Why blizzard certain feeling.
In the discussion that follows, there are some fine passages are determined not to understand, even when they are explained well, what can I do here which is not (it would take many pages). Another warning very, very obvious: not all people have similarly configured synapses in the areas concerned to the problem defined here it is.
Premise 1: like plants and other animals are machines designed to facilitate the duplication of our DNA, this is a neo-Darwinian theory of Richard Dawkins, unchallenged, and he who thinks or says he's a better or did not understand the theory Dawkins or just pretending in order to please certain target spiritualist (or intellectual, which is even worse, if possible).
Premise 2: shaped our psychology is based on the premise number 1, although the plasticity of the brain allows cultural adjustment.
Premise 3: many of the motivations of our desires are completely outside of our awareness of individuals (not that of scientists), then we must accept that psychology tells us things that we can not respond by saying: "Yeah! It is true, it is just like "this reaction can only have a rational, noting the explanatory adequacy of the theory in respect of the conduct objectively verifiable.
Premise 4: its the great plasticity of our brain neocortex hypertrophic (linked to our complete inability to fend for ourselves for many years after birth) periods requires annual educational.
Premise 5: The language used finalist evolutionism (for example, "the bacterium is modified to evade the antibiotics that can counteract") is a metaphor, is a language "as if" (reference to any serious text of evolutionism ).
Love is a consequence of the evolution of the attempt, partially successful, to optimize parental care in a species that requires long and accurate. The attempt failed in part especially in terms of gender differences and discrepancies in the times of disaffected (with regard to the survival of not less suitable cf. here). Falling in love is a sort of mutual price: man, being loved, we earn the increase of his hopes that the child is his, the woman being loved, weakening the bestial male tendency to spread the seed on an industrial scale, the price you pays to be loved is to love. Monogamy would therefore be a good solution evolutionary nature but was unable to complete the work, so we live in imperfect monogamy (basically sequential), where the love lasts more or less the time for bringing up a child in the first , the most difficult years immediately after birth. Then, for what concerns the nature, you can estrangement. Ignoring the problems caused in this regard social norms of many cultures, the main problem here is that the disaffected is difficult to synchronize. The situation of mutual love, in which the male-female differences are very subtle, is a situation that is reached with difficulty, overcoming obstacles of various kinds, or in the various paths to the search for partners that nature happens more specifically male ( "Spread the seed") and female ("choose the best possible partner") are in clear contradiction.
The explanation of why males also fall in love and not be content just to scatter the seed is two-fold, but the two points are closely connected: 1) prehistoric women tended to dislike the spreaders of seeds incapable of falling in love, especially since their children were less likely to survive in the savannah difficult, given the absence of fathers, and 2) the children of seed spreaders were incapable of falling in love very little chance of survival. Consequently, the DNA could fall in love with the man who has had success (simply because those who were with him sent to the children who, unlike children of seed spreaders, survived at least until reproductive age).
Most of the many objections that come to mind reading this synthesis are usually too concise answers within the theoretical framework of evolutionary psychology.
