Applying an experimental procedure to fall in love
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Basically a responsive / bootstrap carousel with the questions and a timer at the end for the eye gazing.
I envision is being something that would be fun on a first date as a game.
Also - I've used eye gazing and several variations with profound results in my coaching work -- many of my clients have said that a ~3 minute session is easily the most profound experience of their lives.
There's no harm in trying it. At worst you'll get to know someone. I'd have no qualms working through this set with at least a dozen people I can think of off-hand (some of whom aren't available anyway, it doesn't matter, or where we flirt anyway.)
The questions are mostly quite interesting. I'd lie about #34 though as it's embarrassing that, like most people here, I have unbacked up stuff on a laptop, which would be an easy decision over other stuff (since there's so much and it's so easy to take) but gives the wrong impression about my priorities. So what - say someone isn't completely honest with you in some of the answers. still an interesting set of questions.
I'm also curious what happens if you just do this with an acquaintance of the same gender assuming neither of you two have any interest in that gender romantically. if you're a man, imagine just answering this stuff with a casual acquiantance (think of bros or colleagues) vaguely similar to you but not a gender you're attracted to, and looking into each other's eyes for 4 minutes. same if you're a woman with another woman acquaintance. [1]
It would be interesting to know what kind of bonding this elicits.
[1] I specifically chose to mention only a same-gendered examples - two guys who aren't into guys, or same with two girls - because the example of a purely gay person doing so with someone of the opposite gender is a bit different for a couple of reasons. some gay people will date or even marry someone of the opposite gender - e.g. a beard - plus social norms would push in that direction even if neither party is attracted. I'm more interested in the example of two acquaintances who are of the same gender but not gay doing this.)
You already saved loved ones and pets, next your value may be your thoughts (saved in documents), work (value to the world), etc. There is a lot of good reasons to save that.
That is what the why is for, to add the actual personal reasons behind it. Which is the important part of the question.
She frequently quotes Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving, which seems good as well.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_About_Love:_New_Visions
love(x, y) = x has the active concern for the life and the growth of y
"Where this active concern is lacking, there is no love" only says that "if x has no active concern about y, love is zero".
If a person loves only one other person and is indifferent to the rest of his fellow men, his love is not love but a symbiotic attachment, or an enlarged egotism. Yet most people believe that love is constituted by the object, not by the faculty. In fact, they even believe that it is proof of the intensity of their love when they do not love anybody except the "loved" person. This is the same fallacy which I have already mentioned above. Because one does not see that love is an activity, a power of the soul, one believes that all that is necessary to find is the right object - and that everything goes by itself afterward. This attitude can be compared to that of the man who wants to paint but who, instead of learning the art, claims that he just has to wait for the right object - and that he will paint beautifully when he finds it. If I truly love one person I love all persons, I love the world, I love life. If I can say to somebody else, "I love you," I must be able to say, "I love in you everybody, I love through you the world, I love in you also myself."
"It is also good to love: because love is difficult. For one human being to love another human being: that is perhaps the most difficult task that has been entrusted to us, the ultimate task, the final test and proof, the work for which all other work is merely preparation. That is why young people, who are beginners in everything, are not yet capable of love: it is something they must learn. With their whole being, with all their forces, gathered around their solitary, anxious, upward-beating heart, they must learn to love. [...]"
There seems to be a positive feedback sort of thing in this, because the pair who got the most out of it was two people who had been friends for a long time, who learned a lot about each other.
Do you really mean to ask why didn't the study authors monetize this? If so, you are looking at academia through startup-tinted lenses.
We've attempted to replace the title of this article with a more neutral one.
"My greatest weakness is that I'm a workaholic perfectionist. I know I should spend more time doing stuff other than working and preparing for work, but it's just so important to do everything that is best for my company."
Read the last sentence of her article again...
I fully expect that I will be "spontaneously" bombarded with these questions on dates in the coming months. And they will lose all efficacy because people will prepare for them in the same way that they prepare for idiotic brain-teasers and HR questions.
I hate business models that work by wasting your time. It's not a bad article though.
So i wouldn't be so fast to rule this out.
As a counterpoint, in the original Aron study[2] the researchers describe circumstances that it works less well, for example, when people have an avoidant/dismissive personality.
[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921238/
[2]http://www.stafforini.com/txt/Aron%20et%20al%20-%20The%20exp...
Her story is just an illustration to the research paper she linked to. Please stay away from commenting if you didn't read the article.