What is romantic love really?

[Psion4life]

Hi, I am Jeremy Mcdonell and I am going through some tough times with a relationship I'm in. This particular rut I'm in has made me think, what really occurs to the human mind in romantic love? I know that romantic love is basically the human body's version of a mammalian mating motive, but it seems like its a whole lot more than that, because of the combination of so many emotions at once. What is romantic love really?

[iNow]

What is romantic love really?

Wow. That's a big question, one probably beyond the ability of any single individual to adequately answer, though H.L. Mencken came close IMO:

 

Love is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.

 

To ensure I offer something of value for you to explore and consider, here is a beautifully robust review that I encourage you to dig into and cogitate on: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/love/

 

At the core, it's just a bunch of chemicals in specific concentrations and acting on specific regions and locations in our brains: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_basis_of_love#Neurochemistry

[Psion4life]

Ah thank you. Both articles were very helpful. I think understanding the emotion will help my love life greatly.

[MonDie]

I think Robert Sternberg's triangular theory is still the most prominent model for the psychological components of love.

[cudlo1]

Psychologists and researchers have proposed a number of different theories of love. Love is a basic human emotion. Psychologist Zick Rubin proposed that romantic love is made up of three elements: attachment, caring and intimacy

[Lyudmilascience]

this is a hard question to answer because not a lot of good research has been made its hard to test love and to measure it its so different for e everybody. I think reaserch shows that we have similar reaactions to animals and we are considered animals so i would think we are a more emotional and social animals.

[puppypower]

this is a hard question to answer because not a lot of good research has been made its hard to test love and to measure it its so different for e everybody. I think reaserch shows that we have similar reaactions to animals and we are considered animals so i would think we are a more emotional and social animals.

 

 

The human personality is grounded on what I like to refer to as personality firmware. The personality firmware are genetic based and define our human nature and characterize us as a species. The lion has different firmware; lion nature. Love and romance is connected to one of these firmware and therefore makes love and romance collective human; similar in all humans. Only the place and time is different.

 

All the firmware are assumed to be empty birth, but contain genetic potential for their development. The best analogy are seeds. The plant seed is a simple thing that has the genetic potential to form a mature plant such as a tomato plant with tomatoes. Like a tomato plant, although the seeds knows what to do to develop its shape and nature through genetic potential, the final plant is also dependent on the environment. Variables like amount of sunlight, rain, soil pH, nutrient level, wind, virus, bugs, etc., can also impact the final plant. One pack of seeds split between a green thumb and black thumb, can result in different looking plants; healthy and mutant.

 

The firmware seeds, when activated, such as the firmware of love and romance, have a natural growth potential. Just like the plant, which draws in food and water as part of its development, the firmware induce a natural learning potential for data to satisfy the needs of its development. Firmware activation and the needs of development can induce and even compel us to to interact with the environment; beloved, to gain data for its growth. The beloved can become the most beautiful person in the world. This is not real but is how the firmware is storing the processed data.

 

One wild card is male and female have different firmware in terms of order and character. These are design by nature to complement and mesh like gears. An important part of the learning potential from the firmware of love is connected to gaining data via cross sexual programming. The beloved take on its each others traits as part of the meshing.

 

There are many bottlenecks in terms of the firmware of love not reaching health fruition. In the case of Romeo and Juliet, social protocol became a virus for the firmware development causing the plants to die young. Personal problems and inhibitions to the whirl wind of love can be like not enough water so the plant wilts. While too much obsession can become like over fertilizing and cause nutrient burn. Even the liberal idea of male and female equality; firmware, can cause the gears not to mesh. The net effect is the firmware of love is often activate but environmental conditions impact the yield of good fruit.

[iNow]

The human personality is grounded on what I like to refer to as personality firmware. The personality firmware are genetic based and define our human nature and characterize us as a species. <snip> All the firmware are assumed to be empty birth, but contain genetic potential for their development.

While poetic, what you've shared above is quite wrong and very much at odds with what reality and empiricism actually show on this topic. Suggest you focus your comments on the much more ambiguous but interesting topic of "romantic love" and avoid comments about neurophysiology, plasticity, and function. Edited October 22, 2015 by iNow

[puppypower]

While poetic, what you've shared above is quite wrong and very much at odds with what reality and empiricism actually show on this topic. Suggest you focus your comments on the much more ambiguous but interesting topic of "romantic love" and avoid comments about neurophysiology, plasticity, and function.

 

Romantic move is not something you investigate from the outside, standing on the sidelines. Rather you need to experience this from the inside. There is a difference between watching someone being in love and having that experience for yourself. It may look irrational from the outside, but from the inside it has a sense of collective direction.

 

Science approaches the problem of romantic love as someone standing on the sidelines, watching in the third person. Ironically, the scientific method, by detaching oneself in the third person, to avoid subjectivity, misses the boat, because romantic love contains lots of subjectivity a part of the phenomena. This results in scientific objectivity becoming subjective, to all the facts, which is why there is no standardize theory, only subjective opinion pieces. One has to immerse oneself into the subjectivity of love, to be objective to it. There is a paradox involved.

 

The things of the mind require a modified scientific method, where the scientist needs to be both the observer and the experiment. Personally firmware also needs to be experienced from the inside, since they are not as obvious from the outside. The seed analogy was for illustration and does not mean there are actually seeds growing in the brain. Rather these seeds are connected to our natural learning potential, driven by various firmware; collective human propensity.

 

If you ever watched a kitten playing, its imagination generates training scenarios, where it will chases imaginary prey. It is learning through this internal/external interaction; hunting firmware.

 

If you have even been in love, the beloved can take on almost mythological character; most beautiful woman or the smartest man you know. There is a subjective exaggeration that is part of the lure for its learning potential. Anyone will be attracted to the most beautiful person and will linger to gather data. Falling out of love is often connected to the firmware shutting down or shifting.

 

The ancient people were quite conscious of the firmware as inferred by these being projected as the gods and goddesses. Aphrodite would be a projection of the firmware of romantic love. She was a force of fate, beyond human will and choice, who would intercede so humans would attract in love.

Edited October 23, 2015 by puppypower

[iNow]

It's unclear why you chose to quote me in that response. Nothing you wrote addresses my criticism of your misguided analogies regarding brain structure, function, and what's innate versus developed.

EDIT: I see that you've been sent on holiday. Not terribly surprised, if I'm honest. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/29763-bannedsuspended-users/?p=888984

[Der_Neugierige]

Love, romance and erotic = cultivated form of sexual drive(because of our neocortex)

 

Sexual drive ~ sexual orientation

 

Androphilic sexual orientation = feminized neurobiological cellnetwork which processes sexual orientation(inborn instinct)

 

Gynophilic sexual orientation = masculinized neurobiological cellnetwork which processes sexual orientation(inborn instinct)

 

Heterosexual have according to their gender this cellnetwork masculinized or feminized

 

Homosexual men have this neurobiological cellnetwork feminized

homosexual women have this neurobiological cellnetwork masculinized

Edited October 28, 2015 by Der_Neugierige

[MonDie]

Love, romance and erotic = cultivated form of sexual drive(because of our neocortex)

Sexual drive ~ sexual orientation

Androphilic sexual orientation = feminized neurobiological cellnetwork which processes sexual orientation(inborn instinct)

Gynophilic sexual orientation = masculinized neurobiological cellnetwork which processes sexual orientation(inborn instinct)

Heterosexual have according to their gender this cellnetwork masculinized or feminized

Homosexual men have this neurobiological cellnetwork feminized

homosexual women have this neurobiological cellnetwork masculinized

If a man can have it too, is it really feminine?

[Der_Neugierige]

If a man can have it too, is it really feminine?

To be androphilic is a feminine trait. And even on a neurobiological level there is something inborn feminized. Biochemistry is very complex and mistakes happen.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Der_Neugierige

[iNow]

To be androphilic is a feminine trait.

Citation needed.

 

And even on a neurobiological level there is something inborn feminized.

Can you clarify, do you mean to share that prenatal development generally starts with a female baseline, or something else? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_reproductive_system

 

Basically, it's not at all clear what you think is different in the neurobiology nor how you're defining the (clearly subjective and socially biased) term "feminized."

Edited October 29, 2015 by iNow

[Der_Neugierige]

Citation needed. Can you clarify, do you mean to share that prenatal development generally starts with a female baseline, or something else? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_reproductive_systemBasically, it's not at all clear what you think is different in the neurobiology nor how you're defining the (clearly subjective and socially biased) term "feminized."

I see you and the majority of people do not change their opinion and do believe masculinity, feminity, sexual orientation and sexual identification are learnt, adopted or chosen until science can give proof otherwise.

[MonDie]

I see you and the majority of people do not change their opinion and do believe masculinity, feminity, sexual orientation and sexual identification are learnt, adopted or chosen until science can give proof otherwise.

 

Sexual orientation is determined very early in life, most likely in the womb. We just aren't convinced that you're using the term "feminized" in a scientifically meaningful way.

Edited October 30, 2015 by MonDie