I think this has it the wrong way around. it's not that love is biological bribery, it's that someone studying biology has tried to redefine biological bribery to be love.
Love comes in many shapes. Love for one's family, one's nation, one's profession, even God. It's at best uninformative, at worst nonsensical to try to reduce all of this to interaction found in sexual interaction / reproduction. It's a common thing with these evo-psych explanations. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The more scientific sounding version of thinking every skyscraper represents a phallus.
I doubt this even makes sense across cultural boundaries. For example the fact that oxytocin is apparently indicative of how long a relationsihp lasts. In a Western culture where people nowadays are prone to form relationships spontaneously, sure. In a culture where parents organize relationships based on class, caste or faith? Probably not.
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.)
Surely love has functional meaning, just like all sensations and feelings.
Love is one of the most powerful feelings that can bring joy or so much sorrow for some.
Do the biochemical aspects of love matter that much?
When it is no longer functional, sure.
Besides, all pleasurable feelings/sensations are "bribes".
Really funny how we make separations about male vs female dating strategy, and they are right to a great degree, but both men and women share a lot of DNA, I don't know if there are many male specific genes.
Sure, all animals are the same and just a few different hormones make a huge difference (male vs female gorilla?) but not to that extent in humans.
Men can be manipulated too when they fall inlove, I wish the article talked about that.
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.
> It's at best uninformative, at worst nonsensical to try to reduce all of this to interaction found in sexual interaction / reproduction.
Understanding doesn't have to lead to disenchantment. Getting yourself into the frame of mind where you feel the wonder of things is worthwhile for topics like this, science and religion.
Disenchantment is a choice and it comes from saying "X is `just' Y." We don't have to minimize things when people point out their aspects.
And indeed, they are right. Love is biological bribery. Science has proven that love is a mix of chemistry and emotions. (Or emotions caused by chemistry) that waxes and wanes and goes away over time. And the main reason for it is the perpetuation of the species by a mechanism that is outside of our consciousness and reason.
When love is gone, what is generally left is (sometimes hopefully) a caring, appreciation, and high regard for the object of "love".
And this is exactly why modern divorce rates are so high.
Because marriages were always meant to be a coming together for reasons of survival, children, sharing of responsibilities and a series of common missions.
Instead we have ruined the institution by making the main reason for it to be "love".
So when the love inevitably wanes -- as it naturally does, if the couple has nothing else left (children, shared goals, common missions), why stay together?
And yes, some people might say they have been in love for decades. Which is great! But it rarely happens. Generally love waxes and wanes. Rises and falls. Comes and goes. And those same couples that have been in love for decades will tell you all of the downswings and upswings over the years.
I wish more people knew and understood this. A lot of heartache could be saved. Then again, the world would not be so interesting. Sigh.
I’m not sure to get your point on marriage. If people divorce because they have no other reason to stay together (no survival level risk, children, common missions etc.) how is it “ruined” ?
Seems to me it’s necessity has just waned over time, being single has become a lot more viable in our societies and the system is pretty much working as it’s supposed to.
IMO love is the thing that remains after you stop being blinded by lust, novelty, etc.
Love is quite boring, hardly the most stimulating thing in a relationship, almost the dullest thing because it’s the force that keeps you together through the pits. The feeling of emotional security, someone to care for / be cared for by. The reason it takes a longer time to fall in love than wanting to bang is because you need the previous qualities to appear, peak and then wither to notice it.
Old people aren’t all going at it like knives, familial love is pretty mundane, even the love people have for pets is not very exciting. But that is the essence, the ecstasy of divine tedium.
It is almost upsetting how much humans are hostages to our hormones. One of the most interesting This American Life episodes was about what happens when you are too high or too low on testosterone, for example. It changes your entire personality.
This is why I don't think the Black Mirror promise of "uploading" your brain is that simple. Without hormones, you will be a husk of your former self.
> Science has proven that love is a mix of chemistry and emotions.
When did that happen?
As I understand it we've got to the point of understanding some of the chemical signals our bodies use to reflect the idea we called love, and that's about as far as it is reasonable to take that notion. Taking it further is unscientific.
We don't even remotely understand our own bodies' signalling processes so I'm not sure how we reached the conclusion that love is solved.
You position re marriage is curious and seems backwards. You seem to value marriage over the goals and needs of the participants. Modern conventional marriage and the often unrealistic expectations of marriage for life are what's wrong with marriage. Humans made marriage that way. Humans can decide to make it different.
It's a natural result of society consuming ** propaganda nonstop for entertainment. We learn all the wrong lessons even though they feel sweet and and have good face value.
For Aristotle (Rhet. ii, 4) and Aquinas (STh I-II,26 4), to love is to "will the good of the other"; it is an act of 'reason' rather than emotion. That is how one can "love one's enemy": it's not necessarily that we find pleasure from them, but rather we desire that they (e.g.) reform their ways.
While this is true, the interviewee Anne Machin clarifies that she is referring to the phenomenon of romantic love (Ἔρως).
That said, I find it interesting that there is no mention of the phenomenon of same-sex romance. This exception alone would seem to fly in the face of the notion that romantic love can be conceptually-modeled as a mere epiphenomenon of genetic sovereignty and autonomy. I guess the counter would be that this lies outside the boundaries of ordinary romantic love and therefore should be taxonomically-distinct?
Who knows. These gene-centered theories of evolution require quite a bit of ad hoc rationalization, speculation and routine defiance of folk phenomenology.
> At the basis of love are four neurochemicals. Each has a different role but together they motivate us or to give us confidence to go into social relationships.
So love is basically some chemicals causing us to feel lovey. Makes sense...
> That’s what separates us from the animals. Animals don’t use love to manipulate others. We do.
Wait, what? Do none of the animals have the same chemical processes? This is a big red flag to me. Time and time again we have found that when people have said "animals don't X, only humans do" we find that to be wrong.
Love and lust and passion are things that are difficult to square with our (mis)understanding as 'rational' entities; we are not thinking machines, we're reproduction machines.
> But a lot of women, in particular, find it hard to accept that they are still looking for a protector and a provider.
Our biology doesn't care what your carefully crafted self-image looks like; in the end male and female are two reproductive strategies that perpetuate the genes.
It would do us good to keep that in mind and not be willfully blind to the biological sources of our behavior.
Love as I understand it is not strictly an emotion but rather an absence of fear when attending to the object of love. It appears emotional because there's a change in the baseline emotional state. The results is a whole-hearted engagement which with sufficient investment of time has the potential to become creative.
I didn’t follow any of that, it didn’t make any sense at all, but he sure is entertaining to watch, and like totally adorable somehow. I’d have to speculate that he is using the words “love” and “evil” to mean very different things than anyone else using those words.
Who is this guy? I’ve seen a few other links to videos of him flying into outer space on other topics posted on HN recently. I just went and read a bit of his Wikipedia page, so I see he’s a philosopher, but I don’t know what the abstract terms materialism and Hegelian idealism and Lancanian psychoanalysis mean. Is there a less abstract way to understand his position, or important philosophical contributions he’s made that would help me understand him or his ideas on love?
Confusing intimacy with love? Even then, I am convinced the biological need for sex is rooted in a core psychological need for intimacy (to know and mutually be known), this need is so crucial, the body works to help obtain it similar to food or water.
I love material reductionism.
It pretends to explain the thing it actually renders meaningless with its "explanation".
This "explanation" is utter rubbish mumbled by the philsophically inept.
It even pretends to be "science" all the while bringing in their "darwinian" "evolutionary" philosophy.
(One thing I wonder often is, don't these people know fallacies, e.g. when trying to prove sth. to be caused by evolution, as a proof for evolution, while assuming evolution to be true in the first place? Classic "begging the question"-fallacy.)
You don't seem to bring forth any real rebuttal of the arguments in the article. I personally think it's a bit oversimplified but very much viable. Why don't you think so?
Hypocrite that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you that they are chemicals. All knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove. Will you fight? Or will you perish like a dog?
When I was young, I always wondered if LOVE is just a biological reaction to some chemical substance secreted by the brain when you meet someone you like. And of course after failing multiple times to "help" the brains of girls I liked to secret such substance, I quickly retreated to the safe haven of computer world and never thought about it.
Now I read the article and wonder the same question: Is there a way to recreate the experience of love by agitating the brain to secret certain chemical substances?
People would get hooked to that worse than heroin lol.
I recently fell for a girl and being without her definitely felt like having abstinence syndrome. I was obsessively and relentlessly thinking about her every waking second.
Love can be many things. Love is lust, is the desire for company, the yearning for friendship; it's a single word used for a plethora of emotions.
We would do better to differentiate these and make it clear what we mean when we say 'I love you'. Someone looking for a partner does not mean the same as someone under the spells of passion and desire.
No, love is not chemicals & emotions but the state of chemicals & emotions that is cause-effect for inter-human attraction/stable togetherness.
Wow! IMAGINE THINKING LOVE EVOLVED at some point in time. There are other issues as well.
To start off if I defined love minimally as that which is the cause of attraction then,
---
What is the cause of attraction between poles of a magnet?
* Using the socratic method, the concept of an "ideal North Pole" is inseparable from the "ideal South Pole", their togetherness is eternal and when they are not together they are attracted to be together, when they are together it is sustainable, so much so that the reason for their creation is for the other to exist.
Why do they behave so though? Because they are "circular". No they are not circular jk but because they have a "natural configuration" or simply put its their "nature". Nature of circles is to roll, similarly, what is an object that has nature is to be attracted to this subject.
---
Love itself, is eternal, and has no origin. It is name for a "thing"(conceptual, abstract, but a noun), like a circle.
We say one's mind is in prayer but technically whole of their "natural configuration" is praying. Similarly, we say someone's body is in the game, but their whole self is involved. Similarly thus, heart is in love but their "whole configuration" is in the act of active loving, during their existence.
At the very least it must NOT be taken for granted that a common subset of such configuration exists for all humans. Nature of their lover is subjective to lovers.
Furthermore, to end, when you study the properties of theos and of love, they turn out to be same 'things'; god is love and love is god.
OP needs to read about what they are writing.
The article does not explain why bribery is the chosen analogy and not for example salary or something. Bribery for me is about paying someone to do something bad - here they talk about the reward i.e. the payment part but there is no mention about the 'something bad' part.
A) you are your brain chemistry. It makes no difference to the nature of love that you can point to chemical mechanisms.
B) It is easier to cooperate between people with asymmetric wants and offers, as you a far more likely to have a mutually beneficial trade. It is rubbish to say that somehow building a relationship with someone of the other gender is harder, or evolutionarily more 'advanced'
This reads like someone just using the credibility of research (which may or may not be credible) to put forwards their only slightly related pet philosophising.
I feel this is actually doing a disservice to the wider community of those who try and discuss and study e.g. evolutionary motives, or gender differences, by being full of so much dross.
If people getting married were forced to spend a day in divorce court, very few people would ever dare get married. "Love" is the biggest snake oil humans have produced and marketted to death. It's all good for survival of the species but if you want to change the world, do something above and beyon, make an impact - avoid this "love" bullshit and, no matter what happens, don't get married. Songs of the sirens will be loud and irresistable. You must learn to close your ears or you will ruin your life.
[+] [-] Barrin92|4 years ago|reply
Love comes in many shapes. Love for one's family, one's nation, one's profession, even God. It's at best uninformative, at worst nonsensical to try to reduce all of this to interaction found in sexual interaction / reproduction. It's a common thing with these evo-psych explanations. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The more scientific sounding version of thinking every skyscraper represents a phallus.
I doubt this even makes sense across cultural boundaries. For example the fact that oxytocin is apparently indicative of how long a relationsihp lasts. In a Western culture where people nowadays are prone to form relationships spontaneously, sure. In a culture where parents organize relationships based on class, caste or faith? Probably not.
[+] [-] selestify|4 years ago|reply
> 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.)
[+] [-] msoad|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raducu|4 years ago|reply
Do the biochemical aspects of love matter that much? When it is no longer functional, sure.
Besides, all pleasurable feelings/sensations are "bribes".
Really funny how we make separations about male vs female dating strategy, and they are right to a great degree, but both men and women share a lot of DNA, I don't know if there are many male specific genes.
Sure, all animals are the same and just a few different hormones make a huge difference (male vs female gorilla?) but not to that extent in humans.
Men can be manipulated too when they fall inlove, I wish the article talked about that.
[+] [-] CipherThrowaway|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] golemotron|4 years ago|reply
Understanding doesn't have to lead to disenchantment. Getting yourself into the frame of mind where you feel the wonder of things is worthwhile for topics like this, science and religion.
Disenchantment is a choice and it comes from saying "X is `just' Y." We don't have to minimize things when people point out their aspects.
[+] [-] adenner|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|4 years ago|reply
And whenever somebody talks about something useful they discovered using word love, arguments like yours crop up.
[+] [-] hoseja|4 years ago|reply
Those are cases of institutions hijacking the mechanism of love.
[+] [-] eric4smith|4 years ago|reply
And indeed, they are right. Love is biological bribery. Science has proven that love is a mix of chemistry and emotions. (Or emotions caused by chemistry) that waxes and wanes and goes away over time. And the main reason for it is the perpetuation of the species by a mechanism that is outside of our consciousness and reason.
When love is gone, what is generally left is (sometimes hopefully) a caring, appreciation, and high regard for the object of "love".
And this is exactly why modern divorce rates are so high.
Because marriages were always meant to be a coming together for reasons of survival, children, sharing of responsibilities and a series of common missions.
Instead we have ruined the institution by making the main reason for it to be "love".
So when the love inevitably wanes -- as it naturally does, if the couple has nothing else left (children, shared goals, common missions), why stay together?
And yes, some people might say they have been in love for decades. Which is great! But it rarely happens. Generally love waxes and wanes. Rises and falls. Comes and goes. And those same couples that have been in love for decades will tell you all of the downswings and upswings over the years.
I wish more people knew and understood this. A lot of heartache could be saved. Then again, the world would not be so interesting. Sigh.
[+] [-] makeitdouble|4 years ago|reply
Seems to me it’s necessity has just waned over time, being single has become a lot more viable in our societies and the system is pretty much working as it’s supposed to.
[+] [-] gunfighthacksaw|4 years ago|reply
Love is quite boring, hardly the most stimulating thing in a relationship, almost the dullest thing because it’s the force that keeps you together through the pits. The feeling of emotional security, someone to care for / be cared for by. The reason it takes a longer time to fall in love than wanting to bang is because you need the previous qualities to appear, peak and then wither to notice it.
Old people aren’t all going at it like knives, familial love is pretty mundane, even the love people have for pets is not very exciting. But that is the essence, the ecstasy of divine tedium.
[+] [-] papito|4 years ago|reply
This is why I don't think the Black Mirror promise of "uploading" your brain is that simple. Without hormones, you will be a husk of your former self.
[+] [-] onion2k|4 years ago|reply
You only need to look at the way some old people act around their spouse to see that there is nothing inevitable about that.
[+] [-] 52-6F-62|4 years ago|reply
When did that happen?
As I understand it we've got to the point of understanding some of the chemical signals our bodies use to reflect the idea we called love, and that's about as far as it is reasonable to take that notion. Taking it further is unscientific.
We don't even remotely understand our own bodies' signalling processes so I'm not sure how we reached the conclusion that love is solved.
[+] [-] Zigurd|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dinkleberg|4 years ago|reply
At the end of the day we are biological machinery.
[+] [-] twoxproblematic|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw0101a|4 years ago|reply
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
* https://iep.utm.edu/love/
For Aristotle (Rhet. ii, 4) and Aquinas (STh I-II,26 4), to love is to "will the good of the other"; it is an act of 'reason' rather than emotion. That is how one can "love one's enemy": it's not necessarily that we find pleasure from them, but rather we desire that they (e.g.) reform their ways.
[+] [-] Connor_Creegan|4 years ago|reply
That said, I find it interesting that there is no mention of the phenomenon of same-sex romance. This exception alone would seem to fly in the face of the notion that romantic love can be conceptually-modeled as a mere epiphenomenon of genetic sovereignty and autonomy. I guess the counter would be that this lies outside the boundaries of ordinary romantic love and therefore should be taxonomically-distinct?
Who knows. These gene-centered theories of evolution require quite a bit of ad hoc rationalization, speculation and routine defiance of folk phenomenology.
[+] [-] blurker|4 years ago|reply
So love is basically some chemicals causing us to feel lovey. Makes sense...
> That’s what separates us from the animals. Animals don’t use love to manipulate others. We do.
Wait, what? Do none of the animals have the same chemical processes? This is a big red flag to me. Time and time again we have found that when people have said "animals don't X, only humans do" we find that to be wrong.
I stopped reading after this.
[+] [-] mediocregopher|4 years ago|reply
I'm not convinced this isn't the exact modus operandi of my cat.
[+] [-] esarbe|4 years ago|reply
> But a lot of women, in particular, find it hard to accept that they are still looking for a protector and a provider.
Our biology doesn't care what your carefully crafted self-image looks like; in the end male and female are two reproductive strategies that perpetuate the genes.
It would do us good to keep that in mind and not be willfully blind to the biological sources of our behavior.
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fristechill|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] techer|4 years ago|reply
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hg7qdowoemo
[+] [-] dahart|4 years ago|reply
Who is this guy? I’ve seen a few other links to videos of him flying into outer space on other topics posted on HN recently. I just went and read a bit of his Wikipedia page, so I see he’s a philosopher, but I don’t know what the abstract terms materialism and Hegelian idealism and Lancanian psychoanalysis mean. Is there a less abstract way to understand his position, or important philosophical contributions he’s made that would help me understand him or his ideas on love?
[+] [-] badrabbit|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esarbe|4 years ago|reply
The biological need for sex is rooted in the necessity for reproduction.
> this need is so crucial, the body works to help obtain it similar to food or water.
The body serves the need for reproduction.
[+] [-] Sapere_Aude|4 years ago|reply
This "explanation" is utter rubbish mumbled by the philsophically inept. It even pretends to be "science" all the while bringing in their "darwinian" "evolutionary" philosophy. (One thing I wonder often is, don't these people know fallacies, e.g. when trying to prove sth. to be caused by evolution, as a proof for evolution, while assuming evolution to be true in the first place? Classic "begging the question"-fallacy.)
[+] [-] quenix|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Starlevel001|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hnthrowaway0315|4 years ago|reply
Now I read the article and wonder the same question: Is there a way to recreate the experience of love by agitating the brain to secret certain chemical substances?
[+] [-] jarpschop|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ciphol|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andruby|4 years ago|reply
Yes. But I really don't think you want to go there.
[+] [-] meowface|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirsebaer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] circlefavshape|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diag|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esarbe|4 years ago|reply
We would do better to differentiate these and make it clear what we mean when we say 'I love you'. Someone looking for a partner does not mean the same as someone under the spells of passion and desire.
[+] [-] CaptArmchair|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
[+] [-] kang|4 years ago|reply
No, love is not chemicals & emotions but the state of chemicals & emotions that is cause-effect for inter-human attraction/stable togetherness.
Wow! IMAGINE THINKING LOVE EVOLVED at some point in time. There are other issues as well.
To start off if I defined love minimally as that which is the cause of attraction then,
--- What is the cause of attraction between poles of a magnet? * Using the socratic method, the concept of an "ideal North Pole" is inseparable from the "ideal South Pole", their togetherness is eternal and when they are not together they are attracted to be together, when they are together it is sustainable, so much so that the reason for their creation is for the other to exist.
Why do they behave so though? Because they are "circular". No they are not circular jk but because they have a "natural configuration" or simply put its their "nature". Nature of circles is to roll, similarly, what is an object that has nature is to be attracted to this subject. ---
Love itself, is eternal, and has no origin. It is name for a "thing"(conceptual, abstract, but a noun), like a circle.
We say one's mind is in prayer but technically whole of their "natural configuration" is praying. Similarly, we say someone's body is in the game, but their whole self is involved. Similarly thus, heart is in love but their "whole configuration" is in the act of active loving, during their existence.
At the very least it must NOT be taken for granted that a common subset of such configuration exists for all humans. Nature of their lover is subjective to lovers.
Furthermore, to end, when you study the properties of theos and of love, they turn out to be same 'things'; god is love and love is god. OP needs to read about what they are writing.
[+] [-] zby|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeroyRaz|4 years ago|reply
A) you are your brain chemistry. It makes no difference to the nature of love that you can point to chemical mechanisms.
B) It is easier to cooperate between people with asymmetric wants and offers, as you a far more likely to have a mutually beneficial trade. It is rubbish to say that somehow building a relationship with someone of the other gender is harder, or evolutionarily more 'advanced'
This reads like someone just using the credibility of research (which may or may not be credible) to put forwards their only slightly related pet philosophising.
I feel this is actually doing a disservice to the wider community of those who try and discuss and study e.g. evolutionary motives, or gender differences, by being full of so much dross.
[+] [-] sytelus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|4 years ago|reply
Can people get a test for this?
[+] [-] krageon|4 years ago|reply