Biology question here
Is there a scientific validity to romantic attraction or is this a social concept made by society?
>>7705997
Humans are social. Close emotional attachment is to be expected. It has various benefits.
Humans neocortex (the outer brain, the conscious and "smart" one) is directly connected to the limbic brain (the emotional one, not conscious). You can't chose who to love or like, the limbic brain automatically selects who is "perfect" for you; since the limbic brain is deeply connected to the neocortex we will feel attachment to someone that's not part of our family (animals like dogs start liking you because you maintain them, their limbic brain is really developed but their neocortex is not half as developed; humans can have "love at first sight thanks to their neocortex").
Basically, the limbic brain detects that someone is perfect based on previous experiences and personality of a person and sends the information to the neocortex; thanks to the neocortex we become conscious of the " perfect person" and the felling becomes permanent until some information of the person changes. That is love
>>7706220
>You can't chose who to love or like, the limbic brain automatically selects
This is near universally wrong. You can most certainly choose how you want to feel, it can feel real, and you can do it for years.
Not to sound like a prick, but don't assume your own lack of mental exploration and slave-like mentality constituents the truth of how the human machine works, and can be made to work. You can choose how you feel. You always could, you always can.
But you probably shouldn't.
>>7706220
This pretty much. Also less neurologically and more fundamental to evolution:
Humans benefit greatly from relationships. Even if early societies were polygynyst (one man impregnates multiple women), there was still a massive need to be "attached" to partner(s). Human children need a great deal of care and attention during development -- which would have been extremely difficult without some mechanism for ensuring men and women that bear children remain as a cooperative unit. Impressionable children raised appropriately learn early that attachment to other humans is conducive to survival. I'd say as modern humans, "romance" appeals to this rudimentary biological function, as well as satiates some societal function as well.
>>7706227
>you can choose how you feel
Partially true
>you can choose how to feel about other people
lol no, that is biologically impossible.
There are a lot of biology/medicine books about the brain that take part on this subject; they are extremely interesting and based on pure facts and hundreds of tests.
I truly recommend you to read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Love-Thomas-Lewis/dp/0375709223
>>7706227
if i can choose how i feel then
>why does it still hurt
>>7706302
>lol no, that is biologically impossible.
You cannot agree with one, yet deny the other.
A whole decade and a half ago, I told people that you can consciously control memory formation and storage. Sorting, making associative links, building it into trees, whatever. I also told them you could engineer yourself down to the higher level personality level, and even delete (ie bury) memories. They told me I was full of shit.
You know what modern neuroscience is heavily investigating? Memory formation, and consciously directed forgetting of information, which is long observed human ability. Certain brain regions have been implicated and a few relative enzymes have been identified as allowing the process to occur. I was right, of course I was right. And of course no one listened. It was too different. Too out of their immediate experience.
Look man, I've been doing this since I was a very young child. Taking a metacognitive approach is how I got by. Most of the functions you're talking about here, can be changed over time. However, there are hardware limits (some of which is genetically biased), and some things you just can't force your brain to efficiently do. You end crippling yourself. This isn't that sort of case. The aforementioned crippling is always why I had to put in a major effort to stop and just live. Learn to leave the cover on the black box and let it handle itself.
I will be right again, soon. You will be incorrect. I'll look into your suggestion, but skip forward a bit and instead of being wrong, consider what I'm saying. The architecture involved in the types of subjective interpretations and drives we're talking about, are fluid.
>>7706312
>Because you're not actually trying. Part of you wants to feel it, because most of you wants to change it.
You're doing the right thing. Making the pain go away is running from it.
>>7706332
I'm not the one you responded to but...
>you will be wrong, and I will be right
>going full sperg on a simple comment that you misread
>you can't control WHO YOU LIKE
>you can control your feelings, but not about someone
The theory of love that he posted (the book) is not an hypothesis, but a theory based on facts and evidence
>>7706380
I know what they said. Your post tells me you don't understand what I said.
>>7705997
OP here again. I asked this question because I heard bi females people claiming how they're sexually attractive to both genders but only romantically attractive to males. Why is it that they're only romantically attractive to males and not females. Is there a neuroscience explanation for this?
>>7705997
>Biology question here
>Is there a... random shit no one cares
Yup, every looking fine here. Typical /sci/ today. Engineer study not understanding basic mathematics in another thread and here biologists showing how naturally useless they are to society.
Everything is in order.
