How guys feel when they are in love

^_^

I KNEW it.

No two people have the same understanding about what love is. Because of this, the following is true:

(1) no two people behave the same way in response to their feelings of love nor in response to other people's behaviors (like how they show their love), and

(2) no two people mean the same thing when they say "I love you."

What is love? I think love boils down to wants. "I love you" means "I want you to take on certain responsibilities." What responsibilities? Well each person has a different set of responsibilities in mind. And when people don't get what they want out of these relationships, then they get hurt. And when they do get what they want, then they feel great, partly because they aren't hurt.

Ayn Rand believed that when a person loves another, it should be because they share many of the same important values. I agree. Its boggles my mind to know that some people love people that don't share important values -- these relationships can be expected to end with lots of hurt.

Thoughts? Criticism?

rombomb wrote:No two people have the same understanding about what love is. Because of this, the following is true:

(1) no two people behave the same way in response to their feelings of love nor in response to other people's behaviors (like how they show their love), and

(2) no two people mean the same thing when they say "I love you."

I would say there is some degree of variance, but I think these concepts, these responses, are a bit more universal than you may give them credit for. While there is an idealistic component to love, and this can be very subjective, chances are the fundamental precepts are not going to be original. The way humans experience the feeling is going to be very similar; there is a neurochemical basis for what goes on inside of a person which will be a constant:

Studies in neuroscience have involved chemicals that are present in the brain and might be involved when people experience love. These chemicals include: nerve growth factor, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin. Adequate brain levels of testosterone seem important for both human male and female sexual behavior. Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship.[citation needed] Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.
The conventional view in biology is that there are two major drives in love — sexual attraction and attachment. Attachment between adults is presumed to work on the same principles that lead an infant to become attached to his or her mother or father– or both.
The chemicals triggered that are responsible for passionate love and long-term attachment love seem to be more particular to the activities in which both persons participate rather than to the nature of the specific people involved.

The way someone responds to and expresses these feelings may vary a bit, though.

What is love? I think love boils down to wants. "I love you" means "I want you to take on certain responsibilities." What responsibilities? Well each person has a different set of responsibilities in mind. And when people don't get what they want out of these relationships, then they get hurt. And when they do get what they want, then they feel great, partly because they aren't hurt.

I think love is more wanting to be around that person a great deal, most likely for the long term or very least a while to come. It may seem like a natural logical step to say that this will entail taking on certain responsibilities if you want to make it work. I'm not sure everybody actually thinks about these too carefully… and may even be averse to discussing the responsibilities part.

But, yes, if that person has any semblance of maturity, they will acknowledge the responsibilities of a romantic relationship without simply giving them lip service.

Ayn Rand believed that when a person loves another, it should be because they share many of the same important values. I agree. It boggles my mind to know that some people love people that don't share important values -- these relationships can be expected to end with lots of hurt.

What do you mean by values? What it is a person wants out of a relationship? Or perhaps values that don't pertain directly to romance, but rather general morality or perhaps specific worldviews? I could imagine someone like Rand being unable to date anybody who wasn't a laissez-faire capitalist or radical libertarian and alluding to this specifically. Whether my partner were socialist, capitalist, or whatever else wouldn't especially matter, to me. Were they lacking in compassion and had vastly different ethics — or a complete lack thereof — on the other hand, then it would be an issue. (Ethical conflict has caused some serious conflicts in my past relations.)

But the most obvious way to take this would be whether or not we both believe in long-term commitment, monogamy, and wanted the same things out of a relationship. Then, of course, there would be some serious complications and hurt down the road.

Well that was a simple, happy, make you smile meme before it got analyzed to death....

Dreamspace wrote:
I would say there is some degree of variance, but I think these concepts, these responses, are a bit more universal than you may give them credit for. While there is an idealistic component to love, and this can be very subjective, chances are the fundamental precepts are not going to be original. The way humans experience the feeling is going to be very similar; there is a neurochemical basis for what goes on inside of a person which will be a constant:

Studies in neuroscience have involved chemicals that are present in the brain and might be involved when people experience love. These chemicals include: nerve growth factor, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin. Adequate brain levels of testosterone seem important for both human male and female sexual behavior. Dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin are more commonly found during the attraction phase of a relationship.[citation needed] Oxytocin and vasopressin seemed to be more closely linked to long term bonding and relationships characterized by strong attachments.
The conventional view in biology is that there are two major drives in love — sexual attraction and attachment.

But all of that is irrelevant. Take for example the fact that sexual attraction is dependent on one's (subconscious and conscious) ideas about what *is* sexually attractive. In previous centuries, short hair on women was not sexy, but now many guys find it sexy. Its cultural evolution at work.

Attachment between adults is presumed to work on the same principles that lead an infant to become attached to his or her mother or father– or both.

What's really going on there is dependancy. If I am attached to my child, that means I'm dependent on our interactions -- meaning that if I don't get them, I feel bad. If my child dies, and then at some point I stopped feeling bad in his absense, that means I'm no longer dependent on that relationship.

The chemicals triggered that are responsible for passionate love and long-term attachment love seem to be more particular to the activities in which both persons participate rather than to the nature of the specific people involved.

The way someone responds to and expresses these feelings may vary a bit, though.

I don't understand why you believe that it'll vary "a bit". I think it varies a lot, since everybody has different ideas about how they should respond to and express their feelings. There is no standard. Its a moving target. And no one knows anybody else's standard (unless they discussed it heavily and almost no one does that, maybe no one.)

I think love is more wanting to be around that person a great deal, most likely for the long term or very least a while to come.

Thats consistent with what I said. If a guy wants a girl to be around him, thats equivalent to "he wants her to take on the responsibility of being around him." The reason I used the word responsibility is that if it doesn't happen (and I'm talking about a monogomous relationship), he feels sad that she's not being around him and often he'll go further and try to get her to change her ways.

It may seem like a natural logical step to say that this will entail taking on certain responsibilities if you want to make it work. I'm not sure everybody actually thinks about these too carefully… and may even be averse to discussing the responsibilities part.

I'm mostly speaking of how people think subconsciously. I think it doesn't matter that people don't consciously think in terms of responsibilities.

Ayn Rand believed that when a person loves another, it should be because they share many of the same important values. I agree. It boggles my mind to know that some people love people that don't share important values -- these relationships can be expected to end with lots of hurt.

What do you mean by values? What it is a person wants out of a relationship?

Yes.

Or perhaps values that don't pertain directly to romance, but rather general morality or perhaps specific worldviews?

Yes. Note that those things can greatly affect what a person wants out of a relationship.

I could imagine someone like Rand being unable to date anybody who wasn't a laissez-faire capitalist or radical libertarian

She wasn't a libertarian. She was an objectivist.

and alluding to this specifically. Whether my partner were socialist, capitalist, or whatever else wouldn't especially matter, to me. Were they lacking in compassion and had vastly different ethics — or a complete lack thereof — on the other hand, then it would be an issue. (Ethical conflict has caused some serious conflicts in my past relations.)

But those are the same -- socialism and capitalism are systems of ethics.

But the most obvious way to take this would be whether or not we both believe in long-term commitment, monogamy, and wanted the same things out of a relationship. Then, of course, there would be some serious complications and hurt down the road.

I agree. Also how people approach conflicts matters a lot. Do they hide the conflicts believing that problems will dissolve on their own? Or do they address conflicts by discussing them directly with the aim of solving the problems causing the conflicts? Or do they try to solve these kinds of problems indirectly by giving hints to their partner instead of direct discussion?

Havonej wrote:Well that was a simple, happy, make you smile meme before it got analyzed to death....

It seems that you're implying that love doesn't result in hurt, but it does, a lot. Why does it cause so much hurt? Its because many people don't analyze it.

Take an extreme example. A girl believes in the ideas (1) in love at first sight is possible and (2) that everyone has a soulmate. She meets a guy and gets this feeling and she now believes that this person is her soulmate. Within weeks she is married and living with him. And then he treats her like shit and gets drunk and beats her -- lots of psychological hurt. She finds out that she was wrong about both of those ideas -- there is no such thing as a soulmate and love at first sight doesn't mean anything substantive.

I say its better to analyze to avoid such situations.

rombomb wrote:

Havonej wrote:Well that was a simple, happy, make you smile meme before it got analyzed to death....

It seems that you're implying that love doesn't result in hurt, but it does, a lot. Why does it cause so much hurt? Its because many people don't analyze it.

Why analyze a meme? Did you analyze nyan cat, long cat, Chuck Norris jokes, this picture? Stupid my little pony pictures with stupid one liner text? Cause really, if you feel the need to find the inner meaning in nyan cat you need to take a less serious look at life.


And my reply to you then, is maybe you've never been really in love.

Havonej wrote:

rombomb wrote:

Havonej wrote:Well that was a simple, happy, make you smile meme before it got analyzed to death....

It seems that you're implying that love doesn't result in hurt, but it does, a lot. Why does it cause so much hurt? Its because many people don't analyze it.

Why analyze a meme?

So that it doesn't control you.

Havonej wrote:Did you analyze nyan cat, long cat, Chuck Norris jokes, this picture? Stupid my little pony pictures with stupid one liner text? Cause really, if you feel the need to find the inner meaning in nyan cat you need to take a less serious look at life.

Do people commonly get hurt by doing those things?

Havonej wrote:
And my reply to you then, is maybe you've never been really in love.

Whats the point of that? Are you trying to discount the merit of my ideas without actually considering the content of them and instead by suggesting that I couldn't possibly know about love because I've never experienced it?

By that same logic, I could say that you've never been really hurt (in a romantic relationship).

I'm often in love, and to be honest, I'm not logically trying to define it. I'm more interested in expressing it. ^_^

Just wondering, why must the feeling of love be defined with words that are not equipped to do so, why must a feeling so definitive be dissected?

We can talk about popular notions of love, influenced by various societies. But the actual feeling just has one word that describes it...love.

The meme describes that feeling at the beginning, all the things that go with feeling love. Interestingly it can also apply to love of one's child or family or friend too. Love is love.

rombomb wrote:But all of that is irrelevant. Take for example the fact that sexual attraction is dependent on one's (subconscious and conscious) ideas about what *is* sexually attractive. In previous centuries, short hair on women was not sexy, but now many guys find it sexy. Its cultural evolution at work.

I'm not following. Certain aesthetics may have initial draws and may be predicated upon cultural vagaries, but the feelings the other elicits in us are the same. Is what defines love the hairstyle of your partner? Not only is this shallow idealistically, it's a non sequitur; this hormonal cocktail causing objective, mechanical events in your brain and nervous system are going to be the same regardless of your partner's physical attributes. What is sexually attractive is determined by biology and environmental factors. Once you are drawn to the person through sexual attraction, typically what happens next is attachment; you feel affection for this person in addition to the sexual arousal.

My personal beliefs are that love is something more than sexual attraction atop affection, but a gestalt — one which is comprised of more than just finding a friend attractive. Although, I don't have much empirical basis for this; it's based on anecdotal experience.

What's really going on there is dependancy. If I am attached to my child, that means I'm dependent on our interactions -- meaning that if I don't get them, I feel bad. If my child dies, and then at some point I stopped feeling bad in his absense, that means I'm no longer dependent on that relationship.

So you're saying love is dependency, or are you saying love and dependency are two different things?

I don't understand why you believe that it'll vary "a bit". I think it varies a lot, since everybody has different ideas about how they should respond to and express their feelings. There is no standard. Its a moving target. And no one knows anybody else's standard (unless they discussed it heavily and almost no one does that, maybe no one.)

Maybe there is a lot of variation on the surface? It's hard to really see that as anything but incidental when the underlying cause is the same. If you expressed your feelings by going on a trip to Disney World instead of reading poetry together (or whatever else for that matter), is the love different? Activities were different; the relationship is something abstract and shared between two individuals.

Thats consistent with what I said. If a guy wants a girl to be around him, thats equivalent to "he wants her to take on the responsibility of being around him." The reason I used the word responsibility is that if it doesn't happen (and I'm talking about a monogomous relationship), he feels sad that she's not being around him and often he'll go further and try to get her to change her ways.

I'm trying to understand what you have in mind here. You're thinking of a specific context where a guy desires a monogamous relationship with a girl, and she isn't interested in him or only wants to keep it casual? And in this case, is only the girl taking on the responsibilities of handling the guy's desires, or is the responsibility also the guy's pursuit and persuasion of the girl? In either case, being so… tenaciously persistent may not be be responsible if that is not what she desires. And the way you phrase it almost seems as though you mean she is taking his feelings as a responsibility — which it shouldn't be. If the love is requited, accepting and reciprocating his feelings is not the responsibility. Rather, the responsibilities are the labor put into being able to both indulge each other's feelings.

I apologize if I appear to be caviling over semantics, but I'm trying to understanding your conception of romance.

I could imagine someone like Rand being unable to date anybody who wasn't a laissez-faire capitalist or radical libertarian

She wasn't a libertarian. She was an objectivist.

Yes, but few fashion themselves objectivists, and while objectivism is a bit more a philosophical system, it believes liberty is fundamental a necessity. Thus, objectivists are de facto libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists. But since libertarians are primarily concerned with civics and not ethics, metaphysics or epistemology quite so much, I do suppose an objectivist would take umbrage at the insinuation that they are effectively the same with a few trifling nuances in the doctrine.

But those are the same -- socialism and capitalism are systems of ethics.

I would consider socialism and capitalism means to an end, but not ends in themselves. I believe socialists and capitalists want to bring about the greatest prosperity, but simply disagree on how to achieve it. I wouldn't consider one 'evil' and the other 'good'; both want to achieve justice, but have a different idea how to go about it. But I am not personally invested in any specific dogma.

For me, if my partner had strong political convictions — communist, socialist, objectivist, libertarian, mixed-economy capitalist, laissez-faire capitalist, or even believed in a resource-based economy — and I felt as though the motivation behind this was to make people happier and more well off, it wouldn't be an issue at all. I'm not John Rawls or Robert Nozick. (Although, I'd still be tempted to write a slashfic about these two: a homoerotic love–hate rivalry turned romance. )

I actually believe being overly zealous about any given ideology makes one too partial, and if anything could itself be deemed unethical. If your method doesn't bring about the greatest degree of happiness, from a utilitarian standpoint, it wouldn't be very ethical to insist upon it. I believe we have a moral prerogative to have an open and civil discourse about methodology, and to be as open-minded as possible, as to ascertain what it is which will achieve this.

But I'm really going off on a tangent here. We'd better leave the debating about ethics or political ideology and economic systems to another thread. Let's just say I feel as though you shouldn't conflate your political beliefs with being morally upstanding or righteous as it would lead to dogmatism and demagoguery.

I agree. Also how people approach conflicts matters a lot. Do they hide the conflicts believing that problems will dissolve on their own? Or do they address conflicts by discussing them directly with the aim of solving the problems causing the conflicts? Or do they try to solve these kinds of problems indirectly by giving hints to their partner instead of direct discussion?

Yes, there are a lot of people who are actually averse to talking things through, working together and resolving problems with their partner. Finding someone you can communicate with and work through issues with is one of the most important qualities a partner can have. If you can't express your desires and feelings and work out a compromise, the long-term viability of the relationship is at best dubious.

melodiccolor wrote:Just wondering, why must the feeling of love be defined with words that are not equipped to do so, why must a feeling so definitive be dissected?

I simply don't buy into the idea that the beauty of love is somehow vitiated if it somehow is defined. Does it have to be this ineffable thing to be special, beautiful or rewarding? Perhaps from a poet's standpoint; I don't personally base my life around rhyme and hokum, however. If you can account for my feelings, what it is that makes me feel love, then how does it detract from it? If I were to suddenly lose interest in my partner because I saw what lie beneath a meretricious rubric, then love would be nothing more than a farce to begin with.

But perhaps that's just the xNTP mindset. As Feynman put it:

Dreamspace wrote:

rombomb wrote:But all of that is irrelevant. Take for example the fact that sexual attraction is dependent on one's (subconscious and conscious) ideas about what *is* sexually attractive. In previous centuries, short hair on women was not sexy, but now many guys find it sexy. Its cultural evolution at work.

I'm not following. Certain aesthetics may have initial draws and may be predicated upon cultural vagaries, but the feelings the other elicits in us are the same. Is what defines love the hairstyle of your partner? Not only is this shallow idealistically, it's a non sequitur; this hormonal cocktail causing objective, mechanical events in your brain and nervous system are going to be the same regardless of your partner's physical attributes. What is sexually attractive is determined by biology and environmental factors.

I don't agree that everybody has the exact same physiological effects happening to them when they are "in love". Its not an all or none phenomenon -- it comes in degrees. And this is greatly affected by our memes.

Dreamspace wrote:
Once you are drawn to the person through sexual attraction, typically what happens next is attachment; you feel affection for this person in addition to the sexual arousal.

The sexual attraction is theory-laden. The process of getting/being attached is theory-laden. The feeling affection is theory-laden. By "theory-laden" I mean affected by our ideas.

Dreamspace wrote:
My personal beliefs are that love is something more than sexual attraction atop affection, but a gestalt — one which is comprised of more than just finding a friend attractive. Although, I don't have much empirical basis for this; it's based on anecdotal experience.

I agree with the idea that love is a gestalt. That implies that every person experiences love differently since (1) love is theory-laden and (2) no two people have the same ideas.

Its impossible to get empirical evidence for this since our accounts of it are subjective.

Dreamspace wrote:

What's really going on there is dependancy. If I am attached to my child, that means I'm dependent on our interactions -- meaning that if I don't get them, I feel bad. If my child dies, and then at some point I stopped feeling bad in his absense, that means I'm no longer dependent on that relationship.

So you're saying love is dependency, or are you saying love and dependency are two different things?

They are different things. But being in love with someone includes being dependent on them -- though maybe this is just a correlation I've noticed and so maybe there are people that are in love but not dependent.

Dreamspace wrote:

I don't understand why you believe that it'll vary "a bit". I think it varies a lot, since everybody has different ideas about how they should respond to and express their feelings. There is no standard. Its a moving target. And no one knows anybody else's standard (unless they discussed it heavily and almost no one does that, maybe no one.)

Maybe there is a lot of variation on the surface? It's hard to really see that as anything but incidental when the underlying cause is the same. If you expressed your feelings by going on a trip to Disney World instead of reading poetry together (or whatever else for that matter), is the love different? Activities were different; the relationship is something abstract and shared between two individuals.

The underlying cause is not the same. I think you're saying that the cause is biological. I disagree. I think the cause is our ideas.

Dreamspace wrote:

Thats consistent with what I said. If a guy wants a girl to be around him, thats equivalent to "he wants her to take on the responsibility of being around him." The reason I used the word responsibility is that if it doesn't happen (and I'm talking about a monogomous relationship), he feels sad that she's not being around him and often he'll go further and try to get her to change her ways.

I'm trying to understand what you have in mind here. You're thinking of a specific context where a guy desires a monogamous relationship with a girl, and she isn't interested in him or only wants to keep it casual?

No. She is interested in him, but she has a different idea about how much time together is appropriate. Lets say he wants lots of time together and she wants much less.

Dreamspace wrote:
And in this case, is only the girl taking on the responsibilities of handling the guy's desires, or is the responsibility also the guy's pursuit and persuasion of the girl? In either case, being so… tenaciously persistent may not be be responsible if that is not what she desires. And the way you phrase it almost seems as though you mean she is taking his feelings as a responsibility — which it shouldn't be. If the love is requited, accepting and reciprocating his feelings is not the responsibility. Rather, the responsibilities are the labor put into being able to both indulge each other's feelings.

I apologize if I appear to be caviling over semantics, but I'm trying to understanding your conception of romance.

I don't think you're arguing over semantics. And even if you were, its nothing to apologize for. I'm very much enjoying this discussion.

Dreamspace wrote:

I could imagine someone like Rand being unable to date anybody who wasn't a laissez-faire capitalist or radical libertarian

She wasn't a libertarian. She was an objectivist.

Yes, but few fashion themselves objectivists, and while objectivism is a bit more a philosophical system, it believes liberty is fundamental a necessity. Thus, objectivists are de facto libertarians, but not all libertarians are objectivists. But since libertarians are primarily concerned with civics and not ethics, metaphysics or epistemology quite so much, I do suppose an objectivist would take umbrage at the insinuation that they are effectively the same with a few trifling nuances in the doctrine.

No they are very different from each other. For some details, see this:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/beginning-of-infinity/Zfp7JRryJgE/mpkPfW3JZc8J

Dreamspace wrote:

But those are the same -- socialism and capitalism are systems of ethics.

I would consider socialism and capitalism means to an end, but not ends in themselves. I believe socialists and capitalists want to bring about the greatest prosperity, but simply disagree on how to achieve it. I wouldn't consider one 'evil' and the other 'good'; both want to achieve justice, but have a different idea how to go about it. But I am not personally invested in any specific dogma.

Capitalism is about freedom. Socialism is not -- no freedom in trade, no freedom for private property.

Dreamspace wrote:
For me, if my partner had strong political convictions — communist, socialist, objectivist, libertarian, mixed-economy capitalist, laissez-faire capitalist, or even believed in a resource-based economy — and I felt as though the motivation behind this was to make people happier and more well off, it wouldn't be an issue at all. I'm not John Rawls or Robert Nozick. (Although, I'd still be tempted to write a slashfic about these two: a homoerotic love–hate rivalry turned romance. )

Socialism is consistent with altruism. Capistalism is consistent with rational selfishness. A relationship between one who believes in rational selfishness and one who believes in altruism, wouldn't work well.

Dreamspace wrote:
I actually believe being overly zealous about any given ideology makes one too partial, and if anything could itself be deemed unethical. If your method doesn't bring about the greatest degree of happiness, from a utilitarian standpoint, it wouldn't be very ethical to insist upon it. I believe we have a moral prerogative to have an open and civil discourse about methodology, and to be as open-minded as possible, as to ascertain what it is which will achieve this.

Freedom for everybody. That is ethical because that is what allows people the ability to pursue happiness for themselves.

Dreamspace wrote:
But I'm really going off on a tangent here. We'd better leave the debating about ethics or political ideology and economic systems to another thread. Let's just say I feel as though you shouldn't conflate your political beliefs with being morally upstanding or righteous as it would lead to dogmatism and demagoguery.

Ok on the moving the political stuff to another thread. I don't follow what you mean about "would lead to dogmatism and demoguery". Note that all my ideas are connected in a network -- so my ideas on morality shape my ideas on politics.

Dreamspace wrote:

melodiccolor wrote:Just wondering, why must the feeling of love be defined with words that are not equipped to do so, why must a feeling so definitive be dissected?

I simply don't buy into the idea that the beauty of love is somehow vitiated if it somehow is defined. Does it have to be this ineffable thing to be special, beautiful or rewarding? Perhaps from a poet's standpoint; I don't personally base my life around rhyme and hokum, however. If you can account for my feelings, what it is that makes me feel love, then how does it detract from it? If I were to suddenly lose interest in my partner because I saw what lie beneath a meretricious rubric, then love would be nothing more than a farce to begin with.

But perhaps that's just the xNTP mindset. As Feynman put it:

Awesome! Thanks for that video. I disagree with Feynman on the idea that analyzing beauty can only add and not subtract. It can subtract ***if*** the person doing the analyzing has the idea that analyzing it would decrease its beauty. Or if they just don't like analyzing in general due to some anti-rational memes. As for me, I ***love*** knowing how the world works. The hair on my arms stands when I learn something new about it.

David Deutsch talks about how beauty is objective in his book _The Beginning of Infinity_. By that I mean that beauty has a universal component irrespective of our ideas.

I too have figured out something about that. I'll post it in another thread. Its about how artists can design their art with the aim of causing calm or causing distress.