In this idiom, these refer to social strategies. Basically, a lover is a bilateralist, and a fighter is a unilateralist. Bilateral politics depends on consensus, where each party seeks to balance the application of carrot- and stick-strategies. Unilateral politics depends on jungle law, where each party seeks to to dominate force projections and defenses ... roughly all-sticks strategies.
In modern human society, we see these play out differently across economic strata. Where the common idiom is to use "money" as a euphemism for "force", as well as "wellness" (including "education"), we find the following patterns.
Lower-class values are typically base, "I seek to make enough money to escape being in pain."
Upper-class values are similar, "I seek to make enough money to escape being in pain, PERMANENTLY, and for my genetic identity (descendants) also."
Middle-class values are a bit different, tending towards "I seek to make enough money to be a good member of my home owners association (neighbourhood government)". And that is specifically because the middle-class is on the submissive end of a carrot strategy commandeered by the upper-class.
Without further elucidation, to keep short this essay, we find that fighters dominate the lower- and upper-classes. Whereas loving is a middle-class value.
One last thing : it's of interest to note that anyone with the opportunity for a hand-out, whether it's kids of generous parents, or folks on welfare, basically devolves to middle-class values ... they seek to behave specifically, in order to be acceptable, and worthy.
