured in models).


The book is fantastic, the author proposes an abstract model that explains how the brain works at the software level. The model is able to explain many things, including God [why we need such an entity, and what its actual role is], and love.

The idea is that the brain operates with models, which are meant to make predictions of the future, ones that are as accurate as possible. If a prediction is incorrect, the model is updated, hence the future predictions [based on that model] will be closer to the real deal. There are different models, such as school, internet, apple, etc. The models are inter-connected [think of a graph with a helluvalot of nodes]. The model "school" can be connected with the model "internet", which in its turn is connected with the model "slashdot", and so on.

Love is one of such models, what makes it different is the number of other nodes it has connections with.

Back to school and internet and slashdot: I have internet access at school, and that's where I read slashdot. If you take the school-model out, it's not a big deal; I can use another one, for instance "internet-cafe", and substitute the "dead" one with it.

That's not the case of love - take the dear person away, and the model-structure might collapse, because the absent model cannot be substituted.

This was a very generalized description. The idea is that love is just a software-level dependence: many other models point to it, and if love disappears, whatever you try to do - you get something like a null-pointer assignment.

If you understand Romanian - this book is definitely worth it!