Lumifer comments on Good movies for rationalists? - Less Wrong

0 Post author: roland 09 November 2013 08:00AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (66)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Lumifer 12 November 2013 05:22:05PM *  2 points [-]

I'd say the "magical component" to romantic love does predate movies and TV. It predates all fiction, I'd imagine. Cave men fell in love and then made drawings about it on the cave walls.

Sexual attraction (and the central nervous system consequences thereof) predates humans.

However as far as I can recall the concept of "romantic love" and specifically the notion of the sequence romantic love -> marriage -> live happily ever after, this notion was the product of the European Middle Ages.

Note that outside of the Western countries the idea that one should marry one's romantic love interest is not widespread.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 14 November 2013 04:57:10AM 2 points [-]

As far as I know, the idealization of romantic love started in the Middle Ages, but it was of a knight for a high status lady, not part of his marriage, and not supposed to be consummated sexually.

I'm not sure when the idea started that romantic love was supposed to be the basis of marriage.

Comment author: Nornagest 16 November 2013 01:45:42AM 1 point [-]

I've heard the same, but I'm not sure how seriously to take the meme. I happened to read some Chrétien de Troyes chivalric romances recently (in translation), and the romantic relationships he depicts, while consistently idealized in character, sometimes conclude in marriage and aren't exclusively chaste. (Indeed, I'm told de Troyes introduced the character of Lancelot to the Arthurian canon, and we all know what he's famous for.)

Since de Troyes was writing in the 12th century, I'm inclined to take his work as at least somewhat authoritative.

Comment author: Brillyant 12 November 2013 08:02:21PM *  1 point [-]

Sexual attraction (and the central nervous system consequences thereof) predates humans.

Yes. Though it seems to me language, and humans' capacity for it, is what I am ultimately suggesting is at issue with regard to movies influencing our expectations about what romantic love is like in the long term.

As soon as the idealization was recordable -- able to be communicated to a non-participant in whatever form the sexual relationship took -- then I think the map started to include errors in transmission about how to optimize for long-term fulfillment in romantic relationships. To the extent people had access to the errant map and used it as the primary (or sole) resource for doing long term love right, they were vulnerable to doing it wrong. Movies are just this concept on steroids, and only humans can make movies.

No doubt nature couldn't care less about whether we're fulfilled long-term...as long as we're good at short-term mating and preparing Jr. to be good at it too, then our replicators are probably happy as clams.

Comment author: Lumifer 13 November 2013 04:13:52PM 1 point [-]

I think you're conflating "sexual" and "romantic".

Comment author: Brillyant 13 November 2013 09:48:14PM 1 point [-]

I guess. Though I'm not sure there is much harm in doing so in this context.