Fine-tuning the random chemistry

[BusyNAbroad]

If attraction (and non-attraction) was caused by random biochemical processes we are not conscious of, wouldn't it be fair to consciously fine-tune these in order to attract someone?

 

Especially in those common situations when there seem to be such strong bonds but no "chemistry".

 

This is probably one of the most crucial questions that has been burdening my life since I started learning about psychology (and that's nearly 10 years ago). While browsing today, I came accross this article which introduces some of the knowledge I have been exposed to before I even fell in love for the first time. link removed

 

I never expected to see scientific psychology on something like Oprah, but as a student of psychology I must confirm that what is mentioned there is widely accepted in academia as the triggers of attraction.

 

Please imagine for a while a teenager who has never been in a relationship and sees that everyone else is. And now imagine that this teenager reads this stuff. That teenager was me.

My reaction was - and still is, today - to think that if all this attraction, and as a consequence the entire processes of romance and love, is the result of so many random unconscious processes (and by random I mean that they have no real reason, no "meaning", they just occur at random), then what would be wrong about fine-tuning them?

[servedcold]

The impact of the kinds of things the article describes is relatively low key because of our big brains, but pop scienticists and people who want to sell you some pheromone spray will inevitably overemphasize their importance. There was one telling part of the article, with a hilarious rationalization trying to make it appear less derogatory:

 

"Not everything that goes into finding a partner is biological. Researchers have also found that if a woman looks at the face of a man whom she knows nothing about, she will give it a rating on a scale of 1 to 10 that's different than if she is shown the same face and a corresponding income. When a man makes a lot of money, a woman will rate him higher on an attractiveness scale than she would that same man with a smaller income. link removed: What do women really want?

 

Berman says this isn't a case of women being gold diggers.

 

"It goes back again to evolution. When we were having babies who were very dependent on us, we couldn't hunt and take care of ourselves, so we were looking for the man who had the most social status, who was the best hunter, who was going to bring home the biggest chunk of meat for our babies," she says. "It's the same thing today."

 

So basically women get a pass from being gold diggers today because they are only following their ancient biological urges from a million years ago? Fine and dandy, surely the next girl I meet won't mind at all when I whack her on the head with a club and carry her back to my cave. After all, it's just ancient biological urges at play, right?

[servedcold]

The impact of the kinds of things the article describes is relatively low key because of our big brains, but pop scienticists and people who want to sell you some pheromone spray will inevitably overemphasize their importance. There was one telling part of the article, with a hilarious rationalization trying to make it appear less derogatory:

 

"Not everything that goes into finding a partner is biological. Researchers have also found that if a woman looks at the face of a man whom she knows nothing about, she will give it a rating on a scale of 1 to 10 that's different than if she is shown the same face and a corresponding income. When a man makes a lot of money, a woman will rate him higher on an attractiveness scale than she would that same man with a smaller income. link removed: What do women really want?

 

Berman says this isn't a case of women being gold diggers.

 

"It goes back again to evolution. When we were having babies who were very dependent on us, we couldn't hunt and take care of ourselves, so we were looking for the man who had the most social status, who was the best hunter, who was going to bring home the biggest chunk of meat for our babies," she says. "It's the same thing today."

 

So basically women get a pass from being gold diggers today because they are only following their ancient biological urges from a million years ago? Fine and dandy, surely the next girl I meet won't mind at all when I whack her on the head with a club and carry her back to my cave. After all, it's just ancient biological urges at play, right?

[BusyNAbroad]

I agree that "pop science" also has its interests in exposing this kind of theories, but what most academia points out to (I am an undergraduate student, but have been interested in the field for ages, done some research by myself) is that there is a huge difference between what people say/idealize in love and how they actually behave in relationships, further confirming the existence of unconscious processes, especially in romantic behavior.

 

Unfortunately, even if I hate it, many of my personal romantic relationships ended due to reasons predictable by evolutionary psychology.

 

We are far from understanding every specific process, but what my personal anguish is caused by is...

 

If it is true that all romance is based on such random unconscious processes (which are far from what we could call "ideal" or "romantic") isn't it justifiable that I intervene and make these unconscious processes match the ideal and romantic?

 

e.g. If I know that the only true reason a woman is attracted to someone else and not me (everything else being equal between me and him) is the fact that the other guy, by pure randomness, for no logical meaning, uses a low bass-like vocal tone at the end of each sentence, which triggers certain parts in the brain of the woman that make her attracted to him, wouldn't it be justifiable that I also adopt that voice when I speak to her?

 

I'm not asking what works and what not, but whether it is right to do so (also morally), to basically interfere when biology puts us at a disadvantage?

[BusyNAbroad]

I agree that "pop science" also has its interests in exposing this kind of theories, but what most academia points out to (I am an undergraduate student, but have been interested in the field for ages, done some research by myself) is that there is a huge difference between what people say/idealize in love and how they actually behave in relationships, further confirming the existence of unconscious processes, especially in romantic behavior.

 

Unfortunately, even if I hate it, many of my personal romantic relationships ended due to reasons predictable by evolutionary psychology.

 

We are far from understanding every specific process, but what my personal anguish is caused by is...

 

If it is true that all romance is based on such random unconscious processes (which are far from what we could call "ideal" or "romantic") isn't it justifiable that I intervene and make these unconscious processes match the ideal and romantic?

 

e.g. If I know that the only true reason a woman is attracted to someone else and not me (everything else being equal between me and him) is the fact that the other guy, by pure randomness, for no logical meaning, uses a low bass-like vocal tone at the end of each sentence, which triggers certain parts in the brain of the woman that make her attracted to him, wouldn't it be justifiable that I also adopt that voice when I speak to her?

 

I'm not asking what works and what not, but whether it is right to do so (also morally), to basically interfere when biology puts us at a disadvantage?

[servedcold]

Women (most of them anyway) paint their faces every day. Men have every right to act in a comparable fashion. There is a gray area between making yourself into the most attractive person you can be and insincerity. Luckily the boundaries of that area are bright and wholly discernible via common sense.

 

Years ago in an early sales job, we were taught that ending spoken phrases on a down tone instilled a feeling of respect in the audience. The company I was working for was selling snake oil, and I left the job, but carried that lesson about speaking forward to great effect. The answer is that as long as you are selling an honest product, use whatever devices and sales techniques you care to use, just don't use them to sell snake oil.