Recommended Reading
120 scientists were asked, "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" Here's David Buss' answer:
True love.I've spent two decades of my professional life studying human mating. In that time, I've documented phenomena ranging from what men and women desire in a mate to the most diabolical forms of sexual treachery. I've discovered the astonishingly creative ways in which men and women deceive and manipulate each other. I've studied mate poachers, obsessed stalkers, sexual predators and spouse murderers. But throughout this exploration of the dark dimensions of human mating, I've remained unwavering in my belief in true love.
While love is common, true love is rare, and I believe that few people are fortunate enough to experience it. The roads of regular love are well traveled and their markers are well understood by many - the mesmerizing attraction, the ideational obsession, the sexual afterglow, profound self-sacrifice and the desire to combine DNA. But true love takes its own course through uncharted territory. It knows no fences, has no barriers or boundaries. It's difficult to define, eludes modern measurement and seems scientifically woolly. But I know true love exists. I just can't prove it.
If you're looking to spend some time reading randomly interesting ideas, check out some of the other responses.
7 Comments:
Bollix! "True" Love is a fantasy! A bedtime story at best. Certainly there are many types of love but "true" love is a hoax.
Irish Geisha: Now there’s an argument I can’t win. It is impossible to convince someone that True Love exists. Well…unless I were to introduce them to my monstrous, young, bulbous, twitching, sweaty, sonic-pulse-emitting, glabrous, diamond-hard, electromagnetic, and inexhaustible meat pickle.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
What really puts Kelly's response over the top, from a qualitative perspective, is his use of the term "glabrous." Not many people refer to genitalia using this fairly scientific designation—applicable to any skin that doesn't grow hair and usually has a higher concentration of nerve cells like the bottoms of feet, frontsides of hands, lips, tongues, pudenda, and, of course, schlongs—while simultaneously using a whole other bunch of crude terms.
The use of glabrous in this context brings sharp focus on the crux of the original post, namely that science and emotion don't readily appear to have a commonality. But, as we know, they do.
Editor's note: I removed my other post to change the word "post" to "response" in the first line of my comment.
So, does this mean that anything that is not 'true love' is 'false love'? I truly love cake and ice cream. I truly love porn. I truly love cake and ice creame while viewing porn. I guess I've found true love. wOOt!
-stig
What makes Kelly's comment all the more intriguing is that, like true love, it's nearly impossible to prove that Kelly even has a monstrous, young, bulbous, twitching, sweaty, sonic-pulse-emitting, glabrous, diamond-hard, electromagnetic, and inexhaustible meat pickle.
I was under the impression that "True", as used in the above post, is defined as "Placed, delivered, or thrown accurately". Thence the reference to my meat pickle, which has never been delivered or placed anywhere other than was intended. (While I am not inclined to "throw" my love, it has on occasion been tossed. Like a salad.)
Post a Comment
<< Home