Big Think
New videos DAILY: https://bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: https://bigth.ink/Edge
———————————————————————————-
The human brain works in a pretty specific way, and a lot of those ways haven’t changed over the years. Specifically, in the way humanity loves. While this may not the most romantic era of human history, the endorphin rush is the same as it was when Shakespeare was ushering in the most epic love story of all time. Biological anthropologist and author of The Anatomy of Love Helen Fisher assures us that nothing about the feelings or practices of love has been changed by online dating. People still flirt as they used to. Heart rates still pound when they meet. The biology is the same.
———————————————————————————-
HELEN FISHER
Helen E. Fisher, Ph.D. biological anthropologist, is a Senior Research Fellow at The Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, and a Member of the Center For Human Evolutionary Studies in the Department of Anthropology at Rutgers University. She has written six books on the evolution, biology, and psychology of human sexuality, monogamy, adultery and divorce, gender differences in the brain, the neural chemistry of romantic love and attachment, human biologically-based personality styles, why we fall in love with one person rather than another, hooking up, friends with benefits, living together and other current trends, and the future of relationships — what she calls: slow love.
———————————————————————————-
FOLLOW BIG THINK:
📰BigThink.com: https://bigth.ink
🧔Facebook: https://bigth.ink/facebook
🐦Twitter: https://bigth.ink/twitter
📸Instagram: https://bigth.ink/Instragram
📹YouTube: https://bigth.ink/youtube
✉ E-mail: info@bigthink.com
———————————————————————————-
TRANSCRIPT:
Helen Fisher: People think that modern technology is somehow changing love. It’s not changing love. The basic brain system for romantic love evolved millions of years ago. It’s not going to change whether you meet somebody on Tinder, on Match.com or in the library or on the skating rink or in church. The brain doesn’t change. And the moment that you meet somebody in a coffeehouse, in a bar, on a park bench, wherever it is they ancient human brain clicks into action and we court the way we always have. We smile the way we always have. We flirt the way we always have. We listen the way we always have. We try to size up the person the way the brain has always been sizing people up. But modern technology is changing how we court. In fact, you know, I work with Match.com, the Internet dating site and I’m their chief scientific advisor. And they have an algorithm. There’s all kinds of algorithms out there. But these are not dating sites. These are introducing sites. Once you go out with the person and meet them wherever you’re going to meet them the ancient human brain clicks into action and you court the way we always have. But they are introducing sites and they’re algorithms are very useful.
I mean, you know, most of us have this love map of what we’re looking for and you’ve got to pair up somebody. You have to offer dates of the right age, the right proximity whether they’re five miles away or 50 miles away. The right background, the right educational level, some of the right interests. So dating sites can go so far, only so far, with their algorithms to give you the broad basics of what you’re looking for. That we can provide for you so that you spend less time, you know, kissing frogs.
Source
Common tool for politicians too. They want you to draw a conclusion without thinking it out.
I know that Daniel is quite well regarded, but I'm not massively impressed with him. It seems that all he is saying here is, "Think about what you're being asked". Big whoop.
what is he talking about?
I kept on waiting for an example.
i find that some problems consistently require the same pump like flat tires
This guy is nonsense
Advanced alchemy.
thank u for posting a video with santa in it today
Hey big think, could you ask for examples when doing interviews? Thank you
tweak it and it falls apart 🙂 I love it rather than just accepting it because it was presented by a smart guy. Even the smartest can make mistakes and have invalid assumptions.
If we already have a word for it "thought experiment" why do we need a new one "intuition pump"? He's just trying to create a meme.
Yak. Yak. Yak. Intuition pump. Yak. Yak. Yak.
No definition or example of intuition pump.
Can I have an example?
I think he should've given some examples of intuition pumps to make the topic less confusing.
Some examples might have been useful.
So meta.
❤️
is that pin a Darwin fish or a Jesus fish? I think it's a Darwin fish.
"thought experiment to direct one to see something in a clearer or different or more intuitive way" ….hmmm kind of saying anything and nothing to me, at least at my level of understanding. … does a thought experiment not might block action as well, by overthinking, common in western culture. I thought intuition was more about direct action. like improvising for instance : jazz, butoh dance, automatic writing (of course intuition does not necessary need to lead to a product or labeled creation) – please help us out. give us a straight example?
Here's a link to Mitchel and Webb's intelligent and very funny deconstruction of a famous story told to illustrate a moral https://youtu.be/OIVB3DdRgqU Enjoy!
Just go read Socrates it is still relevant today. Most modern philosophers twist his lessons to fit their own narrative. If you do go and read just the books on the republic you will see what I mean.
Does this explain Jordan Peterson banging on about mythology?
Tweeking is not always a good idea…. try that with an active detonator !!!
Talk clear ,Santa clause
My like is like a bike with no wheels,it’s not going anywhere fast..