I'm not really sure how to word the question, but this idea has been rolling around in my mind for a while and would love to hear others input or just rants on the subject.

It seems to me, that after d-day, if a BS wants to recover their M, they must clamp down on their feelings, their heart, and apply scientific principles to love. While the WS follows their heart and wades around in the magic of love. Plan A is an appeal to the heart of the WS, plan B is an appeal to the heart of the WS. The BS does them scientifically, but they are playing to the WS's heart.

If successful, the WS becomes a FWS and both the BS and FWS start applying the science to bring back the magic. When the magic returns, they can now follow their hearts.

Something about that feels odd? Anyone else felt anything like that?

I think it's more accurately reason vs emotions rather than science vs heart.

JMHO

WAT

Can a person choose one and exclude the other and still be whole?

Using the mind to create fertile ground in the heart is the application of science to achieve harmony.

The mind without the heart is dead..the heart without the mind is insanity.

I doubt it.

My point is that someone intoxicated by the love drug is operating almost exclusively on emotion and feelings - riding the positive feedback loop of dopamine.

Mr. Spock, operating exclusively on reason, misses out on a big part of his universe.

A WS in the throes of an affair is succombing to the majority vote of emotions.

A smart BS - after the initial shock - should operate on the majority vote of reason and logic.

In neither case is there a 100% either or.

JMHO

WAT

where do you pull this wisdom from dear girl?

Pep

Love isn't magic. And science, we scientists generally agree we'd be fools to try to explain it. Besides, our spouses would hate it if we defined what everyone just enjoys writing songs, poems, movies, and stories about, and waxing poetic the mysteries of love.......

The problem being, that while we can study the behavioral mechanisms involved in the courtship rituals, relationship rituals, and other sociological aspects of love, there are many things that present difficulties in actual scientific studies. I mean, how do we go about controlling for so many things in scientific studies that have to do with love?

Such as:

1. How does one person KNOW that the other person is interested - when in fact, they DO know? Without being told in the first place, people know that the other is interested. Sometimes, this occurs with just a glance. How does this get communicated with just a glance, for example? This question becomes much more complicated, as you can imagine, given the variety of situations one can present in the real world, let alone a controlled scientific study (and let's not even talk about how scientists would get data on two people who never met, get the glance-across-the-room thing going on in a controlled setting, and then have the two fall in love, how can we capture that in a laboratory?....yikes).

2. Do we know that what one person defines and feels internally as love is the same as what another defines and feels as love? HOW do we know that?

3. Is there a neurological center in the brain that is controlling for love? We have a limbic system, and a frontal lobe which do evoke potentials in studies, but no such "center" identified.

4. DNA? Animal studies?

5. There's a difference between just-fell-in-love kind of love, and been-married-50-years love. And everything in between. How do we study that? Where's the difference in the brain? How can I capture an image of that in my MRI?


Man, the list goes on. You people got me started, and I was getting ready for bed. Now, I will be thinking about this stuff, and I think for a living. I hate it when I work right before I go to sleep.

By the way, maybe not dopamine, maybe serotonin......


SB

If it's a woman, no means yes.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
WAT

Wat,

I hear ya on reason vs emotion.

I kind of look at though as

Logic --- Emotion
Mind --- Heart
Science --- Magic

Flip sides of the same coin, so to speak.

I also get that everyone needs a little of both. I just find it odd that it seems the BS has to go through a tremendous amount of disciplined logical action to appeal to the WS's heart. I guess it just seems unnatural to me.

Does anyone ever worry that it shouldn't be that way?

I think it's about pulling things back into balance.

Consider this..the WS has let go the mind completely..lost and adrift in a sea of emotion..and what is the BS to do to cure the insanity..offer MORE emotion?

That way lies madness and possibly prison [winks] as an unchecked emotional reaction of a person who has been betrayed is a slightly unattractive scene.

The BS has to add the missing ingrediant..use what the mind knows to engage the errant heart.

Well, I'd match these up quite differerntly:

Magic - emotion - "heart"
Science - logic (reason) - objectivity

I think the BS ought to go thru a tremendous amount of disciplined logic to keep from making matters worse.

Until the WS gets off their dopamine high a bit, no amount of appeal to their heart will work. Ever try reasoning with a drunk? Same thing, IMHO.

The WS has been abducted by aliens. Not reachable. Set the stage to appeal to your spouse's heart - when it gets returned.

JMHO

WAT

rprynne,

One of the questions I have always had about MB, which I think is related to what you're asking, is...

Is Harley saying that any given person can get any other given person to fall/stay in love with him/her by learning how to make deposits in the other person's love bank? Or does the formula (science) only work -- or work best -- to rejuvinate the romantic love that at one time occurred "naturally" between two people (ie, without having to apply "a tremendous amount of disciplined logical action.")

Could you follow all that?

You've mentioned that you think MT questions whether she ever really felt romantic love for you. Have you asked Steve, point blank, what if that really is the case?

--SC

BTW, just for the record, I do agree with the others that she won't be able to make any progress figuring any of this out until she ends contact with OM once and for all. But how to make that happen... I just don't know.

SC - Harley's theory is that, if there has ever been a 'spark' between two people, that spark can always be rekindled. The whole method is predicated on there having been some physical and emotional attraction in the first place. This tends to assume that the two partners chose each other freely, based on mutual desire.

I've always assumed that the Harley approach would not be much use for arranged marriages.

I'm not sure it will work for those couples who chose each other on a pragmatic basis - perhaps to have kids before time runs out - hoping that the spark of attraction will grow with time. But, of course, WSs often lose all memory of the attraction they felt to their spouse earlier in the marriage...so they may feel at first that the method is inappropriate to them.

TA

At its basic level, Harley's concept of the "Love Bank" and making deposits into it that evenually result in enough "balance" that results in feelings of love, ARE universal.

That is primarily how people become involved in Class II affairs. They don't start out as an affair, they start out as a friendship where each begins to meet various emotional needs of the other, which in turn result in deposits into the "Love Bank." As those deposits grow, "feelings" follow and they begin to think "I'm in love and can't do anything about it."

Rubbish. They are "feeling" in response to decisions they made as to how they were going to interact with the Other Person. Instead of doing so with their spouse, they look elsewhere and then use the emerging "feelings" to justify the adultery.

The biblical injunction to "guard your heart" is tossed out the window in favor of "infallible emotions."

Going back to when a couple first met, before they married, it worked the same way. They began "doing" loving-like actions toward the one they were "dating" and the response was "loving-like" reactions back. The "Love Banks" took in the deposits and over time the feelings of being "in love" became noticeable. That ended up with a marriage, and then, all too often, the "I got mine and don't have to keep working at it" idea set in and the routine of marriage, not just the fanatasy "feel good" part set in. Responsibility to "DO one's part" to keep investing in each other's Love Bank is jettisoned, intentionally or not, and the withdrawals from the Love Bank begin.

So yes, the "love" you are speaking of begins with a choice. The feelings come later as the "interest" grows.

God bless.

In my humble opinion it is part of our nature. We are created in the image of God, and God IS love.

We certainly twist it, like so many other things, but love is an innate part of "who we are." HOW love is applied is where problems can begin.

In addition, the word "love" is much too restrictive in the English language. There are, in fact, many types of love besides just the "romantic" love.

It all begins from a sacrificial, not a "what's in it for me," attitude that is best exemplified by God Himself;

"This is love, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

"For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son to die for us so that we might be saved and have eternal life with Him."

No merit, worth, or action on our part. Complete sacrificial love for another DESPITE their "unloveliness."

WE respond to that love with love for God. The "deposit" God made in our "Love Banks" is unmeasureable. When we accept that love offering, we respond. Plain and simple.

On the "human to human level," we respond with meeting someone else's Emotional Needs, as in the Harley concept, for THEIR benefit, not ours. Generally speaking, when they see and feel those deposits, they begin to respond in kind. The "hold up" is most often selfishness. The "Taker," not the "Giver."

In short, we give with the hope, but not the expectation or assurance, that our loving actions will be returned with "interest." But we give love regardless because we choose to love through action and not just words.

God bless.

Noodle - I agree that recovery has some part of pulling things back into balance, but don't know that I agree that the early stages do.

WAT - I think we've got the same order on things, but not sure depending whether you read the lists side by side or up/down <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I'm saying Logic, Mind and Science are all very similar and are antagonists to Emotion, Heart and Magic. If we are on different pages, please say more.

Noodle and WAT - you both seem to say that the discipline, the logic is to keep matters from getting worse, and Plan A, Plan B, etc. are not an appeal to the heart. I somewhat disagree.

The WS appears alien because they are in emotional overdrive. IMHO, the Harley Approach plays to that. It is a logical approach to bringing different emotions to the WS. Exposure is all about adding some bad emotions to the A. Adding anxiety, stress, etc. Plan A is all about adding good emotions into the M. Plan B is all about adding a whole different set of emotions. Agree, Disagree?

SC - I have asked that question to SH. What he said, is that its not possible that she never felt that way. Here's my take on what his answer was. EN's are dynamic. One's most important EN's will change from time to time. One can go through life and never realize a specific EN is important to them. Then, one day, they run into someone that just naturally meets that EN. Maybe that's just how they are, or maybe they are a "player". Anyway, once that EN is met, viola, this is what I've been missing my whole life. My S never made me "feel" this way. Well, the S did, but the S didn't. The S made you "feel" that way by meeting other EN's. But now, the importance of those other EN's has diminished. But it can be intrepreted as never being in love with the S.

BTW, this is a totally different dynamic than neglecting an M. In that case, the S once did meet the important EN's, they haven't changed, the S just stopped meeting them.

As for does the Harley priniple say you can make anyone fall in love with you? I agree with others that have said its more about rekindling what was there. But I also think it would work in a case where there was nothing there before. I caveat that with the fact that the object of affection has to have at least a "neutral" attitude. What SH said to me is that people have a "govenor" that bascially controls the impact of someone meeting our EN's. Else we would be falling "in love" with anyone that met our EN's. This is why, their are some people, regardless of how well they met EN's on an objective basis, one would not fall in love with them. The catch with an A is that the WS has failed to use their "govenor" with the OP, and in same cases on top of that are using it with their S. I think this is somewhat the case with MT. BTW, we are supposedly back to NC.

FH - Basically agree with what you are saying. Especially the part about the giving of love, with no expectations. But that also relates to the discussion topic. That seems to me to be illogical, a matter of the heart, a matter of faith. The MB principles seem to say do this, and this will happen. Cause and effect.

The science to appeal to the heart seems manipulative. This is the disconnect that I am having, and at times feel lost in the exercise. Anger, resentment, etc. are what I feel sometimes, but they must be subordinated to the program to achieve the objective.

There's something called the "mere exposure effect" that has been studied. It plays a role in many affairs, and in many workplace romances-turned-marriages as well.

The Harley method takes this, IMO, and capitalizes on it in order to build the love bank up, with the 15 hours togetherness concept.

The mere exposure effect basically is the idea that being with another person consistently and in situations where you are closely allied creates a sense of closeness which frequently leads to feelings of love. Utilizing this idea, you can see why people who work closely together, alone with each other, who travel frequently together, etc., and if they do this frequently enough, can build enough of a sense of closeness that they begin to develop loving feelings for one another. It is often the case that someone we would not remotely find attractive in other situations becomes very desireable to us because of the fact that we are constantly exposed to this person, in a very positive environment, reinforced daily, and supported with good feelings of success at work and rewards at work and events there (one example only).

That's also why NC works so well to break up the A. Too often, it is simply the mere exposure effect that is creating the "loving feelings", and not true love after all......once the daily contact is broken, the rewards are stopped, then the WS can begin to see the OP in the true light. And realizes that the OP isn't someone they would be right for in the "real world".

So, can we "scientifically" make someone fall in love with us? Maybe so.....I think it would be possible......if we plant ourself in their life, ally ourself on their team, spend enough positive time with them, and stay close in high frequency, then hope that the mere exposure effect will go to work for us. But, this is with the caveat that the OP would have to have that one little thing - the "spark" - and that is the one thing that is hard to conjure up (but, I think it can be done!!!!).

Just MHO.

See, I told you guys you were making me think too much. Don't go talking science. That's just too much fun.

SB

SB - Its not so much that I doubt the science. I'm sure its valid. And I'm sure there are many other thereoies on this whole thing.

Knowing the science is what I don't know if I like.

So basically..it takes the magic out of it for YOU as well as draining it from the affair?

Noodle - Yeah. To some extent that is what I'm saying.

It feels like I'm manipulating someone in to loving me, into staying married to me. How am I going to feel if I'm successful?

It's going to feel like a letdown until you come to grips with the falseness of your previous perceptions with regard to "the magic".

In some sense...all interaction is manipulative.

From how you dress...how you speak...the postures you adopt...they are ALL subtle manipulations...they are designed to garner the reaction that you deem desireable from the audience you target.

OPs know this very..VERY well and carry it out quite ruthlessly..predatory OPs doubly so because they are AWARE of their power and use it intentionally.

Coming to that realization is a shocking experience..and it DOES steal the magic..it kills the fairytale..it is a double ended sword because it does it as surely to the marriage as to the affair.

Long term though..this knowledge is crucial to sustaining a mutually satisfying marriage. You need to know what makes your wife tick..and vice versa. You need to know how to interact with her in a way that doesn't build resentment. You need to know where her vulnerabilities are.

The long term benefits imo outweigh the loss of the dream.