Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#41 JarZe

JarZe

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1006 posts

Posted 06 November 2010 - 12:54 AM

To defend the chemicalists (as I've arbitrarily decided to label them :P ), I've heard of studies that show that people are drawn to opposites in more ways than one and that includes the pheromones people exude. So why would two people appear attracted to each other and then fall apart? Well, we like to use liberal amounts of perfume and cologne in some parts of the world which in some ways cover up or override our natural pheromones.

So two people who've dated a lot always wearing their best face (and odors) seem compatible, but in reality they might have clashing pheromones that are getting covered up. So when they finally move in together and spend time in each other's company without any of the various cover ups, suddenly the attraction is dulled or even reversed.

My philosophy teacher in high school commented that to really get to know someone, you shouldn't be focusing on how they are on a Friday night date, but how they would be on a Saturday morning. That sounds PG-13ish, but that's not how he meant it. His point was that when you go out on a date (or really when you do anything in public) most people put up a facade. And if people fall in love with each other's facades, they may be in for a rude awakening when they meet the real person.

The real person is revealed by the Saturday morning person. How would you be at 9:00am on a Saturday morning if you had made absolutely no plans for the day? :rolleyes: How many people would be up, bright-eyed and dressed to the nines at that time? What he was saying is that it's far more important to know what the person really is like underneath (how they would behave on a lazy Saturday morning) than how they present themselves on a Friday night date. So that's a couple of reasons for break-ups and the like.

Mmm... I've heard about the pheromones myself and I've heard that's a reason why you can find people more attractive when you're drunk, because the sensibility of the smell is somewhat less.

Anyways... We can give another point of view to what your philosophy teacher said, but that would be to accept that we base our (at least) initial attraction towards someone else on the physical attributes of the other person, and not only on the chemical reactions. So we might feel attracted so certain individual who is very dressed up and covered in perfume on a friday night in a club, but when we see what's underneath that, we're brought back to reality and realize that it was only the appearence what caught our eye, so there was actually no chemical reaction.

So, could there be a chemical reaction between two people who have never met in person? Can we explain the chemical reaction between two individuals that meet over the internet? I don't know, can we? Because I think you can look at someone on TV or a magazine and suddenly feel attracted to her/him (not saying that it's love, but love starts somewhere you know :P), is that really chemistry? Because I thought that in order for there to be chemistry there should be at least visual contact between "both" individuals, but I'm not sure.
  • 0

#42 octopuppy

octopuppy

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1303 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 November 2010 - 06:00 PM

I agree that the putting on, and subsequent dropping of, a facade is certainly a factor in early relationship breakup, but if we're looking months or years down the line, there are other factors involved. Of course there may be long-term deceptions or misunderstandings which surface and destroy the relationship, but in many cases breakups are the result of the natural life-cycle of a relationship. Relationships can be very intense in the early stages (see limerence), where a person is "madly" in love. This is highly "chemical" and is in some sense a chemical imbalance which must, by necessity, be restored sooner or later, since it entails an obsessiveness and sexual energy that intrudes into everyday life. I think it is inevitable that the intensity of a relationship calms down, usually about 1 to 3 years into that relationship. Whether the relationship survives the calming down period depends on the nature of the relationship, whether it centred around that early energy or whether there was more to it. It also depends on the expectations of the people in that relationship, whether they can accept the change. Later on a relationship may feel stale and nostalgia for that early excitement may cause partners to stray, trying to feel that same energy again. People who never settle down are perhaps on a never-ending quest for more limerence.
  • 0

#43 JarZe

JarZe

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1006 posts

Posted 08 November 2010 - 06:57 PM

I agree with most of what you said octopuppy, the early excitement of the relationship usually shifts into a different kind of "love" with time. I think this is where you can start talking about love, which would involve a lot more then just chemistry. Like you said, the partners involved in the relationship and how they adapt to the ups and downs is what might define the future of the relationship. So we can say that the initial phase of a relationship is based more or less on chemistry (and limerence ;))... This "big" chemical attraction starts to balance itself and you end up with a feeling like things have changed, so you have two options: (1) you adapt, and end up spending a long time with that partner or (2) you split up because you need that limerence that you had in the early stage of your relationship. So the question is, which one of those options best defines love? I don't know about you, but I think option (1) is more likely :huh: ... So that means that love is not 100% chemical, right? I mean, attraction is 100% chemical, but love isn't, and that's why LOVE<>ATTRACTION. Love goes beyond the excitement and passion of the early stages of each (or most) relationship.
  • 0

#44 maurice

maurice

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3612 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:23 PM

I'm cheating as I have not read all of the posts, but I will answer the question on the title. The murkiness lies in the application of love. Like many other things (socialism anybody?) love would not be as "murky" if it were not for the human element. Of course I will argue that the human element helps explain the beauty of love...but that was not the question now was it.
  • 0

#45 octopuppy

octopuppy

    Senior Member

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1303 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 November 2010 - 11:36 PM

So the question is, which one of those options best defines love? I don't know about you, but I think option (1) is more likely :huh: ... So that means that love is not 100% chemical, right? I mean, attraction is 100% chemical, but love isn't, and that's why LOVE<>ATTRACTION. Love goes beyond the excitement and passion of the early stages of each (or most) relationship.

I wouldn't want to define love as one thing and not another, there's so many uses of the word that it's a hiding to nothing. Our language fails us there. At least in Italian there are more distinct ways of saying "I love you" (kind of like how Eskimos have several words for snow ;)): "ti amo" (romantic / intense), and "ti voglio bene" (family / friend) avoids some of the more awkward misunderstandings but I think that's only scraping the surface. You could probably think up as many distinct forms of love as you wanted, depending on how specifically you want to categorise. For example the previous two categories could be subdivided and don't really express dependence, limerence, reciprocation, humanity, passion, regard, comfort and a whole host of other factors in any clear way. Language affects the way we think about things, and our lack of language suggests that "love" is one thing, which IMO is just silly.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users