WWW.LOVELABONLINE.COM

PLEASE FIND THE ASK LOVELAB PAGE ON THE LEFT.

YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR QUESTIONS AND I WILL WRITE AN OFFICIAL RESPONSE.

OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO POST COMMENTS, AS WELL.

WHAT IS IT

It is an attitude by which to engage in high quality relationships where the two individuals freely enter a social agreement in which they choose to promote the physical and mental well being of the other. If both individuals choose to participate in a relationship of their own free will they are, in a sense, making a tacit social contract. They have weighed the costs against the benefits and they are willing to live with the consequences of that choice.

WHAT OF FIDELITY

However, this only works if both people obey the terms of the contract. For instance, if I agree to enter a monogamous relationship and my partner cheats – this is not libertarian love. Even though both people in this instance are free to do as they please (cheat if you want, leave if you want), this is not a form of libertarian love since the cheater has entered into a contract whereby they have agreed to disengage from extra-pair affairs of their own free will. It is also not libertarian love if I never find out about my partner’s affair. If I enter into a social contract with a partner, based on some perception which he has presented to me, then I am being cheated out of my opportunity to make the right choice for myself when that image is an illusion. This is an indirect way of hindering someone’s liberty – by way of misinformation and deception (a.k.a. FRAUD).

HOW WOULD A LIBERTARIAN LOVE RELATIONSHIP END

In Libertarian love both individuals promote the well being of the other and allow them to develop in ways that they wish. Preferably, the goals of both idividuals are not in conflict. A libertarian love relationship would end if the goals of each person are in conflict to a degree that either is not willing to compromise in order to reduce the conflict of interest. In this sense, the love itself would not end since it was not given based on any expected return, but the relationship would dissolve.

“Windmill windmill for the land Turn forever hand in hand Take it all there on your stride It is TICKIN’, fallin’ down Love forever love is free Let’s turn forever you and me Windmill windmill for the land Is everybody In?”-Gorillaz, “Feel Good, Inc”

Surely, if passionate Love lasted for the time required to raise a dependent young we would not need a legal contract to secure a commitment. Women would be left assured that they would be supported during the vulnerable time of pregnancy and that their children would have the resources to grow up to be independent adults. Men would be left assured that their genes would be passed on without the risk of a reallocation of resources due to infidelity. Of course, women would have this assurance, as well, since infidelity can potentially lead to the allocation of the man’s resources to another woman’s child. I am working on the assumption here that if people are in love they do not cheat. This is not always the case since there are people out there who cheat even if they are in love (some may disagree with me on this). However, marriage will surely not mitigate that risk for those particular individuals so that may be a moot point.

In most people, passionate love lasts a year on an average and begins to decline thereafter. Moreover, the biggest declines are experienced 18 months after the birth of the first child and the honeymoon levels return only after the children have left the nest (if the couple is still together!). Half the couples do not survive through this stage, although it should be pointed out that the maturity of the woman at time of marriage may somehow mitigate this risk (risk declines for college educated women over 23 years of age). This could be due to their better discriminating abilities in choosing the appropriate partner. There are always the 10-15% of that marriage statistic who are an anomaly and do not suffer from this decline. Their marriage satisfaction remains the same or even increases. Nevertheless, for most people passionate love does not last long enough to make it through the particularly vulnerable periods and marriage takes over. Most divorces occur about 7-10 years after the marriage, which is also around the time when the child enters into some sort of school system and thus the woman’s ability to support herself increases. In this sense, although it is not an optimum situation, the marriage has served its purpose.

Marriage is mostly a financially/legally driven institution, since it ensures the protection of the female against a dead-beat dad. No matter how independent and career oriented the woman is before the marriage, there will be a time when she is pregnant and will rely on some sort of support from her partner (emotional, physical, and financial). This period also sets women back in careers where one needs to maintain momentum: a legal career where one may be on a partner track, academic careers where constant publications are important, and careers in medicine where there is a considerable physical and mental strain involved in the necessary steps needed to proceed with the career path. Usually, if the women is to have her first child before the age of 35 (which is physically preferred for both woman and child), then this financial set back will happen at just the most importune time where particularly ambitious careers are concerned (ones in which graduate and post graduate commitment is usually required).

The financial ramifications of marriage deter the man from simply leaving. It ensures that if the man was to leave, there would be financial costs. This makes sense since the woman invests considerable physical/emotional costs in the creation of his progeny and the effort involved in raising the young. Men do not have this cost in producing offspring since they can leave at any time and nearly instantly produce offspring with another female. It is not so easy for the female since it takes a year of effort and there is a biological limit to how many children a woman can have and how late. So there must be something deterring men from simply leaving. In addition, when divorces do occur 7-10 years into the marriage, it is usually the man who is the breadwinner and the woman’s career was somehow interrupted at some point in hers. This means that regardless of the extra effort put into maintaining a career (extra since it is done in spite of the physical and emotional difficulties in maintaining a career while raising children), the woman’s career will necessarily be less developed than it could have been if she did not take the time to give birth. The man does not usually have to make such an investment, and certainly to a lesser extent if he does. And here I would argue against the prenuptial agreement, since it basically defeats the point of marriage in the first place. If a man is to leave a woman during a time when she is just able to resume her career full throttle (given she even has that opportunity), she is usually at a disadvantage. Most laws ensure that, particularly when there are children involved, the man will have to pay for the divorce. Although divorce has such a big financial cost to a man, it also has many advantages. Men remarry more often than women after divorce and thus have the opportunity to go on and have more children, usually with women with whom they have a larger age discrepancy than their first wife. Biologically, this is a great advantage to them. It is also in line with the fact that the biological advantages usually go to the men who are able to acquire and disperse the most resources. The men who are able to financially withstand a marriage, its consequent offspring, and the subsequent divorce can have the evolutionary reward of not only continued reproduction, but also diversify their gene pool with a variety of women (see previous post on The Modern Alpha Male). Men are also said to benefit from married life physically. They live longer if married, are healthier throughout the duration, and have more access to regular sex.

With the rising divorce rates, many people are wondering if marriage is becoming outdated. As one can see, as long as the women experiences economic disadvantages incurred during pregnancy, there will be a need for financial security. As more women are becoming independent, educated, and career oriented despite all this, the divorce rate will continue to climb unless it becomes leveled off due to another phenomenon.

For instance, some scientific advances may drastically change the structure of the social contract. Many of the costs of marriage to women are incurred because of the ticking biological clock which forces women to have children before a certain age. For instance, say women could easily have children at 40 or 45. By that time, ones career may have blossomed and there would be sufficient savings to care for a child without the financial help of a man. The emotional support would still be optimum, but it would certainly diminish the extent to which people are together based on needs rather than desire and emotional fulfillment. This balance in power between men and women could also lead to more egalitarian relationships, which are happier on average. One may say that an older woman could have a harder time securing a desired man at such an age, but I believe that such an advance would be followed by a drastic cultural shift of what we consider desirable traits. This can take a long time to materialize, but I think the following changes would occur.

Men will be more apt to go for older women. Most men want a woman in her childbearing years, whether consciously or not, since they are biologically conditioned to want this. With new plastic surgery, beauty products, and physical fitness opportunities women are able to look younger than they are and this trend will continue. If a woman can look the part, this will take care of the subconscious processes that are driving this selection in men. The added fertility advantage will make an older woman desirable in every other sense, as well. She will have emotional maturity, will be able to offer upward economic mobility for the couple, will have the added sexual experiences to be skilled in that department, the added sophistication due to opportunities in cultural experiences that age offers, and will have developed herself in many other ways to have become a more desirable partner.

Women will be more apt to go for younger (but not too much younger) men. Men still take a while to mature to the point where they are ready to raise a family and this trend will continue. However, men have the same fertility risks as women even though it is not as accelerated…or advertised. Men’s ability to produce healthy sperm decreases after the age of 35. Although men can produce sperm much later than women can produce eggs, there is greater risks of fragmented and damaged DNA. This means that a man can fertilize an egg while older, but the child may have risks of disorders such a schizophrenia, etc. and so it is not as desirable. We assume here that the fertility advance would only be for women and so men would now have the pressure to not only be successful but also do so at a younger age. Since women will now have less pressure to marry for resources, they will be able to choose men more based on gene-fitness and emotional factors. Physical fitness and symmetry will become more valued; a sense of humor, creativity, and emotional openness may become more selected for since it will prove to be most desirable to a woman who wants an equal partner with whom she can enjoy herself.

Sounds unbelievable? Look at celebrities! The women look much younger and have the resources to sustain a later pregnancy (although not as robust as that of a scientific egg renewal proposal) and they also have the financial security most women do not. You see women like Halle Barry and Demi Moore choosing young and handsome men who make for great companions.

This is also an example of what may happen to marriage if these opportunities were the trend for most of society!(links to references will be added at a later time)

Current research points to the negative qualities of high testosterone men as romantic partners, husbands, and fathers.

Why would women want that?  Social remifications aside, high testosterone usually means great sperm.

The visual markers of an alpha male are the physiological traits that scream high testosterone to the opposite sex.  We have also been biologically conditioned to find many of  these qualities physically or sexually attractive

Cheekbones and a defined Jaw Line

broad shoulders

heavy muscles in the arms and legs

capacity to store fat around the stomach area – (not attractive in itself, but women may prefer that to a guy with big hips)

deep voice

Societal Markers of an alpha male are the culturally derirable consequences of high testosterone males:

Women have been socially conditioned to find these qualities important, since they signify a man’s ability to provide and support during the vulnerable stage of pregnacy and raising a dependent young.

Power,

Wealth,

Status

The Catch-22, however, is that the men who have been able to acquire the power, wealth, and status due to the interplay of their physiology (high testosterone) and socioeconomic factors (education, good upbringing) are also the ones who seem to be more likely to display less commitement to use these resources for a long term partnership and parental investment.  Or at least so it seems…

references:

(Testosterone and Men’s Marriages Alan Booth, James M. Dabbs, Jr. Social Forces, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Dec., 1993), pp. 463-477)

Below are some examples of real modern day alpha males:

Former President Bill Clinton

Actor, George Clooney

Hugh Hefner, the ultimate Playboy

Humans are not a pack of wolves and so our social hierarchy is not quite as distinct as alpha, beta, omega. There are certainly degrees of where men fall on the hierarchy scale and what determines who is in charge. In the past, during the hunter and gatherer days, this may have been determined by physical strength. In our modern world, power is often determined by socioeconomic status. In this sense, it is not enough to be aggressive and physically superior, one must posses a certain level of intelligence/education to persevere. However, men’s status still seems to be very much affected by Testosterone levels. So it seems, the modern alpha male needs to have a combination of these factors to be considered as such.

Inherent Qualities of an ALPHA MALE

Nature

high testosterone levels- linked to competitiveness and dominance in men; the need to influence and control; aggressive tendencies; the ability to dominate social situations

Nurture

Education and Socioeconomic status: this will determine what the outlet will be for the high testosterone. High testosterone males tend to hold dominant social positions in prisons and mental institutions, but culture can make the difference between them leading a gang or an organization.

perseverance coupled with a me first attitude – An alpha male will not shy away from dangerous conflict, but only because he believes he can win. If the win is not possible, the alpha male is first and foremost a survivor. He does not indulge in self sacrifice or martyrdom. The ultimate goal is to dominate, as well as pass on his genes.

Below are fictional alpha males from my favorite shows, past and present. They are characterized by their professional success, social dominance, pragmatic intelligence, and aversion to monogamy.

The protagonist Don Draper (played by John Hamm), in the AMC series MAD MEN set in early 1960′s New York City, is a brilliant ad man who commands respect from men and maintains affairs in spite of his picture perfect family life.

Bill Henrickson (played buy Bill Paxton), in HBO’s BIG LOVE, is a Mormon polygamist who juggles three wifes, seven children, a home improvement store, creepy in-laws, and a gambling business.

Brian Kinney (played by Gale Harold) on Queer as Folk is the epitome of sex appeal for men and women alike on this Showtime series. He is another brilliant ad executive; Brian is confident, promiscuous, and a self made millionaire.

references for articles detailing the links between testosterone and behavior:

(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DF1438F934A25754C0A966958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=print)

(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DF1438F934A25754C0A966958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=print)

That way, if I am dissapointed, I can be certain it was my fault.

In the context of what I was learning about aporia in my philosophy class, as well as my other critical thinking and logic classes, I was perplexed how having skepticism about such a complex issue as declaring war was seen as a weakness. Even the scientific method praised the search for disconfirming evidence.

The reason I find aporia to be so important is that I believe it to be a staple of a thoughtful mind. The youtube clip below illustrates my point:

“In Plato’s Meno (84), Socrates describes the purgative effect of reducing someone to aporia: it shows someone who merely thought he knew something that he does not in fact know it and instills in him a desire to investigate it.”

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aporia

This is not to say that Bill O’Reilly will go and investigate this matter further; the aporia is exhibited only by Dave Letterman of the two debaters. This brings me to my next point.

The reason that doubting oneself is important, as I mentioned earlier, is that it is a crucial part of the critical thinking process. If you are open minded to the possibility of contrary evidence to your present schemas, then you will thoroughly examine this evidence and give it the weight it deserves. This further allows a person to actually modify their set beliefs in order to accept the incoming contrary evidence. Jean Piaget called this accommodation, which combined with assimilation to form the adaptation process (in other words – learning).

However, it sure seems some people are better at this than others. I consider the political equivalent of this to be liberalism. The word has become somewhat perverted in our time due to constant political propaganda of equating this viewpoint with big government, loose morals, and the recent weakness of the Democratic party. It is no such thing.

Interestingly enough, Nature Neuroscience just came out with an article which correlates liberalism and conservatism with neuronal activity in the brain. An area called the anterior cingulate shows differences in liberals vs conservatives.

“Political scientists and psychologists have noted that, on average, conservatives show more structured and persistent cognitive styles, whereas liberals are more responsive to informational complexity, ambiguity and novelty. We tested the hypothesis that these profiles relate to differences in general neurocognitive functioning using event-related potentials, and found that greater liberalism was associated with stronger conflict-related anterior cingulate activity, suggesting greater neurocognitive sensitivity to cues for altering a habitual response pattern.”

source: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nn1979.html

In other words, liberals are better at the accommodation part of learning than conservatives. When faced with evidence that is contrary to their established beliefs they are more likely, due to genetic differences, to modify their representations of reality in order to accept the new data.

It is no wonder why conservatives, more than liberals, represent the religious viewpoint. It seems to me that religion relies on adherence to dogma, sometimes contrary to new information which disproves the very principles on which these beliefs are based. It is also no wonder that liberals are known for their social perspective of egalitarianism (gay, minority, and women’s rights movements) despite a history which is dominated by suppression of these ideas.

I should add that I am not trying to disparage the conservative political viewpoint. I have made it known in my previous posts that I ardently support Ron Paul for presidency, who considers himself a libertarian conservative. I understand people’s qualms with abortion (although I do not agree with them pushing this opinion to be expressed in legislation); I also think some other conservative perspectives, like on immigration and welfare, warrant consideration.

I am simply denouncing “the conservative mind”, which does not allow itself to adapt.

…leads us to the Neuron.

A friend of mine recently heard the Dalai Llama give a speech in Barcelona, Spain.  Mr. Llama emphasized that the way to achieve happiness and inner tranquility is through love and compassion.  I have written about love before, particularly the sort of love that the Dalai Llama would very much approve of: the kind of love which focuses on giving; it is a love that is composed of knowledge, respect, care, and effort.  I mentioned that I would touch upon care and effort at some point and I think it is important to note that care and effort combine to form passion, whereas knowledge and respect combine to form friendship.

care + effort = passion

Without genuine care, our hard effort becomes more of a chore.  Have you ever had a dead-end job that you worked very hard at, yet it never gave you any sort of fulfillment? Without effort, care is simply the attention we give to an object/subject.  We can have affection for it, an interest in it, but without effort there is no energy exerted and nothing sacrificed.

knowledge + respect = friendship

For the purposes of discussing the search for happiness, I’d like to focus on compassion as an integral part of contentment. Compassion is simply empathy that is coupled with the desire to help the other.

empathy + effort = compassion

This makes a lot of sense when we look at our previous equation of care and affort.  When we have empathy for someone, we care about them in addition to identifying with them in a vicarious way.  We feel what they feel.  Since empathy encompasses care, then we can agree that compassion encompasses passion.  In addition, I do not believe you need to identify with someone in order to CARE about them.  This would explain how psychopaths can love just like the rest of us, although how they express this love can be somewhat different and may lack the understanding of the object’s needs.

Empathy, like love, is a product of evolution.  These are both necessary aspects of our survival.  Love is essential in the sense that it secures reproduction and the raising of a dependent young.  Empathy is essential for many reasons.  It occurs through the action of mirror neurons which are capable of initiating a response in us by firing away from mere observation of an event.  For example,  watching a person scratching their head, we actually initiate a similar scratching of the head response in our minds (as if we were doing it).  In this way we are able to anticipate another’s actions, as well as sympathize with their pain.  Both skills are important for basic survival, as well as for social success.  Appropriately, these mirror cells gained the nickname of “The Dalai Llama neurons”.

It is important to note that neither passion nor compassion can occur without the addition of EFFORT.

Effort occurs anytime we exert our physical or mental energy and it seems to be the common thread in the two equations.  I am a firm believer that happiness cannot be achieved without diligent effort and that hard work always pays off. All the technicalities aside, I strongly agree that directing our efforts toward others through care and empathy  will lead to a certain fulfillment.  I don’t think this is the only way to be fulfilled, though.  Directing our efforts and care towards an idea can be very fulfilling, as well.  For instance, having passion for what you do can be very exciting and brings much satisfaction to men in particular.  However, I do believe that ultimate happiness lies in the personal exchange of love.