THE LOVE LAB

Humans are not a pack of wolves and so our social hierarchy is not quite as distinct as alpha, beta, omega. There are certainly degrees of where men fall on the hierarchy scale and what determines who is in charge. In the past, during the hunter and gatherer days, this may have been determined by physical strength. In our modern world, power is often determined by socioeconomic status. In this sense, it is not enough to be aggressive and physically superior, one must posses a certain level of intelligence/education to persevere. However, men’s status still seems to be very much affected by Testosterone levels. So it seems, the modern alpha male needs to have a combination of these factors to be considered as such.

Inherent Qualities of an ALPHA MALE

Nature

high testosterone levels- linked to competitiveness and dominance in men; the need to influence and control; aggressive tendencies; the ability to dominate social situations

Nurture

Education and Socioeconomic status: this will determine what the outlet will be for the high testosterone. High testosterone males tend to hold dominant social positions in prisons and mental institutions, but culture can make the difference between them leading a gang or an organization.

perseverance coupled with a me first attitude – An alpha male will not shy away from dangerous conflict, but only because he believes he can win. If the win is not possible, the alpha male is first and foremost a survivor. He does not indulge in self sacrifice or martyrdom. The ultimate goal is to dominate, as well as pass on his genes.

Below are fictional alpha males from my favorite shows, past and present. They are characterized by their professional success, social dominance, pragmatic intelligence, and aversion to monogamy.

The protagonist Don Draper (played by John Hamm), in the AMC series MAD MEN set in early 1960’s New York City, is a brilliant ad man who commands respect from men and maintains affairs in spite of his picture perfect family life.

Bill Henrickson (played buy Bill Paxton), in HBO’s BIG LOVE, is a Mormon polygamist who juggles three wifes, seven children, a home improvement store, creepy in-laws, and a gambling business.

Brian Kinney (played by Gale Harold) on Queer as Folk is the epitome of sex appeal for men and women alike on this Showtime series. He is another brilliant ad executive; Brian is confident, promiscuous, and a self made millionaire.

references for articles detailing the links between testosterone and behavior:

(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DF1438F934A25754C0A966958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=print)

(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DF1438F934A25754C0A966958260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=print)

…leads us to the Neuron.

A friend of mine recently heard the Dalai Llama give a speech in Barcelona, Spain.  Mr. Llama emphasized that the way to achieve happiness and inner tranquility is through love and compassion.  I have written about love before, particularly the sort of love that the Dalai Llama would very much approve of: the kind of love which focuses on giving; it is a love that is composed of knowledge, respect, care, and effort.  I mentioned that I would touch upon care and effort at some point and I think it is important to note that care and effort combine to form passion, whereas knowledge and respect combine to form friendship.

care + effort = passion

Without genuine care, our hard effort becomes more of a chore.  Have you ever had a dead-end job that you worked very hard at, yet it never gave you any sort of fulfillment? Without effort, care is simply the attention we give to an object/subject.  We can have affection for it, an interest in it, but without effort there is no energy exerted and nothing sacrificed.

knowledge + respect = friendship

For the purposes of discussing the search for happiness, I’d like to focus on compassion as an integral part of contentment. Compassion is simply empathy that is coupled with the desire to help the other.

empathy + effort = compassion

This makes a lot of sense when we look at our previous equation of care and affort.  When we have empathy for someone, we care about them in addition to identifying with them in a vicarious way.  We feel what they feel.  Since empathy encompasses care, then we can agree that compassion encompasses passion.  In addition, I do not believe you need to identify with someone in order to CARE about them.  This would explain how psychopaths can love just like the rest of us, although how they express this love can be somewhat different and may lack the understanding of the object’s needs.

Empathy, like love, is a product of evolution.  These are both necessary aspects of our survival.  Love is essential in the sense that it secures reproduction and the raising of a dependent young.  Empathy is essential for many reasons.  It occurs through the action of mirror neurons which are capable of initiating a response in us by firing away from mere observation of an event.  For example,  watching a person scratching their head, we actually initiate a similar scratching of the head response in our minds (as if we were doing it).  In this way we are able to anticipate another’s actions, as well as sympathize with their pain.  Both skills are important for basic survival, as well as for social success.  Appropriately, these mirror cells gained the nickname of “The Dalai Llama neurons”.

It is important to note that neither passion nor compassion can occur without the addition of EFFORT.

Effort occurs anytime we exert our physical or mental energy and it seems to be the common thread in the two equations.  I am a firm believer that happiness cannot be achieved without diligent effort and that hard work always pays off. All the technicalities aside, I strongly agree that directing our efforts toward others through care and empathy  will lead to a certain fulfillment.  I don’t think this is the only way to be fulfilled, though.  Directing our efforts and care towards an idea can be very fulfilling, as well.  For instance, having passion for what you do can be very exciting and brings much satisfaction to men in particular.  However, I do believe that ultimate happiness lies in the personal exchange of love.

You rarely hear that a relationship ends due to a lack of love. People speak of diminished satisfaction, a lack of communication, broken promises, an inability to commit or the lack of desire to do so. However, although there are cases, I rarely hear of people saying they have fallen out of love. There are those who were never in love to begin with or relationships where love did not have a chance to fully blossom. But time and time again, a disenchanted lover will profess that although they still feel love for you, the relationship cannot go on (or vice versa).

But how can that be? How can the same feeling that brought you together against all odds fail to sustain your union? Why do we no longer feel compelled to make the same compromises or sacrifices?

Is it a change of heart or a change of goals?

Many people see love as a FEELING. I agree that love is an amalgamation of many feelings, and it certainly incites particularly strong ones when it is threatened. However, the concept of LOVE is a motivational construct. This is not a novel idea. It was proposed by Helen Fisher (an anthropologist at Rutgers University) and scientific research of the brain has shown that several brain areas are active when we experience love. Some of these brain areas are responsible for GOAL ORIENTED behavior. I certainly prescribe to this description.

Even as long ago as the 1950’s, Eric Fromm (a German humanistic philosopher/psychologist) stated that love is an “act of will” in his book The Art of Loving. Fromm posited that it is this active commitment that makes the marriage of two individuals continue in liu of diminished passion or changing circumstances. Of course, not everyone honors their commitments. Certainly, in our modern world where most people are programmed with what Fromm describes as the “Marketing Orientation” – or the mentality that focuses on packaging, advertising, and selling yourself – we are prone to view love as a TRANSACTION and marriage as a contract like any other, one which can be voided if violated.

Perhaps many would argue that we cannot control when and whom we love, but the act of love need not be an act of will of which we are aware. When I speak of changing goals in the dissolution of a relationship I am referring to both conscious and subconscious desires and motivations. I think women in particular are constantly evaluating their mates to decide whether they will become sufficient and stable providers for their offspring (commitment, ambition, perseverance, intelligence, loyalty) and will increase the quality of the woman’s lifestyle and those of her children (status, power, wealth, resources). Men, on the other hand, are programmed to evaluate the fertility of a woman and her ability to give birth to healthy children that will carry on the man’s genes and resources (youth and physical attractiveness). These are, of course, only the most basic points of value for both men and women.

Depending on the individuals’ background and upbringing, other factors may drive the ultimate decision to stay or leave a partner. Some men will also evaluate whether the woman will be an emotional pillar in times of stress (understanding and emotionally stable); it may be important the woman can cook and clean and be a nurturer in times of physical need such as ailment…basically the traditional notions of a good mother and wife. Women may look for a man who has a sense of humor (often associated with intelligence and perceptiveness), someone who is honest and responsive, considerate, thoughtful, sensitive, social, and other qualities which will help create the embodiment of what that woman may consider to be a good lifestyle.

I believe the basic points of value are important in the initial attraction and passion that results when two people fall in love. Throughout the relationship, both men and women are evaluating their partner (whether they know it or not) and deciding whether they will result in the satisfaction of their long term goals and desires; they are also constantly re-evaluating their current levels of satisfaction based on these assessments.

This theory certainly worked against me a couple of times when my lack of affinity for cooking and cleaning rendered me a less valuable future partner. Something most of my partners disregarded in the beginning (I made no attempt to hide it) became relevant only as time went by and my partners began to evaluate what I can bring into the relationship. This is very in line with the modernist social contract. The “what have you done for ME lately” that Eddie Murphy joked about in his stand up.

So when a person says that they “love you but are not happy in the relationship”, it may seem confusing. If love is a feeling then how can someone feel love (a good thing) and unhappiness (a bad thing) at the same time? This contradiction can be resolved if we view love in terms of goal oriented behavior, one that has many different feelings at different times and is accompanied by different behaviors. It is the goal of wanting a particular woman to bear a man’s child that may drive a man to want to marry her and ensure that they will raise these children together. It is the realization that a particular man may not be a persevering enough in the little things that may make a woman feel that he may not be persevering enough in the big things which can make a woman decide that this man is not for her.

In conclusion, it is not the change of the feeling that makes us want to end the union, but the change of goals for that particular union.