Can we predict love?
Relax, people. I am not a troubled, full-of-rethorical-question teenager who tried to make war with your memory and mind of romantic sweetness. It, surely, is a weird question. It is in the same caste of realm with asking “why do I catch fever at seven in the morning instead of at seven at night?” But for you who have already read An Abundance of Katherines, written by the crowned prince of Kingdom Young Adult Novels, you may already have sense on what I am trying to bring up in this article. Meanwhile, for you who haven’t, that’s okay if you still have about ten dollars to grab the book, but even if you don’t, you are fine to follow my 101-type course (which, fortunately, does not feature any textbooks).
To unblind you from these complexities, let me introduce you to a mini plotline summary of the book that, I hope, will not give you too much spoilers. This is stolen from Amazon, anyway.
When it comes to relationships, Colin Singleton’s type is girls named Katherine. And when it comes to girls named Katherine, Colin is always getting dumped. Nineteen times, to be exact. On a road trip miles from home, this anagram-happy, washed-up child prodigy has ten thousand dollars in his pocket, a bloodthirsty feral hog on his trail, and an overweight, Judge Judy–loving best friend riding shotgun—but no Katherines. Colin is on a mission to prove The Theorem of Underlying Katherine Predictability, which he hopes will predict the future of any relationship, avenge Dumpees everywhere, and finally win him the girl. Love, friendship, and a dead Austro-Hungarian archduke add up to surprising and heart-changing conclusions in this ingeniously layered comic novel about reinventing oneself.
Let us focus on “The Theorem of Underlying Katherine”. So, basically, there are two kinds of person involved in relationship: a dumpee and a dumper. In the theory, there are several key qualities both people have: age, popularity differential, attractiveness differential, dumpee/dumper differential, and introvert/extrovert differential. These qualities are valued by a series of number. The values are then calculated to make up a graph based on an equation below:
No. Do not freak out. If you have no idea what all those xs and sins and pies mean, you are just in the same state as me and most of people reading the book. However we are getting closer to what I intended to explain in this article.
If you find this as a curious problem, you are welcome to create your own graph by clicking this link: http://www.palegreenthings.net/
You did? Well done! But the problem is that I tried this graphmaking application on my parents’ relationship that it turned out really differently with what happened in real life (I entered the information based on the time when they two met each other).
Here we can conclude that my mother would be a dumper. And by looking at a kind of steep curve, we are suggested that the relationship would not go well. But the real-life result is a mere contradiction of this graph-based prediction. The two people are in happy 18-year old marriage. Now, we glimpse a sort of trouble in the equation which may requestion us: can we really predict love at all?
Scientifically, our love is predictable. We can look deeper about the idea in the following video:
As you might have watched, the video truly explained the universal concept of randomness, that can help us digest the idea of predictable love. This explanation may lead us into a short conclusion: so, all the things, except the inexplainable quantum stuffs, are actually not random at all. If you reach this point, you are in the right track in our study.
As things are predictable, so is love. However, you may now stare at this article as I just proved that the predicting equation leads into wrong statement. But, as Michael asserted in his video, we know that we also might miss some more technicals in generating the graph: some technicals that could be extremely difficult to accomplish. This requires vast and sophisticated precissions. Some of them might be found in the science of love which we can watch by typing ‘scientific love’ or ‘science love’ or ‘explanatory scientific psychological biological love’ in video section of google search. (I suggest to google rather than to ‘any other search engine’ stuffs. No don’t blame me, please.) One of the good, simple videos may be watched below:
Yes, that’s exactly it! We missed thes calculations of dopamines, oxytocins, neuromodulators, serotonins, blah, blah, and blah. (As an aspriring neuroscientist, I am ashamed of my unknowledgeability in these rich terms.) Fundamentally, we are certain that if we know the numbers of the scientific explanations—the hormones, the whole thing of the scientific arousal and love—we may find a way to understanding the prediction more clearly. Of course, they are not enough. There are more and much more calculations, qualities, conceptual uncertainties, and extravagant explanations required to approach a more satisfying and reliable prediction. (Is it just me or am I shifting my writing tone into a more lavish and academically-minded one?) Still, fundamentally, simply, and basically, we may predict love. Yes, we can.
But what about all the one, the right time in the right place, the imperfection but comfort, the greatness of love Nicholar Sparks have been offering us? What about his belief of love blindness that has been infecting us since we began watching Disney Princesses getting along with their princes? What about maternal or paternal love? What about the effects of sexual orientation? What about love because of having children? What about unconditional and conditional love?
We are getting into it. Yes, love is predictable. However, if you also read The Alechemist, you may be familiar with the term Personal Legends, which, in less complicated way, could be described as the dreams in which the universe conspires to help us in reaching them. And, I honestly believe that love is a part of the Personal Legends that universe holds longterm contribution. Now, we also get to the point that universe does get involved in love. The truth about universe is trancripted in this short video recorded by the good-looking physicist, Derek, as a counter-idea of what Michael previously succeeded to lecture.
Therefore, now we glance another thing which path us into confusion: that in some degree of thinking and philosophizing, love is actually still a mystery. But remember, these whole idea and concepts explained by both Michael and Derek are nothing but theory that allows our brains to be still open about the foundation of love’s prediction.
Calm down, people. Take a deep breath. You may not want to hear me anymore, as I began contradicting your thought and removing your beautiful perspectives of love. Still, I want to reassure you to stick into your own concept which may be held for a long time, or just be found after following this series of study. Your question remained unasnwered: love can and cannot be predicted. There is an idea of how to calculate all the qualities that lead us to a quite reliable prediction. And there is an idea of unpredictable information universe has to conspire in getting involved with our love lives. The choice is yours. The philosophy is yours. As a closing, let me serve you with another video that similarly deals with this topic:
Finally, we reach the end of our first study. You may hate me, but I would suggest to explore more about this whole theory. Because it is important, I think, to deepen your knowledge and reasoning of the prettiest affection. But, whatever occurs in your mind right now, you should still remember that “regardless it is predictable or unpredictable, love is the greatest natural emotion ever happens in the universe.”
See you in the next course.