The truth about how love and attraction really work

Page 5 of 6 [ 93 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

03 Jun 2021, 8:49 am

Muse933277 wrote:
I 100% agree with you OP, this is how attraction usually works for many people. A person's physical appearance gets them the opportunity in the first place, while their personality/mental attributes ultimately decides whether or not we consider them 'fit' to be a boyfriend/girlfriend. If we consider someone ugly, then it doesn't matter how nice someone is or how compatible they are, we simply don't give them a chance.

BUT this isn't the way attraction works for all people.

I believe this is why some people are disagreeing with you because for them, their attraction to someone works a little differently. Maybe for some people, looks truly don't matter or they're willing to date someone they find "ugly" if they like their personality (or their wallet)


I think the truth is that everyone has different ways of determining a future romantic partner and while I believe that your method is certainly the majority, this isn't the case for everyone.


Kind of. Still, I believe looks are a bit important to everybody, but then people need to compromise on what to require in the appearance area in order to create a reasonably sized dating pool.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

03 Jun 2021, 8:51 am

Fnord wrote:
Funny.

It seems that the "experts" on love and attraction have no relationships of their own.

It is just like when the "experts" on how I should raise my kids never had kids of their own, or the "experts" on how I should go about remodeling my home all live in apartments.


What makes you think that? I had three kids that are 17, 26, and 28 now.



Last edited by rdos on 03 Jun 2021, 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

03 Jun 2021, 8:53 am

rdos wrote:
badRobot wrote:
rdos wrote:
So, you are hoping that in the distant future neuroscience and biochemical research will be able to confirm your "inner chimp" idea? I'd say that is more like wishful thinking than anything relevant to autistics today.

This is not my idea. This is part of current scientific consensus.


What consensus? We just concluded that there is no consensus about if and how MHC relates to human mating. As for the position of chimp in human evolution, it's disputed, and I anticipate we will see revisions in this area in the future. That we are a hybrid species was not the consensus when I came to the autistic community, but right now it is the accepted consensus. There is particularly consensus that we got immune system genes from Neanderthals, the very genes that are part of MHC.

badRobot wrote:
rdos wrote:
My position is that neuroscience cannot solve this issue, and so I see no reason why I would take interest in it.

This is your personal opinion, belief or whatever, just stop pretending it has anything to do with science.


I find ethology (the science of animal behavior), and particularly human ethology the most interesting research area when studying human mating. Ethology has a long tradition in investigating animal behavior, and it seems to be the proper tool to understand mating in both humans and animals. Most importantly, it's based on proper scientific principles and not wishful thinking about future break-through in neuroscience.

Actually, I can see that neuroscience and ethology could complement each other, but at this point, neuroscience doesn't have the proper tools or knowledge to be able to explain anything related to behavior. This is why you use sweeping generalizations like "inner chimp". You simply have nothing to back your claims up with.


Fundamentals of these ideas, including MHC-dependent mate selection are part of scientific consensus in ethology as well.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,507
Location: Stendec

03 Jun 2021, 9:00 am

rdos wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Funny.

It seems that the "experts" on love and attraction have no relationships of their own.

It is just like when the "experts" on how I should raise my kids never had kids of their own, or the "experts" on how I should go about remodeling my home all live in apartments.
What makes you think that? I had three kids that are 17, 26, and 28 now.
Look around the Interwebz.  Men without girlfriends telling other men without girlfriends how to get girlfriends ... non-medical cis-men telling women what they should do about their reproductive issues ... unemployed people telling employed people how they should behave on the job ... ordinary citizens with grandiose ideas about how governments should be run ... civilians explaining what life in the military is "really" all about ...

Have you really never noticed that most self-appointed "experts" seem to have no experience in their alleged areas of "expertise"?


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

03 Jun 2021, 9:05 am

badRobot wrote:
Fundamentals of these ideas, including MHC-dependent mate selection are part of scientific consensus in ethology as well.


No, it's not because ethology centers around understanding behavior and not around understanding genetics. You think that behavior is just "some dull rituals", and don't think it is important to understand them, and that we have some "inner chimp" that guides all of our actions. This kind of is science (ethology & behavior) vs superstition (believing neuroscience can explain actions and that actual behavior doesn't need to be understood).

As I said, ethology and neuroscience could have a fruitful dialogue in the future, but not if people in the neuroscience community disrespect empirical knowledge about behavior.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

03 Jun 2021, 9:13 am

Fnord wrote:
rdos wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Funny.

It seems that the "experts" on love and attraction have no relationships of their own.

It is just like when the "experts" on how I should raise my kids never had kids of their own, or the "experts" on how I should go about remodeling my home all live in apartments.
What makes you think that? I had three kids that are 17, 26, and 28 now.
Look around the Interwebz.  Men without girlfriends telling other men without girlfriends how to get girlfriends ... non-medical cis-men telling women what they should do about their reproductive issues ... unemployed people telling employed people how they should behave on the job ... ordinary citizens with grandiose ideas about how governments should be run ... civilians explaining what life in the military is "really" all about ...

Have you really never noticed that most self-appointed "experts" seem to have no experience in their alleged areas of "expertise"?


Of course, I have noticed that.

It's a bit like neurotypical autism researchers that think they know everything about autism and often don't even need to ask people with the traits for advice. Although, this has gotten a bit better, even if autism research has not advanced much.

In this WP forum it seems like it is mostly unsuccessful men that are complaining all the time. Few people that are in successful relationships participate, even if it should be those that had the most relevant advice to offer.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,507
Location: Stendec

03 Jun 2021, 9:20 am

rdos wrote:
... In this WP forum it seems like it is mostly unsuccessful men that are complaining all the time. Few people that are in successful relationships participate, even if it should be those that had the most relevant advice to offer.
Agreed.

It is also fair to point out that those of us who have the most relevant advice to offer on relationships (e.g., people with wisdom acquired from a few decades of marriage) are often rebuked for being "harsh" after telling those lonely-hearted people what they need to do to get a girlfriend or boyfriend.  We are also labelled as "detractors" for telling those same people that it is their responsibility to change their ways and improve themselves.

Those people are simply more interested in the attention they receive than they are in self-improvement.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

03 Jun 2021, 9:27 am

Fnord wrote:
rdos wrote:
... In this WP forum it seems like it is mostly unsuccessful men that are complaining all the time. Few people that are in successful relationships participate, even if it should be those that had the most relevant advice to offer.
Agreed.

It is also fair to point out that those of us who have the most relevant advice to offer on relationships (e.g., wisdom acquired from a few decades of marriage) are often rebuked for being "harsh" after telling those lonely-hearted people what they need to do to get a girlfriend or boyfriend.  We are also labelled as "detractors" for telling those same people that it is their responsibility to change their ways and improve themselves.

Those people are simply more interested in the attention they receive than they are in self-improvement.


Agree in principle, but my experience tells me that marriages gotten into out of desperation often are sub-optimal. Self-improvement for me is more about understanding your true preferences and acting on them rather than trying to appear NT and learn all the dating tricks. In the end, being single could be better than being in a poor relationship.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,507
Location: Stendec

03 Jun 2021, 9:33 am

rdos wrote:
Fnord wrote:
rdos wrote:
... In this WP forum it seems like it is mostly unsuccessful men that are complaining all the time. Few people that are in successful relationships participate, even if it should be those that had the most relevant advice to offer.
Agreed.

It is also fair to point out that those of us who have the most relevant advice to offer on relationships (e.g., wisdom acquired from a few decades of marriage) are often rebuked for being "harsh" after telling those lonely-hearted people what they need to do to get a girlfriend or boyfriend.  We are also labelled as "detractors" for telling those same people that it is their responsibility to change their ways and improve themselves.

Those people are simply more interested in the attention they receive than they are in self-improvement.
Agree in principle, but my experience tells me that marriages gotten into out of desperation often are sub-optimal.  Self-improvement for me is more about understanding your true preferences and acting on them rather than trying to appear NT and learn all the dating tricks.  In the end, being single could be better than being in a poor relationship.
No argument.

I would not advocate in favor of a "Desperation" marriage -- marrying someone as a desperate attempt to improve one's self-esteem, relieve depression, or to prove to everyone else that the people getting married are just as good as everyone else.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

03 Jun 2021, 10:02 am

rdos wrote:
No, it's not because ethology centers around understanding behavior and not around understanding genetics. You think that behavior is just "some dull rituals", and don't think it is important to understand them, and that we have some "inner chimp" that guides all of our actions. This kind of is science (ethology & behavior) vs superstition (believing neuroscience can explain actions and that actual behavior doesn't need to be understood).


This is unbelievable.

Two publications on MHC-dependent mate selection referenced in publication you linked here were written by Dr. Dustin J. Penn, Senior Scientist of Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences.

He has published dozens publications in this field that contribute to ideas I support.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

03 Jun 2021, 10:12 am

badRobot wrote:
This is unbelievable.

Two publications on MHC-dependent mate selection referenced in publication you linked here were written by Dr. Dustin J. Penn, Senior Scientist of Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences.

He has published dozens publications in this field that contribute to ideas I support.


Why is that unbelievable? I have no issues at all with the MHC article. It's well written and I find it rather natural that it should refer to ethology articles. The article also doesn't support your idea of "the inner chimp", rather is pretty critical about the relevance of MHC for human mating. They describe the situation as it is (non-settled), and their results don't settle it rather they conclude that African Americans don't support the hypothesis while Caucasians do. Additionally, their research asked the question "do MHC similarity matter for married couples" and not "do we have an inner chimp" or "is odor important for attraction".

So, I'm unsure why you think the article supports your ideas. To me it is more like a failure to support them, and combined with the genetic evidence from the other MHC article, I think we can conclude that you have been disproved. There is no "inner chimp", or at least there is no support for the "inner chimp" concept.



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

03 Jun 2021, 11:03 am

rdos wrote:
badRobot wrote:
This is unbelievable.

Two publications on MHC-dependent mate selection referenced in publication you linked here were written by Dr. Dustin J. Penn, Senior Scientist of Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences.

He has published dozens publications in this field that contribute to ideas I support.


Why is that unbelievable? I have no issues at all with the MHC article. It's well written and I find it rather natural that it should refer to ethology articles. The article also doesn't support your idea of "the inner chimp", rather is pretty critical about the relevance of MHC for human mating. They describe the situation as it is (non-settled), and their results don't settle it rather they conclude that African Americans don't support the hypothesis while Caucasians do. Additionally, their research asked the question "do MHC similarity matter for married couples" and not "do we have an inner chimp" or "is odor important for attraction".

So, I'm unsure why you think the article supports your ideas. To me it is more like a failure to support them, and combined with the genetic evidence from the other MHC article, I think we can conclude that you have been disproved. There is no "inner chimp", or at least there is no support for the "inner chimp" concept.


First of all, this is not what I would call "rather critical":
Quote:
This study thus supports the hypothesis that the MHC influences mate choice in some human populations.


Second of all, hypothesis I support is that mechanisms of biological attraction are suppressed in unfavorable conditions and environment. Sunlight is one of the most important factors. In North American climate most African Americans do not achieve optimal vitamin D concentration level, which regulates or mediates a lot of gene expressions associated with MHC region among other things. It means we can expect to less significant or missing pattern of HMC-dependent mate selection in this demographic.

Therefore we can conclude of this study is evidence in support of my hypothesis.



badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

03 Jun 2021, 11:16 am

What is unbelievable is the fact that you claim ethology has nothing to do with what ethology is according to senior scientist of Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology Department of Interdisciplinary Life Sciences.

I have no idea what kind of "ethology" you think you belong to, but it has nothing to do with actual ethology.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 50,507
Location: Stendec

03 Jun 2021, 11:43 am

So put your theories into practice, and let us know how it all turns out.  Go ahead ... we will wait.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


badRobot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 551

03 Jun 2021, 11:59 am

Fnord wrote:
So put your theories into practice, and let us know how it all turns out.  Go ahead ... we will wait.


I've put my theories into practice couple years ago and forgot any urge to return to this forum. Forgot about depression and dating/short term relationships are now freaking easy. It feels like I'm 40-60% less autistic. Yeah, long term relationship and moving in together was still challenging twice, but only time will tell.

Pretty much the only reason I'm back here is my now gf tested positive for COVID-19 right after I got first vaccination I was quarantined for 14 days and now I'm waiting for 14 days of her quarantine to end after she tested negative twice.

I'll resume my normal life next week and probably will not return for another couple years or maybe never.



rdos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jul 2005
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,026
Location: Sweden

03 Jun 2021, 2:30 pm

badRobot wrote:
First of all, this is not what I would call "rather critical":
Quote:
This study thus supports the hypothesis that the MHC influences mate choice in some human populations.


Second of all, hypothesis I support is that mechanisms of biological attraction are suppressed in unfavorable conditions and environment. Sunlight is one of the most important factors. In North American climate most African Americans do not achieve optimal vitamin D concentration level, which regulates or mediates a lot of gene expressions associated with MHC region among other things. It means we can expect to less significant or missing pattern of HMC-dependent mate selection in this demographic.

Therefore we can conclude of this study is evidence in support of my hypothesis.


No, because your hypothesis was that we have an "inner chimp", and the current article checked if MHC related to mate selection. It's possible that MHC in some way or another influence mate selection, but it doesn't say in what way or how much. It could also be just a side effect of something that happens to lie in the rather large MHC area.

So, no, you haven't proved anything.