Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 101 posts

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#61

Post by oftenwrong »

Invictus0 wrote: post #44
shrimp_emoji wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say "spartan". "Aggressively hostile" more brings to mind the pop-up, notification-requesting, cookies-warning sites that don't render, double-render, or GIGANTICALLY-render elements when you (wisely) turn off JS that most web entities use. : P

True, those are worse. Maybe my eyes are shit but I just can't even read that page.

This is why I set firefox to always show me my chosen font, with a minimum font size that is still easily readable. I know better than some web designer when it comes to what font I can read most easily.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#62

Post by ajross »

lcall wrote: post #31

Long experience, observation and reading lead me to say that the pop-culture idea of "falling in love" is just hormones and curiosity and adventure. Real, true love is a decision to faithfully be there and serve a person through thick and thin. It is best if that decision is well-made. Related to courtship and marriage, I have put many thoughts here (based on experience, research and lots of observation): http://luke…

> Real, true love is

So... no infatuated scotsmen then?

That's a semantic evasion. In fact the linked article is surely talking about the hormone thing, which is a real behavior that deserves to be understood and discussed, not mocked.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#63

Post by malvosenior »

expressrunning wrote: post #32
emit_time wrote: post #12

This really doesn't relate too much, but I've realized over time that I'm essentially in love with one of my best friends (of the opposite gender). We've been friends for 10 years, and just spending time around her makes me feel so relaxed and satisfied with life, it's a unique feeling to someone like me who hasn't been in much of a relationship so far in my life. I'm able to maintain a good friendship despite this,…

Thank you for sharing your story! I believe that is what love is as well. Love is when you see a very flawed individual and someone with a bad past and behaviors. And you are hopeful for them because of their potential and changed outlook. Love is seeing them with a significant other and knowing that you have zero chance of ever being with them, because of circumstances or past events, and yet would do anything and e…

> Love is seeing them with a significant other and knowing that you have zero chance of ever being with them, because of circumstances or past events, and yet would do anything and everything for that person. And you have done that, giving up all money/time, and taking in personal pains, just so you can see a smile, or knowing they are in a better place.

This is pretty toxic tbh. If you really feel this way about someone who has a significant other that they're serious about, the best thing you can do is leave their life (if you really can't get your feelings under control). No good will come from a one sided relationship with someone who not only is unrequited but also happily involved with someone else. It's not fair to any of the three parties involved.

If you really want what's best for them, let them go.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#64

Post by mistermann »

tokenpreneur wrote: post #56
mistermann wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but how is that necessarily a condition (pre-requisite) for love?

You can't call a (romantic) love unconditional, if there's lust involved. The lust conditions the (romantic) love. This is not the same as saying lust is a necessary condition for love (but is usually a factor in romantic love), which I have not said nor implied.

Why must lust necessarily impose conditions/pre-requisites on unconditional love? This is the part I don't understand.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#65

Post by shrimp_emoji »

IgorPartola wrote: post #3

So I’ll just leave some bits here. For me the quote that started to conceptualize romantic love was “Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.” from Robert Heinlein. But really that’s not the whole story. Just like we have many different kinds of non-romantic love (kids, candy, outdoors, parents, friends, motorcycles, precision instruments, algorithms) we also experienc…

I understand "casual love" poorly, but imagining myself engaging in it, I picture some chaotic asteroid collision chain reaction. The asteroids are people, and the collisions are the hook-ups. The hook-ups must be episodes of sex mixed with the psychological trauma of infatuation ("falling in love"?).

It sounds horrifying and disruptive...

But, to me, even sex in itself would be unappealing so casually; the only thing that can overcome the surface-level, material ugliness of other humans enough to make me want to have sex with them is long-term familiarity and mutual interest, and that sounds pretty anathema to "leave anytime, no expectations lol". :p So I guess the typical relationship escalator is what feels most natural to me.

But then the poly model probably assures you a LOT more sex and relationships than mine, which requires meeting naturally and then building guarded, incremental trust, which, due to a mix of how our society is structured (there's HEAVY sexual partitioning of interests, hobbies, and careers) and my personality (I only engage with the most partitioned elements of society), ostensibly never happens for me. :D

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#66

Post by IgorPartola »

majos wrote: post #57
IgorPartola wrote: post #3

So I’ll just leave some bits here. For me the quote that started to conceptualize romantic love was “Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.” from Robert Heinlein. But really that’s not the whole story. Just like we have many different kinds of non-romantic love (kids, candy, outdoors, parents, friends, motorcycles, precision instruments, algorithms) we also experienc…

Not trying to criticize here, but if "love" becomes freely applicable to all sorts of relationships of varying intimacies and understandings and bonds, doesn't that cheapen the word? Maybe the word doesn't need to be love -- but I think we need a word that expresses commitment. Perhaps not exclusively, but at least through-thick-and-thin support. Love without this sounds oxymoronic to me.

It depends on how you define it. It may sound like I am preaching “the one twue way”. I am not, I support those who define things differently. Having said that, the way I view it is that love is already used all over the place: “I love this game!” “I love chocolate cake!” “I love you, and your sister, and your little brother! I love my kids!” Why do we “allow” such usage without qualms, but when it comes to romantic love we only allow for it to mean “feelings you have toward one partner that you must then try to be with, and possibly marry and procreate”? Why can’t you enjoy someone’s company so much that you love them for just that moment, that hour, that year?

And what about the whole mutual love dilemma? Have you ever witnessed a situation where two people are together and one is nervous to profess their love to the other because they might not say it back? And if they do, do they feel it the same way?

That I think actually brings me to the most interesting way “love” is cheapened: when it is unexpressed. Say you are dating someone and by all accounts “it’s too early”. But you know you are in love. And maybe this is some puppy love because you are a teenager, but maybe you found the person that makes you feel just right in your late 40s after two divorces. You know what Love feels like for you and this is it, but a month in you cannot just profess it to your partner, can you? Well why not? If you tell them “I love you. I feel it deep in my belly, and in my fingertips when I touch you. This doesn’t mean I need to marry you, or we need to be together forever. It doesn’t even mean that you have to love me, now or ever. But I want you to know that you make me feel this way, and I am lucky that you are here with me right now.” How is that a cheapened version of “real love”?

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#67

Post by davidjnelson »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #65
IgorPartola wrote: post #3

So I’ll just leave some bits here. For me the quote that started to conceptualize romantic love was “Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.” from Robert Heinlein. But really that’s not the whole story. Just like we have many different kinds of non-romantic love (kids, candy, outdoors, parents, friends, motorcycles, precision instruments, algorithms) we also experienc…

I understand "casual love" poorly, but imagining myself engaging in it, I picture some chaotic asteroid collision chain reaction. The asteroids are people, and the collisions are the hook-ups. The hook-ups must be episodes of sex mixed with the psychological trauma of infatuation ("falling in love"?). It sounds horrifying and disruptive... But, to me, even sex in itself would be unappealing so casually; the only thin…

> surface-level, material ugliness of other humans

What does this mean? If it's just physical attraction, why not date more attractive people?

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#68

Post by tokenpreneur »

mistermann wrote: post #64
tokenpreneur wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't call a (romantic) love unconditional, if there's lust involved. The lust conditions the (romantic) love. This is not the same as saying lust is a necessary condition for love (but is usually a factor in romantic love), which I have not said nor implied.

Why must lust necessarily impose conditions/pre-requisites on unconditional love? This is the part I don't understand.

We're talking about romantic love where lust is a dominant factor, if there was no sexual attraction bringing the two parties together, then how could there have been any subsequent love to arise? The sexual attraction (lust) is a condition that caused the love to sprout in the first place.

I'm not saying there aren't other possible ways for people to get together, but we're specifically talking about cases where people get together because they're attracted to each other (the condition).

I think what you're wanting to say is that a conditioned love (for example, one that starts with lust) can become an unconditioned love. But I don't think you can separate the cause and effect like that, because the memories, experiences and identity shared between the parties is still going to rest as a factor for them staying together for a "unconditional" love to take place, and hence its not truly unconditional: it's based on something.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#69

Post by IgorPartola »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #65
IgorPartola wrote: post #3

So I’ll just leave some bits here. For me the quote that started to conceptualize romantic love was “Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.” from Robert Heinlein. But really that’s not the whole story. Just like we have many different kinds of non-romantic love (kids, candy, outdoors, parents, friends, motorcycles, precision instruments, algorithms) we also experienc…

I understand "casual love" poorly, but imagining myself engaging in it, I picture some chaotic asteroid collision chain reaction. The asteroids are people, and the collisions are the hook-ups. The hook-ups must be episodes of sex mixed with the psychological trauma of infatuation ("falling in love"?). It sounds horrifying and disruptive... But, to me, even sex in itself would be unappealing so casually; the only thin…

I totally understand where you are coming from. Poly isn’t for everyone, casual love isn’t for everyone, and casual sex is most definitely not for everyone. Not engaging in those things is a valid choice, and if that is right for you, it is right for you.

I will say that casual love != casual sex. You can experience casual love without any sex at all. You can form romantic relationships that do not involve sex. While I personally am not wired that way I have plenty of poly friends who are. The longest running podcast on the subject, Polyamory Weekly, to this day uses the slogan “it’s not all about the sex.”

Casual sex for a lot of people is a much less satisfying experience than sex in a long term relationship. But to be fair, let’s acknowledge that loads of committed relationships also suffer in the bedroom, so it’s not all great there either. Ultimately it depends on you and your preferences/needs. And of course on the partners you select.

Empirically I can say that I experience love towards a partner about 1/10 times or so. Though my sample size is not actually all that great because while poly, I am very very selective. This may be surprising but the reality is that poly doesn’t mean “screw everything with two legs.” It just means that if someone does interest you, you are free to explore that however you want, and your partners have the same freedom. Whether you choose to have one anchor partner who you share your home life with, or you do “solo poly” where you live alone and have multiple partners with whom you have no plans to ever progress on the escalator is 100% up to you. A couple of people I know actually identify as monogamous, while practicing Polyamory through their partner being poly. Not my cup of tea, but that seems right for them.

Re: How do we know when we’ve fallen in love? (2016)

#70

Post by graeme »

lcall wrote: post #52
Invictus0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am no UX designer, so take anything I say with a grain of salt. I would suggest increasing the text size, increasing the spacing between lines, and maybe organizing things a little better. Clicking down a rabbit hole of links with no sense for where I am in your organizational scheme or when I'll actually arrive at the content I'm looking for feels very disconcerting. The actual content is a monospaced font text fi…

Thanks. As time permits I will plan to look at what you've said. I'd like to balance that with my desire for an "outline" so I can have large amounts of easily-navigable info without creating huge pages. I see what you mean about the text file: I just haven't evolved it into a web page yet, so I can shorten the lines easily enough, but not sure how to integrate it best into my organizer software beyond that. One idea…

You could massively improve the outline simply by making the hierarchy visible. You can nest lists under lists.

Right now it's unclear how many layers one has to go through to reach an actual article.

Post reply on HN