The science behind falling in love.

>>8133588
Love isn't real. It's merely a meme, created to manipulate you into becoming a cuck.

>>8133588
Edgy fedorian reply here, but its chemicals, man.
You like big titty lady cause shell have plenty milk for a kid
You like wide hips lady cause shell give birth easier
A woman wants big dicks for satisfaction and the guarantee of fertilization, and good genes to pass on to offspring.
Even if kids aint what you aim to have, remember: you are programmed to do two things. Survive and multiply

>>8133658
Then how come the grills i like are flat chested

>>8133591
Thank you, I kek'd!

>>8133658
>evolutionary psychology

cheers for the kek m8

>>8134407
Is there something compelling you want to share with the class?

There is no such emotion as love. What called "love" is a desire to want something inaccessible that turned into obsession because you overthinking it too much and increasing of excitement in your brain become unhealthy.

Things like symmetry of the face, ratio hip/waist, can indeed trigger stuff in you. There are also subtle changes in the female depending on the phase of her menstrual cycle, usually making them more attractive when they're ovulating.

>how come the other one does not necessarily see that in you?

Errr... first your brain doesn't see her as 'perfect for a bond'. She's attractive to you. It doesn't mean you share the same mind and can bond or whatever. You might feel more inclined to try to bond, but it's not the same. Second, attraction is primarly selfish. Having offspring, or just being in a relationship for that matter, is costly, and the costs are not the same for males and females, so what you, as a male, are seeing in her it's not the same that she looks up for in a male.

Also that 'initial spark' in a relationship isn't meant to last forever. You'll get over it.

>see girl with physical features that increase chances of offspring survival.
>chemicals in your brain make you want to bang her.
>"Love"

>>8134329
Because you're gay.

>>8134414
Is there something compelling you want to share with the class?

>>8134560
I just asked, because you seem to have some problem with the idea of evolutionary psychology you didn't explain or support.

It's almost like you were trying to seed the idea that it's not a valid field of science, but that can't be right, can it?

>>8133588
Love at first sight wouldn't really be love, it's you analyzing a potential partner and finding them suitable or even preferable for pairing with. Real love would be the process of bonding which occurs most frequently when partners are taking part in a single activity together, the attraction is mostly due to your sex hormones as well as Dopamine, Norepinephrine, and Serotonin which are responsible for the combination of lust and lovesickness. The attachment to your partner produced during bonding experience is the result of Oxytocin and Vasopressin released when you and your partner do things together, this will lead to a lasting bond which in turn makes it more likely that your future children will be reared in a healthy environment with two loving parents in a stable relationship.

Don't sweat it OP, you aren't in love, what you're feeling is a combination of lust (the girl you are pining for is someone you think would be a superior mate) and lovesickness (your body fucking with your emotions to try and goad you into forming a bond with them).

As to what set off your alarms for prospective mates, health and well proportioned bodies are one, another is genetic variation which is advantageous in the ongoing arms race with diseases, as is emotional compatibility.

As to why a prospective partner might not reciprocate, different people value slightly different things in mates, genetic compatibility is only one factor. If you want to have general success I'd suggest simply being confident and at ease, having a stable job that provides steady income won't hurt, most women are attracted to a man who could provide for any children they may have. In short, your body/brain may have found what it likes in her, but hers may not have in you, and the best thing you can do is not let yourself become depressed or discouraged and simply try again until you hit on someone who reciprocates your attraction.

>>8134570
>2016
>rational psychology

File: 1416960503140.jpg (62KB, 872x732px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 872x732px

>>8133658

>>8134599
>Current Year
>Two words

File: ftfy.png (201KB, 872x739px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 872x739px

>>8134603
FTFY

>>8134570
Well said anon. Gonna screencap and feed to ppl in /adv/

>>8134972
I would also strongly suggest that you advise others to google it for themselves, after all there's only so much specificity you can cram into the word limit.

>>8134329
LOW TEST
O
W

T
E
S
T

You probably believe that you have a better chance of attracting a female with a flat chest, so you are attracted to them because it is realistic for you.

>>8134570
> having a stable job that provides steady income won't hurt, most women are attracted to a man who could provide for any children they may have

This is correct, but I hope you realize you are literally advising people to be cucks.
A stable job does not attract women, it attracts women who have kids or who want kids. Does not mean with that man.

File: seince gorl.jpg (36KB, 634x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 634x400px

Maybe it means something more - something we can't yet understand. Maybe it's some evidence, some artifact of a higher dimension that we can't consciously perceive. I'm drawn across the universe to someone I haven't seen in a decade, who I know is probably dead. Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that, even if we can't understand it.

I have this weird theory that some people are drawn to each other because their atoms were near each other when the universe was created and over time the same atoms keep coming back together

>>8133588
evolutionary psychology and game theory.

>>8134509

>There are also subtle changes in the female depending on the phase of her menstrual cycle, usually making them more attractive when they're ovulating.

Stopped reading right there.

>>8134606

>year
>words

>>8136830

hmm, sounds plausible but as scientist we must prove it in some way or another.

>>8136830
wut

>>8136830
And why not !

File: IMPLYING.png (425KB, 471x500px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 471x500px

>>8136806
>Only women with children want a male to be a provider.
I would disagree, there will be both women with and without children who find success attractive. Besides, I said it "won't hurt" not that he absolutely must have it, not to mention the fact that I haven't said anywhere that OP should willingly raise another man's children so in no sense am I advertising cuckoldry. In addition, if OP wants a long term relationship there's a good change he'll have children at some point, and having a job will be in his best interest, his partner's best interest, and their child's best interest, I don't see how it could possibly be a bad thing under any circumstances unless OP has/gets a shit job that makes him want to kill himself.
>>8136830
>Theory
I think you mean conjecture Anon, a theory implies that your explanation is the best/one of the best explanations available and honestly I'm just not buying it. Any evidence?
>>8136840
>
>