|
|
|
|
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:32:23 PM |
. ......... ^^ .................................................
. LULT's Q > the value of Scholar's left O
Thank you so much, it is just impossible to calculate how much harder it would be trying to win her over without you always there, ready and trying to help. 
(*singing*)
Keep smilin', keep shinin'
Knowin' you can always count on me, for sure
That's what friends are for
For good times and bad times
I'll be on your side forever more
That's what friends are for
 | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:38:19 PM | ^^^ No probs. I am more than happy to offer up sacrifice of your left testicle to the feline gods on your behalf to help you win the hand of the fair maiden. That's what mates are for.
Does that mean you need both to = Dreamgirl.
Nah...I = sw+duck...that's my part of the equation.
LULT = Dreamgirl.
I don't do = Dreamgirl, except where we have Sm - T.
... where T = taste in women. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:43:05 PM | | You know I 'did' , yet already, Trigonometry at school long time passing and I didn't get a headache then? So why am I biting my nails, having popped some Paracetomol, and one eye is twitching because ..OH OK, what is' sm'? I am seriously worried about my little grey cells now. Hey, why don't you two get a room at that motel LULT is always mentioning and do the' sm talk' thing? ......... it isn't 'sm' is it? I must be thinking of something else | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/4/2009 3:22:58 AM | Hey, why don't you two get a room at that motel LULT is always mentioning
I don’t know what to tell you, I have been cold and wet, frightened and alone, thousands and thousands of miles from home. I’ve see motels that are not on any map, I have suggested the Hilton; she won’t do that. I’ve pushed my way, past pimps and pushers, petrol sniffers and heroin users. I’ve seen coc1kroaches the size of cats and shared a bed with scurrying rats. I have found myself sent to deserted deserts, to flooded plains and mountain ledges. I passed through storms, of ash and fire, seen hail that crashed like cannon fire. Through divining rain and icy roads through moonless night and blinding snow, so now, perhaps, I must accept that not even a dream-girl is good with a map.
I don’t know her instructions are simple enough, follow the second star to the right and go straight on till morning. 
How hard can that be, there just must be some simple thing to do with astronomy that I am just not getting?
Though, to be on the safe side, I should probable be grateful that there is no way for her to work out where and when the next locust plague will occur. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/4/2009 3:37:29 AM | Though, to be on the safe side, I should probable be grateful that there is no way for her to work out where and when the next locust plague will occur.
Well, The last locust plague predicated.. I read last week.. heading to queensland
Tis true...
unfortunately..
peace..
| |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/4/2009 2:33:05 PM | The above formulas are very good but they dont take into account any variables.
Obviously LULT=dreamgirl is a given. No account for distance and/or time required to cover any distance should be included. Kids under 15 should also be included. Over 15 can dissmissed as an anomaly as they are never home (out stealing cars and hanging around shopping malls)
So if you have a sw with k x2 d=100 t= 3hr (by plane) It works out that it is just to hard so dont even bother trying to work it out
Now if k=0 and d=2 and t= 5min then the only factor missing is how hot she is on the hoto meter.
Not to sure what Scholars left O has to do with it unless the left O is all he has | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:18:33 PM |
Obviously LULT=dreamgirl is a given. No account for distance and/or time required to cover any distance should be included.
What you have failed to take into account is that LULT only equals Dreamgirl because of the immense distance/time she is from Scholar's left O.
Applying Einstein's 'theory of relativity' is helpful in all love equations. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:40:29 PM | | And I don't remember who wrote this... but it is very very true. Cynicism should not come into the love equation for "tis better to have loved and lost, Than never to have loved at all". | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/4/2009 10:14:34 PM | ^^It is from
In Memoriam
by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
LXXXV.
This truth came borne with bier and pall,
I felt it, when I sorrow’d most,
’Tis better to have loved and lost,
Than never to have loved at all–
It only seems obviously true until you or someone you love has loved and lost and then who knows. : ( | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:36:37 AM |
I have been giving this a little more unsupervised though and a couple of things that have been posted since I put up the widely understood and appreciated equations have caught my eye.
The first is this:
<div class="quote"> BUT...given that many on here regularly tell us that *Mm and *Mw are merely figments of an overactive imagination
The first and most obvious explanation is that many on here are heartless cynics, sad but true and given the disappointments that many people suffer in their personal lives it is not surprising. However these quantities which I have called “life’s enjoyment” are not theoretical constructs but labels that I have attached to observed quantities. I suspect that the source of the problem is that few people ever get to see a truly wonderful relationship, one in which the grownups dance in the kitchen, let alone be a part of one and so they fail to see just how glorious the sum of *Mm+*Mw can be and that having had past disappointments they incorrectly assume that the love that they have know was, given that their relationship failed, just a sad and sorry figment of their overactive imagination. This is just not true, even if two people love each other in the selfless way previously described and captured by the equality *Mm = *Mw it would still be possible for the magnitude of *Mm+*Mw to be so small for reasons that are very often not anyone’s fault and largely beyond anyone’s control that *Mm+*Mw > Sm + Sw does not hold and sadly the inequality Mm < *Mm > Sm & Sw < *Mw > Mw is no longer satisfied resulting in the failure of the relationship. It is quite latterly true that love in sometime just not enough and that two people that do love each other just can’t make a life together work.
This brings me to the second point which revolves around the importance of insuring that the sum *Mm+*Mw is as large as possible in spite of past disappointments. The remark that got me thinking about this is this quote from Lord Tennyson’s “In Memoriam”
<div class="quote"> Cynicism should not come into the love equation for "tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all".
At first I didn’t see how this quote was relevant to loves equation but it actually does say something of great importance which would perhaps have been better said with a little algebra and some game theory but does nevertheless go a long way to explaining why the divorce rate for second marriages is sadly so much higher than that of first marriages.
While the quantity of life’s enjoyment that it is possible for cooperation between a couple to produce and share is determined by their emotional and other recourses, and their respective comparative advantages which reflect their different opportunity costs , it is these emotional resources, in particularly their capacity to put aside their fears and cynicism or the pain of previous losses, which will to a large extent determine the magnitude of *Mm+*Mw and so the probability that the magnitude of *Mm+*Mw will be optimal, as large as it can possible be, or alternately if their relationship will be conducted within the sub optimal Nash Equilibrium of the prisoners’ dilemma, if it even manages to survive at all.
The prisoners’ dilemma is a simple idea that proceeded from a beautiful mind (no this is not your mind LULT but you do have one to) which asks you to imagine two conspirators in some criminal activity who have been arrested by the police and put into separate rooms. The police do not have enough independent evidence to convict either of them and so if they both remain silent, which they will only do if they both have confidence that the other person will also remain silent, then they will both be released without charge; this is from their perspective the optimal outcome of having been arrested. However the police tell both of them that if they confess first and agree to give evidence against the other they will receive a reduced sentence while the other will, given this testimony be more likely to be convicted and to perhaps receive an even harsher sentence. This is of course each prisoner’s dilemma, do they trust their partner in crime to remain silent or do they confess and testify insuring that they will receive a reduced sentence. The most likely out come given there is no honour among thieves and they are unlikely to have absolute trust in the loyalty of their partner is that they both confess insuring that they are both convicted with perfect certainty and both end up with a prison sentence, rather then just walking away free as birds, this is the sub optimal Nash Equilibrium and the best that can be hopped for in the absence of absolute and mutual trust.
This of course brings us back to the Tennyson quote and its relevance to loves equation. In its original context "tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all" is intended to give consultation after the passing of a great love and believing that it is true doesn’t make us anymore likely to find love given that we have little to no control over whom we fall in love with, though we do of course chose to place ourselves or not, sometimes wisely and sometimes not, in a position were those in-love feeing have the chance to develop. Nevertheless there is a sense in which the message of this quote is relevant to those who have suffered a great loss or disappointment and are hoping to find love again. The message is not that any relationship is better than none at all or to be preferred to cats, but rather that if the opportunity to love again should present itself, we will find ourselves in exactly the same position as the prisoner pondering the dilemma. If we are able to put our pasts disappointments behind us and open our hearts without fear or reservation and embrace with absolute certainty the belief that the other person is doing the same then we have taken the only actions that we can that might lead to the optimal equilibrium were *Mm+*Mw is as large as it can possible be, because we have had the courage to open our hearts again to the possibility of finding a love worth loosing. This is probably a little easier for some than others but nevertheless in the end it requires a little courage and the ability to believe in what might turn out to be, yet again, another figment of an overactive imaginations but if we want to remain open to the possibility of finding a love worth loosing, if we want to truly believe that we can love and lose, then we have to believe that we can truly love.
Lord knows what Nana will make of all this. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 4:17:29 PM | Now you've got me weeping [blows nose] ... the goldfish has been harrowing enough, and now this!...I'll leave it to Nana, can't deal with all this angst. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 4:20:48 PM | Hi youngin...IN the old days.. when I used to carry my horse to school, cause we couldn't afford shoes for him..we didn't have internet....we didn't have mobiles...etc..
We met people/interacted socially(depending which country you grew up in.. ie what social structure..ie this is not evolution..this is the social structure a person grows/adapts too) ..
very differently, than you youngins..
You...just grew up with..This new technological world.. and I think it's arse about front in actually forming relationships.. (sure there's some pros.. and alot of cons... pun intended.. on the internet/social way of meeting people)..
1.Is it 90% of our communication is done by body lingo..facial exspressions..etc..(this medium forgos this stuff.. from first contact) I personally start with the eyes... and listen to people on all levels..
before I would make a decision.. regardless of their stats on paper..(which is internet dating.. essentially)
2.Humans react to smells/scents.. some more than others are aware of this..for those( like me )..it is essential, in how much time I spend with a person..
I don't have any studies..(except my own observation..sionce childhood)..although Im sure if I searched I could find some... to back up.. our thoughts/emotions release chemicals.. that we can pick up on in others..
Myself.. I have either had a broken nose or was born with open sinuses.. (xray/face surgeon).. so I actually have a high sense of smell... and I taste smells..) So I can understand If some people donot see.. how important a persons natural scent is..
and our society.. ( mostly..camoflauges this instinctive/protective ability).. by covering themselves with deoderants/perfumes/after shave etc..
I cannot be next to someone who uses these chemicals.. cause I breathe them in.. and I get crook..).
Donot underestimate this sense in choosing a mate..
I could go on listing comparisons, but the point is that the feelings you have for each of them is the same (Love?) but the REASONS are different, and now you find yourself in a position where a decision MUST be made (because we’re all decent, monogamous people here, and we haven’t slept with either of them and would never lead someone on once things looked like they were getting serious)
See what your describing, is more a job vacancy..
Ie someone online submits their resume.. I read it.. are they meeting the key criteria?... do their refferences confirm the abilities I'm seeking?
BUt regardless of their stats on paper... The issues in a work enviournment would depend alot on their attitude.. (how they react in certain situations..dealing with conflict.. do they play well with others?... and importantly.. can they communicate unemotionally in a business setting..ie not let their ego become the issue?..etc )
So..Online I personally.. probably would'nt be in a situation of having to make a choice between 2 or more stats..of people..
It would be keep friendship.. ie no playing with emotions.. egging on.. (or being fooled by my own emotions, in reacting to words on a page.. I might like them.. reach my ego/vanity etc.. and some people become emotionally responsive./addictive..
Ie their lonely.. its nice to have a crush feeling on someone.. look forward to a message ..a text etc..
but is it real?.. or just emotions.. liking the feeling?... which can change.. if they ..don't stop messaging.. or texting.. etc.. if your no longer feeling the emotions?.. people can fall in love through emotions.. but to me.. it would be.. the least reliable way.. cause once one of the persons emotions.. change.. someone gets hurt..
So.. youngin.. I wouldn't be getting to that showing emotion stage online.. but friends.. until I met them both.. and felt their presence.. saw their eyes/responses to certain.. subjects..etc.. communicated with them... verbally.. body lingo..etc.. same as I would'nt employ someone taking on all the potential liabilities of that person.. if In the job setting.. they did'nt fit in..(ie having to deal with dismissal etc)
So the decision is'nt one Id probably find myself in..
What you are describing.. I read as.. compatability..for a relationship(without meeting..ie having human interaction)...
and Love.. being 2 seperate things you describe..... relationship compatability isvery important... same as the dna you will give your kids...through a partner.
You can love someone.. and can't stand living with them... (some kids or parents come to mind)..
and you can be completely compatable..living with someone.. and not feel sexual love for them...for eg.. and/or you can love someone feel extreme lust for them.. start living with them.. and after a few years... come to dislike alot about them.. and all the lust/sex urges can disappear...hmmmmm
This got me thinking, what is it about love that makes it such a taboo topic to dissect? Why does the argument “What is love?” seem to have the answer “It just is…”?
Love has been discussed for centuries.. and there's different types.. for eg you love your cat right?..
regardless of.. its faults.. comitment etc..
but its a different love to say.. loving your mum?
just as you forgive your cat.if it happens to crap on the carpet.. sure you might be annoyed.. but the love you feel.. deep down.. isn't affected by your temporary pissed off emotional response
eg only.. If you learn.. people will piss you off. even if you love them dearly and the emotion will pass.. but the love remain.. you will see it. ain't a bunch of ticks/crosses.. otherwise the cat might be history?...expect the person you fall in love with/live with.. will have some faults..(but which ones are you prepared to put up with?)..so sometimes its more about.. the faults of a person.. than their positives..
saying no..to someone.. and seeing their reaction.. in how they respond.. shows alot about a person.. also how they cope when they lose..rather than win..for eg..
working out what parts about yourself.. you are operating in.. is it emotions?.. whats underneath them? if they change?.. etc..
I look for character these days.. the inner person/attitude... rather than letting my emotions lead me..
peace | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 4:24:17 PM | and I wanted to add youngin.. I like emotions.. they are fun.. enjoyable..
but I can seperate within me.. what is an emotion.. and what is deeper/foundation, in my interactions.. I just don't let them make decisions for my heart/me..
otherwise you end up with alot of regrets.. ie clothes/shoes youll. never wear.. heartache.. of letting someone in my heart.. who really I should not of..
So have fun.. enjoy the stimuli.. but emotions change..like the weather..
disclaimer to above post.. I did have an online relo with a canadian.. a brother of a friend..I di'nt particuarly want to either..lol.. but.. it happened..(never met)
so I am aware of how.. emotions/words etc can influence.. thoughts/emotions/responses.. but it's not something Id rather chose to experience again.... besides don't shit in your own backyard is always good advice..
There are several Greek words for love, as the Greek language distinguishes how the word is used. Ancient Greek has four distinct words for love: agape, eros, philia, and storge. However, as with other languages, it has been historically difficult to separate the meanings of these words. Nonetheless, the senses in which these words were generally used are given below.
Agape (a??p? agápe) means "love" in modern day Greek, such as in the term s'agapo (S'a?ap?), which means "I love you." In Ancient Greek, it often refers to a general affection rather than the attraction suggested by "eros." Agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for a good meal, one's children, and the feelings for a spouse. It can be described as the feeling of being content or holding one in high regard.
Eros (???? éros) is passionate love, with sensual desire and longing. The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "(romantic) love;" however, eros does not have to be sexual in nature. Eros can be interpreted as a love for someone whom you love more than the philia, love of friendship. It can also apply to dating relationships as well as marriage. Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. It should be noted Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." Plato also said eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth by eros. The most famous ancient work on the subject of eros is Plato's Symposium, which is a discussion among the students of Socrates on the nature of eros.
Philia (f???a philia) means friendship in modern Greek. It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. It includes loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality and familiarity. In ancient texts, philos denoted a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.
Storge (st???? storge) means "affection" in ancient and modern Greek. It is natural affection, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant.
Thelema (????µa thélema) means "desire" in ancient and modern Greek. It is the desire to do something, to be occupied, or to be in prominence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
peace | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 6:07:01 PM | I sit here wanted to beat my head against the screen in frustration.
This has little to do with online dating specifically, but more to do with the whole dating/love/relationship game.
Naamah hit it on the head perfectly (as usual  ) with her buying the car analogy.
Scholar came very very very close.
But basically what I'm suggesting is that we meet people and involve ourselves in relationships with them.. yes, but WHY? Why does your average Joe Blow end up with Jane Doe? And why is it so odd when he ends up with Angelina Jolie?
And when he does end up with Jane Doe, and she becomes Jane Blow. What is it about Jane Doe that makes Joe Blow WANT her to become Jane Blow?
You could argue that Jane Doe is looking for qualities in Jow Blow that he exhibits and they become a match. But there's every chance Joe might have every quality that Angelina is looking for, but they just happen to be different ones to the ones Jane is looking for.
I'm talking myself into confusion here, so if anyone has even a minute grasp of what I'm trying to say, you should commit yourself now, because you're clearly not right in the head... I'll start again.
I mentioned in another post that everything has a cost attached to it, and everything can be narrowed down simply to a matter of cost and product. Basically put, you can have anything you want, if you're willing to pay the price. So in our own subconcious, when making a decision we look for the path of least resistance and the path that will give maximum return for minimum price.
Our decisions and actions are based on whether or not the outcome will be "worth it".
To throw back to Scholar's statement about overtaking;
Yes, it's true, in our minds we make a snap decision taking into account our own cars acceleration characteristics, the condition of the road, the weather at the time etc etc.... but beneath all that it boils down to;
What is the outcome (product)? (getting in front of that car)
What is the cost? (wet road, traffic coming in opposite dirction, turns in the road)
Is the cost worth the product? (Can I make it at minimum risk? and if there IS a risk, do I REALLY have to be ahead of that car?)
So to travel back to the original statement in this post about Joe and Jane Blow;
How many of you have come across people whom you share so many qualities with that it's mind boggling?
We'll use POF as an example again, because the qualities are listed for the world to see.
Someone might be looking for Mr (Or Miss) funny, someone to do stuff with... and you think... "Ooo I'm funny, and I LOVE doing stuff, I'm always doing stuff"
But the next person might like to spend quiet nights in, and wants someone who can maintain a decent conversation... and you again think "Ooooo That's me, I love staying in... and I love listening to people, I have good conversations all the time"
Now imagine that every quality, personality trait and idiosyncrasy that you possess can be found on a master sound board (you know the ones with all the controls found in recording studios, theatres etc... in fact, Theatre... thats a good one) So you have this board, and the controller (your brain) mixes things up to create the best show he/she feels possible.
So for one audience;
They might be expecting a comedy, so sense of humour is up at 10 and seriousness is down at perhaps 3. Wit is high, and narcissism might be somewhere in the middle....
Whereas another might like a serious play, with class and respect. So the settings on your board change again, and so on and so forth... You get the gist.
So you as a base might have one setting, but can quite easily become anything else for each audience, and we do in everyday life with different groups of friends.
BUT! The difference between the friends and a partner is that when hanging out with friends, you have one face on, and that face is temporary, but when applied to a partner.. it becomes your new base personality. So the question arises again, is it worth being this person? And how easily can I be this person?
Effectively, what I am suggesting is that we can become any personality we want, to become the RIGHT person for someone else, but then it becomes a question of how much we are willing to put in to become that person.
Its not selling out, and it's not being someone you're not, because you have all those things in your persona (or on your mixing board) but your environments dictate how much of those qualities are allowed to show.
So in getting back to Jane and Joe... Joe doesn't have to change too much to be perfect for Jane. But if he wanted to be with Angelina, he might have to excercise a little more, and get in shape, he may have to change his attitude slightly, maybe be a little bit or adventerous etc etc the list goes on....
But at the end of the day, if he was willing to pay the price he could very well become that person.
So Joe can then see that loving Jane is the path that will give him maximum return for minimum input. All he wants to be loved, his choice is between Jane or Angelina- Both can give him what he wants, and the outcome is to take the cheaper option.
Ask youselves this;
Why does any relationship fail?
Because it gets too hard - or the cost becomes too high and we're not willing to pay the price.
Why does a woman (or man) stay in a relationship that is clearly not the right one for them?
Because the cost of staying with that person is more economical than the prospect of leaving and having to start over. (Think bad investment that you keep pouring funds into in the hope it will improve)
That can be for any number of reasons, kids, investments etc etc, but at the end of it, thats what it boils down to in most cases.
And at the end of the day, love becomes a matter of how much it costs to feel the way you do about someone, and whether the product is worth the investment. Which makes it a calculation. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 6:50:51 PM | And at the end of the day, love becomes a matter of how much it costs to feel the way you do about someone, and whether the product is worth the investment. Which makes it a calculation.
Is this how you really feel? Is this how people really relate?
I'm beginning to agree now... love is all about calculation and cost analysis.
Having a good investment portfolio and hoping for a good return.
The higher the risk the greater the return is how it usually works? Like, if too much risk is taken, and one's investments are not balanced with a base of low risk/low return/safe strategies, one may end up bankrupt?
It's all too much for me. That's why I keep my heart under my mattress... with a baseball bat, should any fool get funny ideas and think he's got a shot at stealing it. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 7:31:19 PM | Well I still say.. your egs are 1. calculating a relationship.. that might lead to love..
or
2.love....
being 2 seperate things your discussing.. The egs of love.. given.. are merely to illistrate.. that if love can happen on levels without calculation in all aspects of loving relationships.. across the LOVE spectre..
Then logically love between a man /women can happen without calculation..
Is there more calculation in our present society?..Yes I would agree..
But I know of too many egs of love.. itself.. the substance...that would indicate...men/women... can fall in love without calculating..(and I use the men/women eg.. simply because your egs were not about love itself.. but ... adults?
falling in love?... choosing?
But let me ask you this...?.. How do you calulate .. what life throws at you?.. into the initial equation?..
For eg.. real life story.. 2 young people.. believe they are in love.. agree to marry..
then just before the wedding date.. they find out he is infertile...
There go the plans for the family they planned... but even worse...His self esteem.. his attitude towards himself changes... and so his attitude towards her...
she has no idea.. about manly pride.. and reassures him she still loves him.. wants to marry him... (she hides her pain..(cause she won't be having kids..his kids either..does she consider this?... of course .. that's human)... because right now... he is.. pushing her away.. cause
I guess sometimes people do that when they are too hurt..)
So Im saying the calculation I would choose would be a persons ability to communicate..
how they react when they are told no
and how they change/react when they lose...(cause you can lose alot in life..like health.. income.. abilities etc..)
as a few egs..
So all signals they should'nt marry..?.. the lack of communication.. like 50 year olds in discussing issues?... the dream calculated is now gone.. before they start?...(but wait they are already in love..)..
So theoretically she should of just kicked him in the guts .. by saying I now calculate
you are no longer my ideal love partner.. so.. Im sorry you can't have children.. but I no longer love you.. because of it?
Or they find out she has an illness .. It stopped from becoming fatal... but her energy levels are low.. tired... not as healthy as someone else? so there go the 2nd income.. they calculated on for lots of toys or a house loan..
kick her to the curb?...
See my point is... love.. and a relationship are different issues.. and You can't always calculate.. what life throws you..
Like the guy surviving a car accident.. and now a quad... (she did'nt calculate that in her life).
or she has both breasts cut off.. because she had cancer..
Yes people walk out in situations like this.. or they stick to the foundation of the person they loved...
If I calculate.... let me tell you.. It has nothing to do with how they look... (cause that can be gone within seconds)
nor... what they can do .. ie a job or money.. etc...
I look at attitude.. (I learn't from watching the guy in the wheelchair)... would I be the sort to walk out on him?....I would hope not... why?.. cause I would want someone to love me.. no matter what.. (yer ha ha)
yes the trauma of life can also change attitude etc..
but character.. who someone is.. under the test of life.. usually won't change...
so yes.. I calculate someones character.. but .. I can fall in love with someone whos character.. I don't like much..
there is alot in life.. you just can't facter in.. in calculations.. and love.. is seperate.. to any of them.. but can come from .. choosing ..
as eg arranged marriages.. are usually calculated by family... some grow to love their chosen spouse and some don't
they honour.. other values over love... to make it work..
and it has a high success rate.. as in staying together.. (not everyone who stays together are happy.. in life.. and not all have experienced passion to know they are missing out on passion)..
I love my mum.. by calulation I should'nt.. in fact Ive been told.. have nothing to do with her... But I answer.. she is my mum.. that's who I got... I won't walk away.. But I will
set boundaries...
I saw my daughter in law fall in love with my grandbaby.. As they passed her to her.. her face.. everything lit up.. it was clearly noticeable.. it was a beautiful thing to see..
I myself fell in love with her... (illogical cause its just a baby right?).. calculating .. it.. babies ....shit..... cries.. needs 24hr care.. chances are... it would'nt calculate to .. a choice...lol..
But seriously I was amazed I fell in love with her..
Love is.. not calculated.. but choosing who we love can be.. yes..
So Im asking you.. what if you calculate the most logical choice of partner.. then within 3 years all those calculations on why you chose them no longer exist?.. due to life circumstances?
Ill tell you what I think love is.. in spirit form... Love is doing the right thing.. in any situation...
eg.. its the middle of a winter night.. your shivering bed.. freezing.. but your baby cries.. the last thing you want to do is get up.. but the baby needing its nappy changed .. is the right thing to do.. regardless of how you feel.. so you do it..
thats love in practise...not emotions.. ohh joy a shitty nappy? ohh I love that..not.. love isnt about feel good stuff.. all the time..
Determining what the right thing is... is another thing...
and yes some spirit people donot believe right or wrong exist... Im not one of them.. and I would choose a better word than right... .. but it just fits for me..
peace | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:00:14 PM | Yeah...all this equation of love being a calculation of risk to investment in a product based on the cost analysis for greater return in the strategies of high/low risk yeld return based on your investment portfolio really is a calculation.Of what,i have no idea.
If love is a calculation and based on how much it costs...think i'm happy to be bankrupt.
My own love equation= boy meets girl,boy spends time with girl,one day while gazing into girls eyes,boy thinks,oh bugger,boy realizes he wants to spend rest of life with girl and get fugly together.
If its ok peoples,i'll let you all worry about your love calculations and be content with my own. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 8:30:47 PM |
You could argue that Jane Doe is looking for qualities in Jow Blow that he exhibits and they become a match. But there's every chance Joe might have every quality that Angelina is looking for, but they just happen to be different ones to the ones Jane is looking for.
I'm talking myself into confusion here, so if anyone has even a minute grasp of what I'm trying to say, you should commit yourself now, because you're clearly not right in the head...
Nick, I hear ya. Possibly because I was shovelling the dirty straw out of the sheep's nighttime shed earlier on and have breathed in an awful lot of ammonia today. But yes...let's do cars again for that...two people buy the same type of car. But one bought it because it had comfy seats. The other, because it lots of boot space. The car has both qualities and it is the perfect car for both buyers, albeit for different reasons. Of course...those are the claimed reasons, the rationalised reasons, and I am still not convinced that we can entirely ignore the simple fact of how each of them felt behind the wheel played a part in the decision. Intangible...subjective...responses.
With partner choice, this need not be a logic versus feelings, either or, thing. Because whilst I agree with you that we do weigh up and we do decide... I don't believe we do just weigh up based on traits alone. I believe what we weigh up is how the traits of our partner make us feel. It's not that they "have a sense of humour", it's that they make us feel a connection when they say something we also find funny. It's not that they are "loyal" but that their loyalty makes us feel special. It's not that they are "romantic" but that they make us feel appreciated.
So perhaps the checklists that are being used have entirely different things written on them to what you are imagining. We are moreso ticking off responses in ourselves...not traits of others as such. These sorts of checklists we probably write in invisible ink because it's easier to describe what traits in others we think will meet our emotional needs, than it is to admit to those emotional needs in their own right.
Basically put, you can have anything you want, if you're willing to pay the price.
I don't believe that's true, and in fact could be a dangerous truth to adopt. In light of your example where a girl might knock a guy back cos he needs to lose weight...if that's the only reason, sure, the reasoning works. But it's unlikely to be that simple. Run a few other examples through the same reasoning...it doesn't consistently hold true. Besides, thinking we can have anyone we want just by being the best we can be is failing to take into account the free will of the other person....and our best might still not be of interest to them. So if this guy loses weight and the girl still doesn't want him...he then gets all bitter and twisted because he believed he paid the asking price and the goods weren't delivered. Getting into dangerous-mindset territory there. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 10:30:23 PM |
But let me ask you this...?.. How do you calulate .. what life throws at you?.. into the initial equation?..
For eg.. real life story.. 2 young people.. believe they are in love.. agree to marry..
then just before the wedding date.. they find out he is infertile...
There go the plans for the family they planned... but even worse...His self esteem.. his attitude towards himself changes... and so his attitude towards her...
she has no idea.. about manly pride.. and reassures him she still loves him.. wants to marry him... (she hides her pain..(cause she won't be having kids..his kids either..does she consider this?... of course .. that's human)... because right now... he is.. pushing her away.. cause
I guess sometimes people do that when they are too hurt..)
Yes infertility problems are a great example and a very common one; in fact it may very well be the most common cause of divorce among young people in the first couple of year of marriage. In terms of my model even if these two people love each other *Mm = *Mw, *Mm+*Mw is the value that place on what they expect to get from their marriage and a large part that is having their own children. If that turns out not to be true the *Mm+*Mw > Sm + Sw will not be true and therefore this condition Mm Sm & Sw Mw will not be satisfied.
Nick is right in that my model doesn’t really answer his question, it is about how relationships do or do not survive change, while what he wants to know is why any two particular individuals fall in love and the answer to that is a mystery. We do know a lot about what is important and we can create models that predict in some average sense what characteristics couples will share and how changes in their characteristics and circumstances might effect the chances of their relationship surviving but this is about statistics and he wants to know why any to particular individuals fall in love with each other and that is one of life’s delicious mysteries.
However this is something about which something sensible can be said.
Effectively, what I am suggesting is that we can become any personality we want, to become the RIGHT person for someone else, but then it becomes a question of how much we are willing to put in to become that person. Its not selling out, and it's not being someone you're not, because you have all those things in your persona (or on your mixing board) but your environments dictate how much of those qualities are allowed to show.
You are wrong in thinking that you can change anything about yourself to become the RIGHT person for a particular person, but you can change the characteristics of the pool of women who will consider you a serious contender for their romantic affections; you in affect can increase the number and type of people who you can give an opportunity to reject you on the bases of your “soul” as Nana would put it, rather than on superficial ground before you have even began. The simplest example is that if a man who smokes gives up smoking the number of women who will be interested in dating him will go through the roof, the majority of emails that I receive on POF say exactly this in no uncertain terms. This is of course a trivial example, a short man could have his legs surgically lengthened, become better educated, more articulate more socially confident, learn to dance for example, you can also move form somewhere like POF were the men outnumber the women, to a town in the real world were single women outnumber men. Here are many things that you cannot change at the most fundamental level, you can not change your level of intelligence for example, you can but will have great difficulty in changing your character your attitudes which are a consequence of your temperament and experiences, an example would be a person who has grown up in a home were the adults are not openly affectionate, some people will think that normal and imitate it in their own relationships and other will revolt against it and be determined to be the exact opposite.
In the end all you have done is changed the size or makeup of the pool of potential partners in which you will have an opportunity to search for the person for whom you light the room as they do for you and how that works is not possible to predict or analyse because the reasons we feel this way about others is not something that we understand in anyway the can be descried other than to say it is just the way they make us feel. It is not an uncommon experience for the mutual acquaintances of two people of the opposite sex who have a deep and abiding friendship, who obviously love each other in some sensible and obvious sense, to tell them both that they seem to be just perfect for each other, and they are often right and those concerned already know that they do seem to be just perfect for each other in everyway that everyone can see, but not in a way, that has no name, for reasons that will forever remain a mystery, that at least one of them, just does not feel. True story.
In essence what you are trying to is like someone who insists on doing complex statistics which make sense if they have thousands of observations when in fact they only actually have a few; the maths will work, the program will run but the results are meaningless.
There is a reason why young males are not supposed to give much thought these things; it is just so painful to watch them flap around.
Who would have thought that Nana would be the only one who has a clear intuitive understand of what the maths means; this could be the best day of my life. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 10:38:33 PM | There is a reason why young males are not supposed to give much thought these things; it is just so painful to watch them flap around.
The flapping around is all a part of the OP's fixation with flying, you see.
He's just trying to launch himself... to spread his wings and take off.
It works better with aeroplanes though.
At this rate he'll be flapping for fookin ages before he gets off the ground...
God, I could be dead before it happens.
I'm too old to stand around watching the painful display.
I'm off for a cup of tea then.
But good luck, OP!
Look, love is like university level stuff and most people aren't past the drawing with crayons stage... regardless of their age.
I have every faith in you and I'm sure you'll graduate with honours one day. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 11:04:10 PM | ^^^I am making a list of the things about you that light the room for me.
1. Compassion for other
2. Ummm
It is a work in progress I am afraid.
Probable better to just sing in the deep rich baritone, in which I am known to type
(*singing*)
I’ll never be lonely now I know her
She fills my heart with joy
she makes my day
She just has to smile to blow my cares away
She just has to touch my hand to make me stay
 | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 11:10:16 PM | ^^^ See?
most people aren't past the drawing with crayons stage...
If I had an ounce of compassion I'd say... Thanks Scholar! I appreciate your kind words.
But I don't.  | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/6/2009 11:47:06 PM | Recently a "very prestegious" magazine printed the findings of their attempt at a survey
Smells like business time
The study found one of the strongest ingredients of sex appeal was "women's acute sense of smell." Researchers at Brown University back this up in a separate study, finding that women rate how someone smells as the most important sense in choosing a lover — with sight coming second.
The Meston/Buss study also found that a person's mood at the time of the initial encounter is an important factor in determining attraction as "positive feelings lead to positive evaluation." They say anyone present when negative feelings are aroused tends to be disliked as a consequence — hence many women's wish to mate with someone who has a good sense of humour.
They also found women like men that have been "pre-approved" by other women. They respond better to pictures of men standing surrounded by other women than men surrounded by other men, or a man standing alone.
The more attractive the other women in the photos were, the sexier the women found the men.
This would seem to suggest that part of the equation would have to be
odour +man rating / (no of females in close proximity x (no of females smiling %))
but then (1 / (no of females in close proximity x no of females smiling)) could be re termed as the competitive factor
 | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/7/2009 12:34:20 AM |
In the end all you have done is changed the size or makeup of the pool of potential partners in which you will have an opportunity to search for the person for whom you light the room
You are exactly right, and thats what I was meaning. My apologies for coming across as negating another persons free will. But yes, if you see your own downfalls and move to change them to effectively increase your odds, then you stand a much better chance of finding a partner.
While I don't agree with the concept of me flapping around, I can see where you all are coming from, and perhaps my theory does not apply to all aspects of love as such, but more the attitude to which a surprising number of people seem to approach it.
But my perspective is based upon the experiences of the people who have come and gone throughout my life and the observations of the accursed youth of today. While I don't mean to appear bitter or cynical, I can't help but admit that I have a slightly clinical and detached way of looking at things. It's my defense mechanism. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/7/2009 1:10:55 AM | perhaps my theory does not apply to all aspects of love as such, but more the attitude to which a surprising number of people seem to approach it.
Why didn't you say?!! You're talking about the way that the peasants (oops, I mean 'normal' people) go about this thing they call love? Absolutely! Equations all the way! And yes, it is surprising the sheer numbers of them living around us, shaping and defining our culture and attitudes.
Simple folk have simple needs and 1+1 = 2 is as complex as the sum needs to be for them. You're applying your superior intellect to working out complex theoretical models to explain why they meet, fall in what they call 'love' and procreate?
Hells bells, Nick! Just be grateful you're not one of them! | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
