Scientific thought. Definitely not social sciences pt 2.

[David.]

Been working on this project for awhile.

This is Sternbergs triangular theory of love.

Passion is essentially novelty and wears off in every relationship. When people celebrate their fiftieth wedding anniversary they are celebrating companionate love. Passion isn't the primary focus.

I was shocked to learn that those in arranged marriages report higher satisfaction than those in passion based marriages. But, thems the facts.

The reason is because in Western marriages, passion is the focus. When that dopamine and oxytocin wear off, and it always does, youre left with questions and uncertainty. In America, the social construct of love is supposed to be never ending or bending. This is poetic love. What songs and movies and TV shows teach us love is is pretty damaging.

People will often drop a relationship with those Neuro transmitters stop firin off, thinking this means it's run it's course rather than the next stage of the relationship, with is imminent, has started. People break up and move on. Ths is an endless loop of the first leg of Sternbergs triangle.

Sternbergs argues companionate love, Wich is intimacy and commitment, is the actual goal. The satisfaction rates in arranged marriages seem to back this up.

These marriages are a logical choice. Instead of the concept that we ought to find someone who makes us feel warm and fuzzy and then marry them, it is turned into a logical decision. The importance of the actual Union and what it means takes precedence. It is understood that it isn't about passion. Therefore, no one can be let down when the feelings fade. No one questions if they've made the right decision.

One partners parents will get sick and eventually die. The partner will take care of them and in doing so, intimacy grows. The commitment is already there. Sometimes the passion grows and sometimes it doesn't, but these marriages are entirely different institutions predicated off of entirely different ideas than ours.



I will teach my children that The passion is nice but you don't make life long decisions when you're high, which is essentially what that love is. Rather than finding someone you feel fuzzy about, you should find yourself someone you want to be with for the rest of your life. This is an exceptionally more lastng and beneficial paradigm than the former. Those whom you are passionate about are rarely the person that is a good match for you.


Lasting love is about growing together. Feelings fade. You have to go into marriage with the idea that it isn't going to be pretty all the time and sometimes it will be just awful. Focusing on passion rather than the commitment and intimacy is a fools errand.

 

[Adam]

Been working on this project for awhile.

This is Sternbergs triangular theory of love.

Passion is essentially novelty and wears off in every relationship. When people celebrate their fiftieth wedding anniversary they are celebrating companionate love. Passion isn't the primary focus.

I was shocked to learn that those in arranged marriages report higher satisfaction than those in passion based marriages. But, thems the facts.

The reason is because in Western marriages, passion is the focus. When that dopamine and oxytocin wear off, and it always does, youre left with questions and uncertainty. In America, the social construct of love is supposed to be never ending or bending. This is poetic love. What songs and movies and TV shows teach us love is is pretty damaging.

People will often drop a relationship with those Neuro transmitters stop firin off, thinking this means it's run it's course rather than the next stage of the relationship, with is imminent, has started. People break up and move on. Ths is an endless loop of the first leg of Sternbergs triangle.

Sternbergs argues companionate love, Wich is intimacy and commitment, is the actual goal. The satisfaction rates in arranged marriages seem to back this up.

These marriages are a logical choice. Instead of the concept that we ought to find someone who makes us feel warm and fuzzy and then marry them, it is turned into a logical decision. The importance of the actual Union and what it means takes precedence. It is understood that it isn't about passion. Therefore, no one can be let down when the feelings fade. No one questions if they've made the right decision.

One partners parents will get sick and eventually die. The partner will take care of them and in doing so, intimacy grows. The commitment is already there. Sometimes the passion grows and sometimes it doesn't, but these marriages are entirely different institutions predicated off of entirely different ideas than ours.



I will teach my children that The passion is nice but you don't make life long decisions when you're high, which is essentially what that love is. Rather than finding someone you feel fuzzy about, you should find yourself someone you want to be with for the rest of your life. This is an exceptionally more lastng and beneficial paradigm than the former. Those whom you are passionate about are rarely the person that is a good match for you.


Lasting love is about growing together. Feelings fade. You have to go into marriage with the idea that it isn't going to be pretty all the time and sometimes it will be just awful. Focusing on passion rather than the commitment and intimacy is a fools errand.

There are some really nice insights here Dave. I think passion doesn't necessarily fade. But it does ebb and flow through a marriage. I've been married 8 years and that's true for my experience. I think it needs to be there in the start 9thermoset it's not worth trying but essentially through a long term relationship children et al there will be a lot of conflict resolution needed and of you can't find a working mechanism to deal with disagreements that arise it's not going to last no matter how much passion

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Well i think its more limited to soft sciences, but at the very least ive seen article after article on hard sciences with angles that certainly point towards what seems to be a political agenda. Having a base knowledge of the components and axioms used to draw conclusions and abstract is the only way you could understand the nuance of whatd being claimed..

Academic papers are useful for academics in their fields. But they are part of a process, and that process includes being proven wrong, etc... Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that as part of the scientific method for gaining greater knowledge over time. The problem is that far too often, such papers -- which are inherently works in progress in the greater scheme -- are pushed outside academia to advance specific social/political goals. When that happens, then the whole issue of potential bias raises its head. Was the paper published to try to advance knowledge, or to advance that agenda? Given that the weight we assign to a paper inherently requires some level of trust/faith in terms of the ground level data-collection, that is a hugely important thing to know, and we really can't.

Ive listened to incredibly well respected people give directly contrasting opinions, or flat out get stuff wrong. Its like well if i cant trust you on this, how can i trust you on your conclusion? Or really anything? And you teach where?

Sounds like every court case I've had involving experts in the social sciences.

 

[David.]

There are some really nice insights here Dave. I think passion doesn't necessarily fade. But it does ebb and flow through a marriage. I've been married 8 years and that's true for my experience. I think it needs to be there in the start 9thermoset it's not worth trying but essentially through a long term relationship children et al there will be a lot of conflict resolution needed and of you can't find a working mechanism to deal with disagreements that arise it's not going to last no matter how much passion

Why do you feel its not worth trying without initial passion?

Looking at western marriages and also considering arranged?

 

[Adam]

Why do you feel its not worth trying without initial passion?

Looking at western marriages and also considering arranged?

Personally yes. Bit I think the studies looking at relationship longevity and compare arranged with 'love' approaches ignore a key driver for success: relative expectations. Unhappiness is essentially a disconnect between expectations and reality in the arranged marriage situation they never expect passion so you could argue they are measuring their own happiness against a different scale to the 'love' approach

 

[gourimoko]

Going to go through to offer my own insights.. Not saying you're right or wrong here about anything; just, my opinions:

Passion is essentially novelty and wears off in every relationship. When people celebrate their fiftieth wedding anniversary they are celebrating companionate love. Passion isn't the primary focus.

I disagree with this, pretty strenuously actually.

You can have a life-long passionate relationship. I think it's a myopic and perhaps even nihilistic view to think that passion is novelty. I think it's demonstrably wrong that it "wears off in every relationship" like a cheap perfume, or something you just get tired of by default.

I think here you (and to an extent Sternberg) might be confusing the idea of passion with the idea of lust.

I was shocked to learn that those in arranged marriages report higher satisfaction than those in passion based marriages. But, thems the facts.

But those aren't the facts. It's far more complicated than the top-level polling data might suggest at first approximation.

Arranged marriages happen in cultures where such behavior is not only normalized but standardized. They often happen as a result of cultural expectations, and very often against the immediate wishes of those getting married. The success or happiness of the two partners has more to do with overbearing cultural constraints, familial mandates if not extreme encouragement, substantially lowered expectations with respect to marriage itself, and a lack of awareness as to freedom of choice and self-determination.

There is much work done on this field in both East Asian and Arab countries that have dealt with this question for hundreds, if not thousands, of years; and the trend today is to move away from arranged marriages (which are a means to an end, with that end being financial integrity for both families) as these nations continue to develop both socioeconomically and culturally.

The reason is because in Western marriages, passion is the focus. When that dopamine and oxytocin wear off, and it always does, youre left with questions and uncertainty.

Not necessary Dave; I think you're making some constraining assumptions here.

For one, marriages (rather than relationships) are not necessarily passion-driven in Western society.

Very often, marriages are driven by social expectations for commitment, time elapsed, pregnancy, fear of loss, financial benefits (buying a house, taxes, etc); simply put, two people can say to themselves "why haven't we gotten married?" And evaluate a situation and think to themselves: this just makes more sense for the both of us, we love each other, and we're happy together.

That is quite different than two people saying they can't live without each other, and having an undying intense and passionate relationship..

Also again, I would warn about this notion that passion is fleeting. Again, I think Sternberg is incorrect here and is talking more about lust than passion; and his discrete triangular characterization here breaks down.

In America, the social construct of love is supposed to be never ending or bending. This is poetic love.

I agree with this; 100%.

What songs and movies and TV shows teach us love is is pretty damaging.

I don't understand how you then state this?

People will often drop a relationship with those Neuro transmitters stop firin off, thinking this means it's run it's course rather than the next stage of the relationship, with is imminent, has started. People break up and move on. Ths is an endless loop of the first leg of Sternbergs triangle.

Sternbergs argues companionate love, Wich is intimacy and commitment, is the actual goal. The satisfaction rates in arranged marriages seem to back this up.

I disagree with your interpretation here. Sternberg argues that compassionate love is distinct from "intimate love;" rather than being entailed or one in the same. He argues that compassionate love is helpful to drive a long-lasting relationship.

I don't think Sternberg would agree here about arranged marriages either -- he emphasized an additional type of love called "empty love" and arranged marriages would be fit into this category specifically. He states that arranged marriages might serve as starting points because the impose commitment ahead of personal choice. He chooses to define this, immediately, as love; but I think many sociologists and psychologists would completely disagree with this assessment.

"Empty love," I think is a term that Sternberg borrows and does so haphazardly; in an effort to define a complete spectrum -- but even if we accept the use of the phrase, it defines only the tethered commitment (legal and cultural) between two people. Not feelings.

Yes, this close arrangement can foster love (so Sternberg is right here), but as we see sociologically, the more developed nations become, the more women go out of the home, the less these situations are desirable for either partner.

Lastly, from what I've seen, Sternberg doesn't say that the compassionate love entails intimacy or commitment; nor does he argue that arranged marriages lead to this point. As I understand it, Sternberg argues that consummate love is a combination of the three distinct types of love (intimacy, compassion, and commitment).

These marriages are a logical choice. Instead of the concept that we ought to find someone who makes us feel warm and fuzzy and then marry them, it is turned into a logical decision. The importance of the actual Union and what it means takes precedence. It is understood that it isn't about passion. Therefore, no one can be let down when the feelings fade. No one questions if they've made the right decision.

But none of that is true.

There are thousands of books written about the feelings of regret, remorse, hatred, sadness, betrayal; all that come with being coerced into an arranged marriage. The lack of choice, particularly given the power dynamics at play, is very likely not the healthiest way to start a "loving" relationship.

Moreover, this idea that passion fades and marriage is only about commitment, I think is flawed. I also think this is largely driven by the idea that divorce is inherently wrong or immoral; when instead, it may simply be a natural result of people growing apart.

There is this implicit idea that people are immutable in this framework that you're operating from, that assumes the goal to a successful marriage is lifelong association regardless of the content or character of the relationship. And that there is a superior quality to a lasting marriage, even if it isn't a loving one, to a shorter marriage where the two people truly loved one another... and I think that's an odd view.

One partners parents will get sick and eventually die. The partner will take care of them and in doing so, intimacy grows.

This doesn't make logical sense, IMHO. Obligation does not necessarily beget intimacy. Commitment between two people doesn't entail romantic expectations between two partners, in modern society, would be met.

The commitment is already there. Sometimes the passion grows and sometimes it doesn't, but these marriages are entirely different institutions predicated off of entirely different ideas than ours.

We've had arranged marriages in Western civilization... The ideas are not foreign to Western culture, just outmoded. But the problem with the situation you're describing is that it places no positive value on personal choice in their mate; and it ignores the extreme negative personal consequences to arranged marriages which remove choice.

I will teach my children that The passion is nice but you don't make life long decisions when you're high, which is essentially what that love is. Rather than finding someone you feel fuzzy about, you should find yourself someone you want to be with for the rest of your life. This is an exceptionally more lastng and beneficial paradigm than the former. Those whom you are passionate about are rarely the person that is a good match for you.

I can't speak to what you should tell you children; but, I've told my daughter that marriage is about love and compassion. That she should marry the man she loves, and no one but him; but that she has to be able to tell the difference between love and lust, to find out what's real and what's not.

Lasting love is about growing together. Feelings fade. You have to go into marriage with the idea that it isn't going to be pretty all the time and sometimes it will be just awful. Focusing on passion rather than the commitment and intimacy is a fools errand.

And again, I disagree with this completely. I think having passionate feelings about your wife is of critical importance, IMHO. That's not easy to find, and it may not always last -- but that isn't necessarily the point either.

 

[David.]

Going to go through to offer my own insights.. Not saying you're right or wrong here about anything; just, my opinions:



I disagree with this, pretty strenuously actually.

You can have a life-long passionate relationship. I think it's a myopic and perhaps even nihilistic view to think that passion is novelty. I think it's demonstrably wrong that it "wears off in every relationship" like a cheap perfume, or something you just get tired of by default.

Oxytocin and related neurochemicals do fade. Not entirely, and Sternberg suggests that a moderate amount of passion is still necessary for life long relationships, it just isn't the primary focus and many people look at marriage and relationships through the wrong lens if they are most concerned about remaining to be each other's Romeo's and Juliette's. I use this example not only to illustrate these feelings don't sustain over time (https://amp.livescience.com/18644-long-relationship-oxytocin-shows.html) but also because relationships where passion is the life blood can be pretty perniscious.

I think here you (and to an extent Sternberg) might be confusing the idea of passion with the idea of lust.

or emotional stimulation. Passion is defined in three ways:

1. A strong feeling of enthusiasm or excitement for something or about doing something[3]

Passion is also defined as infatuation. Every relationship is different and on the theorys wiki it is suggested people are able to love differently. But I wouldn't imagine that modt people are infatuated with their spouses twenty years in and th science on the diminishment of love related chemicals supports this.

But those aren't the facts. It's far more complicated than the top-level polling data might suggest at first approximation.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...arriages-in-the-us-how-different-are-they?amp

This article expands on a study that used several different scales that specifically judged for the separate components of Sternbergs triangle. I've relayed the results in my op

Arranged marriages happen in cultures where such behavior is not only normalized but standardized. They often happen as a result of cultural expectations, and very often against the immediate wishes of those getting married. The success or happiness of the two partners has more to do with overbearing cultural constraints, familial mandates if not extreme encouragement, substantially lowered expectations with respect to marriage itself, and a lack of awareness as to freedom of choice and self-determination.

studies say the lower the expectations, the longer lasting the marriage. The more satisfied you are when someolthing goes right. If expectations are yo remain high on your partner for eternity, yiu may be disappointed.

The freedom of choice is another potentially negative component to our form. There is no need for constant deliberation and criticism of your potential partner. That simply isn't a part of the equation. You move on to the next stage, which is growing together. You're in that situation. Get over it. Now what?

Also goes into the theory of adaptation. A parapalegics neurochemistry returns ALMOSY to normal after a year , same as a lottery winner. Sort of interesting to consider ultimately not much of what you do matters. A bad situation simply becomes your reality and naturally people make the best of them.

There is criticism of the data. It isn't representative of every culture and sample size is small, but as I've learned it's the best data on the subject there is currently.

Not necessary Dave; I think you're making some constraining assumptions here.

For one, marriages (rather than relationships) are not necessarily passion-driven in Western society.

Very often, marriages are driven by social expectations for commitment, time elapsed, pregnancy, fear of loss, financial benefits (buying a house, taxes, etc); simply put, two people can say to themselves "why haven't we gotten married?" And evaluate a situation and think to themselves: this just makes more sense for the both of us, we love each other, and we're happy together.

That is quite different than two people saying they can't live without each other, and having an undying intense and passionate relationship..

Also again, I would warn about this notion that passion is fleeting. Again, I think Sternberg is incorrect here and is talking more about lust than passion; and his discrete triangular characterization here breaks down.



I agree with this; 100%.



I don't understand how you then state this?



I disagree with your interpretation here. Sternberg argues that compassionate love is distinct from "intimate love;" rather than being entailed or one in the same. He argues that compassionate love is helpful to drive a long-lasting relationship.

I don't think Sternberg would agree here about arranged marriages either -- he emphasized an additional type of love called "empty love" and arranged marriages would be fit into this category specifically. He states that arranged marriages might serve as starting points because the impose commitment ahead of personal choice. He chooses to define this, immediately, as love; but I think many sociologists and psychologists would completely disagree with this assessment.

"Empty love," I think is a term that Sternberg borrows and does so haphazardly; in an effort to define a complete spectrum -- but even if we accept the use of the phrase, it defines only the tethered commitment (legal and cultural) between two people. Not feelings.

Yes, this close arrangement can foster love (so Sternberg is right here), but as we see sociologically, the more developed nations become, the more women go out of the home, the less these situations are desirable for either partner.

Lastly, from what I've seen, Sternberg doesn't say that the compassionate love entails intimacy or commitment; nor does he argue that arranged marriages lead to this point. As I understand it, Sternberg argues that consummate love is a combination of the three distinct types of love (intimacy, compassion, and commitment).



But none of that is true.

There are thousands of books written about the feelings of regret, remorse, hatred, sadness, betrayal; all that come with being coerced into an arranged marriage. The lack of choice, particularly given the power dynamics at play, is very likely not the healthiest way to start a "loving" relationship.

Moreover, this idea that passion fades and marriage is only about commitment, I think is flawed. I also think this is largely driven by the idea that divorce is inherently wrong or immoral; when instead, it may simply be a natural result of people growing apart.

There is this implicit idea that people are immutable in this framework that you're operating from, that assumes the goal to a successful marriage is lifelong association regardless of the content or character of the relationship. And that there is a superior quality to a lasting marriage, even if it isn't a loving one, to a shorter marriage where the two people truly loved one another... and I think that's an odd view.



This doesn't make logical sense, IMHO. Obligation does not necessarily beget intimacy. Commitment between two people doesn't entail romantic expectations between two partners, in modern society, would be met.



We've had arranged marriages in Western civilization... The ideas are not foreign to Western culture, just outmoded. But the problem with the situation you're describing is that it places no positive value on personal choice in their mate; and it ignores the extreme negative personal consequences to arranged marriages which remove choice.



I can't speak to what you should tell you children; but, I've told my daughter that marriage is about love and compassion. That she should marry the man she loves, and no one but him; but that she has to be able to tell the difference between love and lust, to find out what's real and what's not.



And again, I disagree with this completely. I think having passionate feelings about your wife is of critical importance, IMHO. That's not easy to find, and it may not always last -- but that isn't necessarily the point either.

Breaking this up for now.


But I want to touch on the point that the construct of love is a bad thing.. we make a lot or awful decisions out of passion. And it prevents people from getting married -whay if there's someone better out there? What if the grass is just always greener and you have the wrong foundation of this concept when the ultimate goal is to actually get married and have a family?

I read a post in the tinder thread recently where a poster ended a relationship because it just seemed like a relationship out of convenience.

You could see it like that . You could also say those initial feelings wore off and rather than valuimg a relationship that wasn't difficult and was conducive to your life, you just went on to the next one which will end the same.

Infatuation doesn't last. You should be marrying your best friend ,with whom you can connect and grow and has beliefs similar to yours. they should have the right values. She should be a good mother. To me, I can't imagine being absolutely thrilled to spend every day of the rest of my life with anyone , or doing any particular thing. But maybe some of that also goes into temperamental differences.

Those who seek novelty and are high in openness don't do as well in long term commitment as do those high in conscientiousness.

 

[Adam]

But I want to touch on the point that the construct of love is a bad thing.. we make a lot or awful decisions out of passion. And it prevents people from getting married -whay if there's someone better out there? What if the grass is just always greener and you have the wrong foundation of this concept when the ultimate goal is toactually get married and have a family?

I think this is a key element for some people that is not constant between individuals. Some are paralysed by FOMO whereas others get a feel and decide to go with it without fear.

 

[David.]

I think this is a key element for some people that is not constant between individuals. Some are paralysed by FOMO whereas others get a feel and decide to go with it without fear.

So practically, what issues arise if passion isn't ideal and how can the symptoms and the cause eqch be addressed?

What if passion just isn't in your wiring?

 

[Cavatt]

I thought this was not a social sciences thread?

Anyway, I had a sociology professor who said that most divorce is because of unrealistic expectations about what your life will be like or who your partner is. If we take that as the premise, it makes sense that arranged marriages might be more satisfactory.

You have lower expectations romantically if you are in an arranged marriage, but all the other aspects of your relationship are explicitly laid out. In other words you are more realistic about what you are getting into because your parents did all this research.

I think it helps a relationship if you can think of your resentment you might hold for your partner and ask if you're expectations are realistic in terms of who that person is . If not maybe let that one go and try to make up for that yourself.

 

[Adam]

So practically, what issues arise if passion isn't ideal and how can the symptoms and the cause eqch be addressed?

What if passion just isn't in your wiring?

I'm honestly not sure. It seems like this is a relatively unique situation. It must be rare for people to experience no passion for anything unless as a side effect of medical treatment. Either that or my own experience just isn't broad enough. If passion isn't in your wiring then I suppose you are in fact free from its constraints and cam chose your partners based on other factors but maintaining a relationship with some who desires demonstrations of passion from you might be difficult and those displays might have to be learnt. I guess some people on the aspergers spectrum will fall into this category

 

[David.]

Why does it seem like the lower the ses the more fun someone will be?