… to fall in love. At least, it takes less than a second for some of the right chemicals to flood your brain. Link
It takes a fifth-of-a-second for the euphoria-inducing chemicals to start acting on the brain when you are looking at that special someone.
That’s one of the conclusions of Stephanie Ortigue, who has co-authored a review of neuroscience research on love.
And an interesting bit about kinds of love:
One common distinction is between passionate love and the companionate kind, with the latter growing between couples over time.
My eighth grade Spanish teacher talked to us about this, over the distinction between “being in love” and “loving” someone (I think) that also was about the difference between just falling in love with someone, and having loved someone for years.
It seems like a lot of research into human behavior confirms things that we already know, but haven’t had fully categorized, or explained, by scientific means.
Different words for love? Makes sense, there’s different kinds of love that we’ve found.
Love at first sight? It’s the chemicals in your brain.
Does confession work? Looks like it does, even a non-religious one.
It’s sort of cool that science is confirming some of our past practices. We know more than we think we do.
“There are many states that do very well, better than most states in the country, that have no income taxes,” Walker told reporters during a stop at his Northern Economic Development Summit. “That’s one thing for us to look at. Is that feasible? What would that mean in terms of an economic boost? That’s not only for individuals, but small businesses in this state.”
My issue with this is that states have to balance the budget, so services will have to get cut in concert. I doubt he’s going to finance the tax cut with debt…
Amid this article about the harms of the cult of productivity, this stood out:
The proletariat, Lafargue cries, “must proclaim the Rights of Laziness, a thousand times more noble and more sacred than the anaemic Rights of Man concocted by the metaphysical lawyers of the bourgeois revolution. It must accustom itself to working but three hours a day, reserving the rest of the day and night for leisure and feasting.”
That sounds nice but why exactly should we do it? It is because: “To force the capitalists to improve their machines of wood and iron, it is necessary to raise wages and diminish the working hours of the machines of flesh and blood.” (emphasis mine) Workers should refuse to work so that new gadgets get invented that will do the work for them. Similarly, Bertrand Russell, in his 1932 essay “In Praise of Idleness”, argued that technology should make existing work patterns redundant: “Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and security for all,” he wrote. Somewhere, he is still waiting for that possibility to be realised.
It’s sort of happened in the opposite way, with wages stagnating/falling and hours being lost, and it hasn’t exactly been great. People want (or need) more work (money).
The path we’re on isn’t going to change either. Technological progress will continue to produce machines (and robots and computers) that can do tasks that were formerly something only humans could do, and I doubt that a leisure filled future is what that means for us.
I am not surprised that commutes increase political apathy . I had a ~40 minute commute to and from work (so around 80 total), and getting home meant spending upwards of an hour sitting there before I could summon up the energy to go to the gym.
Same thing at my previous-previous job (~90 minutes one way), even when I was riding a bus and alternately napping/reading/surfing the web.
Long commutes just suck, in general.