Renaissance Men and Byronic Heroes

I wonder if psych majors have a difficult managing their relationships.

I thought of this as I read a chapter of my social psychology book on "the self." It started after this section on self-awareness (the idea that when people focus on themselves, they compare themselves to... well, themselves; their own values and such. It seems obvious, but that way we're on the same page):

Even when we are self-aware and introspect to our heart's content, it can be difficult to know why we feel the way we do. Imagine trying to decide why you love someone. Being in love typically makes you feel giddy, euphoric, and preoccupied; in fact, the ancient Greeks thought love was a sickness. But why do you feel this way? Exactly what is it about your sweetheart that makes you fall in love? We know it is something about out loved one's looks, personality, values, and background. But precisely what? How can we possibly describe the special chemistry that exists between two people? A friend of ours once told us he was in love with a woman because she played the saxophone. Was this really the reason? The heart works in such mysterious ways that it is difficult to tell.  (pages 125-126, Aronson, Wilson, Akert - Social Psychology, 7th edition)

After this, they site an example from the "old" TV show Friends (seriously, they call it old. Thanks for making me feel ancient, textbook) when Ross makes a list of things he likes and doesn't like about Rachel. This is, according to the author's, a very bad idea.

Consider people like Ross who try to analyze why they feel the way they do about a romantic partner. When people list reasons in this manner, they often change their attitudes toward their partners, at least temporarily... Why? It is difficult to dissect the exact causes of our romantic feelings so we latch on to reasons that sound good and that happen to be on our minds (remember our friend who claimed he was in love with a woman because she played the saxophone?). (page 128, Aronson, Wilson, Akert)


This causes issues for us when we make lists and then list strange things about a person (the textbook mentions a partner annoyingly smacking their gum) instead of more complex things like good chemistry. Thus if we focus on things like gum smacking, we might suddenly decide we're not really in love with our partner and break up with them, then later regret it.

And to make matters even WORSE, the authors mention a study done where men and women are startled on a bridge and the men either immediately evaluated how attracted they were to the woman or asked to evaluate after they crossed the bridge. Those that were evaluated immediately while still startled rated the women as more attractive than those who had calmed down. This "misattribution of arousal" has been found to be true in both women and men. "The moral is this:" the authors say, "If you encounter an attractive man or woman and your heart is going thump-thump, think carefully about why you are aroused - you might fall in love for the wrong reasons!" (page 135, Aronson, Wilson, Akert)

All of this coming RIGHT AFTER they told us that dissecting our romantic feelings is not always a good idea is a bit... much. Clarity with complex emotions is not the textbook's strong point. We're not supposed to pick apart romance, but if we feel like we're in love, well, hold on buddy, wait and think that out. It's about as helpful as bucket of water in a flood. Or Doctor Phil on a regular basis.

Too much?

Point is, I love psychology, but this sort of shit within the few same pages bugs me. Both are true sometimes, both are false sometimes, but seeing how complex life just... kind of makes me depressed. How can I possibly know what's the right thing to do when psychologists are like, "Yeah, man, we have no better idea than you do."

This is where my doubts with psychology come into play. Because when you get to scientific, you get something like this with W. Somerset Maugham; "Love is only a dirty trick played on us to achieve the continuation of the species" (that was actually in my AP Psychology text book, I kid you not). Funny? YES. Depressing for a psych major to see? Hells yeah! Because if we have no good understanding of why people fall in love and we keep trying to explain it without relying on philosophy, the world just looks... dark and cold. PSYCHOLOGY ALONE DOESN'T TELL US ENOUGH.

It's just hard to read this book and think about all the things it could be saying, should be saying and yet doesn't. Maybe I want to believe in love too much. Maybe my idea of love is just a fantasy. I ask you now to turn to exhibit D.

Exhibit D

This, clearly, is a painting. Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog by Caspar David Friedrich, to be exact. This, in an image, capitulates what would take far too long to say in words. You want to know my type? This is my type. A tragic hero mixed with a genius, I-can-do-anything Renaissance man. Think Stephen Maturin from the Patrick O'Brian books. Jack Harkness. Sherlock Holmes. Or this:

These are examples of Byronic Heroes. I seem to have a thing for moody, intelligent, snarky men. Which is a problem. I'll let this little comic tell you why (I know, I know, picture overload, but they're JUST SO USEFUL! And fun, did I mention fun?):

 

Anne Bronte is probably right - I might just have a thing for assholes. Along with this: ALL ABOVE MENTIONED BYRONIC MEN ARE FICTIONAL. Yep. Problem.

Which brings me back to the psych stuff. I'm not supposed to evaluate why I find someone attractive, but when the individual is fictional, I feel like it's inevitable. How else am I going to figure out what I like in the real world? (Unless of course all psych authors assume that fictional people are left out. In which case that makes me feel kind of weird and marginalized. Again). Do I only like Mr. Rochester because I always read the book when I'm upset? (Except that I still like him even when I'm not upset. Dashed that idea). What if the sort of person I'm looking for isn't real? What if everything I think I know about relationships is a myth? What if there is no such thing as true love?

And we're back at the depressing shit again.

'kay, Keane, I usually like you guys. And I like this song... most of the time. But those lyrics - "When we fall in love/ We're just falling/ In love with ourselves/ We're spiralling." Is that true? I don't want it to be. There might be some truth in the idea that "birds of a feather flock together." But that we don't really love another person, just ourselves in love? I don't want that to be true.

What I really need to do is just STEP OFF and stop trying to psychoanalyze my life at all times. I don't always have to rip myself apart about why I like something or why I'm attracted to someone. I did that with [No-Mr-Darcy] and that was a HORRIBLE IDEA (thanks with your help with that, [X] You started it by telling everyone he was just like me). But also, I WON'T GIVE UP ON HOPE FOR REASON. Sometimes things make sense, sometimes things don't. It's not a satisfactory answer, but it's the only one I've got right now. 

Over-analyzing why I think Rochester is so romantic, or why I'm attracted to certain traits, or why I fell for [No-Mr-Darcy] in the first place or whether or not my idea of love is real isn't going to help me. I NEED TO GO OUT THERE AND FIND OUT FOR MYSELF. Some things won't have answers. Some will. Such is life.

I know I worry too much. Maybe other psych students don't spend their spare time worrying about whether or not a scientific approach to love will screw up how they see love. Maybe the don't worry if other psych students are worried about the same thing. Maye they don't worry that the sort of person they're looking for in the world is a myth. Maybe they're just content and happy and have no problems of this sort.

But something tells me this isn't so.