Neuronarrative

Musings on the complicated business of thinking

What Science Tells Us About Being in Love

Einstein was correct—science will never clinically sterilize the wonderment of love (first or otherwise). But I think he’d also agree that it’s a mistake to confuse increased understanding with diminished meaning. No matter what we learn about love, it will continue to be one of the most meaningful and powerful forces on the planet, as it should be. Read More

On Love

When I was a teenager, I found this magazine interesting and smart. Then I grew up. Your summary of the physical evidences of love are from a small (yes, small) test sample of people who likely are not actually in love. And typically, your articles about human emotion, love and the like, are always painfully pure Hetero, ensuring typical people read about their typical lives and remain typical while you gather your typical results from typical "professionals" who set up typical scenarios for typical people to participate in, giving very biased results to draw from. To write this letter off would be, how shall I say this... typical. Humans have the ability and *should* have the opportunity to learn so much more than you're willing to share with your readers. We have the ability and yearn for the opportunity to learn so much more about ourselves from others. Sadly, Americans often find themselves in a rut, for reasons you'd sum up typically, and they often turn to publications to help them feel in touch. You have a responsibility to gather compelling information about what's possible, what's passionate and what we're actually on the brink of, not relay what we already know (yes, yes, typical chemical responses to stimuli, blah blah blah. we already know, it's like i've been reading the same article about love in your magazine for the last 16 years.) You're not telling us anything we haven't already read. Pop-Psych is so 1997. Compel us, rivet us, show us that we are not deduced to chemical responses, but that chemicals respond because we *Are*. And learn more about real love, because real love makes your articles look like you're trying to keep the population dull by telling them their completely boring love-life is normal. it's not, but it is typical, thanks to publications like yours.

who is "You"? you realize

who is "You"?

you realize that this whole website isn't written by one person, don't You?

Just keep ur coolness with you;-)

Why your getting angry ..................
I just asked as i'm

hold your heart beat low and keep calm..................

Feel the enjoyment in everymoment

Typical

Posting something like that in the PT comments was, well lets just say. "Typical"

touche

I came to the comments expecting that "typical" comment and am feeling very satisfied indeed.

I wanted to hit 'like' for

I wanted to hit 'like' for your funny comment then realised it wasn't facebook

Love

The description only covers romantic love. There are all kinds of love. Mother's love, father's love, love of country, God's love. it is endless. Actually, until very recently, romantic love was not acceptable by the church. Only God's love mattered. Very very poor article.

Romantic love, obviously

The context of this article is quite obviously romantic love. You may be aware (or perhaps not) that this Friday is Valentine's Day. And while your comment misses the point entirely, I'm also failing to see how the church's alleged approval or disapproval of any given definition of love factors into a discussion of the latest scientific research. And what "church" would that be in any case? I generally refrain from responding to blatantly off-target comments, but really -- are you serious?

OhferGodsake!

Give the guy a break, people. DUH, it's about romantic love-on/around Valentine's Day. Sick of all the stone-casting. Shut UP!

Love or Infatuation?

I think this article discusses about the qualities of infatuation or attachment. This is because I have personally experienced that love can never be beastly or hurting, it is divine in itself. So, what we understand to be love may be infatuation or attraction. Well, we can test whether it is love or not by the following test:

http://www.dadabhagwan.org/scientific-solutions/relationship/true-love-i...

Unclear

We go inject the prairie voles in order to find out if humans' monogamy or promiscuity depends on chemistry/biology. Priceless. Oh, and "typical", I would say, a cherished word in previous comments LOL.

Such biologically

Such biologically deterministic nonsense. Professor Reddy destroys many of these myths in his lecture (he covers the neuroscience stuff at about 8min 30 secs in) Also you ignore the historical and cultural influences to love: http://mythsofourtime.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/does-society-influence-lo...

Determinism, Not

I'll be happy to listen to the Reddy lecture, but there's a fundamental error in your argument. Identifying correlations is not the same as endorsing a deterministic view. The correlations identified in the research (cited in my article and the vast sea of literature beyond) are one facet of a multifaceted discussion.

OF COURSE there are social and cultural influences on love, as there are for every emotion and every thinking response. I personally know of no one working in research who thinks otherwise. Claiming that science-based arguments are synonymous with deterministic arguments is a straw man argument.

Wishes for Cool article

Boss
i had a doubt
how to express my feel to the unknown girl who will be my friend..................

Thanks Debbie Downer responders

Every time I think I'd like to pursue a career in science I'm reminded of all the pedantic, tight panty-ed windbags out there. The subtitle says "musings"- lighten up!! I'd like to see a study on the whole "I dare you to tell it to my face" concept. Bitching & proselytizing behind the cloak of a computer says nothing to your true courage or wisdom. Go work on your social graces as opposed to your "clearly" superior knowledge.

Now I wonder

Anonymous wrote:
Every time I think I'd like to pursue a career in science I'm reminded of all the pedantic, tight panty-ed windbags out there. The subtitle says "musings"- lighten up!! I'd like to see a study on the whole "I dare you to tell it to my face" concept. Bitching & proselytizing behind the cloak of a computer says nothing to your true courage or wisdom. Go work on your social graces as opposed to your "clearly" superior knowledge.

Is that why you posted this anonymously?
Just asking ;-)

..Beth Franklin, & I don't

..Beth Franklin, & I don't care who knows it. Simple oversight. Fighting the good fight against cyber road-rage. Carry on.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options

David DiSalvo is a science and technology writer working at the intersection of cognition and culture.

more...

Subscribe to Neuronarrative

Current Issue

Dreams of Glory

Daydreaming: How the best ideas emerge from the ether.