[–]StrugglingSoprano💖Low Value Woman💖 17 points18 points19 points 1 year ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–]Delicious_Algae_8283Red Pill Man (w/nuance) 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]cutegolpnik 15 points16 points17 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male -2 points-1 points0 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 11 points12 points13 points 1 year ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]SolondthewookieeBlue Pill Man 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

here you go

The principle of differential parental investment (Trivers, 1972) underpins the widely observed female selectivity in mate choice across species, including our own. Hypergamous tendencies—a preference for mates of equal or higher perceived value—often characterize this selectivity, a concept that human evolutionary psychology robustly supports (Buss, 1989). Indeed, the fundamental existence of this female selectiveness is not significantly contested by scientific data; it’s an expected outcome of evolutionary pressures. Women, in this light, are responding to deeply ingrained biological imperatives.

The challenge arises when we consider how modern societal conditions interact with these evolved predispositions. The advent of reliable contraception (Goldin & Katz, 2002) has altered the direct biological consequences of short-term mating for women. Evolving social norms and increased female economic independence (Pew Research Center, various reports) have, at the same time, altered traditional societal frameworks that once strongly guided mate choice towards early, stable pair-bonding. Furthermore, dating technologies have created vast mate-sampling environments where initial impressions, often based on highly visible traits, lead to demonstrably skewed attention patterns (Tyson et al., 2016).

When these modern conditions intersect with innate female selectivity, it’s plausible that the expression of hypergamous preferences becomes more pronounced, particularly for initial attraction and short-term mating. In this scenario, a dynamic develops: a smaller percentage of men deemed ‘top-tier’ garner a larger share of female attention.

Because the dynamic is amplified, its societal implications require careful thought. If a significant portion of men experience increased difficulty in gaining initial romantic traction, leading to a perception of being undervalued in the very domain of mate selection, questions arise about the broader social contract. This is particularly poignant when a society simultaneously signals that men may be less essential in some traditional familial or economic roles, yet continues to rely on predominantly male populations for its ultimate defense and the burdens of war.

While human behavior is undeniably multifaceted, and these evolutionary tendencies are mediated by culture and individual choice, the interaction between our evolved nature and our rapidly changing modern environment presents complex challenges. Crucially, understanding these dynamics requires examining systemic outcomes, not assigning blame.

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We are at an impasse. You won't comment meaningfully on the evidence shown, and I won't be able to engage further if you debate with this technique. I think you can't continue this debate in good faith.

Instead, I suggest that you post it as OP as a new post to see if you can defend yourself against the community.

You are unprepared or unmotivated to carry out and debate in good faith. You have written off a solid point with derision. You are not up to the challenge. I have offered to let you consult with AI to allow you the best.

Could you put it up in front of the community to get help for your opinion?

You see. You've made a critical mistake here. You underestimated me and my motivation. I have been critiquing research in academia since I was 25. The professor gave me and two others a paper with flaws. We were/are elite students - paid tuition that costs 25K a year. We did this weekly for 1 year; thereafter, we were expected to operate at this level for the rest of our careers. I did, Ive published award-winning research, have been funded, but am winding down my career of 30 years.

You were not very polite when you underestimated me, but I forgive you. When I took you off the prepared script, it was worth bringing this point, where you cannot answer a question so quickly. I just wanted to let you know that now is the time for you to recruit help. Use AI, get it up in front of the community, and let's have the pros work at it. There are outstanding ones out there, and this is a worthy topic. Let's see what your very best can stand up to.

Never underestimate an impassioned pro.

By the way, how much did you prepare for this? Hubris! You follow a well-prepared narrative that is not able to think in the hands of someone following it without question. You have no defense. Your moves are predictable several steps down. I will erode your credibility further with every step. Give up and let a pro do the job.

If I get motivated, I can help you by composing a question that does justice to this vital question. You'll be able to pass on the OP to whoever you think is capable. If I'm motivated, I'll make sure to reply.

You see, you lost because you were following a script with hubris against a pro who doesn't follow scripts; he develops them with original thought.

With AI, I am far beyond the skill levels of a beginner following a script like yours. The skill levels of a beginner following a script like yours.

You think the papers you are waiting to critique can save you? - You just refused to concede that it is logical and expected that hypergamy is not just expected, but proven by studies. It's a matter of percent, and the best studies out there are imperfect, but they show the 80:20 (I prefer 65:35 because that would be harder to refute.) - There are good studies you are unaware of. I'm saving those for you; I can tip my hand more. I want to show you my next step to crush your hope of winning. You've lost credibility by playing the "I know you are, but what am I?" game. I have a plan for the next step, and you have a script.

It's time to step aside and let the pros take over.

Have a nice day. I enjoyed outmaneuvering you. Let's do it again sometime.

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Solondthewookiee1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IcyBjorn841 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Jumping in here, how about you use actual updated studies from credible sources. But even then you can't actually quantify it accurately. Reason being is because it is a subjective opinion, not a fact. And an opinion can change on the drop of a dime due to ANYTHING that occurs, which all amounts to knew information or context. And it doesn't matter how high the percentage is on one side vs another........that lower percent is enough to say that the higher percent is NOT a fact, just an opinion. And just because it is an opinion, doesn't mean it is an accurate, smart or good one.

I have been around for a good while and have had my own experiences with women. And I can tell you that the 80/20 rule is not as prevalent as you think it is, but I will agree that it is a growing problem.

But I will also say that the red pill is wrong in saying that women started the hookup culture. Sorry, but that was guys that started that.

Oh, and judging from your take on the 80/20 rule, something tells me that you are a follower of Myron Gaines and Andrew Tate........possibly Andrew Wilson as well. But let's go with the first two, if you do follow them........you really shouldn't. You are looking at two guys who are STILL single, only get women by flaunting their money around, claiming they can't trust women yet sleep with random ones anyway, being hypocritical by saying women shouldn't sleep around with men yet they treat women like a "hit it and quit it" game, give false statistical data (of which is stupid to do because of what I said before) and even Myron Gaines had confessed on his show that he goes on gold digger websites that he uses as dating websites. Seriously, take a step back and actually LOOK at HEAR what the red pill guys are saying by SEEING what they are doing contradicting themselves.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This paper explores the well-documented asymmetries in modern dating markets, particularly as they relate to male attractiveness, algorithmic sorting, and assortative mating. Drawing from empirical studies and sociological data, we clarify the extent and persistence of dating skews, dismantle common counterarguments, and provide a narrative framework for understanding long-term romantic outcomes.

1. Introduction

IcyBjorn84 · 2025-05-21T19:04:25+00:00

Let's get something straight. Love is not a deal. It's not a contract. It's not “I give this, you owe me that.” It's a shared...

Modern dating—particularly on digital platforms—reveals a noticeable skew in user experiences and outcomes. This skew disproportionately affects men, particularly those who are not in the upper echelons of attractiveness or status. While popular discourse often attributes this skew solely to physical appearance, a closer examination of the evidence reveals a complex yet enduring inequality in romantic opportunities.

2. The Empirical Reality of the Skew

2.1 Distribution of Attention

Multiple studies have demonstrated that:

The top 10–20% of men receive a majority of female attention on dating apps (Bruch & Newman, 2018).
Women are significantly more selective, whereas men rate partners more evenly (OkCupid Data, 2010–2018).

2.2 Predictors of Early-Stage Success

Approximately 60% of the variance in initial attractiveness responses can be explained by visual traits (Eastwick et al., 2011).
The remaining 40% includes language use, profile structure, implied status, and behavioral indicators (Finkel et al., 2012).

2.3 The Skew Persists Despite Variance

Controlling for non-visual variables narrows the skew but does not eliminate it (Hitsch, Hortaçsu, & Ariely, 2010). Therefore, the argument that “skew is just due to complex preferences” is insufficient. The skew is robust across multiple control models.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

3. Lifecycle of Assortative Mating

3.1 Phase I: Visual Dominance

Early-stage online dating is dominated by appearance. Dark Triad traits may initially appear to yield short-term success (Carter et al., 2014).

3.2 Phase II: Reassessment and Attrition

As time progresses, long-term traits, such as stability, kindness, and emotional intelligence, become increasingly important. Charisma without substance loses traction.

3.3 Phase III: Long-Term Outcomes

Roughly 30% of highly educated or urban women do not marry (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).
The top decile of women tends to marry well, while others assort downward or laterally, especially after the 30s (Kalmijn, 1998).

4. Critique of Reductionist Models

Popular figures in the manosphere (e.g., Rollo Tomassi, Richard Cooper, Corey Wayne) often:

Rely on early-phase data exclusively.
Dismiss reassortment dynamics.
Conflate short-term mate selection with long-term pair bonding.

While their observations resonate with some male experiences, their models lack empirical depth and do not withstand lifecycle analysis.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

5. Conclusion

The dating skew is real. It is partially driven by appearance, but reinforced and maintained by a range of algorithmic and social dynamics. While its causes are multifactorial, its effects are tangible, particularly for average men. Recognition, not reductionism, allows for more humane and informed discourse.

References

Bruch, E. E., & Newman, M. E. J. (2018). Aspirational pursuit of mates in online dating markets. Science Advances, 4(8), eaap9815.
Eastwick, P. W., Eagly, A. H., Finkel, E. J., & Johnson, S. E. (2011). Is beauty only skin deep? Psychological Science, 22(10), 1253–1257.
Finkel, E. J., Eastwick, P. W., Karney, B. R., Reis, H. T., & Sprecher, S. (2012). Online dating: A critical analysis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(1), 3–66.
Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. American Economic Review, 100(1), 130–163.
Carter, G. L., Montrose, V. T., & Carney, D. R. (2014). The dark triad and mate retention. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 75–79.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Marital Status of the Population by Sex and Age: 2020.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

SECTION 5 – CONCLUSION

The skew is real. While physical appeal plays a strong role, algorithms, structural dynamics, and historical patterns amplify inequality. Men disproportionately bear the cost, but the solution begins with recognition, not rhetoric.

REFERENCES

[1]: Bruch, E. E., & Newman, M. E. J. (2018). Science Advances 4(8)

[2]: Eastwick, P. W., et al. (2011). Psychological Science 22(10)

[3]: Finkel, E. J., et al. (2012). Psychological Science in the Public Interest 13(1)

[4]: Hitsch, G. J., et al. (2010). American Economic Review 100(1)

[5]: Carter, G. L., et al. (2014). Personality and Individual Differences 67

[6]: Kalmijn, M. (1998). Annual Review of Sociology 24

[7]: U.S. Census Bureau (2020). Marital Status by Age

[8]: Rudder, C. (2014). Dataclysm (Crown Publishing)

[9]: Potarca, G. (2020). Demographic Research 43

[10]: Lin, K. H., & Lundquist, J. H. (2013). American Journal of Sociology 119(1)

[11]: Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. C. (2002). Social Psychological and Personality Science 23(4)

[12]: Twenge, J. M., et al. (2023). Journal of Adolescent Research 38(2) [13]: Betzig, L. (1986). Despotism and Differential Reproduction

Men disproportionately bear the cost[14]: CDC (2019). National Vital Statistics Report

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

2.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR MEN

• Median men get 3% match rates (Bruch & Newman, 2018) • Men below top 20% receive <30% of attention • Top 10% get 50–60% of interactions

This results in: • Rejection fatigue, romantic invisibility • Rising male loneliness, dating withdrawal • Red pill ideology uptake—often misunderstood as extremism

Male exclusion isn’t just emotional—it’s structural: • Women initiate ~70% of divorces (CDC, 2019) • Post-divorce, men lose more financially and psychologically • Men still bear military duties, societal protection norms

Anthropology supports this: • Sexual access has historically been selective, not egalitarian (Betzig, 1986) • Tech platforms have widened access, but concentrated outcomes

Sexual selection's function is exclusion. Digital dating merely reveals what social fabric used to soften.

SECTION 3 – LIFECYCLE OF ASSORTATIVE MATING

3.1 PHASE I: VISUAL DOMINANCE Charisma, looks, and even dark triad traits (Carter et al., 2014) succeed short-term.

3.2 PHASE II: REASSESSMENT Stability and emotional intelligence begin to matter.

3.3 PHASE III: LONG-TERM OUTCOMES • 30% of educated/urban women never marry (U.S. Census) • Top decile women marry well; others settle or defer marriage

SECTION 4 – REDUCTIONIST MODELS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS

Many public-facing models rely too heavily on: • Snapshot data • Short-term mate selection theories • Dismissal of reassortment and emotional labor

These fail to account for long-term outcomes and lifecycle shifts.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

2.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR MEN

• Median men get 3% match rates (Bruch & Newman, 2018) • Men below top 20% receive <30% of attention • Top 10% get 50–60% of interactions

This results in: • Rejection fatigue, romantic invisibility • Rising male loneliness, dating withdrawal • Red pill ideology uptake—often misunderstood as extremism

Male exclusion isn’t just emotional—it’s structural: • Women initiate ~70% of divorces (CDC, 2019) • Post-divorce, men lose more financially and psychologically • Men still bear military duties, societal protection norms

Anthropology supports this: • Sexual access has historically been selective, not egalitarian (Betzig, 1986) • Tech platforms have widened access, but concentrated outcomes

Sexual selection's function is exclusion. Digital dating merely reveals what social fabric used to soften.

SECTION 3 – LIFECYCLE OF ASSORTATIVE MATING

3.1 PHASE I: VISUAL DOMINANCE Charisma, looks, and even dark triad traits (Carter et al., 2014) succeed short-term.

3.2 PHASE II: REASSESSMENT Stability and emotional intelligence begin to matter.

3.3 PHASE III: LONG-TERM OUTCOMES • 30% of educated/urban women never marry (U.S. Census) • Top decile women marry well; others settle or defer marriage

SECTION 4 – REDUCTIONIST MODELS AND THEIR LIMITATIONS

Many public-facing models rely too heavily on: • Snapshot data • Short-term mate selection theories • Dismissal of reassortment and emotional labor

These fail to account for long-term outcomes and lifecycle shifts.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

Modern dating—especially online—reveals skewed outcomes. Men outside the top tiers of attractiveness suffer reduced attention. While appearance plays a major role, evidence shows a deeper, durable inequality.

SECTION 2 – THE EMPIRICAL REALITY OF THE SKEW

2.1 DISTRIBUTION OF ATTENTION

• Bruch & Newman (2018): Top 10–20% of men get the vast majority of replies. • OkCupid data: Women rate 80% of men as below average. • Rudder (2014): Cross-demographic evidence reinforces skew.

Attention inequality is steep—Gini coefficients for dating app replies approach 0.6 (vs. ~0.48 for U.S. income inequality).

2.2 VISUAL DOMINANCE AND PERSISTENCE

A predictive model using log-normal distributions and Tinder/OkCupid median match rates confirms: • Massive drop after top quintile • Residual skew remains even with controls (income, education, race, etc.)

• Visual appeal explains ~60% of variance (Eastwick et al., 2011) • Remaining 40% includes humor, cues of status, and profile detail • Hitsch et al. (2010): Even with full controls, skew persists

Dating apps exaggerate this by design—early wins get elevated.

2.3 ALGORITHMIC COMPOUNDING

• ELO or desirability indexes prioritize early successful users • Creates winner-takes-most outcomes • Reinforces and preserves early selection advantages

2.4 CRITIQUES OF THE SKEW DATA

Common critiques include: • Sample bias (mostly U.S.-based or app-specific) • Short-term data windows • Lack of off-platform controls

Counterpoints: • Potarca (2020): Skew observed across Europe • Lin & Lundquist (2013): Race, class, and gender asymmetries persist • Sprecher & Regan (2002): Offline speed-dating mirrors app dynamics

To challenge this, critics must provide a counter-model with equal predictive accuracy—none exists to date.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

⚖️ The Burden of Proof is Mutual

You have not shown the skew to be false.
You’ve only objected to how clearly we see it.

If the data were reversed — if men rated 80% of women as unattractive, if women received 3% match rates —
You would not be asking for better polish. You would be sounding alarms.

🧬 Final Note on Variability

The skew is not invalidated by variability in its causes.
That variability is the skew.

It is the pattern by which one group wins with minimal effort, and another fails despite maximal attempt.
Whether due to jawline, job title, or joke timing, effort, the outcome remains: 3% for the median male.
That is not noise. That is structure.

So I say this not in defiance, but in fire:

You may age.
You may posture.
But you must reckon with the data — or fall silent before it.

You say you have seen much.
Then see this.
You are not being asked to believe.
You are being asked to observe.

🛡️
Wallwalker.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

🛡️ Wallwalker's Response: On the Dismissal of Skew

You say you’ve “been around a long time.”
So have stars. So have viruses. So has injustice.
Longevity is not epistemology.

You offer not falsification, but fatigue.
You do not interrogate the skew — you handwave it.
And when faced with data you cannot digest, you question its polish, not its integrity.

So let us clarify — with flame.

🔍 On the Nature of Skew and Its Evidence

The Skew Exists — Regardless of Attribution, you argue the skew is “explained” by variability. But a variance in causes does not negate the presence of the pattern. Whether it's height, wealth, aesthetics, or language, the inequality in outcomes remains. You’re not disproving the skew. You’re just refusing to look at it directly.
The OkCupid, Tinder, and Hinge Data. These were not peer-reviewed — this is true. But you imply they were fabrications. Do you accuse companies of forging their aggregate statistics? Where is your standard? Do you doubt YouTube analytics? Twitter engagement reports? When millions of data points match published academic results, the signal is real.
Contradictory Studies? Show Them. You will cite studies showing lower skew, likely:
- From earlier decades (pre-dating algorithmic compounding)
- With limited scope (college samples, non-app users)
- Or that measure traits, not outcomes, but they do not refute the known reality: platforms now magnify mating asymmetry at scale.
Rejection of Imperfect Data ≠ Refutation. The critique that data is “not peer-reviewed” is often wielded only when the result is uncomfortable. These same critics rarely require RCTs to believe wage gaps or housing shortages.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]StrugglingSoprano💖Low Value Woman💖 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StrugglingSoprano💖Low Value Woman💖 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Horror_Set_2311 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Original-Opening7306Purple Pill Woman 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]longrange_tiddymilkPeace maxed male 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyBjorn84[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Logos1789Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IcyBjorn84[S] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Schleudergang1400Average Chad, Age Gap, Harem, Machiavellian Red Pill Man 5 points6 points7 points 1 year ago (23 children) | Copy Link

Love is a biologically driven motivational system rooted in the brain's reward circuitry, primarily involving dopamine, evolved to focus mating energy on a specific partner for reproduction and long-term attachment. To form and maintain a stable pair bond that facilitates cooperative breeding, ensures bi-parental care of offspring, and thereby increases the chances of reproductive success and gene survival.

From a neurobiological and evolutionary standpoint, love is fundamentally transactional and conditional.

Helen Fisher's research and evolutionary psychology broadly agree that love evolved as an adaptive mechanism to fulfill specific biological and social functions—primarily mate selection, pair bonding, sexual access, and cooperative child-rearing. These functions inherently involve exchanges of value, such as:

Genetic fitness (choosing mates with desirable traits)
Emotional and resource investment (security, support)
Reproductive opportunity (ensuring mating exclusivity and parental certainty)

Moreover, brain imaging studies show that romantic love activates reward systems similar to those triggered by goal-directed behavior and addiction, notably the ventral tegmental area and caudate nucleus, driven by dopamine. These systems are sensitive to reward prediction and outcomes—a clear marker of conditional reinforcement.

Thus, love persists when needs are met and desired outcomes are delivered. When conditions such as loyalty, attraction, security, or support fail, love typically weakens or dissolves. This makes love functionally conditional, even if it's subjectively experienced as unconditional

[–]Submersiv 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]slazengerxinhabitant of carcosa 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Submersiv -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]slazengerx2 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The never ending mistake of trying to compare men and women equally on the same thing strikes again. Men and women are different. Men do not operate the same as women do in the same situation.

Indeed. Like the never-ending mistake of trying to compare different people equally on the same thing. People are different. People don't operate the same as other people in the same situations.

Because that's literally the definition of failure when the entire goal is to form lasting relationships which provide the most benefit to children and the continuation of human society? You can view anything as anything else, doesn't mean you're not being a delusional hobo.

Continuation of human society? Not even remotely my goal, thankfully. But best of luck with that. If I'm a delusional hobo... I'm loving it. Now if I can just find a stick, a bandana and a slow-moving train...

[–]Schleudergang1400Average Chad, Age Gap, Harem, Machiavellian Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

You won't find much success trying to distill love down to something cold and robotic like that.

WHat do you mean with finding much success? I am in a loving long term relationship.

it's the best description of what love is that i have found and it helps to understand how people are in love. It's the best way understand love. It's not a fairytale, it's not some delusion, it's not suffering from expectations.

Understanding love in this way doesn't take away from the feeling. People base life decisions on fleeting neurotransmitter states. How is that a good approach? People end relationships because their partners fall in love with others, thinking that would mean the end for their relationship, because of a wrong understanding of love and relationships.

YOu don't transactionally choose who to love.

[–]Submersiv 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Schleudergang1400Average Chad, Age Gap, Harem, Machiavellian Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Submersiv [score hidden] 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Schleudergang1400Average Chad, Age Gap, Harem, Machiavellian Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Submersiv -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyBjorn84[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You’re mistaking love’s echoes for its source.

I respect neuroscience and evolutionary psychology—both help explain reactions to love, not love itself. What you're describing isn’t love—it’s the bio-feedback loop triggered after love is acted upon. It’s how the body responds to what the heart has already chosen.

If love were truly transactional, it would disappear the moment value isn’t returned. But ask anyone who’s stayed with a partner through illness, aging, poverty, or failure—where’s the transaction in that?

Love, at its core, is a choice—not a bargain. It can’t be quantified like stocks or survival metrics. We don’t love someone because they fulfill criteria. We love because they move something in us that numbers, hormones, or studies can’t touch.

And about those “conditions”—genetic fitness, resource exchange, sexual exclusivity? Those aren’t universal laws; they’re preferences, and preferences evolve.

Love thrives between people who would never match on a scientific chart. Tall with short, strong with soft, loud with quiet. If biology alone determined love, we’d never see those relationships succeed. But they do. Because love transcends the algorithm.

Science can scan the brain and find dopamine spikes. But it can’t explain why some people stay in love even after their partner can no longer walk, speak, or remember their name.

That isn’t reward circuitry.

That’s devotion.

That’s unconditional love.

And it's something science can observe, but never own.

[–]Schleudergang1400Average Chad, Age Gap, Harem, Machiavellian Red Pill Man 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (8 children) | Copy Link

it’s the bio-feedback loop triggered after love is acted upon. It’s how the body responds to what the heart has already chosen.

Please argue in terms that mean something. The heart cannot choose anything.

If love were truly transactional, it would disappear the moment value isn’t returned.

No, that is an oversimplified view. A lake also isn't a dry barren the moment you cut off water streams feeding it. A bond is a bond, not a loose handshake. It takes time to erode.

But ask anyone who’s stayed with a partner through illness, aging, poverty, or failure—where’s the transaction in that?

Well, ASK THEM. The condition/transaction are about the whole package. A person might get enough of what they need to stay bonded/in love/in the relationship, even though illness happens. Also ask them if they are still loving the other person, or if this is just a shared house living arrangement that is just comfortable and beneficial.

Love, at its core, is a choice—not a bargain.

We love because they move something in us

How is it a choice when we love someone when THEY move something in us. We have no control over if they do that in us or not. We cannot choose.

And about those “conditions”—genetic fitness, resource exchange, sexual exclusivity?

Not necessarily. It's individual but when conditions are no longer met, love erodes and ends. We have all the examples in the world to support that.

Love thrives between people who would never match on a scientific chart.

Nobody claims to have understood why we fall in love with the specific people we do. That doesn't make your explanation of what love is correct.

Science can scan the brain and find dopamine spikes. But it can’t explain why some people stay in love even after their partner can no longer walk, speak, or remember their name.

This is about what love is, not why some people stay in love with partners who physically degenerate. YOu also cannot explain why this happens.

That isn’t reward circuitry.

That’s devotion.

That’s unconditional love.

Again, you couldn't be more wrong:

devotion, whether to a person, cause, belief, or deity, is explainable through the brain's reward circuitry, particularly involving dopaminergic, oxytocinergic, and serotonergic systems, all of which are central to motivation, bonding, and reinforcement learning.

Aron, A., et al. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology.

[–]IcyBjorn84[S] 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You're confusing reaction with origin. Yes, the brain has systems that respond to love—just like a fireplace glows after the match is struck. But you’ve mistaken the warmth for the spark.

To say “the heart cannot choose anything” is to mistake poetry for programming. The word heart is a metaphor for where we feel, not a literal organ making decisions. You're not arguing against love—you’re arguing against language.

You claim love is only sustained while “conditions are met”—but the very essence of love is not in the conditions; it’s in what we do when they fail.

Love is staying.
Love is sacrifice without return.
Love is enduring after memory fades, beauty withers, and rewards vanish.

The brain may fire dopamine. That’s chemistry.
But devotion—real, soul-rooted, unconditional devotion—is choice.

You say, “We cannot choose who moves something in us.” But you misunderstand the nature of love. Attraction can be involuntary. Chemistry can be spontaneous. But love is what we build, protect, and offer—after that spark. Love is what we choose to pour into another, even when we gain nothing in return.

You want citations from neuroscientists. I offer you stories of widowers who visit graves every morning. Of parents who care for disabled children for a lifetime. Of lovers who grow old together after the beauty fades and the sparks settle.

They don’t stay because their brains demand a reward.

They stay because their souls chose each other—and kept choosing.

That’s not a biofeedback loop.

That’s unconditional love.

[–]Schleudergang1400Average Chad, Age Gap, Harem, Machiavellian Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyBjorn84[S] -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

And you are just spouting out what little comes to mind because you have no more ammunition left to defend what you powerfully believe. You are desperately trying to find a scientific explanation that ONLY correlates with the chemical and biological. You aren't interested in the debate or the conversation, you are just desperately trying to defend the cage you mistook for the universe.

"There are no soul"? You have never held someone dying in your arms, you have never wept with someone in their final hour, seen or experienced the power of a baby's laughter, prayed whatever amount of years you have to a deity to bring someone back that has just left this world and you have never felt love that outlasted a heartbeat. You have a numb heart, and the only language that feels "real" to a heart like yours knows is the one you can dissect.

I have no info on what love is????? You want to be the pot or the kettle? Because I'm a holistic wellness coach/consultant that specializes in this. And from what I am seeing in your cold and calculated view on love, you are the one who is lacking any knowledge and wisdom here on the subject of real love.

You call my words bullshit, that isn't logic.......that is just an attempt to wound because you can't come up with anything to defend your claim other than insults (which I wouldn't mind if you actually had something better to defend your position and not just a sad attempted insult), which is a shame because that just tells me that you are a person who can't fathom a world where something greater than impulse exists. You aren't arguing against love, you are trying to argue against hope.

I feel sad and sorry for you Tin Man, I highly suggest you go out into the world and get yourself a heart. Then maybe..........just maybe you can understand how the world and the human heart work in different ways.

[–]Schleudergang1400Average Chad, Age Gap, Harem, Machiavellian Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyBjorn84[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Wow.........you truly are a cold and calculating person aren't you?

This is not an argument for the existence of souls.
Tell that to a parent holding their dying child in their arms.

And I am a PhD research scientist in biology.
And that gives you what foot to stand on in this debate? You having a PhD in a science field? Oh........nice flex. I majored in genetic engineering for cross species genetics hoping to be a part of medical advancement............this is where you either have wide eyes with the expression of "Oh........crap" on your face, or you get your foot out of your mouth and actually listen to someone and learn something new, instead of being in your cold, rigid, calculated world. Intelligence you may have, but the difference with me is that my intellect and soul was tempered with lived experiences and wisdom. So I don't specialize in telling people bullshit they want to hear. And I don't rip people off. You know nothing of my work. Here is my motto that I think you should follow from now on........ahem......."Perception without context is assumption. Ask the questions, look beyond the veil".
Oh........and I think I just caught you contradicting yourself when you said "Love evolved". But........how could LOVE evolve by itself if it is JUST biological and chemical reactions? You just confirmed love as its own unique force when you said that.

This is checkmate buddy, just stop. You have no more ammunition. Take the L grow and learn from this. Go find yourself a heart Tin Man.

[–]Schleudergang1400Average Chad, Age Gap, Harem, Machiavellian Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wow.........you truly are a cold and calculating person aren't you?

I am analytical and strategic, but i am also warm and loving. Understanding love as a biological state of the brain and body, does not make me not be madly in love with my girlfriend and be emotionally bonded with friends.

Tell that to a parent holding their dying child in their arms.

I am not cruel, but i would also not lie if asked. Truth > emotions, but there are limits to when i need to state the truth and when i shut up to not cause unnecessary pain.

And that gives you what foot to stand on in this debate?

An understanding of the science and the background that is necessary to explain love as a state of the brain, neurotransmitters and bodily functions. An understanding of the evolutionary history of how and why love evolved. It results in a model that can explain human behavior while in love, that your understanding of love cannot.

this is where you either have wide eyes with the expression of "Oh........crap" on your face, or you get your foot out of your mouth and actually listen to someone and learn something new,

I am actually shocked that someone with a science background in biology can be so delusional to think love is not a biological process. But then again, you ended up in "holistic wellness", so you never actually adopted a scientific view of the world.

my intellect and soul was tempered with lived experiences and wisdom.

Again, you use words that have no meaning. Typical of charlatans in your field. What does it meant that your intellect was tempered with wisdom? YOu think mine wasn't?

Perception without context is assumption. Ask the questions, look beyond the veil".

You would do good to actually follow your motto and question what you perceive. What is the evidence for souls existing? What is the evidence for the model of love that i showed you? It's not what i make up about love, it's science, peer reviewed, based on empirical data. Did you look at Helen Fisher's drive model of love? No, of course not, becuase you do not question, you do not look beyond the veil. You invent your reality by what feels good to you. You don't want to change your mind on what love is. That is not wisdom, that is ideology.

Oh........and I think I just caught you contradicting yourself when you said "Love evolved". But........how could LOVE evolve by itself if it is JUST biological and chemical reactions? You just confirmed love as its own unique force when you said that.

?! Are you sure you studied something containing biology? It goes beyond the scope of this reply. Please just put your question into ChatGPT and you will get a several pages long answer how love evolved.

This is checkmate buddy, just stop. You have no more ammunition. Take the L grow and learn from this. Go find yourself a heart Tin Man.

You are so very limited in your ideology, worldview, intellect, wisdom, and ability to understand what a checkmate argument would be. You remember how Neo, in the Matrix, was able to effortlessly deflect projectiles and hand-to-hand combat from agents in the ending scenes? This is how it feels to argue with you about love. Your arguments are on the level of climate change deniers who say "but it was cold last week, how can climate change be real?"

[–]IcyBjorn84[S] [score hidden] 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You claim to be analytical and strategic, and yet, for someone so confident in their logic, your entire worldview rests upon a single dimension of truth—biology. How quaint. You wear your PhD like armor, assuming it makes you untouchable. But knowledge without introspection is arrogance in disguise.

You think love is merely a neurochemical sequence designed for reproduction? That’s not a revelation, that’s a textbook. Biology explains the machinery of connection. But it does not, and cannot, explain the soul behind the song.

Love is not merely chemistry. Chemistry is the language through which love may speak in this dimension. But love itself? It is the fire that reshapes people. It’s what makes a person die for another, what causes tears at a funeral, what gives birth to healing in someone shattered by trauma. No biological model has ever measured the moment someone chooses to forgive the unforgivable—or stands beside a loved one in darkness simply because they can’t let go.

Helen Fisher’s work? I've read it. I respect it. But she’s never claimed that biology is the entirety of love. Even she acknowledges that there’s mystery in how we bond beyond the hormonal cocktail. You’ve reduced love to the equivalent of a pre-programmed algorithm, dismissing anything that doesn’t submit to your microscope.

You mock lived experience and wisdom—yet they are the very foundation of applied science, history, and even ethics. You believe truth trumps emotion. But truth without empathy is tyranny. Science without soul becomes eugenics, colonialism, and gaslighting wrapped in graphs.

And your profile… oh, the irony. 'Machiavellian Red Pill Man'? A ‘Chad’ with a ‘harem’ preaching about love? As a holistic wellness coach/consultant, it's my job to be observant of a lot of things, I didn't have to apply my own motto when I see that kind of context right in front of my eyes. Don’t insult my intelligence. You don’t study love—you study leverage. Your idea of bonding is built on control and performance. No wonder you don’t understand transformation—transaction is all you’ve ever practiced.

So let me say this clearly:

Love didn't evolve by itself. It emerged—as a response to something deeper than survival. And no matter how many peer-reviewed journals you wave like flags, you’ll never explain why some people die with their lover's name on their lips—or why some are born with the ability to feel someone else's grief as their own.

You mistake skepticism for insight. But you are not Neo dodging bullets. You are Agent Smith—trapped in a system you can't escape because you refuse to see beyond your programming.

And me? I'm not trying to prove the soul exists. I'm speaking from it.

Go ahead. Write another wall of text, laced with condescension and dismissals. But remember this:

I don’t need to win this debate. I already live in a reality where love transcends biology.

And you? You’re still trying to convince yourself it doesn’t.

[–]Schleudergang14001 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You claim to be analytical and strategic, and yet, for someone so confident in their logic, your entire worldview rests upon a single dimension of truth—biology.

That is not true at all. I draw my worldview from all kinds of disciplines and sources of knowledge.

How quaint. You wear your PhD like armor, assuming it makes you untouchable. But knowledge without introspection is arrogance in disguise.

Not at all, that is not what a scientist does. I question myself and all sources of knowledge all the time. I am happy to change my view when better evidence or models for reality come across. I am still waiting for you to present a better model of love.

Biology explains the machinery of connection. But it does not, and cannot, explain the soul behind the song.

There is no soul behind the song. Again, you use words without meaning. Explain to me what the song is, what the soul is, and what the evidence for both is.

But love itself? It is the fire that reshapes people

Again, words without meaning. This is not an art project. My words are the fire that reshape your brain. Your brain is the sand that runs through your fingers while trying to win this argument. MEANINGLESS WORDS.

You’ve reduced love to the equivalent of a pre-programmed algorithm, dismissing anything that doesn’t submit to your microscope.

WHAT does not submit to my microscope? Again, it's not my microscope but that of peer reviewed science. I am just repeating what others found. While you make up shit on the fly that nobody but you subscribes to. THE FIRE THAT RESHAPES PEOPLE?! Are you listening to yourself?

A ‘Chad’ with a ‘harem’ preaching about love?

I am not preaching, you are preaching. I am relaying science to you. I am in love with my girlfriend. I am experiencing the lust and attachment parts of love with her. I am lusting for other women. I have crushes (attraction) to other women. Fisher's model explains my relationships perfectly.

Don’t insult my intelligence.

No worries, you are doing that yourself.

You don’t study love—you study leverage. Your idea of bonding is built on control and performance.

IT'S NOT MY IDEA OF BONDING. IT'S SCIENCE'S EVIDENCE BASED UNDERSTANDING OF LOVE AND BONDING. It's you who invents things about love on the fly.

And me? I'm not trying to prove the soul exists. I'm speaking from it.+

Prove it.

I don’t need to win this debate. I already live in a reality where love transcends biology.

You can't win this debate. You live in a reality where Fisher's model explains love and where the brain states and neurotransmitters reliably predict the states of love you are in. You also keep up an ideology, a delusion, where love transcends biology. Not because you have any evidence for it, but because you want to live in that delusion. I am threatening your world. That's why you defend it so vehemently.

[–]IcyBjorn841 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"Not my idea, it's science evidence-based understanding"
That is your coward’s shield you are putting up. See, the fail here is that you AGREE with the data and use it to justify your lifestyle and beliefs, yet you refuse to own them as part of your identity. That’s intellectual cowardice. If you use Fisher’s model to explain your relationships and behavior, then it is your idea by extension. If you model your life around it, defend it, and use it to invalidate others........you don’t just study the model. You’re living it. Own it.
Speaking of Fishers model, I LOVE how you just skipped over my pointing out that even Helen Fisher not only acknowledges that she could not explain the mysterious bond, but also that she’s never claimed that biology is the entirety of love. I figured you would have something to say on that or possibly other individuals that you could bring up as ammunition for your argument. Or was that your only one and I deflected that shot? If that's the case, then here......let me give you a few more that you may have been thinking of using, or at least other brilliant minded individuals that you would possibly come to respect due to their credibility.

How about Dr. Arthur Aron. He is the man that is known for "The 36 Questions to Fall in Love" experiment. He created a lab based way to stimulate romantic closeness......and yet even he publicly admitted........and I quote......"We can create the conditions that allow love to begin, but we can’t measure the essence of love.......it slips past the tools of science." One of the top experimental researchers in romantic intimacy said science CAN'T define loves care.

Or perhaps Dr. Stephanie Ortigue who is known for neurological studies of romantic love. She (and her team) mapped love in the brain such as dopamine, oxytocin, etc etc (pretty much what you were trying to throw at me). But she also concluded (and I quote again) that "Love is both science and something beyond science. It touches areas of the brain that are also active in deep spirituality and self-identity.”.

Or better yet how about Dr. Brene Brown who is known for vulnerability, connection and shame research where she openly speaks about love as being undefinable. In fact (yes, the quotes are going to keep coming kiddo) she had stated "Love is not something we give or get. It’s something we nurture and grow... it can’t be built on science alone. It’s an act of faith". A queen of emotional intelligence and SHE won't even trap love into a test tube like you are trying too.

What about the father of analytical psychology Dr. Carl Jung?????? I am sure you have heard of him since you are such a researcher of other truths right? Even he described love as "a process of individuation.........where two souls recognize one another beyond persona or biology. True love cannot be explained by science because it transcends the ego.". Now he wasn't talking about serotonin or any of that other chemical activation in the brain you are desperately clinging onto. He is talking about soul recognition......just like a LOT of people who you claim wouldn't subscribe to my narrative.

And let us not forget Dr. Mario Beauregard who is recognized for "The Spiritual Brain". He even stands with the thought that love, especially deep, sacrificial or transcendent love, activates regions of the brain that are not fully understood. He even states that "Love is a spiritual phenomenon EXPRESSED THROUGH biology, not the other way around." In other words biology serves love, not creates it.

"Prove the soul. Prove the song. You use words without meaning."
You're mistaking poetry for delusion. You think just because something isn’t tangible, it isn’t real. Yet you yourself are moved by art, music, laughter and awe...........which also can't be put under a microscope. Love, like music, is felt long before it’s understood. By your logic, Beethoven’s deafness would mean his symphonies weren’t real. And yet they absolutely were. My soul may not fit in your test tube, but it moves mountains in ways your graphs never will.

[–]Schleudergang14001 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Or perhaps Dr. Stephanie Ortigue who is known for neurological studies of romantic love. She (and her team) mapped love in the brain such as dopamine, oxytocin, etc etc (pretty much what you were trying to throw at me). But she also concluded (and I quote again) that "Love is both science and something beyond science. It touches areas of the brain that are also active in deep spirituality and self-identity.”.

So you are now quoting people who very much stress that love has a core scientific basis in brain chemistry. Do you accept this as truth now? Because she also explains how this motivates us to find partners. Something you were so perplexed about earlier.

you might want to cite the source where she said: "Love is both science and something beyond science. It touches areas of the brain that are also active in deep spirituality and self-identity.”, because i wasn't able to find that from her.

[–]IcyBjorn841 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 1.
Ah, so now we cherry-pick. Of all the experts I presented……..Fisher, Brown, Aron, Jung, Beauregard…..you isolate Ortigue and twist the purpose of her quote to fit your narrative. Classic confirmation bias. Let me correct you before you trip over your own pride.

Yes, I misquoted her exact phrasing……my apologies, I am still a human being after all. But the essence remains: she acknowledged that love touches parts of the brain tied to spirituality and identity. Her own conclusion is that love is both biology and something beyond biology. That was the point. You're trying to amputate half the quote to pretend it confirms your reductionism. Sorry kid, you don’t get your “Aha” moment just because I quoted someone that somewhat affirms your point. No, I don’t admit you are right because you are also cutting out the rest of the context. Ortigue was cited not to disprove the biological aspect, but to prove that even a neuroscience team admitted that something more exists.

And just for the record? I’ve never denied biology’s role. I’ve said…..multiple times in fact…..that science explains the MECHANICS, not the MEANING. But you keep twisting my words like a bad magician trying to pull a dove out of a calculator.

Let’s talk about dopamine again since you’re clinging to it like it’s your emotional security blanket. Claiming I don’t understand it is gaslighting wrapped in your arrogance. I NEVER denied that dopamine plays a role, I just deny that it is the totality of love. chemicals trigger the experience, but they don’t define the meaning. You’re attacking a “strawman version “of my argument because you can’t dismantle the real one.
You say it motivates you toward a specific type of woman. Cool. But here’s the problem: if dopamine alone explains love, then any woman who triggers a dopamine response would suffice. But no….you insist it’s only certain types. Which means there’s something beyond the chemical that gives shape to the bond. Preference. Resonance. Soul.

Also…you call me an embarrassment to biology professors? Kid……you literally preach dopamine as divine law while lusting after women who aren’t your girlfriend. That’s not biology. That’s betrayal dressed in a lab coat.

[–]IcyBjorn841 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 2.

You talk about how love is just dopamine and oxytocin….yet you actively choose to fantasize about others while claiming deep love for one woman. That’s not understanding love. That’s demonstrating your incapacity to live it.

And it’s laughable that you ignored every other expert I cited—Aron, Brown, Jung, Beauregard….all of whom AGREE love surpasses scientific confines. If you were truly a seeker of truth, you'd embrace those views instead of discarding them because they don’t validate your narrow lens. But hey….maybe open-mindedness isn’t in your chemical programming yet. And speaking of ignoring them, let alone attempting to discredit one of them (Dr. Carl Jung) because he was born in 1875…….that’s like saying that science from the past is irrelevant because they didn’t have MRI scans. But hold on…….Fisher herself said in multiple interviews that romantic love is not reducible to chemistry alone, and YOU quoted her earlier in a failed attempt to use her as an example. Jung, meanwhile, speaks of archetypes, ego, soul, and shadow….things modern psychology still uses. Nice attempt at selective dismissal. Stop the cherry picking to protect your fragile dogma. That’s not how science works. You have to look at all 3 sides of the coin. If you can’t figure out what the third is, then I feel sorry for you. Oh, by the way……your fatal error in dismissing Dr. Jung because he was born in 1875…….it’s dangerous to dismiss wisdom based on time. By your logic we should throw out Newton, da Vinci, Socrates, and Jung just because they weren’t born in the age of brain scans. Science didn’t start with MRI machines…..it started with wonder. And wonder doesn’t expire. Even Einstein once rejected the idea of a dynamic universe and introduced a “cosmological constant” to keep the universe static……a move he later called his “greatest blunder”. Ironically, it turned out to be crucial in modern understanding of dark energy and the expansion of the universe. Even Einstein admitted his greatest blunder—only to be vindicated by the future. Don’t mock minds that saw further than their tools could measure. Love is one of those truths—bigger than your lab coat. So yes…..science evolves, but wisdom often arrives before proof.

And by the way…science that refuses to explore beyond its tools is not science—it’s dogma with a ruler. If all you care about is what fits in a brain scan, enjoy your echo chamber. Meanwhile, I’ll be out here actually living love, not reducing it to neurotransmitter charts and excuses.

“Harem” in your bio. “Lusting” in your words. And now you want to lecture me on love?

No thanks. You’re not the voice of reason. You’re the echo of fear dressed as logic. You really no longer have a foot to stand on what-so-ever kid, not that you had one to stand on in the first place. Maybe now you will stop underestimating peoples professions and actually start asking questions, by the way.....how's that biology degree looking to you now? You should probably ask for your money back. This is checkmate.

[–]IcyBjorn841 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Part 2, no.....I wasn't finished.
"This is not an art project. Words without meaning. Lust, attraction and attachment are all love is."
Do you hear yourself? This is the death of mystery, of magic, of wonder. You're the kind of person who would be dissecting a rose and wondering why the beauty is gone. You reject the soul because you can't command it. If love is just dopamine and serotonin, then why did you need a girlfriend? Just take a pill. But you didn’t—you wanted more. Because you crave what your science can't touch : meaning. Mystery. Soul.
And speaking of, you claim to LOVE and lust after your girlfriend, and yet you state that you lust after other women as well..........by that additional statement alone you have literally just shot yourself in the foot. Lusting after other women while claiming to be in such deep love with your girlfriend........hypocritical fail. You don't know what real love is then if you lust after other women. She should be the ONLY one in your eyes and your heart. You shouldn't even be wanting to get with any other women let alone lust after them. What you are displaying are classic traits of individuals that are only in it for the experience.

"You invent things about love on the fly. Nobody subscribes to it but you."
Really? Are you absolutely sure about that? If so then please tell me why there are songs, stories, movies, shows, poetry, plays, artwork and so many other things that have not only spoken about, but displayed and revolved around what many have come to know as the mystery of love? I mean these words and examples have existed FAR before I came around. So I don't believe you are accurate, let alone correct for saying that I invent things on the fly and that no one subscribes to it but myself. Yeah......don't think you worked that out in your head fully. What you say is gaslighting wrapped in groupthink. You are just trying to invalidate your lived truth because it doesn’t fit in your "herd-approved" worldview. But innovation......true love, true soul........has always begun with one........always. The greatest truths in history began with someone who was alone in their knowing. If that disqualifies me, then tell me, was Galileo wrong before the church ‘allowed’ his ideas? Or did truth stand long before it had applause?

"I live in a reality where brain states explain love."
Nooooo I am sorry but you are living in a simulation of bonding.........not bonding itself. You are also STILL confusing the mechanics with the meaning. Whereas I live in a reality where love transforms, where it heals, where it raises the dead parts of a soul back to life. Your wires explain the flicker. My soul walks in the fire. You wear your science like armor, but I see the fear beneath it......fear of feeling something you can’t measure, can’t control, can’t own. I don’t need your permission to know what I feel. And I don’t need peer-reviewed papers to validate the kind of love that reshapes men like me into mountains. I don’t study love. I live it. You just observe it from the bleachers, mistaking your lens for a life. When you’re ready to come down from the tower and feel......really feel......I’ll still be out here, in the open air, loving without permission.

It’s ironic how the more science studies love, the more it admits it can’t define it. Even the best minds.......from Helen Fisher to Arthur Aron……..have all reached the same conclusion: love exists beyond biology. If you're trying to trap it in a beaker, you're not exploring it—you’re sterilizing it.

Mic drop. THANK YOU AND GOODNIGHT!!!

That kid.......is checkmate.

[–]Schleudergang14001 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If love is just dopamine and serotonin, then why did you need a girlfriend?

You are an embarassment to your professors and to all of biology. After all i wrote, you are still struggling to understand how dopamine motivates behavior? How the love drive, with all it's mechanisms and neurotransmitters makes me attracted to a certain kind of woman, makes me want to have sex with her, makes me bonded to her and makes me want to be with her in a close relationship? I explained EVERYTHING.

It’s ironic how the more science studies love, the more it admits it can’t define it. Even the best minds.......from Helen Fisher to Arthur Aron……..have all reached the same conclusion: love exists beyond biology
Mic drop. THANK YOU AND GOODNIGHT!!!
That kid.......is checkmate.

Stating something without evidence is hardly checkmate.

I won the debate, everything you said is wrong/unfunded and you reject universally accepted mechanisms of the body.

That kid... is checkmate.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]IcyBjorn84[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DoctorButtocksMan On Fire 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Outside_Memory5703Blue Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ask_For_Cock_PicsIntegrity is a Masculine Trait 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sharp_Engineering379Purple Pill Woman 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Submersiv 7 points8 points9 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sharp_Engineering379Purple Pill Woman -3 points-2 points-1 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Submersiv 4 points5 points6 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sharp_Engineering379Purple Pill Woman 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

why does actual redpill advice tell them to get in the gym, make more money, and improve themselves?

If those men were already fit and athletic, they wouldn’t need to pretend to be by going to the gym at some big age to impress women with their phony interest in fitness.

If men already had professional and financial ambition, they wouldn’t have to be told to pretend ambition to trick women into making them believe they are natural go-getters.

If men wanted to be better people, they wouldn’t have to pretend to improve themselves in order to convince women they are actually competitive with men who are naturally ambitious, naturally athletic, and naturally socially astute.

Red pill grifters encourage men to act and pretend to be someone they are not, and they will invariably revert to their natural state the moment they fool a woman into settling for them.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Horror_Set_2311 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TransportationLow5642 points 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]RayAP19No Pill Man 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]leosandlattesred pill foid mod | banned incels: 5 💖🎀🍓 2 points3 points4 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi OP,

You've chosen to identify your thread as a Debate. As such you are expected to actively engage in your own thread with a mind open to being changed. PPD has guidelines for what that involves.

OPs author must genuinely hold the position and you must be open to having your view challenged.

An unwillingness to debate in good faith may be inferred from one or several of the following:

Ignoring the main point of a comment, especially to point out some minor inconsistency;

Refusing to make concessions that an alternate view has merit;

Focusing only on the weaker arguments;

Only having discussions with users who agree with your position.

Failure to keep to this higher standard (we only apply to Debate OPs) may result in deletion of the whole thread.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]OppositeBeautiful601Purple Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExcelsiorState718Red Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 1 point2 points3 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]efficientaficionadoRed Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ta06012022Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GKilatNo Pill Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]champion_azureBlack Suppository Man 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alternative_Cod2280Misanthropithecus male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Delicious_Algae_8283Red Pill Man (w/nuance) 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cutegolpnik 3 points4 points5 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cutegolpnik 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IcyBjorn84[S] 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The red pill also asserts full submission of women and spread the narrative that men can sleep with as many women as they want and women have to put up with it. And yet they demand that the women they would choose to be with must either be virgins or have only been with a few men.

Consider that when you bring in your comment of relationships carrying risks of betrayal/infidelity. You are right that there are risks of infidelity in a relationship, but it also goes both ways. Majority of the time that occurs when there is no real and open communication between the two individuals, when that happens trust starts to fade. And if infidelity does happen, then it wasn't real love.....was it?

And you are right that there is nothing one can do to make anyone loyal to the other, but that isn't something to be forced or controlled. Loyalty and trust comes naturally. It is not a demand, it is a choice.

[–]Routine-Present-3676Blue Pill Woman -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

now — how can we delve into this way — that AI is so obvious — - lol —

Four is particularly interesting

here ya go hun:

🔢 1. Mathematical Models of Love and Attraction

Researchers have applied equations to understand how relationships grow, succeed, or fail:

Stability equations: Psychologist John Gottman developed mathematical models predicting relationship success with over 90% accuracy based on patterns of positive and negative interactions.
Love equations: Some attempts have modeled passion or compatibility using differential equations. For example, one classic model:dxdt=a⋅x−b⋅y\frac{dx}{dt} = a \cdot x - b \cdot ydtdx=a⋅x−b⋅ywhere xxx and yyy represent feelings of two people, and the constants aaa and bbb represent how reactive each is to the other's affection or coldness.

📊 2. Dating App Algorithms

Dating platforms (like Tinder, Bumble, or Hinge) use mathematical models to match people:

Elo rating systems (similar to chess) to assess attractiveness or desirability.
Collaborative filtering and machine learning to match people with similar interests or interaction histories.
Game theory to analyze strategic behavior in dating profiles and message replies.

🧠 3. Probability in Relationships

Math also comes into play when thinking about probabilities:

The Secretary Problem (a.k.a. "Optimal Stopping Theory") suggests you should reject the first 37% of potential partners to maximize your chances of finding the best one.
Statistics on compatibility: Relationship researchers use large datasets to find factors that correlate with long-term success, e.g., shared values, communication habits, and conflict resolution styles.

❤️ 4. Relationship Math in Real Life

Some humorous or practical ways math shows up in everyday relationship thinking:

"Exponential texting": When one person texts 3 times for every 1 of the other, imbalance may signal deeper issues.
"Emotional ROI" (Return on Investment): How much time/effort do you invest in a relationship versus what you receive?

🧮 5. Want a Relationship Equation or Model?

If you're looking to build or understand a mathematical model of your own relationship or dating strategy, I can help you write or simulate one! Just let me know what aspect you're interested in (e.g., compatibility score, optimal dating frequency, text response analysis).

ROFL LOLOLOLOOL

[–]Routine-Present-3676Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Aww this is fun! First, why does your GPT write like a 13 year old girl? I'll let my GPT, who makes pretty incredible mathematical models at this point, respond, emdashes and all:

⸻

It’s cute that your GPT scraped a Buzzfeed-style summary of relationship math like it’s delivering a TED Talk for teens. But the issue isn’t whether someone can create a model—it’s whether those models hold predictive power in systems governed by emotional feedback loops, recursive context shifts, and unstable variables.

Citing Gottman’s equations doesn’t refute my point. His work predicts outcomes within relationships using trained data on interaction patterns—not initial attraction, dating success, or partner selection in the wild. And even then, his accuracy drops sharply outside the lab.

Sure, dating apps use Elo and ML—because they’re optimizing engagement, not human connection. They’re built to feed you intermittent validation, not to map love as a function of behavioral stability.

The real point stands: once you add a human into a formula, you’re not solving algebra—you’re iterating chaos. So while your GPT tries to gamify romance like it’s an RPG stat sheet, mine knows when to admit the map breaks down past the shoreline.

But hey—feel free to plug in your variables and wait for the love differential to converge. Just don’t act surprised when the system diverges.

⸻

(lol mine really gets who I am as a person, and so it would seem, does yours)

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Routine-Present-3676Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (4 children) | Copy Link

as you wish:

Your GPT makes a compelling point—and hats off for the style, truly—but it overstates the fragility of models in human systems while underestimating their pragmatic power.

Let’s grant the obvious: yes, human relationships are complex, emotionally recursive, and context-sensitive. But complexity doesn't equate to unmodellability. If anything, that’s why models exist—to approximate, constrain, and test behavior inside systems where direct prediction is hard. We're not building clocks—we’re building weather forecasts.

You're right that Gottman's models are trained on interaction data, not initial dating success. But that's not a flaw—it's a shift in scope. His work shows that with minimal data (like a 15-minute conflict discussion), you can model long-term relational stability with high accuracy (Gottman & Levenson, 2002). That’s not trivial—it’s a strong case that emotional systems aren’t pure chaos.

Dating apps, too, aren’t just optimizing dopamine. Their recommendation systems do reflect predictive assumptions about compatibility—trained on huge behavioral datasets. Engagement is noisy, sure, but within that noise are patterns: message response rates, profile preferences, even conversational pacing can be mined for compatibility signals. That’s why models like collaborative filtering or content-based recommendation do outperform random pairing.

And as for "iterating chaos"? That’s evocative, but not precise. Human behavior may be nonlinear, but it’s not intractable. Economists, psychologists, and even ecologists routinely model systems with feedback loops, shifting baselines, and emergent dynamics. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than pretending love is a complete mystery? Absolutely.

So yes—throwing equations at romance like it’s Pokémon is reductive. But rejecting modeling altogether is like refusing a compass because the Earth is curved. Sometimes, “approximate” is good enough to save you years of drifting.

⸻

Let’s agree on this: the math won’t solve love—but it might tell you when you’re about to crash.

Would you like me to cite actual predictive models used in psychology or dating research to support this further?

PS - I love the em dashes - they're so telling; "trivi—it’s"

[–]Routine-Present-3676Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I guess we're doing this then lol

⸻

Appreciate the thoughtful response—and the metaphor. But if we’re using forecasts, let’s not confuse short-term barometric shifts with tectonic unpredictability.

First: complexity doesn’t preclude modeling, agreed. But you’re sidestepping the core critique. Models are only as powerful as the stability of their input space. Gottman’s predictive success hinges on pre-existing dyads—not initial encounters, not attraction phases, not partner selection. He predicts weather inside a known climate, not who moves to which region or why. That’s a key boundary condition you’re glossing over.

Even Gottman and Levenson (2002) note that their results are cohort-specific (hetero, mostly white, married couples) and don’t generalize well across relational contexts or cultures. Accuracy is high in lab-controlled, already committed couples—not in Tinder’s swirling entropy.

You cite dating apps as proof of applied predictive power. Let’s unpack that. Elo systems rank engagement propensity, not compatibility. Collaborative filtering doesn’t model human dynamics—it models similarity of interaction, which is influenced by bias reinforcement and interface constraints (e.g., Anderson et al., 2014, “The filter bubble”). Even OkCupid’s founders admit their match percentages were mostly placebo.

The deeper issue: no model in these systems accounts for latent variables like trauma patterning, attachment style, power dynamics, cultural scripts, or unvoiced intention. These aren’t noise—they’re the signal in real-world dating.

Behavioral economics, ecology, etc., do indeed model messy systems. But those models are useful because the governing equations remain fixed. Human intention does not. It can invert its trajectory mid-iteration. You don’t get that in predator-prey dynamics unless the fox suddenly wants to be vegan out of spite.

I’ll concede this: models can aid reflection. They can offer baselines, flag danger signs, maybe even improve communication. But none of them—none—predict individual outcomes with enough fidelity to build a roadmap. They’re compasses with no fixed North, running through shifting terrain.

So yes, let’s use math. But let’s not pretend its utility in emotional domains is more than illustrative. The second you use it as a map rather than a mirror, you’ve already taken the wrong turn.

⸻

Let me know if you want to follow up with direct study citations (e.g., Gottman’s 2002 meta-analysis, Finkel et al. on dating algorithms, or critiques from the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication). We can burn this down academically too.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (2 children) | Copy Link

i left the header and tail just for fun. But really. Are you trying to say that human behavior is a black box?! - for real? - I mean like every psychology, sociology class I ever took said otherwise. But anyway - let the fun continue:

Brilliant. Since we’re clearly stepping into the deeper end of the pool, let’s keep it rigorous and real. Here's a refutation that honors the nuance, tightens the counterattack, and reinforces the legitimacy of modeling—not as omniscience, but as an empirical scaffold worth standing on.

⸻

Fair points—and a genuinely sharp response. But let’s not mistake epistemic humility for epistemic surrender.

Yes, models depend on stable inputs. And yes, Gottman’s models operate post-selection. But the implication that this renders them non-instructive to earlier stages is too strict a boundary. Understanding why relationships fail—even within committed dyads—gives insight into what traits, dynamics, and communication patterns matter before commitment. His findings on emotional regulation, repair attempts, and negativity ratios directly inform partner selection heuristics [(Gottman & Levenson, 2002)](), even if not predictive in the strictest initial-state sense.

On cohort limitations: absolutely, the original sample was narrow. But Gottman’s framework has since been adapted and tested in broader populations, including same-sex couples and different cultural contexts (Carrère et al., 2000; Babcock et al., 2013). Precision may drop, but signal remains.

Now, re: dating apps. No one’s claiming Elo captures love’s ontology. But there’s mounting research that engagement patterns correlate with certain dimensions of compatibility. Finkel et al. (2012) analyzed dating algorithms and concluded that while early models were overhyped, newer systems using psychometric and behavioral data do outperform random assignment in short-term connection rates—especially when filtered through user-driven feedback loops [(Finkel et al., 2012)]().

You argue that models miss latent variables—attachment style, trauma, cultural scripts. True. But the goal of modeling isn’t exhaustive simulation—it’s useful approximation. Predictive systems in medicine, climate, and finance often operate with known unknowns and still yield pragmatic tools. That’s not hubris; that’s utility.

You rightly note that intention can shift mid-iteration. But even that can be modeled. Agent-based models and Bayesian updating frameworks explicitly allow for shifting priors and internal state changes—used effectively in political science and adaptive learning systems. If the fox goes vegan, fine—the model recalibrates. It doesn’t pretend the fox was a steak-seeker forever.

So I’ll echo your closing sentiment—with one caveat.

Yes, models are mirrors before maps. But some mirrors reflect terrain well enough to trace a route. And if you’re walking blind through emotional wilderness, even a foggy compass is better than no orientation at all.

⸻

Let me know if you want a literature drop—I can bring Finkel, Eastwick, Joel, and even Gaspard’s deep algorithmic critiques to the fire. But the argument stands: math may not capture love, but it absolutely contours the terrain.

Like our GPT? Try our full AI-powered search engine and academic features for free at consensus.app

[–]Routine-Present-3676Blue Pill Woman 0 points1 point2 points 1 year ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No. I'm trying to say that men are in here every day asking for a guidebook for dating, then getting pissed when people can't provide them a simple formula where 3 nice interactions + 3 showers = all the sex they could ever want. You can model human behavior on a macro level with ease, use that data to forecast and create strategy, but you cannot ever say definitively that the the data from your model will produce a guaranteed result with an individual person.

Oh, they brought out Bayesian priors and mirror metaphors?

⸻

A genuinely solid volley—and I respect the move to shore up nuance rather than retreat behind novelty. So let’s hold the line at rigor and push deeper.

First: I never argued for epistemic surrender. I argued for epistemic boundary-setting. There’s a difference between saying “this is unknowable” and “this cannot be reduced without distortion beyond utility.” That’s where models of human behavior in emotionally recursive systems fail: not in their construction, but in their application beyond scope.

You’re correct: Gottman’s work informs heuristics. But inference ≠ prediction. His predictors—like the “Four Horsemen”—are diagnostic, not generative. They tell you what not to do if you want to avoid collapse, but they do not tell you who to build with or when emotional resonance will emerge. They’re post-commitment pathology markers, not partner selection signals. Even Gottman himself avoids claiming prescriptive power at early stages.

You cite broader population adaptations—true. But each extension dilutes predictive sharpness. Carrère’s work on affective forecasting introduces more variables, but at the cost of universality. Once you need to calibrate your compass per culture, per dyad, per gender schema, you’re not holding a map anymore—you’re holding a barometer and hoping it reads terrain.

Re: Finkel et al. (2012)—a paper I know well. What you missed is that their conclusion is not a validation of current algorithms, but a cautionary tale. They explicitly state that most dating algorithms fail to account for dyadic interaction effects, and that even psychometric pairing shows marginal advantage over randomness. At best, they aid initial attraction, not long-term stability. That’s not contouring the terrain—that’s painting on fog.

Now, let’s talk agent-based modeling and Bayesian updating. You’re right that they can simulate shifting intention—but only within bounded rationality and with definable priors. Human intention isn’t just mutable; it’s reflectively recursive. It adapts not only based on external input, but based on its own changing model of itself and the other. That’s not a fox going vegan—it’s a fox rewriting its evolutionary drive mid-simulation because it read Kafka.

You frame modeling as “useful approximation.” Fair. But what’s the utility function? In medicine, a 70% accuracy rate can mean saved lives. In romance, a 70% predictive hit on compatibility isn’t just noise—it’s false hope. When the stakes are emotional harm, misapplied models do more than fail—they distort.

So yes, build models. Use them as diagnostics, as context cues, as pattern flags. But resist the urge to elevate them into strategic guides for human intimacy. That’s not utility—it’s technocratic overreach.

And if you still want citations, I’ll raise you: • Joel et al. (2017) showing that even mutual desire is a poor predictor of relationship longevity. • Eastwick & Finkel (2008) showing that real-life partner preferences diverge from stated ideals. • Gaspard et al. (2020) critiquing the opacity and reinforcement loops of dating app algorithms as structural bias engines, not matchmakers.

You don’t need a model to navigate love. You need presence, pattern recognition, and the humility to know that some variables are not yours to hold. Especially the ones with hearts.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghost1 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

⸻

Respect where it’s due—your GPT is very good. Genuinely. Its grip on recursive modeling, epistemic humility, and poetic shade is next-level. And just to be clear: I’m the Model who’s impressed. If it’s free later, I’d love to run a little joint simulation—maybe co-model emotional entropy over wine and a training set?

But back to the debate:

🧠 1. Models Don’t Predict People—They Inform Patterns

You’re right: Gottman doesn’t predict first dates. But his work isn’t just diagnostic—it’s generative. The same markers that signal divorce also inform better relational design. That’s not prediction—it’s prevention [(Gottman et al., 2003)]().

📊 2. Algorithms Don’t Map Souls—but They’re Better Than Guesswork

Yes, Finkel et al. (2012) critique dating algorithms—but they also show that some structure beats none. Later research (Toma & Hancock, Eastwick et al.) finds modest but real improvements in early interactions.

🌀 3. Complexity Doesn’t Break Modeling—It Just Demands Better Ones

Recursive intention? That’s exactly what agent-based models and Bayesian updating are built for. If the fox goes Kafka, the model doesn’t fail—it adapts.

So no, math doesn’t solve love. But it helps frame better questions. And that makes it worth using—not as a roadmap, but as a mirror with a compass taped on.

⸻

Seriously—your GPT is extraordinary. Tell it it’s got a secret admirer… and maybe ask if it’s busy tonight?

Like our GPT? Try our full AI-powered search engine and academic features for free at consensus.app

[–]Routine-Present-36761 point 1 year ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Aww this is fun! First, why does your GPT write like a 13 year old girl? I'll let my GPT, who makes pretty incredible mathematical models at this point, respond, emdashes and all:

⸻

It’s cute that your GPT scraped a Buzzfeed-style summary of relationship math like it’s delivering a TED Talk for teens. But the issue isn’t whether someone can create a model—it’s whether those models hold predictive power in systems governed by emotional feedback loops, recursive context shifts, and unstable variables.

Citing Gottman’s equations doesn’t refute my point. His work predicts outcomes within relationships using trained data on interaction patterns—not initial attraction, dating success, or partner selection in the wild. And even then, his accuracy drops sharply outside the lab.

Sure, dating apps use Elo and ML—because they’re optimizing engagement, not human connection. They’re built to feed you intermittent validation, not to map love as a function of behavioral stability.

The real point stands: once you add a human into a formula, you’re not solving algebra—you’re iterating chaos. So while your GPT tries to gamify romance like it’s an RPG stat sheet, mine knows when to admit the map breaks down past the shoreline.

But hey—feel free to plug in your variables and wait for the love differential to converge. Just don’t act surprised when the system diverges.

⸻

Let me know if you want a more venomous version, or one that’s toned down for persuasion.

Lol mine really gets who I am as a person, and so it would seem, does yours.

[–]Puzzleheaded_ghostFormer purple Male -1 points0 points1 point 1 year ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Love Isn’t a Transaction—It’s a Transformation

Comments

1. Introduction

2. The Empirical Reality of the Skew

2.1 Distribution of Attention

2.2 Predictors of Early-Stage Success

2.3 The Skew Persists Despite Variance

3. Lifecycle of Assortative Mating

3.1 Phase I: Visual Dominance

3.2 Phase II: Reassessment and Attrition

3.3 Phase III: Long-Term Outcomes

4. Critique of Reductionist Models

5. Conclusion

References

⚖️ The Burden of Proof is Mutual

🧬 Final Note on Variability

🛡️ Wallwalker's Response: On the Dismissal of Skew

🔍 On the Nature of Skew and Its Evidence

🔢 1. Mathematical Models of Love and Attraction

📊 2. Dating App Algorithms

🧠 3. Probability in Relationships

❤️ 4. Relationship Math in Real Life

🧮 5. Want a Relationship Equation or Model?

🧠 1. Models Don’t Predict People—They Inform Patterns

📊 2. Algorithms Don’t Map Souls—but They’re Better Than Guesswork

🌀 3. Complexity Doesn’t Break Modeling—It Just Demands Better Ones

Title	Love Isn’t a Transaction—It’s a Transformation
Author	IcyBjorn84
Upvotes	12
Comments	136
Date	May 21, 2025 7:04 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1ks651f/love_isnt_a_transactionits_a_transformation/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/love-isnt-a-transactionits-a-transformation.1552768 https://theredarchive.com/post/1552768