|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted December 30, 2013 03:54 PM |
|
|
mvass said:
The point is, you need information about a person to trust them enough to love them. While there is a certain degree of "trust at first sight", it's not enough trust for love.
No, that's just the brain trying to rationalize. The reality is, however, that most people fail to collect enough information for a CORRECT assessment, otherwise there wouldn't be so much cheating and "rose wars", and that's NOT because they wouldn't wait long enough. Even if partners are benevolent there's no telling what may happen and how things may develop from a rational point ov view - which means you can simply cut all that and come directly to the point and listen to your instincts. Your rational mind won't help you anyway.
artu said:
@JJ
Quote:
You may find this interesting: Links to study
Yes, it is interesting. Since we've already talked about attraction/love which and when stuff already, I wont repeat that. But the thing I would rather focus on would be their paradigm: The articles position themselves on the premise that love at first sight is a romantic notion, when the studies show how fast we react to facial elements, they use sentences like "So in the end, all of you hopeless romantics may be on to something in your quest for love at first sight." or "Maybe the hopeless romantics are on to something."
Now, there is a difference between claiming something is really love or not and claiming something is ideally romantic as well, the second one is also about sublimation and ideology (it is normative, not telling us if something is real or not but telling us something is good or bad). For example, I've once read a study, analyzing the transformation of the Romantic Comedy in cinema, it concluded that in the fifties and sixties, it was considered ideally romantic for the protagonist to ask the woman to stop working once they get married and become the lady of her house. It was a sign that he was willing to take care of her and he was strong enough. As women rights, feminist movements etc etc got ahead, this behavior first disappeared and then, it even turned into something the antagonist (the other guy that gets dumped in the end) does. Turning back to your links, they hesitate to bluntly classify the data as love or attraction and use a cautious language but one thing they don't hesitate is to consider love at first sight an ideally romantic notion.
However, even if it is/was real, love at first sight can be considered a very anti-romantic idea as well. It can be said that an idealization of love based on such elements reduces love back into quite the biological urges it evolved from. An important thing to remember is that, in the old times, the idea was so optimistically embraced because people also believed in fate, destiny, being put together by God's masterplan. But once you take that concept out of the mix, what is left to be idealized, reacting quicker to faces that resembles ours? (Which is quite the axe on the whole selflessness thing, btw).
So, this brings the other question:
Quote:
Intellectual people tend to overrate the role of the conscious mind and diminish the "animal" in us, but it's there, nonetheless.
Although, there is definitely truth in that, I think the statement is incomplete. They don't just overrate it, they value it and idealize it more. One of the reasons we can not define love is, although the common elements are quite valid, there is also too much variation based on our personal differences. Does, say Kierkegaard and a truck driver fall in love the same way, do they expect and idealize the same traits? Does intellectual people just overrate getting to know each other or do they actually care about it more?
The question goes even deeper than that.
It would seem that certain animals show all signs of a behaviour that could be called love - which also means, it's no question that this would ansd should have happened in ancient and pre-ancient times as well.
In other words, if you ask the question, whether "love" is in any way dependent on rational, intelligent, cvilized thought, the answer should be no. THAT one puts only icings on the cake - what is thought of as "romantic" or corteous and so on , actually what we are debating here and what isn't love in my mind, but only a rationalization of it: intellectual reflection of the basic emotional stuff that goes on. (Which isn't to say that intellectual harmony may not increase the feeling of love, on the contrary.)
So the key to love is to listen to your emotions, follow your instincts and intuitions, and then make use of your consciousness and intellect to to put things onto another level; that level, however, is the one that can be changed/adapted/adjusted.
However, I don't necessarily see a difference between high intellect and low intellect relationships. No matter how handicapped people are, they are able to deep and intensive feelings and have their own issues they can exchange about with each other.
Bottom line for me is, that the whole rational/cultural aspect (which is also the one that would falsely claim that time was necessary) is the most unimportant part here, but of course the mind doesn't like to be called unimportant. 
It also occured to me that it's also non-intellectual stuff that brings down relationships - it's not some contradictory interests or opinions, intellectual differences, but it's irritating habits and repetetive annoying behaviour that has nothing to do with the intellect at all.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 04:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However, I don't necessarily see a difference between high intellect and low intellect relationships. No matter how handicapped people are, they are able to deep and intensive feelings and have their own issues they can exchange about with each other.
Btw, I didn't mean to suggest a truck driver would be necessarily less intelligent than Kierkegaard or less capable of love. But, I guess it would be quite safe to assume he would be less stimulated by intelligence itself in a woman.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The reality is, however, that most people fail to collect enough information for a CORRECT assessment, otherwise there wouldn't be so much cheating and "rose wars", and that's NOT because they wouldn't wait long enough. Even if partners are benevolent there's no telling what may happen and how things may develop from a rational point ov view - which means you can simply cut all that and come directly to the point and listen to your instincts. Your rational mind won't help you anyway.
People rarely have enough information for a correct assessment? That's highly questionable, once you add the number of successful relationships to the number of relationships that are unsuccessful but not for reasons of mistaken trust. Also, trust increases in a relationship as you get to know the person better - because you get to know the person better - and along with that, love increases. People who know each other better trust each other more, which makes sense. Sure, people still make mistakes, but there are much fewer mistakes than if they trusted blindly like you suggest. As for your last point, you're treating relationships as completely random - which they are not.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 07:45 PM |
|
|
Mvass, your logic is flawed.
All those relationship that last could have started with immediate "full trust", while those that fail, well, failed no matter the time spent with working up trust.
It's just an illusion that the conscious mind invents. You either trust things or you don't.
Take your plain travel. The fact that you tentatively try one - full of fear - and do NOT crash, doesn't mean you WON'T crash (anytime later). It would also be foolish to say, hey, now that I survived a plane trip, I'll do it more often, it seems ok.
Instead you should think Final Destination. You either fly - and if you do, you already made your decision to trust your life to the machine and it makes no sense anymore to hold back with your trust. Or you don't - because you decide that this is something you don't want to.
Or you fly trustfully - until you have a strong hunch that you SHOULDN'T. And in that case you should cancel the flight.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 08:22 PM |
|
|
|
Trust in people is not that binary It has degrees AND fields. There are people you'd trust in a street fight to back you up but you wont trust them with money issues or vice versa... Is trust a must in romantic love? I dont think so. There are many people who sign prenubs for example, are they all marrying without love? How about two hustlers who fall in love, will they be able to trust each other? And what about people who love their spouses despite being cheated? They still love but they definetely dont trust them to be loyal.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 10:04 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Trust in people is not that binary It has degrees AND fields. There are people you'd trust in a street fight to back you up but you wont trust them with money issues or vice versa... Is trust a must in romantic love? I dont think so. There are many people who sign prenubs for example, are they all marrying without love? How about two hustlers who fall in love, will they be able to trust each other? And what about people who love their spouses despite being cheated? They still love but they definetely dont trust them to be loyal.
Artu, I thought we were talking about people we "fell in love with". Is trust a must in romantic love, you ask?
Yes.
Are people that sign prenups are marrying without love?
Yes. Well, no, of course not. But why ARE they marrying when they have to call a bunch of lawyers and sign a ton of papers that cater for when they separate?
I don't know about hustlers. But what I know is, that the problem with cheating isn't the cheating, but the loss of trust that goes with it. "They still love, but they definitely don't trust them to be loyal?"
Lots of problems with that one.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 10:25 PM |
|
|
|
Problems like what, haven't you ever seen anybody checking up on their spouse or secretly reading e-mails etc etc. They are still in love but they dont trust their partner, maybe they never did, actually in some cases it may be their love that drives them overskeptical and jealous.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 10:55 PM |
|
|
JJ:
That's a highly implausible explanation of people's feelings and behavior. Suppose you're in some place where strangers are untrustworthy, say, Russia or India. Would the typical person trust an attractive stranger to watch their things? Probably not. But if they'd get to know the stranger and learn that they're trustworthy, then they'd be comfortable letting them watch their stuff, and perhaps more. Do you really think that people have one level of trust that they have for a particular person - a level that doesn't change with more knowledge? I can tell you from personal experience that it's not true - people's levels of trust change as they get to know each other. But that should be obvious from people's behavior. I don't know how you reached this strange conclusion.
And as for plane travel, you know that it's safe because plane crashes are rare. It doesn't have to be specific to you, because you have no reason to believe that your flight would be any more likely to crash than average.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 10:57 PM |
|
|
|
No, that's called insecurity, distrust, paranoia, jealousy - but not love.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 11:03 PM |
|
|
|
I'm not saying it is CALLED love. I'm not saying trust isn't important either. But lack of trust does not necessarily mean lack of love. I can imagine hundreds of examples, both real and hypotethical.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 11:05 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
JJ:
That's a highly implausible explanation of people's feelings and behavior. Suppose you're in some place where strangers are untrustworthy, say, Russia or India. Would the typical person trust an attractive stranger to watch their things? Probably not. But if they'd get to know the stranger and learn that they're trustworthy, then they'd be comfortable letting them watch their stuff, and perhaps more. Do you really think that people have one level of trust that they have for a particular person - a level that doesn't change with more knowledge? I can tell you from personal experience that it's not true - people's levels of trust change as they get to know each other. But that should be obvious from people's behavior. I don't know how you reached this strange conclusion.
And as for plane travel, you know that it's safe because plane crashes are rare. It doesn't have to be specific to you, because you have no reason to believe that your flight would be any more likely to crash than average.
Dude, I don't doubt that people's levels of trust change as they get to know each other - IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
It seems that you don't understand the fact that yor flight security doesn't depend on how much trust you invest OR how often you fly. IT'S INDEPENDENT OF THE LEVEL OF TRUST YOU PUT INTO IT.
Negatively spoken: it doesn't matter whether you are careful with your trust: if you crash - you crash. If not - you don't.
Now, you have no reason whatsoever to put any trusst into some cab driver or Russsian hotel accountant, because there is no GAIN, if you do.
However, if you fall in love and it looks like it's mutually - HAPPINESS is in the offing. So there is A LOT to be gained here.
So wuit the silly examples, ok?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 11:06 PM |
|
|
artu said:
I'm not saying it is CALLED love. I'm not saying trust isn't important either. But lack of trust does not necessarily mean lack of love. I can imagine hundreds of examples, both real and hypotethical.
Oh? Well, go ahead then.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 11:15 PM |
|
|
|
You can love someone although you know that person is a liar or has weaknesses she/he can't control or you can simply be very pessimistic about human nature. The problem may not always be on the other person either, you can have serious trust issues in general but be deeply in love. You can be not trusting because you yourself wouldn't be trusted but you can still love. People aren't loved just because they are trustworthy.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 30, 2013 11:52 PM |
|
|
JJ:
It doesn't make sense that your level of trust can change as you get to know someone better? It makes perfect sense - as you know more about a person, you learn more about them, and so your opinion of them changes. You know more about who they are and what they're like, so you have a more accurate view of them for that reason. Also, as you get to know each other, you start caring about each other more because you're not faceless strangers to each other, so that's an additional reason to increase your level of trust.
There is something to be gained from trusting someone or something. Sure, whether you trust airplane travel has no effect on whether it's safe, but it does affect how you act, that is, if you trust airplane travel, you get the benefit of flying - but of course your trust may be misplaced and you can crash. Similarly, trusting a cab driver with your stuff gains you convenience, but it can have the drawback of having your stuff stolen.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 12:16 AM |
|
|
Mvass, I don't even know what you are talking about anymore. Doesn't seem to have to do anything with love, I might add.
artu said:
You can love someone although you know that person is a liar or has weaknesses she/he can't control or you can simply be very pessimistic about human nature.
I strongly doubt that. No. You can't.
Quote:
The problem may not always be on the other person either, you can have serious trust issues in general but be deeply in love. You can be not trusting because you yourself wouldn't be trusted but you can still love. People aren't loved just because they are trustworthy.
I didn't think, it would be so difficult.
It would seem to me that you don't have the slightest clue what love and trust is all about, do you?
The thing with human relationship is, that IF you can fully trust another person, you can fully RELAX for a time. If you are alone, you have to be alert 24/7. If you have someone to trust, you have to be alert only half that time.
Ideally, love is, you kill someone and your partner is covering your ass.
People aren't loved because they are trustworthy.
Instead, you are loved - and that's what makes you trustworthy.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 12:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I strongly doubt that. No. You can't.
So, if a person is, say, a junkie, and since junkies can't be trusted for they'll do anything during a cold turkey, therefore a junkie can not be truly loved by anyone?
Quote:
People aren't loved because they are trustworthy.
Instead, you are loved - and that's what makes you trustworthy.
Preferably not necessarily. And the kind of trust you talk about is specifically found in long term relationships, it's not a first sight thing.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 01:41 AM |
|
|
From my experience, for what is worth (not more or less that any of you), falling in love has nothing to do with the other person being honest, moral or trustworthy. It is something that can't be analyzed and you can even disagree with yourself falling in love, it still happens and catches you by the guts.
That's why there is a saying "the heart has his reasons".
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 01:50 AM |
|
|
Yes, sometimes people fall in love for foolish reasons (which says something about them). But love, like everything else, can certainly be analyzed. Anything can be analyzed.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 01:52 AM |
|
|
Yes everything can be analyzed but nothing grants you that your analyze, in specific cases, is close to the truth.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 04:20 AM |
|
|
Sure, but love isn't random - there's something systematic about it. Given that and something to observe, an analysis can be made.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
