Helen Fisher has the broadest study of relationships. She is an Anthropologist and Biologist who has studied over 80 different cultures looking for the universals of relationships. This is a discussion of her work.
Here's what we discussed...
Welcome to honest talk about heartbreak, dating and relationships, relationships, the podcast helping you navigate your path to happy ever after with your host, Rob McPhillips. So tonight, we were talking about the work of Helen Fisher and Helen Fisher talks about relationships as being life's greatest prize. And so we talked about. The various formats of relationships, whether they were monogamous, whether they were, is it natural for us to be monogamous? Is promiscuity natural?
What's the like? What what format of relationship works? How do our narratives affect the way that we relate? And. How does the history of patriarchy and social control, how does that affect our relationship and essentially what we were trying to work out with which is which comes first, like the nature or nurture. And of course, both nature work within a context of nurture. OK, all right. So let's start tonight. So the topic tonight is life's greatest prize.
And so this is really what Helen Fisher talks about. She says that. Life's greatest prize is finding a mate, and it's the way that we have children, it's the way that we have companionship. And so we'll talk through all aspects now. Handfish work is probably the broadest of all the like. There's loads of books on relationships, but. They although, you know, like you got five love languages, which is probably one of the best selling, which is basically communication, you've got the government, which is about their shared house model.
You've got lots of other people that talk about relationships. We talked about stand talking before, but that's attachment theory. So they all talk about a small section of it. Whereas what Helen Fisher has done is she's an anthropologist and biologist. And so she's looked from like she goes back to 21 million years ago as to climate changes, as to, you know, that caused changes in. Primates that led to all the way that we interact today, so I mean, Herberg so why him?
Why her, why we stret, why we love. So what I want to do to start with is because they are so, so broad. I was looking at, you know, what are the questions we can put in the breakout rooms and this so much. So what I would like you to do is put in the chat box any particular questions that you would like to cover. So really what? So to give you some idea, just as a hands up, he's read the blog post that summarizes it.
OK, and so if you can write any questions that you have from that or anything you'd like to talk about tonight, we'll go from there. So if you knew down the bottom there's a chat box and you can write in there. Anything that you're interested in talking about? OK, so just and then we'll start tonight. So I'm just going to give you some housekeeping, so. What we're here for really is a safe place to explore, a safe place to explore ideas, to discuss relationship ideas and to come away with.
Some perspective that helps us in our relationships away from here, if you can if you can have your video on, so it just helps people see who they're talking to, especially when you go into the breakout rooms. Now, the discussion here is the audio is recorded and so you can listen to any meetup that you haven't attended, but the breakout rooms are private. So in the breakout room, you in a small group and it's just a chance to to talk because in the main room, we can't all get a chance.
Not everyone's comfortable talking to everyone else. Okay.
So right, so what we're going to do is we're going to discuss some topics, we're going to go breakout rooms to discuss them privately and come back and share one couple of bits of housekeeping is.
One of the first eral was asked a couple of meet ups ago about how he kept faith in dating in the face of. Failure, and he he was kind enough to share down his ideas, and so there's a blog post Woodchopper in the chat later, if you haven't had a chance to see it, and he's here to answer any questions so we can bring that up if anyone has anything to say in terms of etiquette. We have one person talking at a time, and if you have something that you want to contribute, then just put your hand up and if your camera's off, you can put your in.
I think it's some reactions, isn't it? You can put your hand up participants for you. Okay, so everyone's been hit by default just to block out background noise, if you want to jump in just a minute yourself or hand up. Okay, so the idea of monogamy is. I forgot the central idea is this one, yeah, one spouse, one spouse, that's it. So the idea of monogamy is one spouse, so.
From looking at. All of history and. The nature of relationships depends on the culture that they live in, so patriarchal relationships are very different from hunter gatherers and she talks about that. She talks about basically the 10000 years since we became agricultural.
We from hunter gatherers to farmers is really about.
Both men and women needed each other and members particularly needed because of the weight of the plow. And so this is basically where patriarchy came from because men had men were needed more. And so when you look at patriarchy is really. Catering to men's fears, it's controlling women, it's controlling the narrative, and so. Making so there's been so when you look at. Like the essential, essential evolutionary goals are, when you look at evolutionary psychology, the goals are for a man to perpetuate his genes and for a woman to ensure the safety of his children.
So. Every woman pretty much knows. That her children are has no man can really be sure. And so when you look at. Taking away money, independence from women, and that's really about. Limiting access, their access and their freedom to. To basically cheat so that the man knows his children, that his children and his OK, so one.
So one so that's really where monogamy in the patriarchy has generally been, not unless men had the resources, when men had the resources, it was only about like in cultures where polygamy, multiple wives is is available to something like five to 10 percent of men who have the resources. And she uses the story. A lot of she talked to a Negaunee man who had three wives, I think, and she said, well, how many wives would you like?
He said, none. And basically, she talks about the problems of jealousy because while you can. Okay. I think we need to backtrack to the central premise of Helen Fisher is that there are three wives. There's the sex drive. There's the romantic drive and there's deep attachment. And so what she shows from her brain. The neuroscience research is that they operate on different. Different aspects. So they're driven by different hormones. But she says all three of them are cool.
They come from the like the reptilian brain, the cool brain stem. So they're as important to us as. Hunger as first, and so he says that they're equally. Equally important, however, they work independently of each other and so we can find someone attractive and be sexually attracted to them. But the Rachmat, so she talks about, OK, so the sex drive is basically testosterone driven and so tested testosterone and estrogen. I think it is so that works on lust.
The romantic drive. Is. I can't remember which Doberman and the romantic drive is about. Focusing on one person, it's focusing your attention on one person and then a deep attachment she proposes is an idea, is a mechanism to attach parents, which seems to be for about three or four years, because when she looks historically at relationships and she looks even like way back in the past that there tended to be, she says all societies had a form of divorce.
It didn't used to have any stigma or shame to it. It was just like they're not happy together. And about a third, probably about a third of couples would divorce and they would just but they would always remarry, which is why she says it's an instinctive drive and.
So those three work independently of each other, which is why. Why we. Why we why there's so much infidelity and she looks back and she says there's always been infidelity and it used to be quiet, like she she gives examples of cultures where they sort of turn a blind eye to it, sort of like Italy and. Where unless it was blatant in their face, they just accepted that they had other partners. So. Am I making clear does anyone have any any comments or.
But the discussion, more or less, this ignores matriarchy. Yeah, make sure it's. It deals with it, it deals with the issue of infidelity in a way in a different way. You can you talk a bit more about that?
OK, like, for example, that group of people, that tribe I can't remember the name in China near the border with Nepal and Tibet. I think it is they have something called a walk in marriage. And the men don't live with the women and the women. The children belong to the village because sometimes they don't even know who their fathers are. And the men have to be invited to spend the night with the woman and at her place and hence the walking, because then he walks back home to his mother every morning in the morning and it can be a different mind all the time.
And they're all they're all OK.
The men don't fight each other in terms of jealousy over the particular woman, because I suppose those who are in favor would probably also have many partners, but it seems to work out and the children belong to everybody in the village. So they're all parents. Of all the children and you know, hmm. Yeah, there are cultures where there is a cultural comment. Which one it is, but I believe that when a woman is pregnant, she will try and mate with.
All the men in the village that have characteristics that she she wants her child to have, and I believe that they all contribute to the child. And so someone who's intelligent, someone who's a great warrior, someone who's kind, someone who's this. And so there's also the idea that.
Which is one of the reasons they say, like, why do women was like, why do women cheat? Or I'm part of it is that they are protecting their children. If if everyone knew his father, who was the father of a child and they were rivals for powerful resources in that tribe, they could be killed, which is one of the reasons why. Monogamy is what Helen Fisher says, monogamy is basically the way that we work, because while we can be poly, poly, polygamy, polyamorous or have different arrangements, we haven't evolved past jealousy.
And it's those basic. So when she talks about relationships where there were multiple and she does talk about multiple husbands, will they that's that's a lot rarer there.
There's like children being poisoned, his wives fighting each other constantly. And so. It just seems to complicate things, so her view is that. The best the one that works best is monogamy, although she talks about because we want that commitment, so it's commitment, but also we've planned clandestine affairs. And. I read a really good book, actually is called Sex at Dawn, and it was recommended by Sarah Pasko, actually a comedian, and yeah, she was likening human beings to saying that we were closely aligned to bonobos.
But it was it was quite interesting at looking at the polyamorous, um, aspect of it from an anthropological point.
Yeah, yeah. I mean, usually, you see, I think one of the problems is that because we've had 2000 years of Christianity and I mean, we I'm talking having come from a Western society, which is mostly Christian in more of, you know, the culture. And so what's happened is sex has become stigmatized and shamed. And so we look at. Monogamy as being moral. Whereas she's not saying that at all, because if you look at different societies, they'd have different arrangements and the arrangements, determine the arrangements and determine basically by the culture, which is determined by the environment and the situation of the people.
So we can have relationships in all kinds of ways. And that's basically practical, but. Predominantly, it's one man, one woman, and it doesn't mean one man, one woman for life, she talks about there being a three or four year high, which is like the attachment stage. And after that. It's kind of like the high point and I think the problem. With that is because we don't have a. Mechanism for dealing with relationships past that up till then.
I don't think we have so she's very positive about relationships, she talks about, you know, the agricultural thing and now women are increasingly getting their independence. So we're now reverting back to pre agricultural because what's happened with the industrial revolution is that you've separated resources from the relationship because a husband and wife had to stay together because if one left, the other couldn't cope and one had to leave with nothing because you couldn't separate farm. Whereas now when you have, you got to work, you earn your money, you have resources that can be separated.
So monogamy is one monogamy as one spouse. So it can be one at a time, so you're like lifelong monogamy would be. Yeah, so whether it's staying together forever or serial monogamy. OK, so. Pete, I'm not sure did I answer that question or is there any more? You know, like when you said about sorry to go back, hi, my name's Sarah. Hi, guys. You said about that a man needs to know who their child is.
I think you made a pretty good point about the woman. Always knows, obviously, where you know her child, but the man might think that the child is someone else's. But that is not just that does not correlate just with why men need to dominate the woman. The reason why a man historically needed to dominate a woman wasn't just to do with that. That issue was to do. You're talking about an insecurity in the man and a lack of trust in the relationship, whereas the reason why women were dominated historically was a multilayered I mean, how long if you go.
But it's to do with power and control society. And historically, a woman was dominate it because of power and control. And I still think to some extent that is true politically. If you look at the political background that we're living in, 80 percent of the houses of parliament is made up by man. Whereas in New Zealand I've lived in New Zealand, that's what I know. It's about 70 percent of women that they are in parliament and culturally New Zealand.
Is it really like women have really respected, you know, it's like much more equal in terms of life. It's not even about men and women. It's about who are you as a person, not a man or woman. But he saw you as a person. You know, I think we're all unique and it's not about monogamy or monogamy that it's like everybody's got their own individual needs in society, everybody's individual. And it's only society that wants to brand us all with the same colour or the same idea.
And we're not we're all unique individuals and we've all got our own attributes and our own needs. We've all got you know, we've all got Aroney Tuvan way.
Hmm. Absolutely. I'm interested in if you can say briefly, like the what motivates like what is the need for power and control? Because when I.
Yeah, you tell me what what I heard not saying that I don't like men, but I, I don't like the inequality of power. And I think a man's desire to dominate a woman historically is because of their insecurity. It's like I think like to take on a spiritual level. I think we're all here to learn on a spiritual level. And I think we all we all choose to be here and we've all bring our own insecurities, whether it be jealousy, hate, revenge, power and all the other beautiful attributes as well.
But I think it's beyond just an economic like I dare. I think when you meet somebody, you connect on a soul level. And with with that comes all that crap as well, all their insecurities or and I think the Torricelli a man wants a woman to absorb all his insecurities energetically. I think women are a lot more spiritual. God, sorry if this is going to be PC because I respect all the guys here, but I think women seriously are very spiritual and we're the receivers and we receive all of that, like, stuff that men can own.
And it's like the shadow side of a man. Cole Young talked about the shadow and the man. And it's like the women receive all of this crap.
I mean, we're not just, you know, just to just to balance out the argument. I think there's often whether it's.
Men, women or different races. So you've got me two and you've got Black Lives Matter, and basically what you've got is you've got a culture that has enabled one to dominate. And what you'll often find in in the media and in the Black Lives Matter is that there's an equal desire to. Not not to dominate, but it's like you've had your time, it's half time and so. You know, like so when you're talking, you know, when you say men have done what men have done that because they had the ability but I don't know, it's consciousness.
As I was saying, it is not just economic. It's like the level of consciousness within your being, within your mind, within your soul. It's like, you know, men have got a lot to work out maybe in enabling themselves to express themselves in a relationship. Because although does give you a specific example, really, all the men I've gone out with in my life, I've never been able to say I'm really jealous about that. They they act out that crap.
I'll give it to you energetically. But they don't actually say I am actually really jealous about that. They push their shit onto you. I try to make it clear as I can, but is that okay?
So I look at that and I see that men and women have been given different roles through patriarchy. Some men have been told that they have to be the leaders of the House. They have to be strong in control. They can't show weakness. So what that means is that men aren't able to say, I don't know, I'm dead, I'm vulnerable and. So I think we have to separate from what originally started it and the behavior that the culture has then led us to.
Some people are able to look beyond what they're given and look beyond the paradigm to say if you say if the society says you've got to repress your feelings, some people can go well. No, I'm know. I'm choosing to do it my way.
Yeah. Yeah. There's always going to be those people that that can. I think we're all here.
To because we've gone beyond the default and we're look right, I'm sorry, I am generalizing, but what I was saying is that as somebody that like so if you if you've been oppressed, like, say, you know, if you're a minority, you've been oppressed, course you're going to be like a jack in a box coming out of the you that energy wants this repressed down. It means it's like a pendulum. It needs to go the other way.
So you saying Black Lives Matter is there there is that dominant. They're not. You know, I get what you mean. Hang on. I'm just going to finish a minute. You don't get exactly what you meant. However, like a pendulum, for every action, there's an equal and equal reaction, equal and opposite reaction. So of course, that can, of course, one of always hard. That's a natural phenomenon. It's not just a lie.
Well, two wrongs don't make a rally, Bauscher. It's like if you've been repressed, your voice needs to be heard. And I think women are still repressed. I really believe that I get it right because I'm pretty interested in human like I study. I'm a psychologist. Right. If you study human behavior, if you put a ring full of men and women in a room, the man will want to dominate that. That most of the time, 80 percent of the time, the man will want to dominate every single time.
That is true.
OK, just Markus's is very patiently.
I just want to bring it back to what you were saying earlier about. Like hormones, like testosterone, because I can remember. Watching the program a few years ago where there was a woman who was undergoing a gender reassignment process, which she was then going on artificial testosterone injections, and she said. The one thing she found is and she started to have the testosterone and she her body became more male, she actually physically found it harder to cry. So actually, there is actually a physical chemical thing going on there rather than so much it being a choice that, oh, men don't show their emotions or whatever it is actually physically where we're kind of primed to be that way.
And I think also the thing of being dominating testosterone is typically like a sort of an aggressive thing, like the more testosterone somebody has, the more aggressive they're likely to be.
So. So I've heard.
I mean, I'm not an expert, but so there is there is something there that's kind of like perhaps hardwired. So I just think that's interesting. Yeah, I think you make a good point there, because I think that I look at that. I look at people and I think given the same genetics, environment, culture, background, temperament and all the things that have happened, I think we would all do the same thing. So it. Yeah, so.
So, yeah, you change the testosterone and testosterone amplifies any trait. So there are equal number of boys and girls born. And yet, by the time I reach 1821, there's less men and it's because testosterone amplifies. And so what that does is if they have any kind of sickness or flaw in the genes amplifies it. So they have that disease and the those get weeded out.
So, you know, young boys die more, plus the testosterone. They have more accidents. So, yeah, I think that's relevant that I think one of the things that's really powerful from looking at Helen Fisher is showing how important biology is when we look so much a culture. And yeah, I think that's what you were really saying. Well, I can attest to the effect of testosterone because my testosterone levels went through the roof. I'm telling you, it was higher than any man because of the medical condition.
No, seriously, it was my doctor was she said this is unbelievable.
And I knew what it was doing to me because I was I would just snap on a dime. I was aggressive. I felt it. I knew I knew it was happening. Things that I would tolerate, I became very intolerant of. And I remember I had to have an operation and the day after. I started to feel different immediately, and when I had my next test, my testosterone levels had gone right back down, all the way down, and I felt different.
It makes you feel it makes you behave differently. And it's also interesting how. I mean, these are all big generalizations, but I was also reading about how the differences between how men and women communicate with each other and says that usually when women are talking to each other, they usually face to face reading each other's facial expressions, whereas what often happens in men is they'll sit side by side. They're not facing each other because they'll be more inclined to sort of do a task together or watch something together or something that's more that more like they're sort of on a team together doing something.
I mean, it's a generalization.
But there's also the other thing is there's also things that. If if you go to them, if you go to a woman. I'll try and explain this. If a woman comes to you with a problem, she wants sympathy for man, severe problems is problems. You want solutions. So then the same is true. If you go to a man with your problems, he'll try and fix the problems that if you go to a woman with your problems, she'll empathize with you and connect with you on an emotional level.
Again, it's a broad generalization, but it does seem to be the case. And I, I find that say like if my mom comes to me with complaining about something straight away, I want to fix it and I can't rest until I've actually solved the problem. And sometimes she just literally wants me to sympathize with the fact that she's having a bad day or something. And I, I sort of being task orientated. I just want I just want to get to the bottom of it.
And I think I wonder whether biologically which is why it's like that.
Very different, perhaps some more, the kind of task oriented versus emotional connection kind of thing, by focusing on the task, you skip the emotional bit if it saves you from connecting on the emotional level.
Yeah, but I don't even think we we think of it like that. I just think we go there because it's naturally natural to go there. The fact that we get the emotional there is a side effect rather than an intention, you know, it's just that's just the way it goes.
But actually, when I think it's learned in a way, especially if you if you are in an environment where you have a father who is like that and uncles and that's the you know, you're conditioned to think that that's how men respond. So you're right in a sense that you you probably don't even think about it, but you have been conditioned subconsciously because that's how you see the adults deal with it.
You know, as you hear, there is an element of sort of partly nurture, partly nature.
Yeah, it it's hard to separate because, I mean, men used to hunt and shoot hunt side by side. And that's the reason given that we don't men don't like eye contact because you can't you be quiet for long periods of time you'd focus on. So I mean, I think Hellfish talked about back in the days of the hunting men would bring back to me, but that would only be half the male because, I don't know, bring back me every three or four days, whereas a woman would provide most of the male.
So she had the same independence.
So in some cultures, I don't want to be devil's advocate, but I've read about a lot of cultures where the woman is the hunter and the man is the one, the artistic one that stays at home and does all the cooking. And that works really, really well. So it depends on the culture, doesn't it? Like what?
What I was talking about was in terms of evolution, in terms of thousands of years of behavior, but that is so if you take it as affiliation, why is it that some cultures at the same time were on doing completely different things, that doing the opposite? So that tells me that if you take the whole global the whole global cultures all over the world, it's not just one biological reaction. It's like it can't just be biology because lots of cultures are different.
You get me it's not just biology is there is biology.
I think it's I think its biology within a context. So I'm saying it's make it clearer.
Right. What I'm saying is, though, the women can't because we're talking about women like to be empathize with men don't notoriously don't talk face to face, head on and read gesticulations. They go, they talk. So I decide, do I go hunting? And I was thinking, as you were saying, that, well, actually women hunt, too, but so is it just a biological thing? That's quite clear on making it quite clear what I'm saying.
Right. It's not just biology because women hunt and they can talk to each other face to face and side to side. So it's not just biology. I think a lot of it is power and control that a man feels like they don't want to face a woman head on.
I don't think that I think the situation is it with any broad category, you've got overlap. So if you're always going to have you're always going to have men are more feminine than some women in some men are more feminine than the average woman and some women are more masculine than the average and possibly masculine.
Or is it is it why have we got like is it masculine and feminine? Like, it's so it's embedded in the culture. So in this culture that I was reading about, all the women hunted, it wasn't just the masculine woman that hunted. It was like all the women hunted in the men, the male, and then said, well, why? Why made that? Why I'm talking about that is because I'm questioning is it biology? The man hunts and then, you know, talks to the man.
Fate doesn't talk to people face to face.
Well, obviously, women have the ability to hunt. So if the culture requires them to hunt, they have the ability to do that. It's not saying that, oh, only men can hunt and women cannot hunt.
Oh, I think men don't talk to women face to face because they because of power and control, not because it goes back to evolution when. They were hunting, and I don't agree with that whatsoever. I think men don't talk to women eyeball to eyeball because they're scared. And I don't mean all men are scared. I mean, I really respect men. But I'm saying I think there's a kind of a really unspoken sense. There is power still in society where a man doesn't see a woman as an equal human being, eyeball to eyeball.
Where does that power come from then?
Yeah, I don't know, it comes from a sense of like inadequacy or some kind of like not feeling good enough, which is a shame because I think men are good enough. But there's a kind of emotional insecurity that I'm not going to come up to pass, so I'm going to dominate you instead. And I think that's a shame.
So let me let me just bring in area where had his hand up. I just want to ask a question just before all of us are saying they are trying to dominate or control.
I mean, you know, I don't want to look at this now, but either we are saying that they are aggressive in this case.
I suspect they will look at you in the eye of to stir you down, because that's all we are saying. They are actually feeling totally inadequate, in which case you will find them acting normally with male partners so they don't have that kind of you know, they put it on. Is that what you're saying?
Because no, don't make it more clear on the spot a more of an emotional level. Get you know, if someone's going to be aggressive, they would really look at you fiercely and eyeball you and moan about spiritually, looking at you right in the alley and seeing you as a person, seeing you beyond the flashlight, seeing your soul might sound a bit like hippy dippy, but I'm not about seeing somebody's soul to soul, regardless of gender, race or efforts like that takes a lot of balls to see someone in the cell, to look at someone in the eye and say, I see you, I accept you and I love you.
That takes a lot of balls. That takes a lot of balls.
OK, so if you are saying that you see a woman as a person and without the prejudices that are attached, perhaps so it doesn't kind of say, well, you're a woman, therefore are place in the kitchen or something like that is actually looking at that person.
That's one thing.
But whether that is the general to say that from the kind of you know, that same not sadism may be an honor, it may be on a cultural level, it could be like a cultural inadequacy that men feel like they need to dominate to prove that they're men when we're all human beings trying to do the best we can, we all struggle, we all feel pain, and we all go through ups and downs. And it's like, I wish men could meet me on that level and say, I see you, you know, like, okay, so if I'm in a room and there's like, say, five men and just me, I'm invisible, most of the time they won't.
Even though I might be the most educated person in the room, I might not be. And I don't care about education. But what I'm saying is, is that they most of the time I just get stereotyped as a woman that doesn't know what she's talking about, whereas actually I could be the most knowledgeable, knowledgeable person in the room, but I'm the most invisible. And it's ironic that I'm doing a lot of talking tonight because I don't normally talk this much, but I do feel invisible a lot of the time in society.
I feel invisible. Like I said, I think I think that there's always there's always it's the nature nurture debate, which is constant and neither of them is separate. So biology always has to happen within a context. And so the context will determine how the biology shows up. And it's like the talk of whether technology changes relationships. And Handfish is quite clear that you can't change biology because you've got two hundred thousand two hundred thousand years to evolve so the technology can change the rituals and change the format, but it doesn't change the actual core behavior.
So how come New Zealand is so different than welcome to New Zealand? I travelled the world. I've gone to many cultures and there's many cultures that are very different than how we see things over here.
I said, well, just. Just to. Just to. Put some context to your question. So if men have dominated from inadequacy. Which for me, you have to look at how this something starts if men have dominated from inadequacy. How did they manage to dominate? Because if they're feeling inadequate or they are inadequate. What would give them the ability to control women, because it's a well known fact, if you don't feel good enough, you have to prove yourself even more than that.
I mean, in psychology, that's a known fact. Isn't that why you have to overachieve or how far you have to go? You have to push yourself more because you don't feel good enough where somebody has got a real sense of self and is really grounded in confidence. That to me is a real like somebody I can trust. Someone, an alpha male is not somebody who is saying, look, I'm going to dominate you, an alpha male with somebody that can it's just one person in themselves.
Well, actually, alpha males have been found to be the ones who are most cooperative, not the not the strongest. But I don't want to disappoint.
I don't know what I'm saying.
I don't want tonight to talk about social control because that's just one small aspect. So Marcus and I know if you want to have your hands up, if you want to close out, and then we're we're going to go to the breakout rooms, OK?
All I want to say was that the Basic Instinct is fight or flight. So I think I personally don't subscribe to the view that. Just because the guys want to dominate, therefore they are going to fight. I mean, there might be guys who cannot dominate and therefore they float. So why is it to say that most guys will therefore try to dominate the women because of inadequate? If they felt inadequate, they might also cower away and, you know, run off and beyond their for argument's sake, because they feel so that they could.
So I think it might be wrong, because I have to say, there are only like this because they're inadequate.
I mean, yeah, yeah. But a lot of domestic abuse is happening in lockdown if you.
I think you're right. We've already shortcutting up. And I know Trump wants to finish very quickly. I agree with a lot of the things you're saying.
This is a male dominated society. Accept that. But I don't think it is from Mels necessarily inadequacy. Personally, I don't think it is. Maybe I just said it because I'm a guy. I think there are other historical issues that try to hit on that. Men were the hunter gatherers and all the rest of it.
They were the more physically dominant species. And perhaps it's come from that, that they were always the more stronger. Therefore, they could, you know, use force to get what they want and therefore they kind of a state that can translate into today's society. I don't know. But I don't know that you could stand or sit here and say that it's due to the equity markets.
OK, Marcus, did you and I have a quick point? Yeah, I just very quickly say one thing I would say is, sir, I do. I do. Kind of. Take your point about understand what you're saying about there are sometimes people that can be aggressive towards other people due to the inadequacy.
However, I don't I don't think that's limited, just the men, because I have met several women, very, very few women who were quite aggressive towards other people who I think it turned out would like. That is like a defense mechanism because they were inadequate. And so so I understand your point, but I think it's not limited to just men.
So I'm sorry, Rob, just to cut you, just that there is a readjustment route round sort of men now to sort of see where they fit into society, the role of women. And you know that you know that there. And that's the challenge that they're still facing now. But there there is a question that you you are raising. There's some good points as well.
So I just want to say, yeah, just acknowledge that I just want to clear up because because often we get passionate about our point of view and often we we feel that we need to pursue it. Nothing gets decided here. This is what we talk about here is all narratives. And there is none of us can know what really cause patriarchy, what really causes any behavior. We're just coming up with our own narrative. So we we're not going to agree, but we don't have to have the same opponent, same point of view.
We just have to share different points of views and then we take away what whichever we agree with.
OK, Sandra, I think we could agree, however, that we as a species, we are evolving. We will continue to evolve. Our rules will require adjustments on both sides as we change or as we modify our behavior and with the emerging new technologies, which are also changing not only our rules, but the pace of how we how we interact, that we should not be stuck on how we evolved in certain aspects and whether or not they are right or wrong.
And hold on to those those kind of binary thoughts, I think that is something that's holding us back and I think we need to be careful. Yes, we need to be aware of what happened in the past. But I think several new factors are coming into place and the interplay sorry. And as a result of that, we have to be willing to open ourselves up to make the adjustments. This notion that men are insecure. I am very uncomfortable with that, because then it's that it leads me to ask the question, so what is it about the female then?
That is the comparative notion that you would ascribe to us because men have an issue. What is it about women? Because we are not passive in this in this discussion. We are not passive. So what is our role in that interplay?
I think when you look at the big picture, when you look at like through life, it's not even just genders, it's species. It's where life we're life presenting in the way that we've evolved and the way in the way that the environment shapes the way that we evolve. OK, so we're going to go to breakout rooms and the discussion is about monogamy, promiscuity. So Helen Fisher says that we are neither does she say we are probably promiscuous in the sense that we're not just monogamous, but we built with these free drives the sex drive.
To procreate or just for pleasure, the romantic drive to focus on the one and and obsess about that one and a deep attachment. Okay, so we see a link will go for about 10 minutes. Welcome back. So does anyone have any interesting points in terms of promiscuity, monogamy, getting their needs met from different people? I was looking in the chat and I saw Marcus's point or question about is it realistic to expect one person to meet all our needs?
And that's something that an official talked about. There was much less. Pain after divorce in other cultures because they had the support of the community. So does anyone want to talk about what will be further discussions they had in terms of monogamy or promiscuity and.
Marcus, I'm sorry. We were talking about. Yeah, how people are compatible in terms of. Whether or not the relationship is well balanced, so I was giving the example of, like, if. They have the past and past issues with trying to rescue people who needed my help, you know, and it's like there's an imbalance relationship where one person is doing a lot of work to try and fix another person and sort out their problems. And so we were talking about how.
And the more successful relationship would probably be on where of the roles they have on relationships sort of balance out to be more equal. So that's kind of what we were talking about. Ms. And also what we are talking about is my question about. Whether or not it's realistic to have all our needs met by one person. And so then we were talking about how. Modern society has kind of made that unrealistic, whereas in the past or even in some of the cultures.
There would be a situation where a lot of your needs are met outside of the relationship, but you're still within a monogamous relationship that. You know, you are the needs are met with other people in the village, you know, of the social needs, and I think I just kind of summarize that as I understand it. That's the kind of topics we were talking about. Yeah, it's it's we've come where we've been built and evolved in groups of like smaller than 150 and.
And so. We suddenly, like, since the industrial revolution, come to power, Rebecca, come to come to a place where we sit on the tube and we just don't talk to anyone because we're overwhelmed by how many people there are. And so, yeah, that that makes it.
Changes the nature of the way that we. The way that we interact and any other rings have any interesting discussion, we were saying that we felt that love was not the Hollywood romance, which is fake and superficial.
We were saying that we love is real. Love is based on action and commitment and respect for each other. Yeah, I think one of the the great crimes of, you know, currently is. We. We set up by Disney in fairy tales, too, to believe in something that isn't. Realistic? Yeah, we said we think that's a huge problem because obviously people fall in love and then they do not typically fall out of love. So I would say on a deeper level, when somebody feels that they are in love with somebody, what they're really experiencing is self-love.
Because when you love someone, what you love about that person is that you can be yourself. So when you're saying I love you, what you're really saying is I love myself, because when I'm with you, I can be myself or you bring out the best of myself. So what I actually am loving when I am with you is the experience of being myself. Hmm.
So can you actually separate between love and self-love? Because is it not just for me? Isn't it just a feeling what we we ascribe to where it comes from determines what we as as. I believe love comes from a universal love through through the channel, through the spiritual channel is going to sound a bit off the wall, but I'm just going to be completely myself. I believe it's universal love that comes through the channel and then out into the world to other people.
Love is within us that we choose consciously to give that to other people.
Yeah, yeah, it's just just I think it's just loving how it flows. Yeah, Hollywood is saying if you go out there and grab love, look dolar, wear the makeup grap love, then you can grab it and it doesn't come from the outside and it has to come from the inside and flow out. Words we get in Hollywood has got it completely wrong way round.
Definitely sashays. Put some really interesting points.
I don't know if you wanted to talk on the session or just what I got from the from watching the videos that you said on some really, really interesting and definitely helpful. I found it really good to be so she gross everyone into four groups. I don't know how accurate I is. And obviously she collected a lot of data. But, you know, there are obviously going to overlap in places as well and.
I thought I was quite interested and I would definitely identify with one group more than the other three and the go down the bad and and I don't know yet. And does she know where she goes? The list of words of, you know, typical words that you would find, say, in a dating profile if there were one group, which are not totally true.
I mean, that was quite interesting since the default just generally found it quite interesting and useful information is quite helpful.
The four personality types I believe they're drawn from or they correlate very well with my breed Samoyeds Briggs's 16 personality types based actually for actual types you might like. There's a book, please know my type or something like that, and it basically talks about the four main types, you know, some of the Myers Briggs things, I was wondering how it correlated with that, because it's just as she condensed them into foreground is not already existed.
There is already the 16 personalities, but they come under for this rationals artisan's Olsson's of what she calls explorers, guardians or what she calls billers rationals and. Can't remember the other one, but I I think they're based on. On the minus breaks, but there's also been that Socrates talked about the four pulchritude he's had, the four humans. And so this it's quite there's a long lineage. Of those types. OK, does anyone else have anything else or anything that they want?
It's the. Talk about something we've covered monogamy and why people stray. Well, we were talking about the act of of, of course, in sex in a sense of promiscuity as being not necessarily about the sex, but the chase for the next high. In other words, that addiction to that experience and searching for that experience again, which, of course, is embodied many times in being with the unknown. So it's venturing into unknown territory with a new partner, with a new person.
And so we keep looking for that high again, because after all our familiarity, we get you know, it becomes routine. So then we go off and find a new and exciting one and move on, which says to me that sex is not necessarily the main issue. It's the search. It's you're searching for something else. And sex provides that like a drug. Yeah, yeah.
And actually, when you look at she talks about the sex drive and the romantic drive as being addictive and also having the three worst elements, which is habituation.
So you you need more and more withdrawal and relapse. And yes, just like the romantic drive of feeling obsessed about someone and anxious when they're not responding. Yeah, I think it's like them and it's romantic and.
The serotonin, I think, is. Oh, yeah, yeah, whichever one. Yes, so, yeah, that's that's interesting. But when you look at them. If you're going to rank them, I don't know if you look at it the same way, but I would say that sex is like the first it's the easiest to come by and the. Probably the one that you're going to lose interest, not lose interest in sex, but lose interest in your partner sexually first and then the romantic and then the attachment is the one.
The attachment is the one that's really difficult to to find because it's quite easy to find. Someone you can have sex with is quite easy to find. Someone that you can feel romantic about but feel deep attachment is probably takes more of an investment. And is slower to wear off, I would say that doesn't feel sorry. Doesn't deep attachment come a lot longer in the relationship? Didn't Gartmann say something about the real deep attachment?
Doesn't come to light years into the marriage and diamond. It's most relationships are better later on. Yeah, I think attachment is developed over time, isn't it?
You can have a friend you've just met, but the friend that you know from your name from school is going to be a closer attachment.
I think that's just a function of time and experience, experience shared, because if it's sometimes the case there that you can know someone for a long time to actually not have a deep attachment because there just hasn't been that level of intimacy, honesty, openness and connection. So perhaps actually somebody who might have known from this time might have a stronger connection.
Yeah, that brings up a really good point, is that when you relate that to dating people who play a game, who use strategies, don't form the attachment, they can get the interest, they can get the romantic interest by playing a character. But the real connection comes from self disclosure. So comes from disclosure, self disclosure, and that happens from really sharing who you are. But you do find that there are some people who play the rituals, they go through the whole process of of courtship and being physically attracted and being very generous and all of those things.
But at the core of it, they are emotionally unavailable. And so you are seduced into thinking that the meeting all of ticking, all the boxes that you want in an ideal partner, but that emotional closeness that that would bring about deep attachment, they are not available. Yes, Marcus. And I'm currently single, but last year before the pandemic, I was doing quite a lot of online dating at the time, I was watching the videos and advice on how to be good at dating.
And after a while I got sick of it because it was full of all these tips and tricks like like you say, game system. And after a while I thought. Why don't I just try being myself? I thought there's certain things, it's just common sense. Oh, before you go on a date, maybe have a shower, dress, dress nicely and, you know, try and be interested in what the other person says. But beyond sort of common sense, things like that, you don't really want to be trying to be somebody you're not because that facade is going to fall away pretty soon anyway.
And so I could be tied to that. But another quick thing I wanted to touch on was kind of like the opposite end of all this we've been talking about, like what makes people stay together. Oh, well, so what makes people stay? But that's the other end of it, like why people stay together when it's clearly not working, but you do get people who stay long term in very dysfunctional relationships. I think it comes down to like a fear of being alone.
Which I think is often the case of somebody who's been single for a long time and then they find somebody who wants to be with them, they kind of cling onto them because it's like, oh, you found somebody who seems like it's like and then they come. They realize there's all these things about things, that person on ideal, and it's like, well, I can't possibly split up with them because then I'll be on my own, like.
It's just interesting that how fear drives that. Yeah, definitely. I've definitely seen people who are really unhappy in the marriage and yet they will stay because they've had so many horror stories of dating and they're so scared to die. And even, you know, I had a meeting like he was a physical meeting like this and it was difficult relationships and it turned out to be all women in domestic, like suffering domestic abuse. And they were like, oh, so hopping on your own, you see that that will be on your own and people would stay in an abusive relationship.
Just because of the fear that there isn't anyone else, and yet we live in a time when there is so much more access to single people, there's never been as much access, like no one should ever be alone. That doesn't want to be. Because all all that's missing is the knowledge, the skills and the confidence. And so it's just the process of acquiring knowledge. And there's every age group, there's more single people than there's ever been.
So there's no and there's more mechanisms to reach the people. It's just that we haven't developed the skills to do that. Can I say I really like the point you made about connection and attachment coming from self disclosure? I feel that really resonates with what I was saying about when when you love someone, what you love about them is that you can be yourself, because ultimately when you disclose your true self, it's the peace of knowing that this person accepts you for who you want, finally simply being grounded within yourself and being able to be yourself.
I think, again, that self disclosure is is fundamental to self acceptance, which is self-love. Yeah, definitely, and I was going to come back to Marcus, this point is.
So, yes. And one example of that is I think Neil Strauss, I don't know if you've ever come across in your videos or your search marks, Neil Strauss, I think that's really telling that he will like this nerdy journalist and he found these pickup artists. He learned all the skills he was able to have, whatever woman he wanted, and he went through as much debauchery as he could and addiction. Until then, he found it was ultimately empty.
And his follow up book was like the journey out of that. Yeah, I think ultimately and I think what confused it for a lot of people is that we want lots of things. We do want we do want a stable relationship. We want the guy. We want a hot girl. We want the fun. We want the stability. And sometimes we confused in what we're going for. But I think ultimately what we all want and maybe a show of hands or.
Like, ultimately, would you say it's the deep attachment? So what was the question? So when we're looking at. The free drivers for a relationship, so the sex drive, the romantic drive and the steep attachment. Now I think the sex you can get without being in a relationship. The romantic is only going to last for a while. Or the deep attachments that would you would you prefer romantic, that obsessive thinking or would you prefer someone that you had that deep companionship?
Maybe you didn't have that obsessive thinking about them, but you had a deep companionship?
When I wouldn't have any of them right now, I wouldn't I'd rather have a cup of tea and a cream cake and put my feet up and watch it tell a joke.
And the deep attachment, what doesn't she say to all three of them, like work, work towards that deep attachment? Like you can't really have one without the other, because if you didn't object sex drive, it wouldn't drive towards having a romantic relationship.
Yeah. So so she says they work independently. But yes, the problem that she says with casual sex is that we know that sex relations, oxytocin, you feel bonded. And particularly I've written research that women are more bonded, women are bonded for longer, like the oxytocin has more of an effect. And so then you feel which leads to romantic feelings, which leads to the deep attachment, I'm sorry, Mazing was about to jump in. I think I carry on.
Carry on. Yeah. Just by itself. But by the time you've reached deep attachment, you've done a full circle. So everything else becomes attainable. Once you've reached deep attachment, you could have deep attachment and then leaves the room.
So if it feels like it can also it can almost go to friendship, you know, when a relationship is really loving and beautiful. But you might lose the sex even, you know. Well, what did you say? Is is is in a nutshell, what you how are you defining moments from the obsessive thinking about one person?
Like craving their attention, wondering what they're thinking, what they're doing. And it's that based on on the on the chemicals in your brain, they can go crazy. Then she says she says that is. So for me, is it? Yes, I think so.
But what makes a person have those chemicals for that one particular person?
She was trying to answer, wasn't it? Yes, I mean, what she says romantic is like the sex is like trying to get you out, looking at people. The romantic makes you upset. Focus onto one person.
Why would you why would you be obsessed with that one particular article that comes out? She said it was to do with, like, similarities in, like social issues. She did. I can't remember Americanus. She she let's look at the literature and in looks and.
Let's remember the similarities, similarity and look, similarity, intelligence, similarity in socioeconomic class, similarity in intelligence, in life goals, values. So that's not necessarily she couldn't really answer it because you could have someone with all of those things, but they wouldn't necessarily you put someone in a room with all those things and I wouldn't feel attracted to it, but can be from a bond.
It can be a trauma bond. It's like the subconscious. The unconscious mind is powerful. They say if you put like a hundred people in a room, the people that gravitate toward you are similar on a subconscious level. So any trauma that you might have had as a child, you can be you can gravitate on a trauma level. It's called a trauma bond in that romantic obsession is usually based on a trauma bond. And it's not something which is always conscious.
So this is why working through one's own stuff is really important, because if it remains at the unconscious level, there's always that possibility of reenacting that over and over again, perpetuating that.
Well, yeah, but that's that's that's a narrative from a particular school of thought, not necessarily biologically proven that it's like they've done.
Let's load the psychological experiments done where some of this trauma has literally like it shapes the brain, like on a neuroscience level, it shapes your brain. OK.
So you're saying that's one of the reasons why two people march? Absolutely, absolutely. Trauma bombs and I recommend people reading about this. Fascinating. And I think that's one of the mysteries that we don't know, and there are lots of schools of thought.
And if you look into it, we do know because there's literature written about it with evidence, it's not what is some evidence, but it's not conclusive.
You know, it's a load of evidence based on trauma and neuroscience and how it shapes the brain and affects your choices.
Okay, but like like I said, Sarah, we're not here to convince anyone. We're not we're here with different perspectives.
And so why are you trying to convince me? I'm just saying what I feel is right for me, so I don't need you to convince me the way that it goes both ways doesn't.
But I'm not convincing. I'm just one of them realizes what are the reasons why people state. The original question was why do people stay in relationships and become attached romantically? And I said it's because it could be one of the reasons is trauma bond.
OK, but you've had you've had you say but we this is for balance. So that could lead people to believe that that is the only conclusive perspective.
And I want to act like I didn't say that they did OK, but I don't want this to carry on with. A certain perspective that you feel is important, because this is this is a group for everyone. Yeah, I know, but OK. I'd like to just ask, well, not ask, but just to add my two cents and the topic slightly, the issue of deep attachment and abuse in a family member as a as an example to to pose my question.
At this stage of deep attachment where one part, one partner said of the other, he's my best friend and at his funeral said, I don't know how I am going to live on without my best friend. That was the level of the attachment. But years before they had reached at that point, she had lost all interest in sex.
And he she knew that he was having these affairs outside. But at the same time, they could not they had got to a point where they said each other was the other's best friend. How do you reconcile that? Because and she knew what he was doing and she knew. And she was fine with it because she was just not interested in sex anymore, and they tell you that he was 80 odd, he was 80 when he died. So it's not a young bad, OK?
And she she she she just was seen on the outside, on the outside that she was fine with it. Now, my question is, could she really have been not OK with it?
Yes, I think she could. I think that yeah, I think I think if she's been with him that long and she doesn't want to give it to him, I think lots of relationships go through a phase of getting to a point where you especially if, you know, one of you is going to die, that you say, I can't give you all the things you need. Why don't we sort you out with somebody else so that when I die, you've got somebody there with you all.
But they didn't reach to that point. I mean, I know, but I'm just talking to my my my experience of people dying that they do, actually, because they love their partner and they don't want to leave them. They will let them find the needs that they they can't meet anymore with somebody else. And they love them. They love them enough to want them to have that part that they can't give them anymore. It sounds like she was right.
It's not a romantic thing, is it?
Yes, I suppose it might be a relief knowing, you know, it might be a relief if you don't if you're not interested anymore.
Maybe marksman's, sustainer and just a very a similar issue, similar thing was I remember watching a video a while back, there was a gay man and a lesbian woman who got together in a very kind of very caring relationship where there was no sex involved at all. But they lived together and they really supported each other emotionally and had very similar hobbies and very similar interests in art and creativity and what kind of stuff.
But they were of a certain age, I think, where perhaps sex wasn't quite as important as it might have been when they were younger. So for some reason, that particular arrangement somehow works for them when they had that. So they were fulfilling that one aspect of it, that deep bond without without the sex and perhaps even without the romance, I don't know. But it is interesting to hear about all these friends.
We I suppose that what you've got then is a very, very deep kind of committed friendship. Yeah. I think so a white one can withstand a in line, Marcus, with say, and I think that if two people have, like, emotionally agreed upon it and verbally agreed upon it for an emotional level, I think that two people could allow these things to happen or to be happy with thought or if trying to have dawn in a. It's not disclosed and it's not OpenOffice.org sordid and secret.
I'm not sure that if there is a possibility that people have known down to it and decided that, you know everything with this. So I don't know, I guess it depends on the context of the situation. I need you on Thursday night. Thank you for waiting patiently. I just was going to say I think Marcus is sort of whatever he said, as I said, because I was wondering whether people could be when you see a deep commitment or a deep attachment or I can't really remember the exact words used to describe it.
Is it more of an emotional connection to someone, not necessarily just friendship, but just is not so much physical, but a lot more emotionally connected to that person? And I think listening to Mark, because it is sort of makes sense. So were there any other issues that anyone picked up on? Yeah, I thought that when when the sex is good in a relationship, it can fire off all the dopamine and serotonin levels. And like you said, I know you touched on that, Rob, about how women are more likely to kind of connect with sex.
And and then it's really hard to get out of a relationship because you think that you really love this person. You don't. It's just chemicals. Hmm. So, yeah, that was and maybe that might be different for men that men might connect later down the line with the deep attachment later, but women connect maybe earlier, and that can make it quite difficult to kind of see to be on a level with each other because. Yeah, yeah, it can be quite tricky.
Yeah, men do have the same oxytocin and it's just it hangs about in the women's system for longer. I think one is like 27 hours and maybe 16 hours or something like that. So there is more of a vulnerability for.
Women's firtash. By all, yeah, but there's an equal romantic.
Like the equal romantic drive. So basically from looking at the cultures and things that what she found was that if you took away all the stigma and secrecy or anything like that, women and men equally take sexual opportunities. Equally, men and women will romantically bond to someone. So this just seems to be this. Like that, cultural values and moral judgments mean that women will always underestimate their sexual partners. Men will always overestimate so. But underneath it all, we all have the.
Interest, the desire to connect. What was that point about men overestimating in women under so if there's any research on sexual partners? They know that men, when we say they've had more women, will always say they've had less. And when I can't remember exactly the research, but there was some interesting research that showed how. Like, it sort of stripped out lies and essentially it's just kind of the same, but when the culture shames someone for being sexual, there's more secrecy and lies.
I was just thinking about the whole romance thing, maybe it's just the process of pushing certain buttons, whatever you want to call it, emotional or chemical or psychological, maybe it's just a process of pushing those buttons. And then when you push the right buttons at the right place at the right time with the right person, then you get what you call romance. And there's the perception of being in love.
And when I was talking about trauma, sexual abuse. Commonly happen in narcissistic relationships or toxic relationships and. What happens typically is that someone falls in love with someone who pretends to be the prince or the princess of their dream, they have that deep romantic obsession and then they use that as manipulation and control. And what keeps someone in the relationship is the addictiveness of trying to retain that high and regain recapture that high. And so we become. Trapped. By our chemistry and so people can play roles and so that's why you can die and you can use pick up tricks and things to to create a connection, but you want then developed a deep connection, which you sort of hope that's force connection, because if if you pick up what is pushing those buttons deliberately manipulated and as it were, creating connection because it's not a genuine connection, could you call that a false connection or could you say it feels real to the president's having the buttons pushed at that moment in time because they don't know they're being manipulated?
In other words, it comes back to what I was just saying. It's just process of a series of buttons. So maybe Nafiz is real in the end, it just it all feels the same. What's the difference between being on a real roller coaster and a virtual reality? If you can't tell the difference, then there is no difference.
Yeah. Yeah, definitely. Exactly. I think you know the difference, because I think that was really brilliant, what you post there, Betty, you're absolutely spot on. But yeah, I think there for me, there's a difference with the high and the low with with the narcissistic attachment. There's a high and then there's the low, like a roller coaster, but with a real connection. There's like a plateau. You're like steady, it's grounded.
You can breathe like it's just noise. There's no high and low.
Yeah. Sasha has been waiting patiently, and that's pretty much what I was going to say as well on the internal level, how to distinguish between the healthy and unhealthy relationship. I I think when you look at the romantic drive, it's. Something that gets us into the relationship. And I think you see, you've got like it's kind of like a like a shoot where you got the sex drive, the romantic to the deep connection. So I guess I guess what I was going to say is that if you can really see that is going on a high and then going on a low and then you're looking for this attachment again and then it struck.
And again, I think that's a sign that isn't healthy and that is an unstable attachment.
Yeah. It a toddler and allows for the high. I think the way to distinguish between the two is is, like Sarah said, as well as that. It feels more grounded in is more of a slow paced it doesn't feel so. So if you feel because I think a lot of problems with a lot of people have been in abusive relationships, that I get confused about attachment because they're only used to this sort of rollercoaster when they're on the Dow.
And it's like, oh, why? Why me? Must be something to do with me. What if I don't how to work again? And they get very confused and they slow. And so I think for people that might be at risk of getting confused, it's like if, you know, notice any bounce in a lot like that, that's actually a sign that it's not you and that is a problem in the actual attachment and the relationship. So.
But there are some people who are very practiced in the art of romance and they confuse people and that's how to look out for it, is when you if, you know, issue really, really confused and really love and don't understand what's going on. And you can't make sense of it. You know, you can't see the sun through the trees. That's the sign that it's not healthy.
But Sandra Dmae, those people who practiced in the art of romance are deliberately manipulating people. You know what they know which bonds to elicit a response.
Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are practiced in the sense that that is that the routine that they have have developed over time. And there isn't necessarily any underhandedness accompanying that process. But then what happens after it's like you've come to a dead end and you've done what the role playing that, you know, you have put it all out and you have done that. But then that part where you're getting into deeper attachment and it's becoming more routine, that is an unknown because they probably have not taken it beyond the the practice of of the routine attachment, because a lot of relationships seem to break up.
When that starts to ebb. It's almost as though I'm now bored with you, so I need to go and start a new romantic, you know, like the chase, almost another case of, I suppose, getting high.
But the person on the other side has mistaken all of the cues that the they see from this partner as being genuine.
And therein lies lies the difficulty, because one person will feel cheated out of having expended so much energy and putting so much effort into because of the cues that they're getting from this other person. Yeah, that's really fascinating. You know, what fascinates me is the idea is, is love even real? Because when I think of it as a process which is pushing certain buttons and you get the chemistry and getting psychology, you get the emotion, you get whatever.
And all of a sudden you're in love. I just wonder, is love then in that sense even real? Because technically speaking, you could you could fulfill that with a robot. Exactly. And then what is love to to you, what does love mean to me? I think that is also something that.
We have to we have to come to grips with because, you know, your perception of love may be different from mine. There are some people who think that it's all consuming and it is complete involvement of two partners. And it's difficult to maintain something like that, I would think.
And is that really love or is that obsession makes everybody different? You could fall in love with a robot or a robot could love you. Is it possible?
Yeah, I definitely could. I could definitely fall in love with a robot would be a lot easier than a man. And the city would be on the table at the right time as well, so it may seem like I'm saving up for what?
I think that was a change, by the way, they would laugh, but I I'm a comedian. I don't think people know what I'm a joke. That was a joke. I don't want a robot.
No, I thought it was too much honesty and not joke.
I think it depends how realistic the robot is, if it is like if it is totally humanoid, then I don't know, maybe you need to be realistic.
Have you seen the show Humans?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I really like. Is it good? Yes, I like what's good about it. Have you seen any of it? No, I haven't. I saw the trailer and just thought it would creep me out, but all of that watched all of it. It was amazing.
So I thought, well, maybe I should give it a go, but that was a good show. It's a good story.
It's good to people form relationships with people that are real.
Well, I don't know that I'm not real. OK, that is disturbing, isn't it? Hmm.
I mean, it really relates to what I'm saying is how do you know what real love is if if your buttons are being pushed? It's not even a question of how do you know what you were in love with Israel, but the love that you are experiencing, how can you define it is real, because all that's happening is a cocktail of chemicals or emotions and all of those that could be that could be projected onto anyone or anything. And sorry.
And really everything is so the central message, I think, of Helen Fisher's work is that. We are biological, we're predominantly driven like 40, 60. Seventy percent of biologically, but we operate in a context and we make the narrative about that context, so love is mostly like we feel we operate from what we feel, and then we make the narrative based on what we feel.
And a lot of the problems that we have are we confuse a narrative with the truth. And so in terms of does a relationship last, anything that's not based on the truth moves sooner or later be found out and crumble. Anything that's based on the truth lasts. And so. For me, the issue of relationships is really about checking is it narrative or is it truth?
But what do you mean when we say truth?
Say truth is not my truth nor your truth, but truth as in. Like gravity, so we could we had explanations for stuff, but gravity is low is the truth. It happens now if you have real solid bond. That's true. Then you're going to respect and treat each other well, if you have a relationship that's built on, like you talked about, thinking that you're in love or even feeling in love, but feeling in love with something that isn't true, then that's not on sound foundations.
But there is the possibility of several truth, several realities, given the conditions, so we go back to context once again, it is framed and that will define what that particular truth or reality is.
And we have and you know, that person's truth based only on their actions, because what their intentions are will never be proven by their words, but only by their actions. Yeah.
And you know the truth, because they tell you something and you believe that. And then what turns out to be true.
That's what I'm saying is it's not the words, it's their actions. If you want to know what some of that truth is and what they say, that's how you build up.
I mean, I think I think there is an element of luck. And I think in love, as we said, that there's an element of luck. I believe it could even be something stupid. The idea that someone's advocacy that a no balance and they were on the ground and you walk in and you've got a T-shirt that says 69 or something. But there's there's an element of luck, I think, sometimes in relationships. But there's also an element of faith.
You have to because I'm a great believer in power of suggestion. So if you read talking about truth and that's you know, if you think that something's going to follow and you're probably self sabotage at some sort of subconscious level, that you're not even sure, I think you have got to have a bit of faith and hope because. Well, you know, you need to you need to do something to get yourself as well, because there will be difficult times.
And you need to you know, you need to kind of believe, I think.
But the other person comes from, as you see what they say. But that is the hypothesis hypothesis that you are going to test the other person as Bettie's saying the truth, that they see they are speaking to you. You are going to test it by their actions. You use the various signals that the that you that you observe and you test it against that statement. And that's all you can do.
Laugh is a thoughtful, committed decision rather than a feeling by which we are overwhelmed. It's not a feeling. It's an action. It's an extension of one's self for another person.
And it's not the same as any other emotion that sometimes it can be difficult to.
So, you know, I mean I mean, you shouldn't laugh at someone you don't like fools themselves to you, but, you know, you might suddenly just think, you know, it must be after nine case space, work it up.
It before I thought he I thought he was a robot.
He's Batrouney why got answering that.
I could say, oh, I've got two cups of tea please and a foot rub.
I think I mean, truth is, I don't have to agree with Sandra on the truth that today is gravity. I mean, this is something I thought very deeply about. Like truth is kind of like maths. And I think that but there's also theoretical maths as well. And that really and we were talking about earlier about, you know, there has to be some level of control. And I never said the control is a bad thing, but something like Rousseau, he said that for society to work, you have to give up some element of your freedom in return for the sort of order and protection of the society.
Basically that that when we really us what he believes and all of us know what a chair is. And we know that because at some of our forefathers and foremothers agreed that that was the Reds we were going to use in our language to call it that. But I don't call it a little bit and found so charming that they call it something else. But you have to have some of the great concepts as truth is very subjective.
You can't operate solely on the truth because life would be soulless and it would just be would be like ranking man, just reciting facts. But you so you have to create a narrative. But I think the key is not to be controlled or trapped within the narrative. So you have to let the narrative go as soon as she doesn't. Mark. She's emotional, it's actually possible, a emotion, emotion and truth, the kind of angst with each other.
Well, the truth, I think you guidewire your emotions, your emotions tell you. Like how you feel when you when you feel bad. That's telling you that the narrative isn't working with the current reality, so you can't change the reality always, so you change the narrative, you find a narrative that works within that context. So but what you don't want is you don't want a narrative that's completely out of luck, that is that can't work with.
The truth, the reality of your situation, because then that's when, you know, like someone who's who's in a traumatic relationship, they're addicted to someone who isn't who they say they are. They they lie, they cheat, they abuse wherever. And someone who has this narrative of I love I love them and I love them. So they're going to stay because that narrative is what's keeping them trapped. If you're willing to let go of that narrative, a guy like that, I feel like this relationship makes me feel terrible.
I feel worse being in this relationship. There's something wrong with that narrative. And then you between the dissonance between the two of them, you navigate in a new one.
So when you use the word narrative, do you mean like the story that you're telling yourself, as in the meaning that you or what you're projecting onto the relationship?
Yeah, and I think we have to understand some narrative, you know, even like we were trying to sort of based on science.
But there are. In any scientific thing, it boils down to opinion when you look at intelligence, there is the clearest evidence that 80 percent of intelligence is genetic, but it won't be accepted because it's not politically correct because of what's gone in terms of eugenics. And in America, where there was people treated, you know, like the industrial moron, they were all classifications of IQ and people were sterilized below certain levels of IQ. And because of that, there are psychologists that just won't admit.
That intelligence is genetic. Yeah, but we used the word narrative in the relationship since. But can you clarify what that means?
OK, so we have to navigate in relationships in terms of. In terms of what? We have to we have to have some story to operate by. You know, if we woke up every day and he got well, how do I feel? Who's this? You know, I mean, so you have a narrative arc. This is my partner. This is the person I love. This is the person in charge of narrative about family. What does family mean?
And and one of the big differences will bones of the origins of conflict is we have different narratives about family, about relationship, about love. And that means that we use the word.
And we use the word differently. Because we learned the word, whatever word we learn, we learn in a context we would like to or three and we heard it being said in a certain context.
So you mean like we have a different we have a different expectation. So when I think you are my partner, I expect one thing and you're thinking you're my partner, but you're expecting actually something different. And then that's the conflict.
Yes, because we're not clear about the expectations. We're not clear about what that partner means, definitions, expectations and what we really want from it.
So the narrative relates to my perceptions. It's my values is what it means to me and I overlain that or projecting that onto this relationship.
Yeah. So okay. So so in terms of a working example, when someone argues about the clothes on the floor that what they're really got is they got a set of expectations about what they believe of their partner, how their partner would believe if they really love them. And all of that narrative plays into the relationship. Yeah, that's interesting because I think if you loved me, you would behave like this is quite a powerful thing, because when they don't behave like that, obviously we interpret it according to our narrative, which isn't necessarily their narrative.
Yeah, and the big one with that is then the fairy tale narrative, which is when you meet the one you fall in love and you'll love forever. They must love me. They must be the one. And that's the narrative that ends a lot of relationships that could work.
And that's the way to close down discussion. OK, I think we've gone over again, but unless anyone has any burning issues that we haven't already raised, is it really the end or is it just your narrative is telling you that?
I don't think we're really at the end doorway. Well, is that my narrative here is the whole narrative is we all be at the beginning of something.
Let's say I thought you wrote The End of the Rainbow that a family are my gold at the end of the rainbow. Oh, darling, it's my rainbow. I found the rainbow at the end of the rainbow.
I thought it was a leprechaun on my feet, on Pete's lap through the.