Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: What is Love?
Thread: What is Love? This Popular Thread is 224 pages long: 1 30 60 90 120 150 180 ... 198 199 200 201 202 ... 210 224 · «PREV / NEXT»
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted January 02, 2014 12:22 PM

mvassilev said:
as long as you don't hijack the plane or something, only the pilot and computer system can affect how safe or dangerous the flight is.


The maintenance crew is also a very important factor.  There are some parts without which an airplane cannot stay in flight, improper or unqalified maintenance and rare controls can lead to disaster. This can occur e.g. due to budget cuts.

As far as I know, maintenance records are not publicly available.

JollyJoker said:
Flight anxiety isn't about fearing a crash but about loss of control.



I'm afraid of flying, because I'm afraid of crashing. It wouldn't matter if I were to fly the airplane (if I could). Unless I get to the level where all consequences is linked directly to what an involved in the flight person does, either by his own means or through a program, then I'll still fear it.

So far, the only way I can see this satisfied, is by not boarding the plane at all.
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 02, 2014 01:00 PM

This is pretty basic psychology, and it's not limited to planes either. Now, sure, bottom line is, a plane may crash resulting in your death, but that's not the problem, since a lot of things may result in death. (It's only the fact that the life is on the line, that lets this anxiety come to the forefront.) For example, if you drive a car, you may be hit by a truck and die as well.
The problem is, that once you board a plane and the thing hits the runway, you have no control whatsoever - you can do nothing, you can't make a break, nothing: you trust your life to a process you don't understand fully and that, if anything goes wrong, you have no way to influence anything in any way.
In other words: trusting your life to a plane and its personnel comes with a complete loss of control, and with many persons it's that loss of control that makes them anxious (because they have no problem doing things involving a chance to die - but those don't come with a complete loss of control).

You may (have) observe(d) something like that in simpler form. For example, there are a lot of people that - if given the choice - will rather drive than ride shotgun. The reason isn't that these people think the others wouldn't drive as well as them. No, it's just that - given the choice - they want to be IN CONTROL, and when you ride shotgun you are not. That's the same people that can't relax, when the do ride shotgun. They are alert, looking out for dangers, inform you about red lights when they feel you should start braking, but actually don't, and so on.

Same problem: these people wrestle with the loss of control that comes with their actual situation. These people simply cannot "let go", and this has consequences for their behavior in relationships as well.

Actually, this wouldn't be such a problem, if "control" wasn't an illusion anyway, since all control persons have over their life is limited and relative.

You may also have seen a couple of movies or read comics or seen gags about these exercises that are done to build trust (simplest form is, one person let him/herself fall and the second is catching them). You may say, that these exercises are "controlled loss-of-control training situations".

Of course, this "syndrome" is new - it's partly a consequence of exchanging a belief in higher powers against science, but that's leading too far here.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted January 02, 2014 01:19 PM

There's a lot of truth in what you write, I believe.

I'd merely like to distinguish people involved and not involved as I tried to in my previous post.
Quote:
Unless I get to the level where all consequences is linked directly to what an involved in the flight person does, either by his own means or through a program, then I'll still fear it.


I'll admit to that if one scrutinizes sufficiently, the case may be the same for all occurrences, but not having done so, I don't find driving similar to flying because when driving, accidents are typical something you can do something about.

Roads -> tires.
Obstacles -> attention and time to avoid.

But the most important factor in my opinion is the crash itself. A car can be better prepared to protect you in a crash because you're more or less free to install safety measures, whereas you can't do that in an airplane.

Jet fighters aren't doomed if they lose their plane, because they've safety measures under circumstances passenger airplanes don't. The safety measures of a car does make me feel a lot safer being a passenger than driving the car.

But I do understand we have little control over our own safety when all comes to all. In the case where someone is really determined to eliminate someone else, there's little that can be done, sadly.
____________
Living time backwards

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 02, 2014 03:44 PM
Edited by mvassilev at 15:46, 02 Jan 2014.

Regarding people feeling like they're in control when they're driving, it's an example of what I said, that the fear reduces to fear of dying. People mistakenly believe themselves to be good drivers, or at least good enough so that driving would be safer than flying, for them. That's usually a mistaken belief, but that doesn't change the fact that they think that by driving, they can avoid crashes - so it really is all about crashing in the end.

For what it's worth, I've never (knowingly) met one of these people who would rather drive than ride shotgun. I don't doubt that some people like that exist, though.

And people have a lot of control over their lives. They're not omnipotent gods or live in isolation, but that doesn't stop one's actions from being a central determinant of how one's life goes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
posted January 02, 2014 03:55 PM
Edited by OhforfSake at 15:58, 02 Jan 2014.

mvassilev said:
People mistakenly believe themselves to be good drivers, or at least good enough so that driving would be safer than flying, for them. That's usually a mistaken belief [...]


Usually, sure. But I find it problematic to apply averages on individual when the variance is high.

If you look at enough people, then you'll find what you write to be true, but any single person can't use that to much, in my opinion. With more information about the given person and his environment, it could very well be possible that for him, driving is much safer than flying.

E.g. if one is to compare flying with driving across the globe, how much good does that do for a person who only takes one specific flight route and drives only within one country?

Quote:
And people have a lot of control over their lives. They're not omnipotent gods or live in isolation, but that doesn't stop one's actions from being a central determinant of how one's life goes.

Is that control, or influence? Not that I disagree.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 02, 2014 04:38 PM

Mvass, if you obviously lack in necessaary information, it is often a good strategy to try and get more info before you write stupid things.

Strangely enough it's not that easy to find pertinent links in English (no problem in German, for once). but still, here is one:

Loss of control anxiety

Loss opf control anxiety is one of a couple of anxiety disorders.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JoonasTo
JoonasTo


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
posted January 02, 2014 05:08 PM

What is this I don't even...
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 02, 2014 05:17 PM

JoonasTo said:
What is this I don't even...

Lol, the OSM has a mind of its own that feeds on the participants.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 02, 2014 05:35 PM

Shall we stop going off-topic this time?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 02, 2014 05:50 PM

Off topic?
There are many aspects of love that imply or involve loss of control, that much should be clear.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 02, 2014 06:04 PM

It's not off topic but it's a little selective. It's only you who see the central difference between LaFS and long-term relationships as rationality and control. To me, it's more, much more about depth. There are some things you just can't feel before you get to spend some actual time with a person. (Unless you already have a person in your head and you are embedding it into a stranger.) A long-term relationship doesn't necessarily mean a rational or safe relationship. You may again be not in control at all, things may take very irrational turns, all of this is very possible in all kinds of relationships. The thing is, even if you take every risk and every chance in love at first sight and let yourself go completely, there will still be a depth and level of intimacy only long-term relationships can posses. The attraction at first sight, by nature, can not be an alternative or a substitute to that.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 02, 2014 08:57 PM

artu said:
It's not off topic but it's a little selective. It's only you who see the central difference between LaFS and long-term relationships as rationality and control. To me, it's more, much more about depth. There are some things you just can't feel before you get to spend some actual time with a person. (Unless you already have a person in your head and you are embedding it into a stranger.) A long-term relationship doesn't necessarily mean a rational or safe relationship. You may again be not in control at all, things may take very irrational turns, all of this is very possible in all kinds of relationships. The thing is, even if you take every risk and every chance in love at first sight and let yourself go completely, there will still be a depth and level of intimacy only long-term relationships can posses. The attraction at first sight, by nature, can not be an alternative or a substitute to that.
I just think that rationality tries to overrate ratio and diminish instincts and is supported by the general trend of reluctance to lose control,. Depth and level of intimacy is of course a boon, but one that doesn't MAKE love, but are made possible if there IS a certatin very high level of love, because otherwise the relationship either doesn't get that far - they split up early - or STILL part company: there are lots of divorces of pairs who have extremely intimate long-time relationships.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 02, 2014 09:45 PM

You're confusing love and infatuation/mutual crush. The feeling in a successful long-term relationship is qualitatively different from something like a crush, which is the only thing that can happen at first sight.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 02, 2014 10:46 PM

mvassilev said:
You're confusing love and infatuation/mutual crush. The feeling in a successful long-term relationship is qualitatively different from something like a crush, which is the only thing that can happen at first sight.
And you know that from personal experience?
You should maybe try to think about the reasons WHY some relationships are successful over a very long time and why some FAIL after a very long time. You wouldn't assume lack of trying or good will or so, right?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 02, 2014 11:25 PM
Edited by artu at 23:27, 02 Jan 2014.

Lack of trying is not irrelevant but there are simply too many answers to that question including things like stupidity, conflict of interest, different directions, neurosis, other people, cheating, financial issues... But most importantly and obviously, people change and their expectations change.

Let me ask you something, by your definition love is "You commit murder and she covers your ass." Now, in all honesty, do you really think anyone would cover murder for their -let alone first sight- two week old relationship? No, 99.999... percent of the people would immediately call the police. To even consider that option, we automatically imagine an -at least a little bit- aged relationship. Do you seriously think that is because we don't trust our instincts or intuition, and if we did, a two-week old lover could actually cover the crime of murder for us? Because, to me, the reason we don't trust somebody in such a situation is because there is absolutely no solid foundation of such a trust yet, rational OR EMOTIONAL. We simply don't feel that way yet, we are not feeling and then blocking it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 03, 2014 01:38 AM

JJ:
Yes, actually, I do know that from personal experience, both from having experienced the difference myself and from having observed it reflected in the actions of others.

There are many reasons a long-term relationship can fail. Here are just a few of them:
- Someone gets drunk and cheats.
- There is a change in circumstances (financial difficulties, the birth of a child, etc) that brings out something that at least one of the partners doesn't like.
- At least one of the partners starts the relationship perceiving a flaw as minor, but as the relationship progresses, it becomes more major and/or less tolerable.
- The partners don't spend much time with each other and grow apart.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 03, 2014 09:10 AM

artu said:
Lack of trying is not irrelevant but there are simply too many answers to that question including things like stupidity, conflict of interest, different directions, neurosis, other people, cheating, financial issues... But most importantly and obviously, people change and their expectations change.

Let me ask you something, by your definition love is "You commit murder and she covers your ass." Now, in all honesty, do you really think anyone would cover murder for their -let alone first sight- two week old relationship? No, 99.999... percent of the people would immediately call the police. To even consider that option, we automatically imagine an -at least a little bit- aged relationship. Do you seriously think that is because we don't trust our instincts or intuition, and if we did, a two-week old lover could actually cover the crime of murder for us? Because, to me, the reason we don't trust somebody in such a situation is because there is absolutely no solid foundation of such a trust yet, rational OR EMOTIONAL. We simply don't feel that way yet, we are not feeling and then blocking it.
With all honesty - yes, I believe that. Now, of course "murder" as a single word is an unlucky example, because this would mean that we talk about two sociopaths who have found themselves. To make the example a little more likely, you have to change murder into "supposed murder" or simply "trouble".
The example was simply meant to say that ideally you would want your partner to TRUST and BELIEVE you, no matter how things would look. So when you were found over a dead body, blood on your hands, and you'd say, I found him/her this way, partner would believe you and act accordingly.
So, yes, I believe that. As opposed to you, I do NOT think, that time changes anything. Sure, in certain situation, after a long relationship partner may not believe you, but still cover you for their own reasons (to spare the children seeing Daddy doing time, for example), but as I said, I don't think, that trust develops and grows deeper, because - it just doesn't. TRUST is nothing that the conscious mind offers, trust is something from deep within.
A more common example is cheating. What happens in a relationship when a third person, or a special situation or something, that could be interpreted as "evidence", somehow suggests, there may have been cheating going on?
If asked, the answer being, "honestly, no, I didn't cheat on you", how many simply trust that assertion? How many would like to have more information? Hoy many would be suspicious about it and suspect a lie? How many would NOT believe the assertion (and for what reason)?
What you THINK is trust, is something else entirely: it's the habitual knowledge that things work out the way they do under "normal circumstances", but it would be foolish to take this as a foundation to trust someone: for one, the percentage of relationships in which trust has been breached, is way too high, and for two, just because things work out under normal circumstances doesn't mean things work out under special circumstances as well.
Remember: Trust in a person is an investment you make IN ADVANCE; to call it trust you must invest more than your experience or the situation would justify, because otherwise it's not trust anymore (it's comparable with "believe", a word that makes sense only when your conviction is stronger than knowledge of facts would justify).

So for me you still making a case for: It's love when my conscious mind tells me so, and my conscious mind needs time and experience to discern.
There is certainly one aspect with that, which is true, and that is GENERAL personal experience. If you are 14, your world has just been changed completely, and you are confronted with a whole new dimension of feelings; every person must come to grips with that - you might call that a calibration of your antennae.
But once that's been done, and I now come to Mvass
Quote:
JJ:
Yes, actually, I do know that from personal experience, both from having experienced the difference myself and from having observed it reflected in the actions of others.

There are many reasons a long-term relationship can fail. Here are just a few of them:
- Someone gets drunk and cheats.
- There is a change in circumstances (financial difficulties, the birth of a child, etc) that brings out something that at least one of the partners doesn't like.
- At least one of the partners starts the relationship perceiving a flaw as minor, but as the relationship progresses, it becomes more major and/or less tolerable.
- The partners don't spend much time with each other and grow apart.
- you (or something IN you) ARE able to differ between a crush and love, of course with a view on the initial calibration.

Anyway, look at your reasons:

- someone gets drunk and cheats?
Nah, bollocks. Drinking works like hypnotizing; being drunk doesn't make you do things you don't want to; it just makes you do the things you DO want to, but don't under normal circumstances. So someone who gets drunk and cheats doesn't have a working relationship anymore because he WANTS to cheat, but just didn't find the courage or opportunity until now.

- There is a change in circumstances (financial difficulties, the birth of a child, etc) that brings out something that at least one of the partners doesn't like?
So THAT would mean, what you call successful longtime relationship was completely conditional and based on certain circumstances only, which I wouldn't call SUCCESSFUL, but only convenient or comfortably. It can't be, what artu calls "deep", if it breaks after a slight challenge.
- At least one of the partners starts the relationship perceiving a flaw as minor, but as the relationship progresses, it becomes more major and/or less tolerable?
I don't know, what demands or standards you raise for a "successful long-time relationship", but I have a problem imagining that:
a) it's a "minor physical flaw": so let's say, you think her nose is somewhat too big, her breasts are a little too small for your liking ... so you would build a "successful long-time relationship", ignoring that "flaw" - and then break it up why? Because suddenly her nose got bigger? Or you decided that the nose was too big all along and everything was a mistake in the first place, the "successful long-time relationship" notwithstanding?
b) It's a "minor character flaw": so what would that be? She sometimes laughs at the wrong point? She's a bit too tidy or untidy for your liking? Well didn't you talk about that at some point? What happened? You didn't register over your "successful long-time relationship", that she's making and leaving a mess everywhere - but suddenly you register it? Or it got worse over time with her tidying up behind you, but you simply waited things out until the only solution for you seemed to be to break up your "successful long-time relationship"?

Mvass, either we have a completely different idea about the meaning of the words "successful", "long-time" and "relationship", or you just came up with a load of shallow superficialities.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 03, 2014 10:01 AM

Quote:
What you THINK is trust, is something else entirely: it's the habitual knowledge that things work out the way they do under "normal circumstances", but it would be foolish to take this as a foundation to trust someone: for one, the percentage of relationships in which trust has been breached, is way too high, and for two, just because things work out under normal circumstances doesn't mean things work out under special circumstances as well.

No, I was not talking about the assurance that comes from habit as in "she'll always do this given that situation." I was talking about trusting someone because of getting to truly know them and that also has a lot to do with caring about each other. You trust each other not because of statistics, you trust each other because you trust that you are irreplaceable for each other, you have unique specifications for each other. (Which can statistically turn out wrong, there's still no guarantee.)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 03, 2014 11:31 AM

artu said:

No, I was not talking about the assurance that comes from habit as in "she'll always do this given that situation." I was talking about trusting someone because of getting to truly know them and that also has a lot to do with caring about each other. You trust each other not because of statistics, you trust each other because you trust that you are irreplaceable for each other, you have unique specifications for each other. (Which can statistically turn out wrong, there's still no guarantee.)
I don't think that is right:
A) "trusting someone because of getting to truly know them and that also has a lot to do with caring about each other."
That assumes: 1) Getting to TRULY (= ABSOLUTELY) know them is POSSIBLE, which would mean 2) 100% prediction quota for behavior. Of course, in reality this is much more relative. What you ACTUALLY mean is that, over time, if you really care, you will form a better and more accurate picture of another person, that is based on 1) habit and 2) feelings, and this will allow you to develop REAL trust - but actually, we are back now where we started at, because habit doesn't involve the situations you need trust for - which leaves the feelings part.
So what you tell me here is simply, that you trust your feelings all the more the longer you have them, also because they will deepen.

And B) "you trust each other because you trust that you are irreplaceable for each other, you have unique specifications for each other.".
So THAT means, I would trust you, because I would trust that you BELIEVE that I am irreplaceable for you? People are known to act foolishly all the time, so even if I would trust in that belief of you, that would be no reason to exclude folly. People do stuff they later regret all the time - the danger of losing something very valuable is not that important, considering the fact that once the temptation is there to RISK the danger, it will appear smaller.
However - "having unique specifications for each other", that's a lot better a point, since it's positive. It means, that you are a - somewhat - perfect match.

However: if two people would say that, after being together for 50 years, reaching old age and summarizing their life, I'm quite sure, they would also say: THEY ALWAYS KNEW AND RIGHT FROM THE START.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 03, 2014 12:17 PM

Quote:
1) Getting to TRULY (= ABSOLUTELY) know them is POSSIBLE, which would mean 2) 100% prediction quota for behavior.

Once again, you are handling a matter of gradual change with absolutes. Of course, you can not know a person 100 percent, including yourself. But you can have meaningful amount of knowledge and you can only have that through some time.(And not just to protect yourself or take control too, just so that we're clear on that.)I'm not necessarily talking about 50 years, an emotionally or eventfully very compressed month can have similar results. It's not black and white, life is not full of two kind of people, ones who will die for each other blindly no matter what and pragmatic robots who calculate everything.
Quote:
However: if two people would say that, after being together for 50 years, reaching old age and summarizing their life, I'm quite sure, they would also say: THEY ALWAYS KNEW AND RIGHT FROM THE START.

1- They wont necessarily say it. That's just you.
2- Even if they say it, that can be the reconstruction of the memory. I talked about that in detail before.

Do you consider yourself lovestruck at first sight and if yes, did it happen only once? Nothing we said necessarily indicates that love will be eternal (till death do us part) or once in a life time. How repeatable is the thing you are talking about?

Btw, there is nothing wrong or cold about having actual, clear reasons for loving someone, it doesn't have to be mystical to be true or romantic.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This Popular Thread is 224 pages long: 1 30 60 90 120 150 180 ... 198 199 200 201 202 ... 210 224 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1069 seconds