When worlds collide: A hazard of compartmentalizing people

[Maelstrom]

I find the notion of love- that initial First Few Months Love- to be a very interesting one- even knowing what it comprises, what it does to us physically, that it makes us stupid [really], that it's kind of a way to reel us in and hook us... I find everything about it fascinating.
There have been so many things written about it from everywhich angle.
Including studies done about how people attain this state of being in love, and experiments which hope to acheive that state "artificially". [But then... if you actually then feel you are in love, truly, at the end of such events- what is artificial about it? And then years later? hmm]

Ha, sorry...

I'm getting confused, back on track- I think there's a lot to be said for what we expect to have to put into a relationship. If we expect a "perfect" relationship to mean no work, any relationship will be at the very least imperfect, but more often disappointing and sometimes closer to a disaster. Two people coming together who might not initially seem an obvious match but who see a relationship as an endeavor necessitating teamwork may have a great lasting bond.

"Give 60%, Expect 40% [think variably]"<--- This helps, in my experience.

...did I tangent? I don't think so, but this is a really confusing conversation in some ways for me. I try not to tangent too much but I can't always tell when I'm overdoing it.

Hi SignOfLazarus , my sentiments exactly....I love the first fiery romance thing...but I also want the warm comfortable fuzzy slippers thing later too...ware you both learn to come together and just be sort of comfortable with eachother.

I haven't had much luck tho, no matter how accommodating I try to be, it seems like some people move the pleasing me bar just a little higher, every time you get close to pleasing them. I think it's some sort of dirty trick to squeeze more out of you.

People who refuse to be pleased deserve to be lonely in my opinion.

 

[metalminx24]

I do love large quantities of chocolate...!

 

[Maelstrom]

I do love large quantities of chocolate...!

If you have a boyfriend you get the chocolates for free... Bad Mael down boy...Woof!
love the cat ears too! Meow!
Sorry! am just being silly today! am bored

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

Thank you for your patient and generous reply. I'm not exactly concise either, so you definitely won't ever hear me complain about length. Long-form discussion is why I like forums a hundred times more than other "social media", no matter how long that long-form becomes. If you have a lot of thoughts, you may have to use a lot of words.

Since we agree we have some views in common, let's shake on it and leave it at that, with each of us better informed about the other's perspectives, shall we?

Slithytoves , my good friend. OK, yes, agreement is not that important, respectful discussion and some understanding is important. I think you have your act together, and if you are not already, would be a wonderful moderator and a paramount oblique strategist.

I do have one question still, if you don't mind. What would happen to the human mind if constantly stimulated with the maximum dose of " the new love" neurotransmitters, for extended time, years. Would it be beneficial, detrimental or of no consequence? Just curious.
No hurry, enjoy your time off.

 

[SignOfLazarus]

I do have one question still, if you don't mind. What would happen to the human mind if constantly stimulated with the maximum dose of " the new love" neurotransmitters, for extended time, years. Would it be beneficial, detrimental or of no consequence? Just curious.

[I love this thought, by the way, Epicurean Pariah]

It would likely cease to become a novelty.
I still get butterflies from my SO, but it ceases to make me feel [as] stupid.

The effect is not the same- brains are pliable, and so then are minds.
They do adapt to stimuli particularly if giving over a long period of time.

Possible benefit: We cease to be distracted by a wink or a smile
Possible detriment: ...we cease to be distracted by a wink or a smile :[ These responses are not only limited to romance, some of the feelings we have and physical repsonses we produce in other social connections are similar or are produced in similar ways.

If we become desensitized to oxytocin, we may stop needing and therefore seeking connections and reciprocation.
Some people actually already experience this to a degree- it happens when we forget we want some one around.

 

[Slithytoves]

I do have one question still, if you don't mind. What would happen to the human mind if constantly stimulated with the maximum dose of " the new love" neurotransmitters, for extended time, years. Would it be beneficial, detrimental or of no consequence? Just curious.

I think I know what you might be looking for. Let me know if I'm wrong. This is becoming fun.

This subject touches on two of my major special interests, human sexuality and sociology/social psychology, so I gotta wonder if you're referring to the De Dreu oxytocin study. Before I continue, I'll say up front that if you're thinking of an exaggerated scenario based on that, it's an off-the-charts stretch in the context of this discussion -- though now it's really killing me wondering if that could possibly be it. . Your scenario is still not going to happen in reality, but it will satisfy your apparent needs here so I'll be happy to go along with it. I'll even add some drama.

The answer would be: There is limited evidence to sorta kinda suggest that it could be highly detrimental. Aside from any damage it might cause to the physical body, exposure to maximum levels of oxytocin for a greatly extended period of time could theoretically make a person so ethnnocentric that they would be capable of:

For anybody whose curiosity is now piqued, here's how the study actually shakes out. There are limits to the socially positive value of oxytocin as a "bonding hormone" that induces trust. The limit identified: When you're "high" on oxytocin, you don't end up loving all of humanity (aka Agape!) -- it only applies to the individual's chosen or natural in-group. The results of the study showed that oxytocin motivates what De Dreu refers to as a "tend and defend" response, which promotes in-group cooperation/trust while as a consequence promoting defensive aggression towards other competing groups.

(Hypothetically, if you perceive enough competition you'll likely go on the offense eventually, too.)

I really hope this wasn't really what you were going for, EP.

If I am in fact wrong, go ahead and tell me. I know you wanna.

 

[On the Inside]

Pardon my ignorance, but where, when and how does one get the dose of oxytocin, both male and female? I know sex is involved, and apparently the new love feeling is, too. I could google it, but I am afraid I will be exposed to a whole lot of inappropriate content. Would rather keep it short and to the point.

I have been told that I lack normal bonding response and also lack the "tend and defend" response. That is maybe accurate, as I do have a difficult time bonding, not certain that what I call bonding equals that of others. I also might not "tend and defend" as would be expected. I wouldn't know, the opportunities for that are slim in this modern age, especially in the rather homogeneous, boring area in which I live.

 

[Nadador]

This is what I Know.

Over the course of decades travelling the globe, I have been privileged to spend a great deal of time as a guest in the villages of many indigenous peoples. This is intimate time, with family groups, many of which live very nearly as we modern Westerners did in our own, 'primitive' past. These peoples aren't subject to any of the idealised, skillfully marketed notions of romance and passion that clutter our media and our minds. Yet, little girls go fidgety around little boys, curious but coy. Yet, affection between young lovers makes the elderly smile. Yet, teams of husbands three generations deep return from hunting, herding, or other work, and take their wives round the waist for a kiss, or an embrace. Yet, old men surprise old women with pecks on the cheek that make them laugh and pretend to struggle away. They have never heard lofty erudition on the many types of Love, nor have they read studies that suggest they might live longer, healthier lives if they continue to have sex, and enjoy loveplay with their mates. Yet, they understand Eros and embrace it, from childhood to senectitude.

I've seen it everywhere from Amazonia to Oceania, from Mongolia to The Congo.

These peoples don't debate what is perception, reality, cynicism, or idealism. Most all of their languages haven't words for any of those. Yet, there are words for the acts and feelings of love, passion, and romance, and they are said with a sparkle in the eye by persons of all ages.

I've heard them everywhere from Native Canada to Central India, from Ecuador to Indonesia.

My mother would often mistake me for my father, toward the end of her battle with Alzheimer's. She called me his pet names from before I was born, chattering about our wedding plans, thanking me for roses and old love letters, asking me with a giggle if I liked the smell of her new perfume. When the names and faces of her own children had left her...yet, she still remembered the love of her life, back to when it was new.

I saw and heard it all in England.

Life is about learning to love, in all manner of ways. Eros can bring out the worst in us, but to deny that it just as often brings out the best...to deny that it can, and does, endure in many people, in many places...

What I Know is, that's bloody well wrong.

 

[Nadador]

The answer would be: There is limited evidence to sorta kinda suggest that it could be highly detrimental. Aside from any damage it might cause to the physical body, exposure to maximum levels of oxytocin for a greatly extended period of time could theoretically make a person so ethnnocentric that they would be capable of:

The turn of this thread left me thinking for an hour after I moved on, and it occurs to me that I should mention another potentially detrimental consequence of sustained, elevated oxytocin production or artificial introduction. I say 'potentially' because to date, I believe studies have remained limited to non-human subjects. In brief, oxytocin triggers a particular signalling molecule, intensifying negative social memory and increasing future susceptibility to enhanced fear and anxiety. This is off the top of my head, however, so I haven't the sources at the moment. Since this whole tangent is indeed a mighty stretch in context, I'll not bother with it.

The only reason this came to mind is that I remembered where I am...AC. I originally filed the information for concerns about suggestions that oxytocin be used to attenuate affiliative and repetitive behaviours in autistics. Since it's now well-established that the actions of oxytocin are much more complicated than once thought, one would have to wonder if we should be playing with its levels in a population that already suffers from significant social anxieties.

The very idea that we should be concerned about natural, transient elevations of oxytocin as occurs in the human bonding process, because of early-stage science that indicates other, less pro-social effects of the hormone, is highly questionable...even and especially in service of the point that's apparently being pressed. An amusing diversion, perhaps, but that's about all. If the suggestion could possibly be that the early flush of romance has a causal relationship to negative emotions later, existing science, both biological and social, simply doesn't bear that out.

[Edit: Oxytocin isn't the only hormone involved in romantic attraction and sexual activity. Adrenaline, serotonin, dopamine, vasopressin, testosterone, and oestrogen are all part of the Eros cocktail.]

Pardon my ignorance, but where, when and how does one get the dose of oxytocin, both male and female? I know sex is involved, and apparently the new love feeling is, too. I could google it, but I am afraid I will be exposed to a whole lot of inappropriate content. Would rather keep it short and to the point.

Oxytocin is produced in the hypothalamus, and, once transported, secreted by the pituitary gland. It is released during affectionate and sexual contact by both sexes, especially surrounding orgasm. There is some evidence that it can also be released in very small amounts just by being in the presence of a new partner.

Is this what you're asking for, or do you need more on it? I'd hate to expose you to an unwanted Googling.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

[I love this thought, by the way, Epicurean Pariah]

It would likely cease to become a novelty.
I still get butterflies from my SO, but it ceases to make me feel [as] stupid.

The effect is not the same- brains are pliable, and so then are minds.
They do adapt to stimuli particularly if giving over a long period of time.

Possible benefit: We cease to be distracted by a wink or a smile
Possible detriment: ...we cease to be distracted by a wink or a smile :[ These responses are not only limited to romance, some of the feelings we have and physical repsonses we produce in other social connections are similar or are produced in similar ways.

If we become desensitized to oxytocin, we may stop needing and therefore seeking connections and reciprocation.
Some people actually already experience this to a degree- it happens when we forget we want some one around.

SignOfLazarus, it seems similar to an addiction to drugs and could explain why some folk intentionally seek and destroy relationships, until inured constantly or need their fix constantly. Now I am thinking about monogamy, and I will chase that thought around for a couple of days. My snap thought is monogamy is a failed cultural meme and not based on biology.
It is simply another control mechanism and in the grand scheme, invalid for our species but not necessarily so for some, relatively few couples.
What do you think ?

 

[Slithytoves]

This is what I Know.

This was truly beautiful.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

I think I know what you might be looking for. Let me know if I'm wrong. This is becoming fun.

This subject touches on two of my major special interests, human sexuality and sociology/social psychology, so I gotta wonder if you're referring to the De Dreu oxytocin study. Before I continue, I'll say up front that if you're thinking of an exaggerated scenario based on that, it's an off-the-charts stretch in the context of this discussion -- though now it's really killing me wondering if that could possibly be it. . Your scenario is still not going to happen in reality, but it will satisfy your apparent needs here so I'll be happy to go along with it. I'll even add some drama.

The answer would be: There is limited evidence to sorta kinda suggest that it could be highly detrimental. Aside from any damage it might cause to the physical body, exposure to maximum levels of oxytocin for a greatly extended period of time could theoretically make a person so ethnnocentric that they would be capable of:


View attachment 19822


For anybody whose curiosity is now piqued, here's how the study actually shakes out. There are limits to the socially positive value of oxytocin as a "bonding hormone" that induces trust. The limit identified: When you're "high" on oxytocin, you don't end up loving all of humanity (aka Agape!) -- it only applies to the individual's chosen or natural in-group. The results of the study showed that oxytocin motivates what De Dreu refers to as a "tend and defend" response, which promotes in-group cooperation/trust while as a consequence promoting defensive aggression towards other competing groups.

(Hypothetically, if you perceive enough competition you'll likely go on the offense eventually, too.)

I really hope this wasn't really what you were going for, EP.

If I am in fact wrong, go ahead and tell me. I know you wanna.

Slithytoves, gee, I don't know what to say here. I never heard of De Drew. I have not followed Psychology at all since a took a college accredited course in high school 50 years ago.i am more of the mind that people need to be told; "you are loved, needed and it would be a less wonderful world without you".
It seems to be a bit more egalitarian and accepting of differences than defining disease and disabilities.
I do admit that I had profound interest in "mind" but my prof squelched it on a final paper of mine. The subject being, which school of thought did we support and why. I wrote the the most influential psychological thought was based on Popeye. " I am what I am, that's all that I am, I am( your name). This opens the door to the thought, accept me, reject me, but be honest and let me know where I stand. I suspect I was an Asper then, even without a dx,
Well to say that he went apoplectic would be an understatement.
I was simply trying to think out of my box.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

This is what I Know.

Over the course of decades travelling the globe, I have been privileged to spend a great deal of time as a guest in the villages of many indigenous peoples. This is intimate time, with family groups, many of which live very nearly as we modern Westerners did in our own, 'primitive' past. These peoples aren't subject to any of the idealised, skillfully marketed notions of romance and passion that clutter our media and our minds. Yet, little girls go fidgety around little boys, curious but coy. Yet, affection between young lovers makes the elderly smile. Yet, teams of husbands three generations deep return from hunting, herding, or other work, and take their wives round the waist for a kiss, or an embrace. Yet, old men surprise old women with pecks on the cheek that make them laugh and pretend to struggle away. They have never heard lofty erudition on the many types of Love, nor have they read studies that suggest they might live longer, healthier lives if they continue to have sex, and enjoy loveplay with their mates. Yet, they understand Eros and embrace it, from childhood to senectitude.

I've seen it everywhere from Amazonia to Oceania, from Mongolia to The Congo.

These peoples don't debate what is perception, reality, cynicism, or idealism. Most all of their languages haven't words for any of those. Yet, there are words for the acts and feelings of love, passion, and romance, and they are said with a sparkle in the eye by persons of all ages.

I've heard them everywhere from Native Canada to Central India, from Ecuador to Indonesia.

My mother would often mistake me for my father, toward the end of her battle with Alzheimer's. She called me his pet names from before I was born, chattering about our wedding plans, thanking me for roses and old love letters, asking me with a giggle if I liked the smell of her new perfume. When the names and faces of her own children had left her...yet, she still remembered the love of her life, back to when it was new.

I saw and heard it all in England.

Life is about learning to love, in all manner of ways. Eros can bring out the worst in us, but to deny that it just as often brings out the best...to deny that it can, and does, endure in many people, in many places...

What I Know is, that's bloody well wrong.

Nadador , thank you for your time. I express myself poorly but that is what I was trying to get to.
Meaningful love take time, perhaps a life time. To me, some the attributes of love are, effort, trust, compassion, understanding and acceptance.
The early form of "love" is infatuation and does not have the time to develop these attributes to fruition.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

The turn of this thread left me thinking for an hour after I moved on, and it occurs to me that I should mention another potentially detrimental consequence of sustained, elevated oxytocin production or artificial introduction. I say 'potentially' because to date, I believe studies have remained limited to non-human subjects. In brief, oxytocin triggers a particular signalling molecule, intensifying negative social memory and increasing future susceptibility to enhanced fear and anxiety. This is off the top of my head, however, so I haven't the sources at the moment. Since this whole tangent is indeed a mighty stretch in context, I'll not bother with it.

The only reason this came to mind is that I remembered where I am...AC. I originally filed the information for concerns about suggestions that oxytocin be used to attenuate affiliative and repetitive behaviours in autistics. Since it's now well-established that the actions of oxytocin are much more complicated than once thought, one would have to wonder if we should be playing with its levels in a population that already suffers from significant social anxieties.

The very idea that we should be concerned about natural, transient elevations of oxytocin as occurs in the human bonding process, because of early-stage science that indicates other, less pro-social effects of the hormone, is highly questionable...even and especially in service of the point that's apparently being pressed. An amusing diversion, perhaps, but that's about all. If the suggestion could possibly be that the early flush of romance has a causal relationship to negative emotions later, existing science, both biological and social, simply doesn't bear that out.

[Edit: Oxytocin isn't the only hormone involved in romantic attraction and sexual activity. Adrenaline, serotonin, dopamine, vasopressin, testosterone, and oestrogen are all part of the Eros cocktail.]




Oxytocin is produced in the hypothalamus, and, once transported, secreted by the pituitary gland. It is released during affectionate and sexual contact by both sexes, especially surrounding orgasm. There is some evidence that it can also be released in very small amounts just by being in the presence of a new partner.

Is this what you're asking for, or do you need more on it? I'd hate to expose you to an unwanted Googling.

Nadador, I am very grateful for your knowledge and time.
As a youth I was as sensually driven as any young man, but perhaps more discerning than some. I never betrayed any of my partners, but I admit, it was my selfish self respect that made that possible, probable. Those that know me, trust me.
At 67, today, I never thought at 18 I would see 67. Today, my thinking is still youthful, I hope, but my experiences have altered my perceptions.
Now I hope for less frenzied dramatic loving and more warm, soft comfortable loving, rather than the live of so long ago.

At the very root of my blather on all my posts is this.
The greatest unhappiness any human can experience is the unhappiness of not being self fulfilled. Denying oneself and not being true to ones own nature, and believing the voices of other is superior to your own.
Simply said but I am happy in my own mind, and quite comfortable with the 20 or so people in a lifetime that I consider friends and/ or lovers.
I am not exactly a social maven, and far too honest to play the game.
I am on the other extreme end of Asper, I am not quiet, reticent or ashamed. I am so loud, bold and proud that I cut through the field of social wheat like a thresher, avoid and am avoided like an epicurean pariah.

 

[Harrison]

I've taken oxytocin for two years now. I don't take it all the time, usually an hour or so before having to engage in some social circle or another. Personally I feel it helps me, however, it may also be a placebo as I am well aware that my speciality is the mind and I might just be running a very good mask

 

[Vinca]

Nadador, I am very grateful for your knowledge and time.
As a youth I was as sensually driven as any young man, but perhaps more discerning than some. I never betrayed any of my partners, but I admit, it was my selfish self respect that made that possible, probable. Those that know me, trust me.
At 67, today, I never thought at 18 I would see 67. Today, my thinking is still youthful, I hope, but my experiences have altered my perceptions.
Now I hope for less frenzied dramatic loving and more warm, soft comfortable loving, rather than the live of so long ago.

At the very root of my blather on all my posts is this.
The greatest unhappiness any human can experience is the unhappiness of not being self fulfilled. Denying oneself and not being true to ones own nature, and believing the voices of other is superior to your own.
Simply said but I am happy in my own mind, and quite comfortable with the 20 or so people in a lifetime that I consider friends and/ or lovers.
I am not exactly a social maven, and far too honest to play the game.
I am on the other extreme end of Asper, I am not quiet, reticent or ashamed. I am so loud, bold and proud that I cut through the field of social wheat like a thresher, avoid and am avoided like an epicurean pariah.

What aspects of a person does the term 'ones own nature' refer to? Is it qualities such as being quite, loud, outgoing, controlling, forthright? (I ask because I'm interested to know more about what being true to ones own nature means.)

Is it possible for there to be aspects of ones own nature that are self destrictive, or is it only behaviours that are self destructive? Is it possible for a persons own nature to get in the way of them achieving what they want to achieve?

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

What aspects of a person does the term 'ones own nature' refer to? Is it qualities such as being quite, loud, outgoing, controlling, forthright? (I ask because I'm interested to know more about what being true to ones own nature means.)

Is it possible for there to be aspects of ones own nature that are self destrictive, or is it only behaviours that are self destructive? Is it possible for a persons own nature to get in the way of them achieving what they want to achieve?

Vinca, I'm am not a deep thinker. I am thinking foundational attributes. Some of this is still being contested so I guess is up to personal points of view.

For example can a bold child be a happy shy and quiet adult?
Could a homo sexual teen be a thriving happy ladies man.
Can a abusive bully become a nurturing husband.
I guess in rare cases yes, but if I had to lay money down and make the bet, the odds are that people's temperament is established in/ by childhood. I think most honest folks become happy by accepting and loving themselves and their "nature".
It seems to me that when people allow others to define them, and strive to " buy, pretend and role play" their way through life, the self loathing becomes apparent to all. I could be wrong.

 

[SignOfLazarus]

SignOfLazarus, it seems similar to an addiction to drugs and could explain why some folk intentionally seek and destroy relationships, until inured constantly or need their fix constantly. Now I am thinking about monogamy, and I will chase that thought around for a couple of days. My snap thought is monogamy is a failed cultural meme and not based on biology.
It is simply another control mechanism and in the grand scheme, invalid for our species but not necessarily so for some, relatively few couples.
What do you think ?

I think this is a confusing conclusion.

 

[Epicurean Pariah]

I think this is a confusing conclusion.

SignOfLazarus, ok I can clarify my thought. I think some folks start and destroy their relationships, because the thrill of a new relationship is more fun than putting effort into an established relationship.

 

[metalminx24]

If you have a boyfriend you get the chocolates for free... Bad Mael down boy...Woof!
love the cat ears too! Meow!
Sorry! am just being silly today! am bored

Well pfthpfthpfth (that's a virtual raspberry!) to you for only considering me worth talking to when you're bored!!