|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted December 31, 2013 05:47 AM |
|
|
An analysis can be made, many analysis had been made. But they are not the types of analyses that can lead you to predictive results in general (such as X conditions will definitely lead to love or Y conditions means there will be no love). There is simply too much variation for that and the typical example of weather not being random but also not being totally predictable is a perfect one in this case.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 10:25 AM |
|
|
artu said:
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?
Yes, I think a junkie WILL not be truly loved (anymore) (except maybe by their mom, but that's different), provided the junkie has given up on pretending. At best, junkies evoke pity, and you don't love what you pity, at least not, when you are yourself a halfway mentally sane person.
Quote:
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.
That was my point, wasn't it? If you read my first post, where I mentioned trust on page 197, I wrote:
"Now, it's clear that the vulnerability that comes with giving away your trust can be a liability, and of course the conscious mind WANTS EVIDENCE, which means, full commitment is something the conscious mind wants something for, it can cling to as a solid foundation."
As rational as it may look, that kind of behavior is completely IRRATIONAL. Consider the plane analogy. It makes no sense to board a plane with a lot of anxiety, and then lose anxiety over time when you become a regular plane traveler, because the fact that you put yourself into a vulnerable position and nothing untoward happened, doesn't allow any predictions for the future.
That is true for a relationship as well: the fact that you a) ARE in a relationship for a certain time and b) you are not aware of any breach of trust HAS ABSOLUTELY NO MEANING! Since there already might have been any number of them and there might also be any number of them in the offing, yet.
What happens, is actually, that people try to safeguard against disappointment when they start something, that is, when they are ready for a relationship (14-year-olds have certainly other priorities, for example). Meanwhile they know, that flames may blaze high fast, but can also calm down fast, after they had a couple of teen experiences. That is especially true after a break-up of the first longer-lasting relationship (say, one that lasted between one and 3 years).
So precautions are taken in order to avoid disappointment from what would be called too rash action in hindsight. Now, the thing here is this: if you dated for half a year, then moved together, then married after 2 years of living together, then got 2 children, and then you get a divorce after 15 years of marriage - can there be a bigger disappointment?
For me, the conclusion is fairly simple: since the rational mind doesn't have a ready formula guaranteeing success of a relationship with any significant probability - it is may be wrong to rely upon the rational mind. Instead, maybe it makes more sense to listen to your feelings and what they whisper to you, and this is not only true for the positive part, it's especially true for the negative part as well - the flip side of the love at first sight coin: if you don't feel 100% happy, if something is bothering you, if your feelings do NOT tell you, it's love at first sight, it will all be fantastic and so on - this might be a clue that a decisive something is missing.
That is, from the point on you may want to settle down and maybe have children.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 11:51 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:53, 31 Dec 2013.
|
Quote:
Yes, I think a junkie WILL not be truly loved (anymore) (except maybe by their mom, but that's different), provided the junkie has given up on pretending. At best, junkies evoke pity, and you don't love what you pity, at least not, when you are yourself a halfway mentally sane person.
How about a situation like in the movie Leaving Las Vegas, people committing to each other kind of because of their imperfections and flaws. I definitely call what I see in that story, love.
(If you haven't watched it, the guy was a heavy alcoholic, completely disfunctional and having an -on the surface asexual- relationship with a professional hooker. Both of them were naturally quite neurotic people but they were clearly sane, capable of judging their own actions. I think the core of their love was basically tenderness.
For the rest, while I agree if you feel something is wrong in the beginning phase, that relationship is most likely doomed, I see no reason to interpret that as a sign of love at first sight. To me, it simply means "don't try so hard if there's no sign of a potential" yet, the real love part, the unique part is still the thing that evolves afterwards from that potential, not the first seconds. And there are many real stories about couples who start hating each other and then falling in love, but of course if you want it to fit, the hate part can be interpreted as "passion in disguise."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 03:08 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
Yes, I think a junkie WILL not be truly loved (anymore) (except maybe by their mom, but that's different), provided the junkie has given up on pretending. At best, junkies evoke pity, and you don't love what you pity, at least not, when you are yourself a halfway mentally sane person.
How about a situation like in the movie Leaving Las Vegas, people committing to each other kind of because of their imperfections and flaws. I definitely call what I see in that story, love.
(If you haven't watched it, the guy was a heavy alcoholic, completely disfunctional and having an -on the surface asexual- relationship with a professional hooker. Both of them were naturally quite neurotic people but they were clearly sane, capable of judging their own actions. I think the core of their love was basically tenderness.
It's difficult to discuss FICTIONAL characters and stories, since they are, well, fictional. I don't think, that this story would happen that way in reality; I've seen the movie, though.
Quote:
For the rest, while I agree if you feel something is wrong in the beginning phase, that relationship is most likely doomed, I see no reason to interpret that as a sign of love at first sight. To me, it simply means "don't try so hard if there's no sign of a potential" yet, the real love part, the unique part is still the thing that evolves afterwards from that potential, not the first seconds. And there are many real stories about couples who start hating each other and then falling in love, but of course if you want it to fit, the hate part can be interpreted as "passion in disguise."
Your interpretation makes no sense:
1) If you feel something is wrong, you can just as well stop trying at all, because the potential is flawed.
2) If everything feels perfectly right, you can assume maximum potential and dive into it. In this case the animal already knows that it's "love", it's just the rational mind that needs assertion, proof or evidence, and so on, simply because the rational mind doesn't trust instinct and emotion. It doesn't actually matter HOW the personalities are, because it's that foundation that allows them to explore and accept each other. It's NOT, that you find things, traits and so on, spend time with that person, like what you find and conclude at some point, wow, that person is so great, I love him/her. Instead you already love that person, and because of that you have a positive attitude toward what you will find. And if you find something that you don't immediately dig, you will give the benefit of the doubt and try to dig deeper to understand the whys and hows.
Two people starting out hating or disliking each other obviously have strong emotions for each other at first sight. This may have a lot of reasons, and some of them may of course be passion in disguise.
For example, the two persons may not want to engage in a wild romance because of the unpredictable consequences that may have for their ordered lifes.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 03:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's difficult to discuss FICTIONAL characters and stories, since they are, well, fictional.
Yes it's fiction but not unrealistic fiction. Unlike you, I think it was a very possible story that could actually be real.
Quote:
Instead you already love that person, and because of that you have a positive attitude toward what you will find. And if you find something that you don't immediately dig, you will give the benefit of the doubt and try to dig deeper to understand the whys and hows.
No, I don't already love that person, I, at most, feel I might. If something intervenes and I never see her again, I may not even remember her ever again after a few months. She wont even be a memory to me.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 05:20 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
It's difficult to discuss FICTIONAL characters and stories, since they are, well, fictional.
Yes it's fiction but not unrealistic fiction. Unlike you, I think it was a very possible story that could actually be real.
Based on what? First-hand knowledge of self-destructive personalities and/or addicts and/or hookers? Just because the actors ACT believable, doesn't mean real people would act or behave that way - or even get in such a situation which in itself is QUITE unrealistic.
Quote:
Quote:
Instead you already love that person, and because of that you have a positive attitude toward what you will find. And if you find something that you don't immediately dig, you will give the benefit of the doubt and try to dig deeper to understand the whys and hows.
No, I don't already love that person, I, at most, feel I might. If something intervenes and I never see her again, I may not even remember her ever again after a few months. She wont even be a memory to me.
What I mean is that some PART of you, that exists on a deeper level than your conscious mind, already "loves" that person. If something intervenes, it may be true that your conscious mind forgets her fast, because there isn't much to remember. STILL - SHOULD something like that happen, and don't forget that this is just speculation, it may well be that you'll become quite picky with your next dates - or you just don't feel things are as they whould be when you meet someone, because that person "raised your expectations", so-to-speak.
So in my mind you are too fixated on your rational mind. There's a reason we call love an EMOTION. Emotions are different from thoughts and work on their own level.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 05:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Based on what? First-hand knowledge of self-destructive personalities and/or addicts and/or hookers? Just because the actors ACT believable, doesn't mean real people would act or behave that way - or even get in such a situation which in itself is QUITE unrealistic.
Based on what I see in life and people generally. When we say a piece of fiction is realistic or believable, what we mean isn't that it was acted well, unless that is mentioned specifically. What we mean is our common sense tells us, things could have gone that way also in real life. Of course, that is quite subjective and a story that seems realistic to one person can seem like total bollocks to another one.
Quote:
So in my mind you are too fixated on your rational mind. There's a reason we call love an EMOTION. Emotions are different from thoughts and work on their own level
Well, naturally I disagree and I already explained my reasons. I have nothing new to add and I don't want the discussion to turn circular. So, happy new year and count me out for now.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 06:59 PM |
|
|
Happy new year to you as well.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 07:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Consider the plane analogy. It makes no sense to board a plane with a lot of anxiety, and then lose anxiety over time when you become a regular plane traveler, because the fact that you put yourself into a vulnerable position and nothing untoward happened, doesn't allow any predictions for the future.
You keep saying this, but it's just not true. The plane analogy isn't perfect, since your flights are no different from anybody else's, and the sample size is large, but if you were the only person flying, it would make perfect sense for you to trust flying more as you experience it more and see that it's safe. Unless you reject induction altogether.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 07:34 PM |
|
|
You are on dangerous ice because A LOT more relationships go wrong than planes crash - statistically.
So the analogy is tilted, but in a good way.
And induction is wrong. Instead, since planes DO crash, with planes it's a question of probability, not of induction. Fly once and your chances to crash are slim; fly every day - and suddenly your chances to crash are not that low anymore, on the contrary.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 07:52 PM |
|
|
However, when it comes to flying, you have no reason to believe that your flights are going to be any more dangerous than anybody else's - as long as you don't hijack the plane or something, only the pilot and computer system can affect how safe or dangerous the flight is. The passenger has no effect, so it's reasonable to look at other flights to decide whether yours is safe. In contrast, in relationships, a lot depends on you - of course, even if you do everything perfectly, the relationship can still fail because of the other person, but you still have a lot of control. You can choose a person with whom to enter into a relationship, you control your own actions (which are a central determinant of how relationships go), etc. The upside of this is that if you're better than average at picking partners and know what to do and how to be in order to have a good relationship, your relationship is less likely to fail. So, you can say that even though the average relationship has a certain chance of failure, yours is lower because you know things that the average person doesn't.
And I think you're twisting your analogy. With planes, it's a question of probability because all the information is already available (except about your specific plane), which is why the analogy doesn't quite hold. But if you were one of the first people to fly, or are in any other situation in which doing something more gives you information about it, it's a matter of induction.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 08:10 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Because then the question would be about if people can be deluded about their own feelings: Is the assumption of a feeling enough to make it real for the person assuming it? It's a very classic line, "You don't really love me, you just think you do." Can that line actually mean something or if we believe we love, is it enough to turn that belief into reality when feelings are involved.
deluded about their own feelings, I doubt it, except maybe if you fall in specific psychological categories that work differently from the norm. that sounds weird to assume feelings, I doubt recognizing the feeling is the problem, it's probably innate, but the problem may be interpreting what it means, why do you feel that way. that's like in "lie to me" where Lightman can recognize emotions with no hesitation, but can't guess what is causing them without any additional information.
in "you don't really love me" maybe it's not the feeling of love which is questioned (well, personally, I doubt love is a feeling, but let's suppose it's one) but what is the cause, like is it really ME, or maybe just my boobs you love? 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 09:23 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
However, when it comes to flying, you have no reason to believe that your flights are going to be any more dangerous than anybody else's - as long as you don't hijack the plane or something, only the pilot and computer system can affect how safe or dangerous the flight is. The passenger has no effect, so it's reasonable to look at other flights to decide whether yours is safe. In contrast, in relationships, a lot depends on you - of course, even if you do everything perfectly, the relationship can still fail because of the other person, but you still have a lot of control. You can choose a person with whom to enter into a relationship, you control your own actions (which are a central determinant of how relationships go), etc. The upside of this is that if you're better than average at picking partners and know what to do and how to be in order to have a good relationship, your relationship is less likely to fail. So, you can say that even though the average relationship has a certain chance of failure, yours is lower because you know things that the average person doesn't.
And I think you're twisting your analogy. With planes, it's a question of probability because all the information is already available (except about your specific plane), which is why the analogy doesn't quite hold. But if you were one of the first people to fly, or are in any other situation in which doing something more gives you information about it, it's a matter of induction.
Flight anxiety isn't about fearing a crash but about loss of control.
Now, TRUST in a relationship equals LOSS OF CONTROL, because you make yourself vulnertable - so the same mechanism that leads to flight anxiety sabotages the ability to form relationships.
However, complete trust and loss of control is probably the main benefit of a relationship, because maintaining the illusion of control is exhaustive and having someone you do not have to be on guard in any way is a blessing - that comes with the curse of making yourself vulnerable at the same time.
This explains the tentative way people go at relationships - people are reluctant to offer their soft belly, that's a basic instinct.
So I think that you see this the wrong way, Mvass.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 10:44 PM |
|
|
Loss of control? That has nothing to do with flying or relationships. No, people are afraid of flying because they're in a metal box high up in the air, and if something goes wrong enough, the box crashes to the ground. That's what can go wrong, and so people are afraid. It's necessary to know that such events are rare, so the fear of that happening wouldn't prevent someone from flying. But loss of control doesn't enter into it anywhere.
And that's a case where there is actual loss of control. In a relationship, each participant retains a significant amount of control. You control what you do, and that is one of the main determinants of how a relationship goes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 11:03 PM |
|
|
Oh dear.
Yeah, well, Mvass, you may want to research this a bit more.
English wiki shows this:
Click me
Noww the intersting thing is, that in the English wiki the 4th point, "a feeling of not being in control", isn't linked. If you switch to the German wiki, though, you get a link named "Kontrollverlust", which is a bit more informative.
Anyway. I have a problem to ddiscuss this further with you, because I think you miss a lot of basic info on one hand, while on the other you think you already know everything, while you clearly don't.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 11:29 PM |
|
|
Fear of not being in control reduces to fear of crashes, not being in control isn't something to be afraid of by itself.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 31, 2013 11:52 PM |
|
|
Well, strangely enough it is - and strangely enough it makes a lot of sense as well.
As I said, you may want to research this a little bit more. It's a bit like you claiming the world is flat at this point.
|
|
Humanoid
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Rest in Peace Juvia (48-499)
|
|
posted January 02, 2014 09:25 AM |
|
Edited by Humanoid at 09:30, 02 Jan 2014.
|
So... I have problems to find a girlfriend in hungary... so that if a female user or lizard warrior's sister (if he have and she dont wear cylinder and beak) please write a quote reply!
Thanks!
Humanoid
xoxo
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2014 10:07 AM |
|
|
Humanoid said:
So... I have problems to find a girlfriend in hungary... so that if a female user or lizard warrior's sister (if he have and she dont wear cylinder and beak) please write a quote reply!
Thanks!
Humanoid
xoxo
dude, what is your deal with lizardwarrior? leave the man alone.
and, come out with more funny creature parodies(before you get banned).
|
|
Humanoid
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Rest in Peace Juvia (48-499)
|
|
posted January 02, 2014 10:35 AM |
|
|
fred79 said:
Humanoid said:
So... I have problems to find a girlfriend in hungary... so that if a female user or lizard warrior's sister (if he have and she dont wear cylinder and beak) please write a quote reply!
Thanks!
Humanoid
xoxo
dude, what is your deal with lizardwarrior? leave the man alone.
and, come out with more funny creature parodies(before you get banned).
Fred I have real problem whit girls!!!!! Just look at her:
I wanted to ask her a date many times but she always say: NO!!!! GET LOST!!!!
So...I think...might in the heroes community some one want to go a date whit me.
And i have just only problem whit him:
-he wear up strange
and about MC stronghold...so...he...dead!!!
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
