5 ms·

You are 100% right. The OP is textbook biological reductionism. This "love scientist" is not promoting science but instead passing off her pet theories as the f

You are 100% right. The OP is textbook biological reductionism. This "love scientist" is not promoting science but instead passing off her pet theories as the final word on a nearly universal human experience that takes dramatically different forms across time and culture.

esarbe 5y ago
> on a nearly universal human experience Love is not a nearly universal human experience. Love is a whole lot of concepts and emotions and experiences that are highly dependent on the cultural context. That's one of the points of the article.
- CipherThrowaway 5y ago
  It's quite the opposite. Culture is mentioned three times in the article and each mention is to point out that culture doesn't make a difference to the supposed immutable evolutionary truths.
selestify 5y ago
> The OP is textbook biological reductionism And is that wrong? Of course we're reducible down to biological impulses in the end. Part of understanding higher level cultural phenomena is understanding our biological interactions, how they were historically shaped by our evolutionary past, and how those adaptations affect us in a drastically different modern context. Certainly sounds a lot more scientific than, say, dismissing all the research as "biological reductionism."
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Biological reductionism is different from just simply science. There is a lot above love that we simply can't explain at the level of neurotransmitters because our understanding of such high level functions is highly incomplete. Trying to say that there is nothing more to it that the incomplete understanding we have is reductionism.
- CipherThrowaway 5y ago
  The reductionism is the attempt to generalize incomplete biological understandings to the high level systems of which biology is the basis. This ignores the complex interactions and properties that emerge at various points between the two domains. It's as misguided as saying that computers aren't digital because the underlying electromagnetism is analog. The article would be fine if it recognized that it was speaking in trends and generalities. But the information is presented as universal and individually applicable. For example: > But a lot of women, in particular, find it hard to accept that they are still looking for a protector and a provider. No doubt women find it hard to accept someone lecturing them on their preferences without allowing them any individuality. The idea that searching for a protector is adaptive seems reasonable enough. The fallacy is thinking it must therefore apply unconditionally to every individual person and culture. Individual behavior does not always adhere to what is adaptive and there is no reason to think there aren't other adaptations that may interact with, override or invert this "provider seeking" behavior on an individual basis. The diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic disposition is completely at odds with the simplistic view presented in the article. The system is too complex to understand in a few generalities. > Part of understanding higher level cultural phenomena is understanding our biological interactions I think It's more often part of an anti-understanding of higher level cultural phenomenon. My observation is that people who strongly believe in reducing love to chemicals or atoms are intellectualizing an area of their life where they do not feel capable, confident or in control. These beliefs then inhibit personal growth and an understanding of others. In the last couple of decades I have seen dozens of men and a handful of women grow out of reductionist beliefs.
  - selestify 5y ago
    > The article would be fine if it recognized that it was speaking in trends and generalities. But the information is presented as universal and individually applicable. I agree. I assume that's just the journalist doing a bad job of getting the nuance across. > No doubt women find it hard to accept someone lecturing them on their preferences without allowing them any individuality. At the same time, we humans are notorious for rationalizing nice sounding, preferable reasons for why we engage in certain actions. I don't have the context on these personal discussions, of course, but perhaps those women were indeed acting in ways that were more congruent than not with the evo-psych explanation espoused here. > The diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic disposition is completely at odds with the simplistic view presented in the article. The system is too complex to understand in a few generalities. I agree with the complexity. Again, I assume that much of it is just the usual pop-science article being a pop-science article. Perhaps I assume wrongly. I do think however that overall, this is a research direction worth pursuing. There's a diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic dispositions, but what are some of the common driving forces in the background across time and culture? Why are some romantic experiences (e.g. an unreasonable crush on a specific person that fades over time) so common in the general population, and why do these experiences happen and play out in these common ways? > I think It's more often part of an anti-understanding of higher level cultural phenomenon. Quite possible, but IMO we shouldn't let popular misunderstandings of science detract from the actual scientific inquiry taking place. A lot of woo spiritualists have repurposed popular misconceptions of quantum mechanics for their own ends, but that doesn't detract from the legitimacy of actual quantum physicists.

esarbe 5y ago

> on a nearly universal human experience Love is not a nearly universal human experience. Love is a whole lot of concepts and emotions and experiences that are highly dependent on the cultural context. That's one of the points of the article.

CipherThrowaway 5y ago
It's quite the opposite. Culture is mentioned three times in the article and each mention is to point out that culture doesn't make a difference to the supposed immutable evolutionary truths.

selestify 5y ago

> The OP is textbook biological reductionism And is that wrong? Of course we're reducible down to biological impulses in the end. Part of understanding higher level cultural phenomena is understanding our biological interactions, how they were historically shaped by our evolutionary past, and how those adaptations affect us in a drastically different modern context. Certainly sounds a lot more scientific than, say, dismissing all the research as "biological reductionism."

sudosysgen 5y ago
Biological reductionism is different from just simply science. There is a lot above love that we simply can't explain at the level of neurotransmitters because our understanding of such high level functions is highly incomplete. Trying to say that there is nothing more to it that the incomplete understanding we have is reductionism.
CipherThrowaway 5y ago
The reductionism is the attempt to generalize incomplete biological understandings to the high level systems of which biology is the basis. This ignores the complex interactions and properties that emerge at various points between the two domains. It's as misguided as saying that computers aren't digital because the underlying electromagnetism is analog. The article would be fine if it recognized that it was speaking in trends and generalities. But the information is presented as universal and individually applicable. For example: > But a lot of women, in particular, find it hard to accept that they are still looking for a protector and a provider. No doubt women find it hard to accept someone lecturing them on their preferences without allowing them any individuality. The idea that searching for a protector is adaptive seems reasonable enough. The fallacy is thinking it must therefore apply unconditionally to every individual person and culture. Individual behavior does not always adhere to what is adaptive and there is no reason to think there aren't other adaptations that may interact with, override or invert this "provider seeking" behavior on an individual basis. The diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic disposition is completely at odds with the simplistic view presented in the article. The system is too complex to understand in a few generalities. > Part of understanding higher level cultural phenomena is understanding our biological interactions I think It's more often part of an anti-understanding of higher level cultural phenomenon. My observation is that people who strongly believe in reducing love to chemicals or atoms are intellectualizing an area of their life where they do not feel capable, confident or in control. These beliefs then inhibit personal growth and an understanding of others. In the last couple of decades I have seen dozens of men and a handful of women grow out of reductionist beliefs.
- selestify 5y ago
  > The article would be fine if it recognized that it was speaking in trends and generalities. But the information is presented as universal and individually applicable. I agree. I assume that's just the journalist doing a bad job of getting the nuance across. > No doubt women find it hard to accept someone lecturing them on their preferences without allowing them any individuality. At the same time, we humans are notorious for rationalizing nice sounding, preferable reasons for why we engage in certain actions. I don't have the context on these personal discussions, of course, but perhaps those women were indeed acting in ways that were more congruent than not with the evo-psych explanation espoused here. > The diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic disposition is completely at odds with the simplistic view presented in the article. The system is too complex to understand in a few generalities. I agree with the complexity. Again, I assume that much of it is just the usual pop-science article being a pop-science article. Perhaps I assume wrongly. I do think however that overall, this is a research direction worth pursuing. There's a diverse spectrum of human sexuality and romantic dispositions, but what are some of the common driving forces in the background across time and culture? Why are some romantic experiences (e.g. an unreasonable crush on a specific person that fades over time) so common in the general population, and why do these experiences happen and play out in these common ways? > I think It's more often part of an anti-understanding of higher level cultural phenomenon. Quite possible, but IMO we shouldn't let popular misunderstandings of science detract from the actual scientific inquiry taking place. A lot of woo spiritualists have repurposed popular misconceptions of quantum mechanics for their own ends, but that doesn't detract from the legitimacy of actual quantum physicists.