It has been drilled into us from our early childhood that it is a virtue to be humble. The problem with my ex was that he actually believed it, and I didn't.

Could it be that the "genius" doesn't think of himself as a genius (possibly because his definition of genius is very strict), because he falls short of his definition? Or could it be that he doesn't even think of himself in such terms? He just thinks of himself as an average, hard working Joe? To think of oneself as a "genius," one has to compare oneself to others; perhaps he doesn't do that.

Herb: Well said.
And you have a hero-wife for 60 years... Makes you a hero then in my book.

From a man's perspective, there are three criteria. First is looks; it's the first thing you see about the person, and if she looks good, then you'll consider the rest. Second is intelligence. It can get really boring if she has no clue about what you're saying. Third is personality. Are her values, beliefs and behaviors compatible with yours? If so, then she's a keeper.

One of the problems, as I see it, is that we have been trained from early childhood to be self-effacing. It has been drummed into us that it is bad to think of yourself as superior in any way. It amounts to racism, etc.etc.etc. As a result, there are many heroes who cannot bring themselves to say what they know they are. You'll hear "I'm no genius, but..." from geniuses. "I'm no hero, but....." from heroes. That is why I was emphatic in saying that first of all, the seeker must be able to proclaim him or herself. Otherwise the seeker is merely looking for a subservient relationship. A sort of Sancho Panza to Don Quixote.

Well there's the million dollar question, neh? It's like the question "Why does this art appeal to you?" on steroids.

Initially it's physical attraction - like when you see this person from across the room and your sneakers melt onto the floor. Something I think people miss is that in addition to all of the physical beauty elements - individuality, facial symmetry, that all-important 0.7 hip/waist ratio (if you're talking about a man observing a woman,) muscles or boobage, etc. - every person expresses a part of their personality in a physical way, some more so than others: the way a person carries him/herself, the way they move, can convey an amazing amount of information about a person's personality, even in the first split second of seeing someone new.

In the second half of that split second, the mind (or mine, at any rate,) does a lightning-fast go / no-go correlation with one's own values. It's still just an initial, visual appraisal, but people generally short-change the value of, and the mind's ability to make, that split-second appraisal. I remember David Kelley talking about people having a "love at first sight" experience with Rand's philosophy, remarking that (I paraphrase,) "Generally you have to learn a little more about... the beloved, before knowing whether it's the real thing."

I've had both the experience of meeting someone whose physical appearance, mannerisms and body language were incredibly accurate indicators of that lady's personality, validated thoroughly after-the-fact, and the experience of meeting someone who projects a personality that turns out to be nothing like the actual fact as evaluated later. The former is far more the case than the latter, but the latter is also possible. So "love at first sight" is generally accurate, but still a crapshoot.

Something I came to realize just a couple of years ago - from a television show, of all things - is that more than anything else I am in love with: goodness. That begs the question of defining the "good," but there is a projection of benevolence - or lack of it - that every person does, whether they try to or not, and which can be neither faked nor concealed. It's something that shows up, invariably, in the eyes.
.

I think that it is crucial for the seeker and the prospective partner both to think of themselves as heroes; if only one or the other thinks that, the relationship will quickly fall apart. (That was the case for my ex-boyfriend and myself.)
Congratulations on staying with your wife for 60 years! I'm very glad to hear it.

In what work does Mr. Peikoff explain this?

Beautiful. Also true, I believe. Everyone here has brought up excellent points, thank you!

JC, Thank you. Most people don't appreciate my dry humor, even though most of it is absolutely true. I think I've found a good home here in the gulch, I just might stay..

NealS: I have know doubt that you will. I always look with interest to your comments in the Gulch.
Thank you.

The "for worse" part of the comment in reality was her becoming more like me. I have the negative attributes, fear of getting too close to others, or letting others too close to me. Perhaps I learned this from being in combat in Vietnam, another benefit from the government. She was a much nicer person before, then started to change and become more like me over time. We're now kind of meeting closer to the middle. We still get along great, or is it just that we tolerate each other more? We're old enough, happy enough, and now secure enough that we will support each other to the end now. Life is good.

You might be interested in Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, then. A fascinating story of a Greek statue (khoro?) begins the book and interweaves all through the other chapters.

Jan

Jan, I agree with the 'first 10 sec impression' idea. It took me a long time and some pain to trust my first impressions and not rationalize them away.

I will say that great sex makes life worth living.

This is fascinating to me; I would switch 1 & 2. For me the sexual attraction came from my admiration for his mind. I am very thankful that the physical aspects of the relationship lived up to his mind!

SarahM: This is a powerful subject... more often than not motivated by the subliminal. I had a professor/writer that stated, "You can love more than one person at any given time but you cannot be 'in-love' with more than one person at the same time." That the act of being in-love is exclusive to the beloved and an utterly personal journey where one is catapulted into a world of heightened sensation, where colors are more brilliant and the senses are exaggerated in smell, in touch, all of them, with the object of your desire at the center- all consuming. Our positive images are exalted and we feel energized beyond our known capacity, passionate and optimistic, limitless even. Yet too, our negative images of ourselves are brought to the forefront and we war with them, at once terrified to lose that which we know we cannot live without...
Possessiveness raises it head and jealousy burns holes through our matrix and we know we will start to unravel...
There is an absolute need to enter the mind of the beloved, (what do you believe, what do you want from life, what do you need, etc.), and the all encompassing urgency to possess the body of the beloved because only this, this need to crawl inside that which we have identified as the counterpart of ourselves, then and only then do we know that we are not alone. This ancient elemental force that pulls us into this union of mind and body where we are at once magnified and multiplied by the bonding of the 'two', life affirming, where we are made whole but not wholly by the other.

MichaelAarethun, WHAT kind of dream world are
you living in?!!!

There is a language problem because we use the same word to mean "real" love we feel for another person (including our parents, kids, siblings, friends), and "falling in love" which is just sexual attraction. They are two very different things. A good relationship is when you feel both.

Attraction can start in an instant, but almost always fades over time (maybe 7 yrs? to coin a stereotype).
Real love usually grows over time, as we learn more about someone, and the values we see in them grow.

Keeping the two concepts separate helps prevent the apparent conflict of "love" for relatives and friends, including friends on the same gender.

Romantic love is our subjective experience of the drive for immortality. When the "moon hits your eye", it's because your subconscious has assessed the prospective mate and perceives that offspring created with him/her will have a genetic advantage.

In studies of limerence, too, it's found that mutual infatuation is relatively rare. It's usually one partner in that DUHHHH state and the other partner willing to be party to it, because they like the person enough to be willing to mate with them, but from much more of a "loyal friends with benefits" perspective.

For your offspring, your scoring of the best mate means they have higher chance of survival, better access to resources, better access to the best mates when they grow up, and better resources for nurturing offspring produced with their chosen mates. In other words, for you, this confers a level of immortality at a genetic level.

This is what underlies jealousy behaviour - trying to control one's mate and preventing others from getting access to him/her, even that most extreme criminal behaviour of killing a mate if it tries to escape. It's all a genetic strategy aimed at giving one's own line the best advantage. "If I can't have him, nobody else will!"

Sadly, the subconscious is not very good at factoring in more recent factors relating to the species. For example, killing a mate rather than letting them escape will most likely extinguish one's own further reproductive opportunities - there aren't a lot of mating options in maximum security prison.

The annoying thing is that something in our being tends to withhold our best creative energies until or unless we fall into that stupid gah-gah state. Then, we seem to have a muse inspiring us to create the most amazing things. All for the opportunity to pee into the gene pool and transcend the limited span of one's own mortal coil.

It is easy to joke about romantic love. These are cynical times and the belief in romantic love is rare to discover. Rand says a Hero seeks out another Hero. Not easy to find but it's a start. For this to be valid, the seeker first has to believe in him or herself as a hero. Interaction over time will confirm the seeker's judgment. Keeping in mind you are not likely to find John Galt, but much more likely to find Hank Reardon. One can be a hero and still have flaws. I don't know if there is such a person as an unflawed non-hero - possibly a saint in the biblical sense. Man O Man would that ever be a bore!

I'm dusting off the rust, since I've been with my hero-wife 60 years. We've been high, low, at each other's throats but living without one another is absolutely unimaginable.

NealS: So... you acquired what she had that attracted you and she acquired what you had that attracted her- that over time you assimilated certain characteristics from each other. Maybe, seeing the reflection of ourselves in another, the mimicking of that person, to a degree, allows us to bond with the other... "For better or for worse".
Anyway, I couldn't help laughing at your "for worse" comment! Humor, alleviates so many of the tribulations of the day-to-day, long term relationships. Those who have this gift are fortunate indeed.

I think the "opposites attract" applies only to magnets. Similarities (and I agree sexual attraction is the primary one) are what pulls people together. But as one brilliant observation states: "A man marries a woman hoping she won't change; A woman marries a man hoping he will change. Both are wrong."

My thinking is along the likes of MichaelAa and blarman. People tend to fall in love with people in their proximity; people in their proximity often have similar backgrounds and beliefs. Even it the people in your proximity do not reflect your philosophy, you will be drawn to 'someone'...because that is hard-wired into us.

I have read (and can recommend) the book Blink (I think I got a lead to this book here in the Gulch). It talks about fast decision making and how accurate such decisions are. Going with your 'first 10 sec impression' is actually a functional plan.

Jan

Is that why creeps marry creeps, and movie stars marry movie stars, etc.? Perhaps it also has something to do with the old adage that you can never change a person. My wife and I both have changed for the worse, she became more like me, and I became more like her. Actually looking at it again it was probably more for the better of both of us.