moimeme Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 Really, kudos to Darwin, but perhaps his theory needs some revamping to account for some of the big flaws which one would think ought to have been edited out of the basic design by now. Take love, for instance (PLEASE - ta-da-dum LOL. But seriously...). Sure, the oxytocin surge and all that are functional in persuading the species to copulate (presumably to produce issue, though science has circumvented that nicely). However, what evolutionary purpose does it serve for only one of a couple to feel love for another? It doesn't help the one person procreate, because that person is pining for the other person. Plus, that person can cause grief and/or harm to him/herself plus plenty of people around and sometimes even sour on relationships for a time, thereby withdrawing self from the mating game. This can't be useful to furthering the species. So what do you think - maybe people who love deeply and futilely are genetically inferior? Maybe the point is to remove people who love unwisely from the gene pool so that people who love just a bit remain? Ideally, if evolution knew its business, it would have selected for a function whereby two specific individuals suitable to mate develop feelings that would induce them to mate with each other while leaving the unchosen individuals free (and love-free) to select their own specifically suited mates. Somebody should have asked me about how to design all this stuff ! I'm sad for friends who are suffering from not knowing if the people they love really care for them. A wretched state of affairs, and one I'd not wish on my bestest friends, nor even my enemies. Yes, I'm being facetious (mostly). My heart goes out to everyone in this situation for sure.
CurlyIam Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme Take love, for instance (PLEASE - ta-da-dum LOL. But seriously...). Sure, the oxytocin surge and all that are functional in persuading the species to copulate (presumably to produce issue, though science has circumvented that nicely). However, what evolutionary purpose does it serve for only one of a couple to feel love for another? It doesn't help the one person procreate, because that person is pining for the other person. Plus, that person can cause grief and/or harm to him/herself plus plenty of people around and sometimes even sour on relationships for a time, thereby withdrawing self from the mating game. This can't be useful to furthering the species. Joy and sorrow coexist. No one remains in a relationship where all they hav is suffering. To those people, the joy they feel, even if in smaller amounts, is more precious than the sorrow, also more often and in larger quantities. So what do you think - maybe people who love deeply and futilely are genetically inferior? Maybe the point is to remove people who love unwisely from the gene pool so that people who love just a bit remain? I don't know if one can love "a bit". I do believe one can give his heart more carefully, love more wisely. I think it is a big differance from 'less'. Ideally, if evolution knew its business, it would have selected for a function whereby two specific individuals suitable to mate develop feelings that would induce them to mate with each other while leaving the unchosen individuals free (and love-free) to select their own specifically suited mates. What if those who love a lot, suffer, stay away but than get on with their life? Where do these one go? My oppinion is slightly different from yours: maybe the natural selection should have taken into account the capacity to reason. I'm refering to ackolewdging the fact that the other person isn't responding, and leaving. The Master key to surviving bad relationships: admitting its not working and moving on! As about the ability on to give yourself 100% in a relationship... to me it is an advantage, not a shortcoming. True love is complete. Means opening up, showing yourself compeletely vulnerable to the other person, not as a sign of weakness, but as one of strength! Taking into account all the chances of getting hurt. Love creates deep spiritual connection to the other person. This helps them evolve, they became more powerful. One is incredibly lucky to feel this with someone else, even if not for the rest of their live. Where does this aspect go in your equation? So maybe the big criteria shoud be the ability to pick up the pieces and get it going, should the happy times be over: that's what survivours do! And now the two categories would be those who have loved and with the risk of loosing, and those who love "a little". In my oppinion the latter are the less evolved. Of course, Nature would have to "fix" this aspect: give everyone enough strengh and brain as to be able to handle rejections. Ha,ha! I think my therory is crazier than yours!
Samson Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 There is evolution. And then there are societal norms. And then there is the artifical longevity modern science with which has blessed/cursed us. Now we're trying to cope with all three: here on LS is the evidance. Evolution says fall in love, procreate, and die within about 40 years. Social norms demand we stay with one mate during this time (no polygamists allowed). Science has doubled our lives and given us Viagra, no less, so that at 40+ we can actually begin it all over again. Social norms are changing to catch up. Marriage is being postponed. Women are waiting longer to have children. BUT THE LOVE COMPONENT HAS NOT CHANGED. We are still falling in love every 20 years! Not always with the original. We must be "trained" through the same science that brought us Viagra to sustain emotional connections, as well as physical ones.
Pyrannaste Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 However, what evolutionary purpose does it serve for only one of a couple to feel love for another? Love actually has an evolutionary purpose. In monogamous species it helps the couple stay together. Many monogamous species are not able to raise 'children' unless *both* animals in the couple cooperate. In many species of birds(expecially the ones which eat insects, or eagles, or prey-birds) if one of the parents dies the small ones are usually doomed to die too. Same thing would happen if one of the parents left. Love is a great way to help a couple stay together.
Author moimeme Posted June 6, 2004 Author Posted June 6, 2004 Great answers, and I'll get back to some in detail later, but I'm not talking about couple love. Reread my quote: However, what evolutionary purpose does it serve for only one of a couple to feel love for another? I'm talking about unrequited love. I'm talking about one person falling and the other one not. Now what evolutionary purpose is that, tell me?
Pyrannaste Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 Tough one and good one, moimeme. In evolution usually if someone tries hard enough (the male, usually), and pursues the other person hard enough he/she will have good chances of success. Animals would sometimes insist when members of the other sex refuses their 'offers' . Sometimes insisting has success too. It would be interesting to know if unrequited love comes from that. Looks that in the majority of other species, including the ones men are most related to, unrequited love (altough I guess you can't really call it love in other species) has a good reason to be.
CurlyIam Posted June 6, 2004 Posted June 6, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme I'm talking about one person falling and the other one not. Now what evolutionary purpose is that, tell me? We've given up so many things for the sake of comfort (some call it evolution). I understand that in fact what you are suggesting would be for society to promote those loving "less", so that everyone by choosing this example, shall contribute to... to what exactly are they to contribute? To a better society? One does not live for the society. One lives pay their taxes and be happy. Giving up feelings, (demeaning love under any form - as accepted by society) for that they are "difficult" to handle... is one growsome perspective. Everyone should have the same right to f*ck up their lives for Love and make their contribution to mankind. Everyone should have the same right to try to be as possibly happy as they can. Eliminating the loosers? Interrrresting, verrry interresting. I mean why choose love? Why not selfishness? Wouldn't this world be so much better if selfish people would not procreate anymore and have a "pure breed"? those are always and under all the circumstances affecting the lives of all those with whome they interfeare! It's a damn fair bet as it is, if you ask me, otherwise why would people still be doing it? (Hopefully not like in Vegas, where "the bank always wins", by bank understanding divorce lawyer!)
chris58 Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 I've certainly experienced my fair share of unrequited love (and, for what it's worth, never experienced requited love), so I am fascinated by this. My initial response was that there's simply no way to avoid unrequited love, because each of us is an independently-functioning being; whatever it is inside us that makes us love someone, doesn't "know" whether that someone will feel the same way towards us. Therefore the best our designers could do was put in place a system where everyone occasionally "fell in love with" (whatever that means) a particular other person, in the hope that sometimes that other person would reciprocate these feelings, in which case new members of the species can be produced (the overall aim). Once I started thinking this through though, I asked myself, what would it take to have a system where whatever it is inside of us that makes us love someone *does* "know" whether a particular someone will return those feelings? This would allow it to only make us love those who will feel the same way, and there would be no unrequited love. Just approaching this logically, it seems one way would be to have everyone very openly stating to everyone else exactly whom they considered a potential mate and whom they didn't. (For whatever reason, we don't seem to be made to discuss these sorts of things openly with just anyone.) Note that I'm *not* suggesting a conscious decision along the lines of "oh, she said she's attracted to me, so I'll start liking her back". The knowledge that someone likes you might be conscious, but the "decision" to reciprocate those feelings need not be. Why not design humans such that the mysterious part of us which makes us attracted to someone is only allowed to choose from those who have openly told us that they are attracted to us? There is a classic chicken-and-egg problem here though: John is incapable of becoming attracted to Mary until she has told him that she is attracted to him; Mary can't tell John this until she *is* attracted to him; and Mary is incapable of becoming attracted to John until he has told her that he is attracted to her. So this idea will never work. (This next part may seem a bit crazy, but let's just be open-minded, keep thinking logically and see where it leads ...) There is a way around the chicken-and-egg problem though: keeping in mind that the overall aim is to avoid unrequited love, the important part of Mary's telling John that she likes him, is *not* the fact that she is currently attracted to him; the important part is that *if* John becomes attracted to her, the feelings will not be unrequited. Before it was assumed that there are only two possible states of mind: you are either attracted to someone, or you aren't. We can introduce a third state, where you are not attracted to someone (thus still no unrequited love), but from which it is guaranteed that you *will* be attracted to someone if that someone becomes attracted to you. (Bear with me here.) For lack of a better name, let's call this "potentially-attracted". Suppose humans were designed to express their "potential-attraction" openly, to anyone, and were fundamentally unable to become "fully" attracted (ie. attracted in the "normal" sense that we know) to someone unless they have been told that that same someone is potentially-attracted to them. This solves the chicken-and-egg problem. First, Mary becomes potentially-attracted to John. She currently feels none of the tension/sadness/whatever associated with unrequited love. Perhaps she is not even aware of the fact that she is potentially-attracted to him. She communicates her "potential-attraction" to John; again, perhaps consciously, perhaps not, it doesn't really matter. At that point, it becomes possible for John to become attracted (in the "normal" sense) to Mary. One of two things happens: 1. John becomes attracted to Mary, and (this bit can now be conscious) tells her so. Mary was potentially-attracted to him, so she is guaranteed to now become attracted to him. They live happily ever after. 2. John doesn't become attracted to Mary. Nothing happens, end of story. No one has become attracted to anyone; there is no unrequited love. (By the way, please don't read anything into which role I described for the male name and which role I described for the female name. Switch around "John" and "Mary" as required.) You may be thinking that this can't be the way things work, because you've never felt anything which corresponds to what I labelled "potentially-attracted". I certainly haven't. Remember though that becoming and being potentially-attracted, and openly communicating it, could be completely subconscious. The system would still "work". Perhaps the first thing John and Mary "notice" is when they become "fully" attracted to the other person. This requires some sort of subconscious "communication" (of the fact that Mary was potentially-attracted to John), but this is not impossible; maybe Mary (along with all other humans) is "programmed" to touch her forehead with her left hand exactly three times in the first five minutes of every conversation they have, or some signal like that, and John is also programmed to subconsciously notice and interpret that. OK that's a bit of a silly example, but some such signal is not impossible right? (And of course, if a signal like that did exist, we would probably be designed to be unable to conceive of it anyway, to ensure that the system remained completely subconscious.) So just the fact that we're not aware of ever being potentially-attracted to someone, is not sufficient evidence to throw out the theory. As I said, I have never felt anything along the lines of being potentially-attracted; on the other hand though, I have noticed (eg. from reading on this site) that most people seem to be far more "fickle" than I am with these feelings. I move on from doses of unrequited love in years, not weeks or months; I very, very rarely feel attracted to someone new; the concept of "casually dating" more than one person at once eludes me completely. Could it be that "casually" (non-exclusively) dating is the same as being potentially-attracted? Anyway, putting aside the argument over whether the state of potential-attraction exists or not, there are two other obvious pieces of evidence that this isn't the way things work: 1. Mary changes "instantaneously" from being potentially-attracted to being attracted to John, when he tells her of his feelings. Even if potential-attraction is subconscious, this would mean that she instantly becomes consciously attracted to him. This doesn't seem to be what happens. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) 2. There *is* unrequited love. In the potentially-attracted theory, unrequited love is impossible. So things obviously don't work like that. But why not? Surely the world would be a happier place if there were no unrequited love. This is back to moimeme's original question. One answer could be that we are evolving towards a system like that. Who knows. The only other answer I can think of (and this seems more likely) is what moimeme suggested: that unrequited love serves to eliminate "people who love deeply and futilely". (I think that means me!) These people are less likely to reproduce, because they're more likely to be sitting around pining for someone. This deeper, more dedicated, "less fickle" love, though, would seem to be of more evolutionary benefit in the way Pyrannaste mentioned, by ensuring that parents stay together to help raise offspring. Also, note that this whole idea assumes that the "way" you love is genetically inherited; maybe not a trivial assumption. Well, that's about it ... thank you for reading! I don't really have a specific question I'm asking or answer I'm giving, just following through a train of thought I got started on while reading this thread. :-) I would be very interested to hear what anyone else thinks about any of these ideas though. Of course, I have probably taken the systematic sort of analysis of this topic to an unreasonable extreme, but surely it can't hurt to think about things this way and see where it leads? We can't be sure that there isn't some perfect scientific/mathematical model of "the mating game" until we explore some of the possibilities. Also, I've treated the terms "being attracted to", "like" and "love" as synonyms here. Clearly I'm not talking about "like" as in "I like hamburgers", or "love" as in family love, but putting those meanings aside I'm only aware of the one emotion, which I've used all those terms to describe. You may have other ideas (some sort of progression from "being attracted to" to "love"?), which would probably complicate the design of a system required to eliminate unrequited love; please enlighten me if I'm missing something. :-)
Pocky Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 It's about finding the perfect mate to procreate and once we do then we "fall in love". However, just because we think someone is a perfect mate it doesn't mean that they think we are. And it is still about procreation because evolution doesn't go hand in hand with our scientific technology. Just because science has figured out how to have test tube babies it doesn't mean our genes know this. They don't have little brains that can just suddenly switch how they behave. Evolution is over a long period of time and we'll probably kill ourselves off before we even evolve at all. Which means we're still striving for immortality through procreation as our DNA is encoded for survival and that means finding the perfect mate. http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/modern_humans.htm http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
seahorse Posted August 4, 2004 Posted August 4, 2004 Ohhh, interesting and deep thread here! I was going to put in the bit about love being the thing that keeps couples together long enough to raise one or two kids etc, but pyrannaste got there before me. chris58 has an interesting theory re: attraction potential. If we could all just be honest and say to each other during the first couple of dates: "I really like you, I feel we could be good together." wouldn't that be good? Modern dating is just way too much of a minefield. I need an assertive bloke who'll just tell me what he wants: willing to put himself on the line; and thank goodness I found one. Dyermaker, sometimes we women do need cavemen! (ducks and waits for comments) Seahorse
Recommended Posts