Goldengrove
14-billion-years-later:

The Science of LoveThere are many ways to look at this, to most of you examining such a personal emotion under the microscope of science may turn out to be a depressing venture, but I think that the process behind it is equally if not more fascinating.
From an evolutionary point of view the concept of love is an almost necessary mechanism. Most primates are not monogamists (The “mate for life” idea seen in such animals as swans), humans seem to have been pushed by selection pressures to be mostly monogamous but it will take a while to remove all that more primal ape hardwiring. The main benefit of love from an evolutionary sense is that it allows the offspring a greater chance of survival as both parents are “trapped” by a biochemical pathway into protecting the offspring and each other. The advantage of this may have come about from reduced reproductive capacity, perhaps in turn due to the adoption of bipedal locomotion.The chemical aspect of love is a bit more complicated, it is at it’s truest form a type of subconscious positive reinforcement technique. You see someone attractive or do things that you associate with love and you are rewarded by a rush of dopamine and serotonin amongst other chemicals and hormones. In the long term one particular chemical comes into play: oxytocin. Oxytocin’s role is to form long lasting associations and it’s often been observed in relatively high doses in the system of mothers with children, couples in love and in fact even just people playing with their dogs. It’s also interesting to point out that in new lovers the serotonin levels present are comparable to that of OCD sufferers.The following bit is more “psychological facts” and as such should definitely be taken with a grain of salt. Or a whole bucket. Apparently it takes around about 4 minutes for an individual to decide if they’re interested in someone. Another interesting experiment conducted was by Arthur Aron, a professor at York University. His experiment detailed people talking about intimate details of their lives and then simply staring into each others eyes for 4 minutes. This experiment showed that these two factors can be linked to level of attraction. It’s also worth noting that two of the people involved ended up getting married 6 months later.

14-billion-years-later:

The Science of Love

There are many ways to look at this, to most of you examining such a personal emotion under the microscope of science may turn out to be a depressing venture, but I think that the process behind it is equally if not more fascinating.

From an evolutionary point of view the concept of love is an almost necessary mechanism. Most primates are not monogamists (The “mate for life” idea seen in such animals as swans), humans seem to have been pushed by selection pressures to be mostly monogamous but it will take a while to remove all that more primal ape hardwiring. The main benefit of love from an evolutionary sense is that it allows the offspring a greater chance of survival as both parents are “trapped” by a biochemical pathway into protecting the offspring and each other. The advantage of this may have come about from reduced reproductive capacity, perhaps in turn due to the adoption of bipedal locomotion.

The chemical aspect of love is a bit more complicated, it is at it’s truest form a type of subconscious positive reinforcement technique. You see someone attractive or do things that you associate with love and you are rewarded by a rush of dopamine and serotonin amongst other chemicals and hormones. In the long term one particular chemical comes into play: oxytocin. Oxytocin’s role is to form long lasting associations and it’s often been observed in relatively high doses in the system of mothers with children, couples in love and in fact even just people playing with their dogs. It’s also interesting to point out that in new lovers the serotonin levels present are comparable to that of OCD sufferers.

The following bit is more “psychological facts” and as such should definitely be taken with a grain of salt. Or a whole bucket. Apparently it takes around about 4 minutes for an individual to decide if they’re interested in someone. Another interesting experiment conducted was by Arthur Aron, a professor at York University. His experiment detailed people talking about intimate details of their lives and then simply staring into each others eyes for 4 minutes. This experiment showed that these two factors can be linked to level of attraction. It’s also worth noting that two of the people involved ended up getting married 6 months later.

  1. turkishmustache reblogged this from wennichtanzenwill
  2. ryanbroadley reblogged this from birthofasong-deathofadream
  3. rugbylove reblogged this from lizlikesgirls
  4. birthofasong-deathofadream reblogged this from lizlikesgirls
  5. snarkyfish reblogged this from lizlikesgirls
  6. lizlikesgirls reblogged this from an-agent-of-chaos
  7. fourty-tw0 reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  8. redhypergiant reblogged this from an-agent-of-chaos
  9. an-agent-of-chaos reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later and added:
    Happy February and therefore general Valentines Day.
  10. sweetbitterlemons reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  11. new-morning-glory reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  12. sookiimoo reblogged this from thematterofperception and added:
    MmmMMMMmMmmm dopamine =]
  13. citlalyy reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  14. goldengrove-rosemary reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  15. mammaodie reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  16. scienceitworksbitches reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  17. logicianmagician reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  18. the11dimensions reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later and added:
    The Science of Love
  19. nefarious-ellie reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  20. littlehoneybadger reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  21. code-pi reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  22. shesellssea-shells reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  23. seemeelee reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later
  24. scarvesanddeerstalkers reblogged this from diehochzeitvonhimmelundhoelle
  25. capofseashells reblogged this from 14-billion-years-later and added:
    Okay…you have to admit that it makes sense from a biological standpoint. Interesting. :]