|
|
|
|
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/26/2009 4:46:24 AM | It was mentioned in an earlier post, in regards to the similarities in couples, and the way a seemingly unattractive person paired with a very attractive person seems so out of place. The conclusion was drawn that birds of a feather… etc
In that your average, fat, balding, middle aged man probably WON’T pick up a young, gorgeous model because their paths simply are not likely to cross, and even less likely that they will be heading in the same direction for any length of time.
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…”?
I’m thinking now that love is nothing more than the name we give to the product of a mental calculation we all do, if only subconsciously.
Can it be that love is nothing more than the justification of the feeling we have towards someone after we have calculated their suitability as a potential match?
Let’s look at POF;
- We can set criteria that limit who can message us. So instantly, we have defined that we can only find “Love” within 75 miles, and “love” will be smokefree etc, because that’s what’s more convenient for us.
- We can completely ignore, block and delete emails from someone who is, at face value, completely out of the question
- I notice also that most profiles state an age range that “Love” must be.
While I’m not trying to attack people personal preferences in what it is they are actually attracted to, my point is that these restrictions play the part of variables in a mathematical equation. They are the rules that MUST be obeyed for the equation to work.
Here’s a scenario, you have been semi pursuing someone who seems to have all the attributes you are seeking in a partner, testing the waters so to speak. But these attributes have been your basis for a long time (and lets face it people, there’s probably a flaw in there somewhere… because at the end of the day you’re the single one).
Then someone else comes along who you didn’t expect, and THEY are interested in you. (Yes… the hunter becomes the hunted) and for some reason, they have something about them that is unlike anything you have found before, so you just sit back and see what happens. But what is it you are attracted to between these two people?
The sense of familiarity and the comfort zone of what you already know, which you have applied to the first person?
Or the sense of adventure and excitement at something new and interesting, which is found in the second person?
Now, for arguments sake, let’s say that you have 2 people who would potentially make perfect life partners.
Each has attributes, and downfalls that rank them into that position of “perfection”, but each is almost completely different.
- While one might be great to talk to, the other might be great to do stuff with.
- One might have a heart of gold, the other may have a naughty streak that sends your senses whirling.
- One may have no strings attached, but could have a certain attribute that, when compared to the other, is a dealbreaker. But the other may have baggage that could make things a little more difficult to maintain a relationship.
- One could be absolutely fantastic, but live a long way away, or work different hours to you, making time together difficult. Whereas the other could be awesome too, but live closer, or have the same kind of lifestyle.
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)
So conscience states that we have what we want and we want to do the right thing by all parties involved, but we have an excess, so one must be cut free.
What do we do?
We make a choice as to which person we pursue a relationship with.
How do we do it?
We weigh up the pros and cons of each and determine the safest risk. We seek the easiest (and safest) course of action.
But doesn’t that mean we are essentially making a calculated assessment on something that historically CANNOT be calculated?
Which raises the question, is it actually love? Or is it finding a means to service our desires and the resultant answer is justified as love?
What are your thoughts?
By the way, this is merely an observation of human behavior, not a situation I am in right now… Just before the “You’re a slut!” comments begin. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/26/2009 11:24:42 AM | How do we do it?
Nobody knows there are mathematical models that do explain the observed data in a probabilistic sense but that is not he same as explaining how individual humans make decisions. It is the difference between a theory being methodological rather instrumental.
Think about overtaking another car on the highway. I am sure that you could come up with a good mathematical model that took into account of the speed of your car, that of the car you are over taking, the distance from you of any approaching vehicle, the speed that you believe that that vehicle is travelling and perhaps the weather conditions, is it is raining for example and the rate at which your car can accelerate. Then you could add characteristics of the drivers, age, gender, and driving experience would be the obvious variables.
This model would explain a great deal of overtaking behaviour and predict how the quantity and successfulness of that behaviour would change as the conditions changed but it is methodological rather than instrumental, it models the behaviour in a probabilistic sense but it doesn’t tell us anything about how individual people actually make these decisions.
They obviously don’t do all of these complex calculations in their heads, they have a quick look make a decision and in a split second decide to go and most of the time whatever people are doing works at least as well as the prediction of the optimal mathematical model would. Humans no doubt use some kind of simple heuristic rule to make these decisions that give answers quickly, are cheaper to make then doing the calculations, and work almost as well most of the time as the optimal answer.
We weigh up the pros and cons of each and determine the safest risk. We seek the easiest (and safest) course of action. But doesn’t that mean we are essentially making a calculated assessment on something that historically CANNOT be calculated?
Well I am sure risk comes into it but costs and benefits are always going to be important. There will of course be more than a few biological things going on. If a man was choosing between two women who were other wise identical he would always chose the younger. If a women were choosing between two men who were other wise identical she would always chose the taller. Both of these decisions are made for sound biological reasons.
The difficulty is when you are comparing two people who differ in respect of many characteristics not all of which are biological or easy measured or defined. The answer, that is I expect obvious to you, is to but a weight on the importance to you of each characteristic and then calculate the weighed sum of the characteristics and take the one with the highest value; that in some sense would be the optimal answer but it is like the overtaking problem, people don’t and can’t do it that way, but they do chose no doubt using some kind of heuristic rule.
The answer seems to be more or less the same as choosing between two new cars. People don’t usually put a weight on all the various attributes of all the cars available to them and then calculate the weighted sum; as apparently sensible that approach would seam. People in fact seem to, chose between potential partners in exactly the same way the chose between two car using some form of a heuristic rule called “take the best” were they rank the few features that are most important to them and then compare each prospect on each feature until they find a feature were one of the prospect is clearly superior. The example would be if the two most important things to you are intelligence and beauty if one person is significantly more intelligent than take that one, if not if one prospect is significantly more beautiful then the other chose that one. If no one stands out the toss a coin because it doesn’t matter, this does sound a little odd but there is a mass of evidence that this is exactly what people do.
This does of course leave unanswered how people decide how long to go on searching for someone that has some characteristic that stands out and again there is an optimal mathematical rule that people don’t and couldn’t use and a simple heuristic rule called “try a dozen” which works almost as well.
The important point is that what we are talking about is ways of modelling what people are doing in some probabilistic way not what they actually think they are doing or what you should in fact try to do.
Which raises the question, is it actually love? Or is it finding a means to service our desires and the resultant answer is justified as love?
This question is essentially meaningless, it seem to apply that love is some special ethereal thing and that finding someone with whom having a romantic relationship that satisfies our psychological and biological desires in a way that brings joy into our lives is somehow “fake” love because in the end it is nothing more than the consequence of brain chemicals. The simple fact is that the feelings we have are our real feeling, they are real to us even if we can explain them as simple biochemical process.
What are your thoughts?
I think that you should learn to formulate questions more succinctly. You could also try reading some books on these subjects if you are really interested in them, there is no point constantly reinventing the wheel.
I also think that if you go on constantly thinking about these things and worrying about them instead of just going out and finding yourself a nice girl, get married, have children, behave yourself and wait to die surrounded by adoring grandchildren, when you are my age you will be spending your nights writing crap like this on the forums.
I don’t know why you don’t just do what most men with more sense than I ever had, did when I was your age. Knock-up the first women that is silly enough to let you inseminate her and get married. The chance that you two will still be together in thirty years time is no different to that of those who spent an inordinate amount of time looking for just the right person. This should tell you that happiness has more to do with the effort you put into a relationship once you have one than how much effort you put into choosing who to have it with.
By the way, this is merely an observation of human behaviour, not a situation I am in right now… Just before the “You’re a slut!” comments begin.
I really couldn’t possible comment, I am afraid that she who lights my life, reserve the pleasure of mocking you entirely to herself.  | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/26/2009 2:32:34 PM | Whatever it is, I know it's a lot simpler that this.
| |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/26/2009 3:16:43 PM | [- We can set criteria that limit who can message us. So instantly, we have defined that we can only find “Love” within 75 miles, and “love” will be smokefree etc, because that’s what’s more convenient for us.
I agree, its a sad world we live in when we are sorted and categorized before we are given a real chance, but I suppose its a lot easier for people to sort and categorize than it is talk and listen.
But I suppose the reason why people have these criteria is because of past experiences that have (for whatever reason) led them to believe only a certain type of person could possibly be the one.
Perhaps it could be suggested that when people list criteria they are not looking for a certain type, maybe they are trying to exclude others? If you know what I mean?
You have certainly raised some interesting points Nick, and I appreciate the thought you have put into your OP.  | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/26/2009 3:33:13 PM | Here is a love letter written by a mathematician
De-Morgan's Law,
Binomial Avenue,
United States of Matrices.
My Dear Love,
Yesterday, I
was passing by your rectangular house in trigonometric
lane. There I saw you with our cute circular face, conical nose and
spherical eyes, standing in your triangular garden. Before seeing you my
heart was a null set, but when a vector of magnitude (likeness) from your
eyes at a deviation of theta radians made a tangent to my heart, it
differentiated.
My love for you is a quadratic equation with real roots, which only you
can solve by making good binary relation with me. The cosine of my love
for you extends to infinity. I promise that I should not resolve you
into partial functions but if I do so, you can integrate me by applying
the limits from zero to infinity.
You are as essential to me as an element to a set. The geometry of my
life revolves around your acute personality. My love, if you do not meet
me at parabola restaurant on date 10 at sunset, when the sun is making
an angle of 160 degrees, my heart would be
like a solved
polynomial of degree 10.
With love from your higher order derivatives of maxima and minima, of
an unknown function.
 | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/26/2009 11:37:43 PM |
Whatever it is, I know it's a lot simpler that this.
Actually, no it isn't. We all are either consciously or sub-consciously running a Bayesian Decision Making methodology almost all the time where we are assessing risk and uncertainty prior to making a decision to act. The perception of high risk and uncertainty is as powerful, if not more so, at preventing decisive action as actual hard evidence. You may know of people who will persist in a relationship with the most despicable of partners because their perception of the risks and uncertainty of the alternatives are even worse.
It would be nice to think that relationships, dating and love are simple activities for the "most evolved" species on the planet, however, as sophistication increases so does complexity and with many (most?) people paralysed by their fear of the unknown it is a very complicated game indeed. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/26/2009 11:38:43 PM | I have really struggled to come up with something characteristically obnoxious in reply to the OP's post. The fact that the OP is 20 years old is usually quite enough to set me off, coz honestly, what is the point of young people? How annoying they are with their youth, good looks and life ahead of them... it's enough to make one quite grumpy.
My difficulties here are compounded by the OP's distinct lack of inanity and his ability to be insightful and intelligent. That's just plain inconsiderate.
So...
Which raises the question, is it actually love? Or is it finding a means to service our desires and the resultant answer is justified as love?
What you describe is not love... it's just working out who's more likely to be a good root. The kind of mental calculations a slut, even a well intentioned one, would make. When one finds elusive and rare 'true love' the calculations disappear and become rather moot. One will then perhaps be unable to find reasons for the grass to appear greener elsewhere.
In the meanwhile, one might as well settle for the benefits of slutdom, coz that love thing might not ever happen, you know? Love doesn't grow on trees, like you fast-paced, instant grat youngins think everything else does.  | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/27/2009 12:37:07 AM |
Love doesn't grow on trees, like you fast-paced, instant grat youngins think everything else does.
Actually gen y kiddies don't like things growing on trees.... trees are way to slow. They want things that come out of a drive thru window or a microwave!  | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/27/2009 2:28:08 AM | She got some a them there child bearing hips.
| |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/27/2009 2:45:23 AM | Geez young 'un, I had to think long and hard about this one and that so does not suit me.
I personally don't think there is any rhyme or reason to who you fall in love with. Its not a conscious thing and I do believe to a large extent, we have no control over it. We do have control over how we respond and react to it and our behaviour in general to the people we love (whether they love us back or not).
Im not sure there is any "weighing up of pros and cons" involved in falling in love....it just happens and often with the most unlikely of people. We can set our search criteria to what we think will suit us best, but attraction is a fickle beast and cant be relied upon to appear when we expect it to nor to not appear when we least expect it.
But then what would I know....I am totally immune to love and have the vaccination certificate to prove it. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/27/2009 2:50:07 AM | | ^^Oh shush now...I hate it when you go all sensible! | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/27/2009 3:33:20 AM | it's just working out who's more likely to be a good root
I am aware that "true love" knows no bounds etc etc. But how many of us give 2 sh1ts about actually hanging on to find it? We live in a society where nothing is made to last, but merely to service our needs NOW... it doesn't matter if it falls apart next week/year, it'll be old by then and we can throw it away and get a new one... at least that's the unfortunate attitude most people have (especially ones my age *cringes at associating himself with THEM*)
How many people decide that what they have meets their needs and settle for that, and continue the cycle until they expire? Or until they realise that now THEY are old and nobody wants them?
I come across people freqeuntly who are forever in a relationship with someone different, because they need that feeling of security in having someone. Quite often, they "love" whoever they're with. In that situation, they probably convince themselves that they are in fact in love with that person... or more importantly, that person has what they want, and they have decided that that'll do... and then slapped the love label on it while it lasts.
To a lesser scale we have all been guilty to it at some stage. I have told people that I loved them in the past when I didn't REALLY feel true love for them. Sure I liked them alot, but it wasn't a a totally, completely, awesomely, all consuming love. I'll probably never have that again.
Just as I have NOT told people that I loved them because the consequences of doing so far outweighed the benefits.
And I can even go as far as to say that I have actively disliked people because it's just easier and safer for them.
one might as well settle for the benefits of slutdom, coz that love thing might not ever happen
I HAVE actually been in love before (strange as it may seem) and because of the fall-out when it all went to shit, I DID become a slut, and I DID fvck anything that stood still long enough. And let me tell you, slutdom has a sole benefit... you're forever empty.
Empty gonads, empty bed the next morning, empty bottles from the night before, empty heart because of the experience you've just had that should have been pure and good that has become dirty and cheap because you realise that you never even bothered to get her name. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:17:49 AM | Weighing up the pros and cons of this question concludes me to think this love is way too mechanical for me.Makes me think i should go find a nice fembot to indulge love with.Being a love phobiact(yeah i know its not a word),i hark back to the old ways of falling in love.Cruising the streets with mates in the rod,circling the block apon seeing your attraction,what a f-in waste of gas,should of stopped the first time.Going to the beach to check if she has a banging bod to match the face.
Feels the whole criteria matching method of on-line gets a little teadious at times.The right age,the right sex,the right hair colour,the right body shape,the right height,the right star sign,the right job but has the personality of a damp squid.
Think i'll let attraction kick me in the nuts when i'm not looking. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:44:00 AM |
I HAVE actually been in love before
Oh you have, have you?
Nudge nudge wink wink.
Know what I mean?
In love? Nudge nudge. Say no more!
Um... so what's it like? | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/27/2009 8:53:38 AM | As Men love with their eyes,
and
Women love with their ears
I personally think it must be impossible to find love on POF as - men can see what they want to but unfortunately unless you get to talk to someone one this site - us women haven't a chance to "love with out ears"
Greetings from Dublin
Lively Annie | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/27/2009 9:27:35 PM | ^^^^ wondered why so many woman I know talk to them selves
Top oh the mornin 2 yah Annie | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 10/28/2009 12:04:28 AM | We weigh up the pros and cons of each and determine the safest risk. We seek the easiest (and safest) course of action.
...
Which raises the question, is it actually love? Or is it finding a means to service our desires and the resultant answer is justified as love?
I guess what you are suggesting here is that, possibly, people are emotionalising their rational decisions. Eg. Not wanting to outright admit that they chose their partner based on an equation, which would sound rather more mercenary than anyone would wish to appear, and therefore replacing that explanation with talk of cherubs with arrows and feelings outside of their control. I dunno...in other aspects of life, I've always observed the reverse...that people are rather practised at rationalising what were actually emotionally-based decisions. eg *in best sensible voice* I bought the sports car because of the warranty and servicing when really they bought it cos of how it made them feel to drive it.... But in your version...they really did buy it cos of the warranty and servicing, and then figured it probably should make them feel sexy or somethin' cos that's how a sportscar is meant to make them feel.
Hmmm...dunno.
Look at the person who continues seeing someone despite them treating them badly from the beginning. Whilst the rest of us might look on and wonder what the hell is in it for them to continue to get in deeper, it seems that any rationalisations they offer for sticking around are really a front for an emotional attachment they are just not able to shake free of. But then your angle works in that context too I guess...as in, we could equally say that they are just so convinced that love is supposed to be irrational and illogical, which to them perhaps qualifies as 'passionate', that they insist on ignoring any rational thought of doing something sensible and leaving the relationship. 'Cos after all, if s/he treats me so bad and I stay...whoooaaaa, it must be love hey. And we'd all do anything for love. (Meatloaf being the exception, the piker.)
But I am still not really convinced.
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)
So conscience states that we have what we want and we want to do the right thing by all parties involved, but we have an excess, so one must be cut free.
What do we do?
We make a choice as to which person we pursue a relationship with.
All else being equal on the equation front though, isn't it purely the strength of feeling that provides the ultimate point of difference? And also, it's quite possible that they would in fact choose...neither one...based on the fact that if the feeling is the same for each, then neither one are perhaps...it.
Good post Nick. The mystery of love probably won't be solved any time soon, but it's always fun to crack open Cupid's ribs and give him a good autopsy. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 8:07:18 PM | Ok let’s try this one more time with the math. If Sm and Sw represent quantities of what we will call life’s enjoyment when single for a man and a woman respectively. Likewise Mm and Mw represent the life’s enjoyment of the same man and woman when they are in a relationship, then if we observe them in an ongoing relationship with each other:
Mm < *Mm > Sm & Sw < *Mw > Mw
Must be true by definition where *Mm is the best relationship that man could be in and Mm is the next best alternative relationship he could be in, with variables *Mw and Mw similarly defined for the woman. If you look at this, it is just two sets of inequalities both of which must be true of any continuing relationship.
This of course implies that
*Mm+*Mw > Sm + Sw
Which means that there must be gains from cooperation, their capacity to produce life’s enjoyment together are greater than the sum of their capacities to produce life enjoyment separately. However it doesn’t tell us how they divide the gains from cooperation.
If both people care as much about the welfare and happiness of the other person as they do about themselves, if they are perfect reciprocal altruists, if they selflessly love each other, then in their relationship, regardless of what happens they would share the available life’s enjoyment equally so that
*Mm = *Mw
would always be true. That is, I think, as close as you will get to a loves equation.
Thank god it is a pretty rare equality or dating sites would have no customers other then the young and unmarried. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 8:44:37 PM | ^^^ BUT...given that many on here regularly tell us that *Mm and *Mw are merely figments of an overactive imagination, we end up with the figures -(*Mm) and -(*Mw) being thrown into the equation. And if *Mm is cancelled out by -(*Mm), and *Mw is cancelled out by -(*Mw) then you have zero.
So your formula of
Mm < *Mm > Sm
might then become
Mm < 0 > Sm
...whereby the 0 vanishes in a puff of smoke...and the '<' and the '>' engage in a duel to their mutual deaths... and you end up with a Mm finding himself right beside a Sm...whereupon they exchange knowing glances and decide it's just gonna be easier to turn gay.
Whereas with the women...
We started with
Mw < *Mw > Sw
...but when the *Mw hits the -(*Mw) and is turned into a '0' ... and then gets tangled up with the '<' and '>' ... it starts to form what looks very much like a stick drawing of a cat. True story. So the Mw (having been left by Mm after he ran off with Sm to live a gay lifestyle), feels strangely compelled to get a cat...and so does the Sw.
*Disclaimer: Mathemeticians are still trying to fathom the formula that causes some Sw to get ducks instead.
| |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:06:00 PM | ^^^ 
God I love your mind.  
You are right they can become negative with explains why a person might stay in an unhappy relationship, why a woman for example, might stay in abusive relationships, it is not that she is out of her mind but rather given the alternatives she has, she is at the end of her rope. This is why women’s shelters are so important; they increase Sw.
You are also right that it is a mystery why for some people Cat+Sw < Duck+Sw > Sw, who ever cracks that will no doubt get the field medal.
| |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:28:01 PM | ^^^ Thank you...and ditto.
Equations are a joy aren't they. At my school they had implemented the perfect solution to the widely recognised educational problem of female students not taking a particular interest in maths. They employed a hot male maths teacher.  Now that's what I call a good love equation.
Cat+Sw < Duck+ Sw > Sw
Well ...duh!
and.... = :) Sm who doesn't have to pretend to like the animal currently shedding hair all over his lap and sinking needle-like claws into his left 'O'. | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:31:03 PM | ^^^ I wish I'd attended school past grade 6, coz then I might know what the hell you guys are on about.
Just give me the bottom line here.. should I stick to living with cats forever, or just give up and get ducks? | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:01:04 PM | ^^^(*sigh*)
Surely you see that:
DreamGirl > Sw+duck > Sw+Cat > Sw
 | |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:05:02 PM | DreamGirl > Sw+duck > Sw+Cat > Sw
=
. ......... ^^ .................................................
. LULT's Q > the value of Scholar's left O
| |
|
| The love equation
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:22:23 PM | Is there an equation for a bucket of cold water.Think i need to stick me head in it after all that.
DreamGirl > Sw+duck > Sw+cat > Sw Does that mean you need both to = Dreamgirl.
Don't think i'm going anywhere near the value of Scholar's left O. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
