Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Science

The Science of Love 315

Posted by michael
from the gonna-have-to-face-it-you're-addicted-to-love dept.
Xyde writes "Economist.com has a story just in time for Valentine's day called 'The Science of Love'. Presumably the difference between love and lust is little more than a bunch of chemicals, which can be controlled with injections (in voles anyway). Quite an interesting read."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Science of Love

Comments Filter:
  • by Dutchmaan (442553) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:05PM (#8281268) Homepage
    I don't know about you.. but you won't catch me going to any doctor asking for a love injection!
    • by Patik (584959) *
      you won't catch me going to any doctor asking for a love injection!
      You don't get love injections at the doctor's office, you get them at the state prison.

    • by ackthpt (218170) * on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:32PM (#8281448) Homepage Journal
      Q: What's the difference between a dog and a fox?

      A: A sixpack.

      "Alcohol: Helping men get sex for thousands of years."

    • by The Tyro (247333) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:40PM (#8281498)
      for some people, particularly women. Interesting to note that the article mentions oxytocin as one of the chemicals that promotes person to person binding... yet they fail to mention breast-feeding.

      Mothers who advocate breast feeding often say that it's a bonding experience for them and their baby... perhaps they're more right than they know, since Oxytocin is released in the human body by nipple stimulation.

      If Oxytocin truly promotes interpersonal bonding in people, that opens up all kinds of interesting avenues of research.
      • by KrackHouse (628313) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @07:37PM (#8282915) Homepage
        Breast milk kegger at my place, bring leather pants and an open mind. Later, Vitamin D
    • You may as well go and buy coke off the streets, as according to the article:
      "So the brains of people deeply in love do not look like those of people experiencing strong emotions, but instead like those of people snorting coke."
    • Well I am not a doctor, but I can assure you that if I were, I would encourage everyone to come and get a love injection!
  • Great news. (Score:5, Funny)

    by conner_bw (120497) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:05PM (#8281271) Homepage Journal
    Injections cause love? This is great news! Finally, the victim i keep in my basement *will* love me.
  • by sparklingfruit (736978) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:07PM (#8281280)
    The one day of the year where I am not the tarket market.

    Love injection? No need. Attractiveness injection? Now there's a seller.
  • by Lucky Kevin (305138) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:08PM (#8281282) Homepage
    But don't all guys give love injections?
  • Utah (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:09PM (#8281288)
    As Dr Fisher explains, "you can feel deep attachment for a long-term spouse, while you feel romantic love for someone else, while you feel the sex drive in situations unrelated to either partner." This independence means it is possible to love more than one person at a time, a situation that leads to jealousy, adultery and divorce--though also to the possibilities of promiscuity and polygamy, with the likelihood of extra children, and thus a bigger stake in the genetic future, that those behaviours bring. As Dr Fisher observes, "We were not built to be happy but to reproduce."

    Ah, that explains politics in Utah.

    • Re:Utah (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Galvatron (115029) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @06:30PM (#8282492)
      Actually, I was reading something the other day about how despots in ages past would have dozens, hundreds, even thousands of wives. Today, the President of the United States can't even get away with two! What could be responsible for such a dramatic shift? The explanation given was democracy (the argument against the women's rights theory was that monogamy was pretty entrenched in word and in deed by the Victorian era, when women still had no power). The lower status males will simply use their power to destroy a sexual rival. Essentially we've achieved sexual communism, where no one is allowed to rise higher than a single wife.

      All that being said, there are perfectly legitimate women's rights reasons why polygamy is wrong. No woman wants her husband to take a second wife, and even among the "mormons" (in quotes because the recognized church would say they're not mormons) in Utah who do have multiple wives only achieve that status by bullying, threatening, or simply psychologically dominating their first wives.

      • Re:Utah (Score:3, Informative)

        by Atryn (528846)

        All that being said, there are perfectly legitimate women's rights reasons why polygamy is wrong. No woman wants her husband to take a second wife...

        Your post reflects the continuing issues of women's rights. There is nothing in the word polygamy [reference.com] that implies a man having multiple wives. There is nothing wrong with polygamy except for those whose moral and/or religious beliefs forbid it. Just as a man could have multiple wives, a woman could have multiple husbands.

        Now, that being said, it isn't very

        • You are correct of course, I should have used the gender-specific word "polygyny," rather than the gender-neutral "polygamy." However, since the only society on record that I know of that has ever practiced polyandry is Tibet, and even then it's only when the two men are brothers (and the younger brother is expected to look for a new wife ASAP), in human societies polygamy is defacto polygyny.

          Again, I would argue against your statement that there is nothing wrong with polygamy. Most forms of polygamy set

  • Great news. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:11PM (#8281306)
    Injections cause love? This is great news! Finally I can love my abductor, Conner, who's keeping me in his basement.
  • by elcausado (733047) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:11PM (#8281310)
    ...has a story just in time for Valentine's day called...


    Its amazing how research these days has such a superb sense of timing. ;-)

  • A poem. (Score:5, Funny)

    by SharpFang (651121) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:12PM (#8281314) Homepage Journal
    Found in fortune file.

    Tell me why the stars do shine
    Tell me why the ivy twines
    Tell me why the sky's so blue
    And I will tell you why I love you.

    Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine
    Phototropism makes ivy twine
    Rayleigh Scattering makes sky so blue
    Sexual hormones are why I love you.
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:12PM (#8281315) Homepage Journal
    How long before some conservative mad scientist :) releases a retrovirus which makes us all pair-bond for life, inescapably? If I were still with my first love, I'd have to fucking kill myself now.
    • Now we are going to see the radical political groups engage in biowarfare, releasing cold viruses that compete against each other, turning the population gay one week, straight the next, and so on.

      If God is Love, and a scientist can give it or take it away, does this mean the scientist is playing God, or IS God????

  • by gunix (547717) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:12PM (#8281316)
    Well, this axiom holds...

    Attraction = Lust + i*Love

    Lust is the "real" part, and "Love" is the imaginary part.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:26PM (#8281406)
      No wonder attraction is so complex!
    • by bersl2 (689221) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:35PM (#8281467) Journal
      By this equation,
      e ^ (0 + i(pi)) = -1
      which proves that love is detrimental.
    • by cavac (640390) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @07:37PM (#8282918) Homepage
      You could also formulate
      L = (BSTG / BSGF) ^ (BE / DV) * (NS + 1)

      Where L is the Lust you currently feel, BSTG the the Bra size of your target, BSGF is MAX_BREASTSIZE(girlfriends) you already have, BE is the number of Beers you already drank, NS is the number of months you've had no sex and DV is the number of divorces you had been through.

      As you can clearly see, Beer (or other alcohololic drinks) and divorces have the highest influence. But as shown in the next formula, alcohol may also have a bad side effect:

      AS = (V + 1) * L / (B + 1) ^ 3

      AS is the ability to have sex, L is the lust and B is the number of Beers you had (which is very likely more than in the first formula). V is the number of Viagra's you took. You see, the more you drink, the more V you must swallow - although i'd recommend against V when you drunk B for reasons of SF (the survival factor of that night) because:

      SF = (100 - AG / B ^ V) * RN

      Where SF is your survival factor, AG is your age, B the Beers, V the Viagras and RN a boolean (0 or 1) to remember your spouse's name the morning after...

      Therefore everyone claiming that having one-night-stands is easy isn't either
      a) drinking alcohol
      b) a good mathematician
      c) or just plain lucky so far

      Greetings from the statictical front
      Rene
  • I'm not sure... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tverbeek (457094) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:13PM (#8281319) Homepage
    ...I'm ready to accept the idea that voles are capable of what we call "love", no matter what you inject them with. Even in humans, mating for life and loving someone aren't necessarily the same thing.
    • "Vole" is just love spelled sideways, sort of. I buy it.
    • But I don't want to have a relationship with a vole.
      At least, not tonight...
  • by kfg (145172) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:14PM (#8281323)
    an enamored vole following me around?

    KFG
  • by azzy (86427) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:14PM (#8281327) Journal
    I remember back at school when I studied economics, the textbook claimed the definition to be: The study of human behaviour. I suppose that people being in love, that it affects their behaviour.. means that it falls into the definition of economics.. that and the extend to which valentines day is now just a market driven spend spend spend event.
    • valentines day is now just a market driven spend spend spend event.


      Considering that its a completely artificial "holiday" created to give the economy a consummerism boost exactly between xmas and easter, you shouldn't be surprised.

      My favourite valentines tradition is discovering yet another bogus origin story to valentine's day.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:15PM (#8281336)
    ...have to be administered directly to the cardiac muscle? If so, that would explain Cupid's strange behavior.
  • Strategy B (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:17PM (#8281349) Journal
    Me: "Boss, please don't send my job to India."

    [Poke!]

    Boss: "Oww! What was that?.....Don't worry darling, you are safe with me."
  • Whom Do You Love? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kehl (663202) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:18PM (#8281353) Homepage
    Ok you get your Spouse a love injection but how does that tie there love to you?
    Imagine waking up one morning only to find shes ran off with the milkman! :/
  • Screw love (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:18PM (#8281354)
    I rather see an article on the science of casual sex.
  • by simcop2387 (703011) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:23PM (#8281386) Homepage Journal
    (i am not trolling i don't think)

    Are you one of the 80% of men who has a lower than average ability to get your partner to fall in love? Well boy do we have a product for you! Liagra! With Liagra you can finally get both your secretary and your wife to love you and each other!! only 6 easy payments of $49.95!

    i wonder how long before we see this
  • er... (Score:5, Funny)

    by xankar (710025) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:24PM (#8281393) Journal
    wait, i thought beer was already invented.
  • Seduction (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zensufi (743379) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:26PM (#8281408)
    Well, there are sites such as fastseduction.com [fastseduction.com] that provide guides [pickupguide.com] that are based upon the premise that lust and love are remarkably similar and can be installed in people by using using certain patterns of behavior. Click, whirr, anyone? [google.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:28PM (#8281423)
    ...Is the ink they print money with.
  • by Nakito (702386) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:30PM (#8281440)
    Here is a key empirical observation from the article: Mating between prairie voles is a tremendous 24-hour effort. After this, they bond for life.... However, another vole, a close relative called the montane vole, has no interest in partnership beyond one-night-stand sex. What is intriguing is that these vast differences in behaviour are the result of a mere handful of genes. The two vole species are more than 99% alike, genetically.

    Imagine the implications for churches if it turns out that fidelity is based on genetic propensities rather than moral choice. On the other hand, if the concept of "original sin" is to be believed, perhaps that is what they have been saying all along.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @07:59PM (#8283038)
      I can think of no misinterpretation of the biological sciences more dangerous than the notion that propensity is choice.

      Human beings - especially though perhaps not uniquely - through self-reflection have the capacity to choose actions contrary to our biological propensities and inclinations.

      You are not a slave to your genetic and biological predispositions and inclinations.

      To be a self is to constitute in one's mind and through one's actions what it is to be an individual person.

      It is the drive to dignify, love, and exude - to be - this inner self, this individual person, by which propensity and inclination are overcome.
  • by Richard Allen (213475) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:36PM (#8281472)
    I'm not sure I'd draw the same conclusions as the author here. They start off by saying that sex will enduce certain chemicals which will in turn help to cause a feeling of lust or love in the voles. Then they go on to say if they inject certain chemicals in voles, it will cause them to "fall in love". But people (believe it or not) often fall in love sometimes without having sex. In other words, their thoughts produce the chemicals, which obviously is opposite of saying the chemicals produce the thoughts. It's a which comes first, the chicken or the egg problem. I think injecting chemicals in people would produce the euphoric state they mention in the article, but there needs to be thought processes along side of that to produce love.

    I'm probably missing something here from their logic. Please correct me if so. Thanks.
    • by Requiem Aristos (152789) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:51PM (#8281561)
      It's a feedback loop; thoughts producing chemicals and chemicals producing thoughts are not mutually exclusive events. You can have both; it's like a program that can edit its code while running.

      To take another topic, you can feel depressed because of the right (wrong?) chemicals in your brain. You could also feel depressed if you think thoughts that create those same chemicals. To "cure" depression, you could inject chemicals to balance things out, or you could think thoughts that do the same thing. The injection technique is likely more effective for many.
      • "To "cure" depression, you could inject chemicals to balance things out, or you could think thoughts that do the same thing. The injection technique is likely more effective for many."

        They're about equal in effectiveness, actually. Current studies on depressed patients treated with cognitive therapy [wikipedia.org], antidepressants, or a combination of both, show that both methods have about equal efficacy, with the combined approach working best.
        • by Anonymous Coward
          with the combined approach working best

          Which is sort of logical. While cognitive therapy can teach you to recognize and eventually avoid distorted thinking, it does not do much to help get out of a depression you're in. Medication can help to get out of the cycle of depressed thinking => depression => more depressed thinking. When back in a 'normal' frame of mind, it is a lot easier to see the patterns and avoid slipping back.

          The wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] you mentioned does a good job of describing the t
  • Maybe too far.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TimTurnip (560651) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:39PM (#8281489) Homepage
    I'm as interested in science as the next geek. I'm stoked that I understand that lightning is a result of static, and not God striking down his wrath...I'm also happy that I'm not worried about California falling off into the ocean, thanks to Ms. Schneider's geology teaching.

    But this might be going a little too far. Love is one of those things that I'm comfortable not understanding - and uncomfortable understanding.

    Call me crazy...but I'm happy knowing that I love my fiancee, and thinking that it's because of her humor/mannerisms/beauty/etc.

    • s/humor\/mannerisms\/beauty\/etc\./not rejecting me/
    • by Planesdragon (210349) <slashdot@castles ... s ['els' in gap]> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:38PM (#8281866) Homepage Journal
      I'm stoked that I understand that lightning is a result of static, and not God striking down his wrath...

      Maybe you would be even more stoked if you understood that lightning is a result of differential charges between clouds and the surface, not the clouds and the surface rubbing up against each other.

      Oh, and the lightning bolt itself isn't God's wrath. God's wrath is when a bolt 'randomly' hits YOU.
    • Re:Maybe too far.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bromrrrrr (166605)
      Well I guess this is a point that the scientists in question must poor over when they drive home to their spouses.

      Seriously though, people still enjoy roller-coaster rides, even though the physics are very well understood. Being a geek you must have realized at some point that love is really just a chemical reaction in your brain. Giving a name to the chemicals doesn't change anything. Just sit back and enjoy the ride!

      Granted though "how is your oxytocin today?" doesn't sound anywhere near as endearing
    • You are happy, so what? The point is you are addicted to certain chemicals and are unable to think objectively about your fiancee and the time you spend with her. When I was in love, I felt the same way, but right now (and before) I can think objectively and I can tell you that I prefer it this way.

      I am happy knowing that I can behave in a way best for me and not for my genes. I am happy that I can prevent myself from falling in love again and just live alone nicely. You, on the other hand, are doing what
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:41PM (#8281502) Homepage Journal
    The difference betwen Windows and Linux is just the order and quantity of bits in RAM. Every human experience is just the difference of a few chemicals in the brain. But why go to such lengths, when love (or lust) can be injected into your target with $10 of organic chemicals, inserted as flowers into her hands? Try it today, in a cocktail therapy with labial skin molecules applied topically.

    "When I see the way you paint your lips
    and I smell your perfume
    when I see the brand new color
    that you've dyed your hair, too
    I know, you know, it's more than physical
    My love, my love, my love, love is chemical"
    - Lou Reed, "My Love Is Chemical" [tiki.ne.jp]

    (my love is chimerical)
  • by Andreas(R) (448328) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:43PM (#8281515) Homepage
    The science of love

    Scientists are finding that, after all, love really is down to a chemical addiction between people

    OVER the course of history it has been artists, poets and playwrights who have made the greatest progress in humanity's understanding of love. Romance has seemed as inexplicable as the beauty of a rainbow. But these days scientists are challenging that notion, and they have rather a lot to say about how and why people love each other.

    Is this useful? The scientists think so. For a start, understanding the neurochemical pathways that regulate social attachments may help to deal with defects in people's ability to form relationships. All relationships, whether they are those of parents with their children, spouses with their partners, or workers with their colleagues, rely on an ability to create and maintain social ties. Defects can be disabling, and become apparent as disorders such as autism and schizophrenia--and, indeed, as the serious depression that can result from rejection in love. Research is also shedding light on some of the more extreme forms of sexual behaviour. And, controversially, some utopian fringe groups see such work as the doorway to a future where love is guaranteed because it will be provided chemically, or even genetically engineered from conception.
    How love makes voles of us all
    Feb 12th 2004
    St Valentine's day revenge
    Feb 10th 2000
    Another way to say "I love you"
    Sep 24th 1998
    Ask Dr Tatiana
    Dec 18th 1997

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology publishes an abstract of Dr Young's article on prairie voles. Northern State University has a profile of the prairie vole. Test how loved-up you are with Economist.com's love quiz.

    The scientific tale of love begins innocently enough, with voles. The prairie vole is a sociable creature, one of the only 3% of mammal species that appear to form monogamous relationships. Mating between prairie voles is a tremendous 24-hour effort. After this, they bond for life. They prefer to spend time with each other, groom each other for hours on end and nest together. They avoid meeting other potential mates. The male becomes an aggressive guard of the female. And when their pups are born, they become affectionate and attentive parents. However, another vole, a close relative called the montane vole, has no interest in partnership beyond one-night-stand sex. What is intriguing is that these vast differences in behaviour are the result of a mere handful of genes. The two vole species are more than 99% alike, genetically.

    Why do voles fall in love?

    The details of what is going on--the vole story, as it were--is a fascinating one. When prairie voles have sex, two hormones called oxytocin and vasopressin are released. If the release of these hormones is blocked, prairie-voles' sex becomes a fleeting affair, like that normally enjoyed by their rakish montane cousins. Conversely, if prairie voles are given an injection of the hormones, but prevented from having sex, they will still form a preference for their chosen partner. In other words, researchers can make prairie voles fall in love--or whatever the vole equivalent of this is--with an injection.

    A clue to what is happening--and how these results might bear on the human condition--was found when this magic juice was given to the montane vole: it made no difference. It turns out that the faithful prairie vole has receptors for oxytocin and vasopressin in brain regions associated with reward and reinforcement, whereas the montane vole does not. The question is, do humans (another species in the 3% of allegedly monogamous mammals) have brains similar to prairie voles?

    To answer that question you need to dig a little deeper. As Larry Young, a researcher into social attachment at Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia, explains, the brain has a reward system designed to make voles (and people and other animals) do what they ought to. Without it, they might forget to eat, drink and have sex--with disastrous resu
  • "Parts of the brain that are love-bitten include the one responsible for gut feelings, and the ones which generate the euphoria induced by drugs such as cocaine. So the brains of people deeply in love do not look like those of people experiencing strong emotions, but instead like those of people snorting coke."
  • Additional Reading (Score:5, Interesting)

    by giminy (94188) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @03:49PM (#8281541) Homepage Journal
    I'd suggest reading about the economy of orgasms [utexas.edu] as well.

    Science is wonderful, isn't it?
  • by skoaldipper (752281) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .8rtslaoks.> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:03PM (#8281645)
    Yeah, right...

    These ain't scientists. They're researchers in the marketing department. I fell for your female attracting hormone scents in the back of magazines years ago. And all I got for it was a rash and had to bathe myself in tomato sauce to remove the stink. And, by the way, if you ever had to rub yourself all over with tomato sauce for hours, you will discover true love. Trust me on that one...

    Now, it's off to the grocery store. I see my pantry is running low on Hunt's again.
  • Causation? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JayBlalock (635935) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:06PM (#8281669)
    Why is it that whenever neurologists discover some section of the brain or chemical that causes physiological condition X to come about, they seem to automatically assume that they have found the actual CAUSE of Condition X? Maybe I'm just silly, but I can't so blindly accept that brain in such an easily-mapped organic machine.
    • Re:Causation? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rark (15224)
      more than that, the comments in the first paragraph were a little, er, loose with the science. In schizophrenia the social implications come from the brain not getting other information correct. It's difficult to handle social interaction when your reality is different from everyone else's. Whether or not this is the case in autism is more debateable, but I think if you floated the idea that autism is caused or would be significantly helped by an increase in bonding hormones, you'd have to provide far more
  • by Goeland86 (741690) <goeland_86 AT yahoo DOT fr> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @04:30PM (#8281821)
    I'd like those guys to explain to me how they will explain how people can fall in love over the net if their theory is so strong... How do you start getting "addicted" to loving someone you haven't met in real life before? I mean, how would they explain the fact that before even meeting the other person you have realistic dreams (not involving any kind of sexual scenes)? I have been chatting with webcams and talking on the phone with a girl since October, and I know she is the one, and I haven't seen her anywhere in my life before... Anybody else thinks that science is and will always be limited, whereas the human mind can go against it?
    • by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @09:04PM (#8283323) Homepage Journal
      how people can fall in love over the net if their theory is so strong... How do you start getting "addicted" to loving someone you haven't met in real life before?

      Same way you get a hard-on from watching porn.
      Reality is perception, wether you percieve the person from right in front of you or from afar via the net, your brain still secretes the same chemicals.

      I have been chatting with webcams and talking on the phone with a girl since October, and I know she is the one, and I haven't seen her anywhere in my life before...

      Yeah, never heard THAT before...
    • "Spiritual" side of love is IMHO based on "Games people play".

      It basically means that you are recognizing that the other can become your "playmate" since you both play the same game at the compatible roles.

      In order to make this overly dry explanation real, think about a sadist finding a masochist or a "girl" finding a "father" (traditional model of the patriarchal society), alchogolic finds a woman that is willing to fight with him over his addiction et al.

      You can find this whole model with a lot of exam
      • >>>"Spiritual" side of love is IMHO based on "Games people play".

        >>>It basically means that you are recognizing that the other can become your "playmate" since you both play the same game at the compatible roles.

        I hate to make a brash assumption, but you dont have a SO, do you? I'd admit talking to a girl (you sure?) on a webcam is wholly different than meeting her in person and going out to supper, but saying the "Spiritual side of love" is a game....

        When you're with your true partner,
        • Unless you read the book, you won't understand. The connotation for "game" Eric Berne uses is a bit different.

          And, believe me, everyone who plays these "games" does not think he plays games; it is all-encompassing occupation made with a full seriousness, just like you describe it ;-).
  • by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @05:20PM (#8282113) Homepage
    > which can be controlled with injections

    The injections for humans are chocolate, booze and pot.

    Someone once said, "Love is for animals. Only humans can truly appreciate lust."

  • tar -xzvf loveMachine.tar

    cd ~/LoveMachine

    ./configure -with vibrojoy

    make...

    make install...

    ./LoveMachine vibro -on

  • Gattaca (Score:4, Interesting)

    by menscher (597856) <menscher+slashdot@NosPAM.uiuc.edu> on Saturday February 14, 2004 @05:36PM (#8282177) Homepage Journal
    "We may be able to do things like look at their gene sequence, look at their promoter sequence, to genotype people and correlate that with their fidelity."

    So, women may not yet be able to check our genes for risk of contracting alzheimers, but they can now find out if we'll cheat on them? This is looking dangerous....

    It's probably worth pointing out that genetic predisposition does NOT indicate what will happen in a particular case.

  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @06:23PM (#8282450) Homepage Journal
    This paper is published in The Economist magazine as basic research behind the Bush administration's $1B program for oxytocin in Halliburton "flu injections" program to "defend the traditional institution of marriage".
  • A new finding has been made in the field of mathematics: it's just electrical currents. Scientists studied computers engaging in mathematics and found that if they disabled the electric currents inside, it ceased the behavior. When they re-enabled the electric currents, the behavior resumed. They have done other studies on other species of computers, including small nomadic units and large plant-like machines which couldn't even move, and found the same results. They have concluded that "mathematics is noth
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 14, 2004 @09:13PM (#8283367)
    I didn't used to believe in love, I always equated it as basically what this story is trying to get people to believe - "love" was just biology fucking with us to get us to breed. There was nothing else behind it. Then, I met the love of my life and that little world-view got tossed on its ear. There /is/ something "else" behind real love, and I cannot dare to hope to explain it to those who had never experienced it. It wasn't just lust! It was well beyond sexual, even from the start. I was more then merely smitten with her personality, I became addicted to her very being. I wished to know everything about her, and began to care more about her then myself. Its easy to think we love only to be loved, that as with biology everything is essentially selfish - but I'd sacrifce it all for her on the drop of the hat. Love must be real because I can see two distinct periods in my life, before her and after, and who I am now bears little to nothing in common with who I was before. Shes challenged me to my very core, my long held assumptions questioned- everyting is different. She is my one, and not because being apart may drive me nuts. I felt, this will sound corny, "complete" with her. It all came full circle. I'm sure there is plenty of biology involved in all of this, we are biological creatures, but science can never explain the human soul. Its much more then just our minds, or our ego.
    • by StarsAreAlsoFire (738726) on Sunday February 15, 2004 @01:38AM (#8284255)
      Yup. Sounds like crack to me. ;~)
    • Nice Incredible Connection pattern. Mind if I use that? Actually I seriously am going to write that down. If you can come up with any other descriptive language I'd appreciate that too. Not bad at all. I'll just combine it with my microminiature oxytocin atomizer. Love at First Sight (tm).

      BTW, what you don't yet realize (you won't have the perspective until your current relationship is over) is that your feelings for her are mostly something you have done to yourself. Love is like a form of self-hypnosis.
  • ...but it's about attachment! They really should make this distinction clear so love doesn't keep getting such a bad rap.

    Remember when O.J. said "If I did kill her it's only cuz I loved her, right?" No, O.J.! It's because you were deeply attached to your idea of her.... and you froze your brain with cocaine years ago.

    *sigh* If it was "love" you would have let her live.

    See, "love" runs in the opposite direction, resisting the impulses that chemical attachment might cause. Well, that's my take on it anyhow
    • *sigh* If it was "love" you would have let her live.

      This makes me wonder if you have ever been in love. While you are in the relationship love can rarely have negative consequences for the one who is loved. In the relationship we do a good job of convincing ourselves that we want them to be happy etc.

      But love is the most powerfully motivating emotion that our species can experience. Those same intense feelings can lead to murder (and often do) when one is "betrayed" and/or abandoned by the loved one.

      Lik
  • by Poligraf (146965) on Saturday February 14, 2004 @11:11PM (#8283832)
    They certainly aren't idiots themselves, but they are digging in a wrong direction.

    Try not to perceive it as a flamebait, but the whole point of many branches of Western applied science is to allow idiots to stay idiots and not change themselves.

    For example, eat Viagra each time before sex instead of learning Daoist or Tantric techniques and getting a rock-solid erection. Or eat Prozac instead of using psychology in order to get out of depression by eliminating its root causes.

    Another example - medicines that allow someone who have never exercised and ate crap at McDonalds to live till their retirement age.

    Thus, the entire civilization becomes one of degenerates (or, even better word, CONSUMERS. I consider this word an insult) on prescription drugs because there is only a certain small percentage of people who will do something that is not required for survival. Then longer I look at this world, then more I get disappointed in the effectiveness of a certain socialized institutions. This makes me wish the world be more succeptible towards libertarian ideas that are based on self-responsibility for your being.

    And now the right direction ;-).

    Everything said above brings us to one word that describes the place that is the key: Psyche.

    Psyche is the part of us that manages the levels of hormones, chemicals et al, and in most cases it is the level where the problems should be attacked.

    Here is [geocities.com] the explanation why geeks don't get women. This is a "physical"/"lustful" side of love.

    (when reading it, think of Kramer versus George Costanza as the example of high/low rank, and of Klingons versus Vulcans as the example of high/low primativeness)

    There is another one - "spiritual"/"psychological" that can be understood upon reading "Games people play" by Eric Bern.

    As one can understand, all of this "chemical crap" that we eat in a form of medicine and supplements is just a way of bypassing the psyche and emulating its work. Smarter readers will understand that modern Western medicine often heroically fights with the shit that our own subconscious brought us into (think of a very typical situation with people who nobody needs, and who get sick in order to get attention of their relatives, professionals from medical institutions or good samaritans. Also read this [anandaanswers.com] ). And the general population pays through the socialized healthcare. And everyone is happy since everything is a good business for certain groups whithin the society. At the same time majority is swayed by the false ideals of humanism et al.

    Sorry for being that vicious and arrogant, but I'm really tired of idiots with bright eyes cheering yet another expensive achievement of the pharmacology that allows somebody to do even less real work for themselves gobbling pills instead.

    And, finally, here is the way to change your bad luck and become what you can become: link [slashdot.org]

    One does not need to become religious, but the "correctional" part of mysticism might help one to get both the body and mind healthy and live much more fulfilled life that will sure have some love in it ;-).
  • Prof. Frink: "Brace yourselves gentlemen.... according to the gas chromatograph, the secret ingredient is... love!? Ok, who's been screwing with the machine!"
  • There's a difference between love and lust? Hmm... whaddayaknow.
  • Having to spike a drink or inject someone is not the most practical strategy. What we need is an easily atomized form of Pitocin. Is there any plant that possesses a natural form of this chemical? If so, drying the leaves, and rolling them up with tobbaco might serve as a means of dispersal. Getting it into a smoke form would be ideal.

    Another delivery system could be transdermal if the oxycotin molecule is small enough to make it through the dermal layers. You could combine some of it with chapstick for mo

When all else fails, read the instructions.

Working...