Austin Fontaine 
Megan Novelli I found the evolutionary psychologists’ view of love and how one picks a mate very interesting. I disagree with this viewpoint, but I think it is mostly because I do not want to believe that it is true. I want to believe that I am with the person I am with because I like their personality and heart, not their genes. To me, that idea seems so selfish. It seems that if the only reason we are attracted to someone and love them is to give our kids a better shot at survival, then love becomes self-serving. This goes against everything I have ever been taught about a husband/wife relationship.
Also what does this say for couples that marry, have normal, healthy, children and then divorce? Their genes have matched up and done their job of producing healthy offspring. Does the divorce not matter since the union has done the duty of producing healthy children? Along the same lines, what about the couples that have disabled children yet stay together and work through the hard times as a family? If this couple was attracted to one another because of genetics, theoretically there should be no disability to begin with.
It is my personal viewpoint, like others that mentioned this in class, that there are different personality types that we best mesh with and that you can find a good partnership within that range. Again, most of my disagreement on this issue comes from hoping it is not true. I feel like love is a give is a gift, and if I were predestined to give that love to a certain person, it would not be as special.
Michael Bartholomew
1:13 pm, 10.04.10
I don’t think it’s as black and white as it sounds. If our genes were truly in control, then the world would probably more systematic than it is. Humans are inconsistent, kind of chaotic by nature, and it’s in this inconsistency that things like love occur, I think. So in other words, genes aren’t everything, but I don’t think we should rule out the idea that they might be providing a push every now and then. Though like you, I’d like to think my actions/personality are a personal decision and less an expression of genetics.
Stephanie Bell
1:21 pm, 10.04.10
I think that you still get to choose someone with a certain heart or personality that fits your liking. I think it is pretty safe to say that most people would not be in a relationship with someone that has a personality that they do not like or who hates the world. There are enough people in the world that you can find someone with different genes than you have and still have whatever personality you choose. The theory is not to say that there is no chance of having a child that is unhealthy, but that there is a better chance for having a baby with a healthier immune system. The couples that marry and then divorce may have found someone who better fits their liking (who may or may not still have different genes then them). You still have the freedom of choice but you are attracted to a certain group of people.
Bradley Campbell
1:21 pm, 10.04.10
If we pick a mate unconsciously due to genetics, I took this to mean that the characteristics we find attractive are strongly influenced by genetics. That a trait that I find attractive could be linked to a preference. If my Father found an attribute attractive, that I might share that same attraction not due to observation or meddling, but more to due with the fact that he and I share many of the same genes. Our predisposition to accept a mate, or even our Christianity might have more to due with the Genes that we share vs. the environment that we grow up in. If a monozygotic twin has OCD the the other twin has more than a 50% chance of having it as well. With non-identical twins, if one has OCD then the other twin has a 25% chance of having it as well. The closer the genetics, the higher the possibility of developing a psychological abnormality.
Courtney Price
1:33 pm, 10.04.10
I don’t think that genes are the only things that make us pick for we fall in like with. I think that they found it interesting that that played a part in what was appealing to someone else.
Megan Novelli
1:36 pm, 10.04.10
I think our genes do predetermine what we are looking for in our mates but only to a certain degree. culture, society and our families shape the rest of what we seek and what we want. Same goes for divorce, they may have produced healthy offspring but society and culture can influence the relationships as well as behavior. so i think genes play an important part but are nowhere near being the defining factor.
Stephanie Bell
1:42 pm, 10.04.10
And honestly, how many people would choose to be with someone who is mentally or physically disabled over someone who is “healthy”? Even if someone has a great personality we may overlook their personality if they are not healthy. That is not to say we will not be friends with them, but how many people want to have kids with someone who is showing signs that they could have genes that would cause future offspring to be “unhealthy”. If we have an unhealthy kid hopefully we would still raise them to the best of our ability, but how many people want their kids to be unhealthy?
Ian Robertson
1:45 pm, 10.04.10
I have heard the evolutionary/genetic theory of love before. I believe it is the famed atheist Dawkins who claims that the more genetic material we share with someone, the more we love and the more we are willing to sacrifice ourselves to defend that person. So I would willing sacrifice myself more easily for my child or sibling then I would for my cousin. But I would more easily sacrifice myself for my cousin then a total stranger, because we share more genetic material. However, there is some evidence that refutes this. There are many families that have no love at all and would willing take the side of a stranger over their own family. It’s an interesting theory but it still needs some fleshing out to overcome a lot of the anecdotal evidence that stands against it.
Austin Fontaine
1:51 pm, 10.04.10
My comment on that would be that love si self serving. We want to be around people that make us happy, and in turn we do things for them that make them feel good, but in making them feel good, we inherently get a good feeling ourselves, still making the act self serving. Self servign is not inherently bad as many people have come to percieve it, but rather it is just the underlying cause. No one does anything that they do not want to. People always get a reward, or at least expect to get a reward, out of anything they do.
Jonathan Sanders
3:08 pm, 10.04.10
I think when one takes a mechanistic or strictly biological view of life, then that is when morals go out the window. I once read a book where the antagonist was an individual complete void of human emotion, and his actions were completely immoral but he suffered no guilt. As mentioned by others in response to this post, we are inconsistent beings, but this is not because of our biology but because of our emotions. Emotions are what cause the inconsistency in human behavior. I would like to think that our path to love is a well rounded journey that is influenced not solely from one portion of our beings, but a conglomeration of all that we are.