7 ms·

Those other forms of love are fairly different from the sexual, romantic love that the article is focusing on. It's not "reduce all of this" to sexual interacti

Those other forms of love are fairly different from the sexual, romantic love that the article is focusing on. It's not "reduce all of this" to sexual interaction, it's focusing on romantic love instead of conflating it with other love. > It's a common thing with these evo-psych explanations. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If everything in reality is made from nails, then it makes sense to look for the hammer that hammered it in. Everything in human psychology was in fact molded through evolution, so of course it makes sense to look to evolution for potential answers. > For example the fact that oxytocin is apparently indicative of how long a relationsihp lasts. If a culture artificially forces relationships to last by, say, heavily stigmatizing divorce, then of course that's going to override the "natural" course of events. That hardly means there isn't useful information to be gleaned from our biological nature in situations where such artificial forces are not in force. (Or you could argue, where different artificial forces are in force.)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
chottocharaii 5y ago
I think this is overly reductive of the types of things that can result from darwinian forces
raducu 5y ago
> If everything in reality is made from nails, then it makes sense to look for the hammer that hammered it in. Everything in human psychology was in fact molded through evolution, so of course it makes sense to look to evolution for potential answers. What is the question and what are the possible answers? What difference would it make in our morals? That sounds like the reverse of the good old "Well, if God does not exist, why don't you just kill random people, then?" Anger and violence and rape and murder, are all bilogical and evolutionary based. So what? > "If a culture artificially forces relationships to last by, say, heavily stigmatizing divorce, then of course that's going to override the "natural" course of events. See the above argument, it changes nothing. And by the way, divorce is more normalized than ever and divorce rates are falling in the developed world. On the countrary, if lustful love is just a chemical process that eventually wears off, you're better off not divorcing. If love was this astral magestic thing, then sure, divorce and pursue it. People have this idea "yeah, but back then, there was no marriage and both men and women could just fuck arround". Sure, some people did just like today, but back then, we lived in small groups, a coule hundred individuals, the opportunities to fuck around were not as great as today and there was no anonymity as today. I've been 20 pumped with testosterone. Was it not for my religious education and moral sense, I would probably have slept with a lot more women. Between age 20-35 I think I only cried 3 times, when my grandparents died. As my testosterone levels are declining, my emotions are coming back. I'm still the same biological organism, evolution did not intend one course or the other. I just find a lot of satisfaction now from family life. There is no contradiction or dilema for me. I do not feel oppressed by society or morals or biology.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  > And by the way, divorce is more normalized than ever and divorce rates are falling in the developed world. I think people are dealing with the issue on the other end, by just not getting married in the first place.
  - raducu 5y ago
    Some people, sure, but I'm willing to bet it's not because they want to to more easily dump the other person. Most of them, at least.
    - dahfizz 5y ago
      Why else would you avoid marriage, then?
      - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
        Avoiding getting your assets stripped?
        dahfizz 5y ago
        That feels like a variation on "they want to more easily dump the other person."
        thatcat 5y ago
        The other person could dump you and still result in loss of assets.
- selestify 5y ago
  > What is the question and what are the possible answers? What difference would it make in our morals? Who said anything about morals here? The questions are, why do we feel the way we do, and why do our feelings make us act the way we do? Evo-psych gives some ways of possibly answering that. How we got here is largely independent of where we want to go from here. > There is no contradiction or dilema for me. I do not feel oppressed by society or morals or biology. I honestly don't know what the rest of your comment has anything to do with any of what the article is talking about. When did the article bring up any contradictions?
agumonkey 5y ago
wild theory, sometimes I have this feeling that divorce is badly seen because 1) people jump between partners too often when free, it's easier but maybe less deep 2) family stability is important, and noble (it's a hard compromise but others complicated things are important and noble) 3) in the past social, family and intimate stability were probably a lot more important than today, so we inherited that perspective, even though today we may care less ps: saying this I understand perfectly how human relationship, marriage are complex, volatile and how no one wants to rot in a bad relationship. :)
- einpoklum 5y ago
  > 3) in the past social, family and intimate stability were probably a lot more important than today Many past societies did not have atomic families like we do today. In fact, even couple-marriage is not _that_ old (several thousands of years)? I remember reading about this stuff in "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", which, while somewhat dated (125 years ago or so?) is quite interesting. Matrilineal societies, group marriage (i.e. being 'married' to all people in a certain category so that if you travel to another village you have people in your 'family' or 'marriage group' there even if you've never met them) and other arrangements.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >In fact, even couple-marriage is not _that_ old (several thousands of years)? Cities and written language and written laws and such are not that old either... What was the case in some earlier societies shouldn't be a yardstick...
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    Even without the social contract. First time I held someone in my arms I had visions of life long companionship. Not everybody is wired this way but it's often programmed deep down inside of us. Marriage is just the social incarnation of that feeling IMO. Also some people say that a lot of animals have similar emotional/biological needs. It's not just a matter of homo-* history it seems.
PuppyTailWags 5y ago
> Everything in human psychology was in fact molded through evolution, so of course it makes sense to look to evolution for potential answers. I disagree with the sense that evolution has answers to begin with, or that everything in human psychology can be assumed to be touched by evolution. Sometimes weird shit happens and it doesn't prevent you from fucking so it sticks and there's no greater purpose to it. I feel this understanding of evolution ascribes too much anthropomorphism to the phenomenon.
- adamsmith143 5y ago
  >Sometimes weird shit happens and it doesn't prevent you from fucking so it sticks and there's no greater purpose to it. That's how you end up with random maladaptive mutations. But they aren't distributed across a species. You don't end up with near universal traits in a species without them being molded by evolutionary pressures.
- yencabulator 5y ago
  A giraffe's elongated laryngeal nerve can be explained by evolution, while still being firmly in the "weird shit happens" category. Explanation != purpose.
polypodiopsi 5y ago
The appeal of theories like these to a lot of people is that they are quite simple to understand. Has also to do with that in a society where all subjectivity is informed by the valueform everything seems to appear as a market. And isn't it flattering to be part of the group that has access to the hegemony of scientific knowledge? Probably. You can thus think about why you re conditioned to find ideas like these appealing. Or why a popularscientific enterprise (the authors book in the article wich is basically advertisement and as such partaking in libidinal economy) emphasises these aspects and reserves the position of "exception to the rule" to cutting edge research on neuroplasticity.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

chottocharaii 5y ago

I think this is overly reductive of the types of things that can result from darwinian forces

raducu 5y ago

> If everything in reality is made from nails, then it makes sense to look for the hammer that hammered it in. Everything in human psychology was in fact molded through evolution, so of course it makes sense to look to evolution for potential answers. What is the question and what are the possible answers? What difference would it make in our morals? That sounds like the reverse of the good old "Well, if God does not exist, why don't you just kill random people, then?" Anger and violence and rape and murder, are all bilogical and evolutionary based. So what? > "If a culture artificially forces relationships to last by, say, heavily stigmatizing divorce, then of course that's going to override the "natural" course of events. See the above argument, it changes nothing. And by the way, divorce is more normalized than ever and divorce rates are falling in the developed world. On the countrary, if lustful love is just a chemical process that eventually wears off, you're better off not divorcing. If love was this astral magestic thing, then sure, divorce and pursue it. People have this idea "yeah, but back then, there was no marriage and both men and women could just fuck arround". Sure, some people did just like today, but back then, we lived in small groups, a coule hundred individuals, the opportunities to fuck around were not as great as today and there was no anonymity as today. I've been 20 pumped with testosterone. Was it not for my religious education and moral sense, I would probably have slept with a lot more women. Between age 20-35 I think I only cried 3 times, when my grandparents died. As my testosterone levels are declining, my emotions are coming back. I'm still the same biological organism, evolution did not intend one course or the other. I just find a lot of satisfaction now from family life. There is no contradiction or dilema for me. I do not feel oppressed by society or morals or biology.

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
> And by the way, divorce is more normalized than ever and divorce rates are falling in the developed world. I think people are dealing with the issue on the other end, by just not getting married in the first place.
- raducu 5y ago
  Some people, sure, but I'm willing to bet it's not because they want to to more easily dump the other person. Most of them, at least.
  - dahfizz 5y ago
    Why else would you avoid marriage, then?
    - hackerfromthefu 5y ago
      Avoiding getting your assets stripped?
      - dahfizz 5y ago
        That feels like a variation on "they want to more easily dump the other person."
        thatcat 5y ago
        The other person could dump you and still result in loss of assets.
selestify 5y ago
> What is the question and what are the possible answers? What difference would it make in our morals? Who said anything about morals here? The questions are, why do we feel the way we do, and why do our feelings make us act the way we do? Evo-psych gives some ways of possibly answering that. How we got here is largely independent of where we want to go from here. > There is no contradiction or dilema for me. I do not feel oppressed by society or morals or biology. I honestly don't know what the rest of your comment has anything to do with any of what the article is talking about. When did the article bring up any contradictions?

agumonkey 5y ago

wild theory, sometimes I have this feeling that divorce is badly seen because 1) people jump between partners too often when free, it's easier but maybe less deep 2) family stability is important, and noble (it's a hard compromise but others complicated things are important and noble) 3) in the past social, family and intimate stability were probably a lot more important than today, so we inherited that perspective, even though today we may care less ps: saying this I understand perfectly how human relationship, marriage are complex, volatile and how no one wants to rot in a bad relationship. :)

einpoklum 5y ago
> 3) in the past social, family and intimate stability were probably a lot more important than today Many past societies did not have atomic families like we do today. In fact, even couple-marriage is not _that_ old (several thousands of years)? I remember reading about this stuff in "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", which, while somewhat dated (125 years ago or so?) is quite interesting. Matrilineal societies, group marriage (i.e. being 'married' to all people in a certain category so that if you travel to another village you have people in your 'family' or 'marriage group' there even if you've never met them) and other arrangements.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >In fact, even couple-marriage is not _that_ old (several thousands of years)? Cities and written language and written laws and such are not that old either... What was the case in some earlier societies shouldn't be a yardstick...
- agumonkey 5y ago
  Even without the social contract. First time I held someone in my arms I had visions of life long companionship. Not everybody is wired this way but it's often programmed deep down inside of us. Marriage is just the social incarnation of that feeling IMO. Also some people say that a lot of animals have similar emotional/biological needs. It's not just a matter of homo-* history it seems.

PuppyTailWags 5y ago

> Everything in human psychology was in fact molded through evolution, so of course it makes sense to look to evolution for potential answers. I disagree with the sense that evolution has answers to begin with, or that everything in human psychology can be assumed to be touched by evolution. Sometimes weird shit happens and it doesn't prevent you from fucking so it sticks and there's no greater purpose to it. I feel this understanding of evolution ascribes too much anthropomorphism to the phenomenon.

adamsmith143 5y ago
>Sometimes weird shit happens and it doesn't prevent you from fucking so it sticks and there's no greater purpose to it. That's how you end up with random maladaptive mutations. But they aren't distributed across a species. You don't end up with near universal traits in a species without them being molded by evolutionary pressures.
yencabulator 5y ago
A giraffe's elongated laryngeal nerve can be explained by evolution, while still being firmly in the "weird shit happens" category. Explanation != purpose.

polypodiopsi 5y ago

The appeal of theories like these to a lot of people is that they are quite simple to understand. Has also to do with that in a society where all subjectivity is informed by the valueform everything seems to appear as a market. And isn't it flattering to be part of the group that has access to the hegemony of scientific knowledge? Probably. You can thus think about why you re conditioned to find ideas like these appealing. Or why a popularscientific enterprise (the authors book in the article wich is basically advertisement and as such partaking in libidinal economy) emphasises these aspects and reserves the position of "exception to the rule" to cutting edge research on neuroplasticity.