Helen E. Fisher is an anthropology professor and human behavior researcher at the Rutgers University and is one of the major researchers in the field of romantic interpersonal attraction.Prior to becoming a research professor at Rutgers University, she was a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City.
By many accounts, Fisher is considered the world鈥檚 leading expert on the topic of love. Presently, Fisher is the most referenced scholar in the love research community. In 2005, she was hired by match.com to help structure the chemistry.com pair-matching website using both hormonal-based and personality-based matching techniques.
What a huge letdown! Totally overrated. This subject truly fascinates me, but the author merely builds on the research of others and pads it with quotes from popular literature, poetry and song lyrics, as though that proves a point. If you take out all those quotes it's probably half as thick. It's like she just googled "Love" and included every quote she could find. Reads like a so-so undergrad paper. The only thing the author herself actually brings to the table is the notion that certain neurotransmitters may play a role the body's chemistry during times of heightened emotion, and that's still based on the research of others and is in no way a new theory. Also unsettling is her complete failure to acknowledge the late Dorothy Tennov who practically invented the investigative study of romantic love. She clearly references Tennov's work yet does not go so far as to name her. But this Helen Fisher is the talking head we get whenever the media wants an expert on the subject. Read Stendhal's "Love" and Tennov's "Love and Limerence"... Helen Fisher is a snake.
I was led to this book after watching Helen Fisher鈥檚 2006 TED talk entitled 鈥淲hy we love, why we cheat.鈥� Both the talk and the book are largely based on Fisher鈥檚 study, begun in 1996, of students at SUNY Stony Brook campus, in which the brain activities of two groups of volunteers were scanned in an MRI. One group reported to be deeply in love, while the other had recently experienced painful breakups. As one would expect, the book contains more details about the study, not provided in the TED talk, as well as additional facts and ideas.
Unfortunately little of the additional material qualifies as ground-breaking or transformative. Even the additional details about the central study do little to strengthen the author鈥檚 arguments. There is plenty of information about the experiment鈥檚 setup, but much of it assumes a rather banal character and, while perhaps mildly entertaining, is not revelatory. More troubling, the 144 brain scans mentioned by the author in her TED talk turn out to be derived from merely 14 individuals 鈥� 11 women and 3 men, all college students. Although I cannot authoritatively claim that this sample size is too small or too homogenous 鈥� much time has elapsed since my college statistics course 鈥� yet I cannot avoid a feeling of suspicion that too much is being made of too small a study.
What鈥檚 more, the numbers derived from the study are at times less convincing than the author would have us believe, hinting at a confirmation bias. For example, only 56% of the surveyed women agreed with the statement 鈥淢y emotional state depends on how _____ feels about me鈥�, yet this is given as further evidence of the author鈥檚 hypothesis. This is not a solitary example 鈥� on multiple occasions percentages in the low sixties, fifties, and even forties are unreservedly advanced to prove the author鈥檚 points, which aim at a generalized understanding. Overall the book seems to lack coherence and reads more like a loose collection of research abstracts, ideas, factoids, and quotes 鈥� lots of quotes, which are largely lyrical musings about the nature of love.
Throughout the book, the author also shows a strong proclivity for speculation, seemingly mistaking it for theory. A theory by definition must be falsifiable, yet the author commonly uses the word to refer to what is plainly untestable conjecture, which I think is impermissible in a scientist. Unsurprisingly, the chapter most heavenly laden with such 鈥渢heorizing鈥� is the one on the evolutionary origins of love. Such speculation may be intelligent, intriguing, and entertaining, but it is not strictly scientific.
Perhaps, my biggest gripe with the book though is the conclusion the author draws from her research. A good percentage of 鈥淲hy We Love鈥� is devoted to convincing us that romantic live is inherently a neurochemical addiction, not at all dissimilar from alcohol, tobacco or methamphetamine addictions either behaviorally or in its effect on the brain鈥檚 neurological pathways. In fact, this is the strongest part of the book, and the reason for my three-star rating. The presented evidence is indeed strongly in favor of the hypothesis. So, after spending so much ink proving to us that romantic love displays all the classic characteristics of a chemical addiction, what does the author propose that we do with this information? She proceeds to give us tips on how to manipulate individuals into developing romantic attachments and make romantic love last longer! Pause to consider the incongruity. This is a rational response only if one believes that the rewards of an addiction are worth the costs, and maybe the author performed the mental comparison, but if she did, she never shares these deliberations with us. As a result, the last part of the book seems oddly disconnected from the first, with the gap bridged by undisclosed value assumptions.
To recap, the book contains enough interesting ideas and data to stimulate thinking but fails to weave them into a coherent theoretical framework or a transformative narrative. Aside from monetary motivations, I am hard pressed to find reasons why this should not have been a TEDBook or a Kindle Single.
I love this book. It provided me with all the hidden secretes there is to love. Once finished with this book I no longer feel dumbfounded about mine or other people鈥檚 actions when it comes to romance, lust, commitment and passion. I recommend that everyone reads this book because love is a complex system and Helen Fisher does an amazing job in making it clear that love is not something to fear even when everything doesn鈥檛 seem to be working out because love is about an individual鈥檚 personal growth in life and that is something that is always successful.
A mediocre book. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that I'm more intelligent than the average reader just because I already knew around 80% of everything that was revealed in this book. The only explanation for this is if Helen Fisher did not actually reveal anything of use to me. The author would summarize a bunch of other peoples' studies, and then say "well, here's all this evidence but I like this one the most". I'm not a scientist but it seems pretty disingenuous for her to randomly pick and choose her favourite theories, while randomly discarding other ones. The entire book is filled with Fisher stating "I think" and "I believe" and "I suspect" and other unsure statements like that, without any reasoning or support or explanation. Reading this book felt too much like a layperson telling me various ideas cobbled up from internet, rather than something proven by science.
i was going through a particularly challenging time in my life when i read this book. it helped put some of my feelings into perspective. i get emotionally attached to people quite easily and though i know it is not purely physiological...i began to more clearly understand my passionate nature. this book was a comfort when i needed it to be, though i am sure it might be boring to some.
For a long time I couldn鈥檛 understand why anthropologists call us human animals. We are just pretending to be cultivated; there is so much about humankind and civilisation that still functions from the heart of pure basic primate brain and our evolution is nowhere close to the end. My god. This book should be mandatory read. In the last few months I have read enough of anthropology books to finally start connecting different topics into one unified field and what I鈥檝e learned is that we don鈥檛 know how we became what we became. But nevertheless things that I've learned, things that we are made of - are fucking with my brain because of the magnificent mechanism we live in, which we call our body.
Further reading on spiritualism, neuroscience, psychology, alternative and secret history of humankind will help me greatly to understand some of the forbidden and censured facts about our DNA/mind and the evolution of our physical, emotional, mindful, intuitive and spiritual body.
What I am coming to realise is that we have forgotten so much about us. We are completely on the wrong tracks, we are completely something else from what the system is trying to teach us and break us with. We are absolutely here on Earth for a purpose, what that is, I still don鈥檛 know, but we are far from the coincidence and far from the logical cell growth. Anthropology helps me deal with these existential questions since it analyses facts and evidence and evolution. I am starting to realise the bigger picture in which we are supreme and magnificent, on an individual and then on collective level. Our brain in this phase cannot comprehend it instantly because of the central nervous system; it takes time, adaptation and a complete change of standardised systematic education since what I am trying to teach myself now is to learn to unlearn something daily.
It is a frightening process since it is a field so wide and mainstream unknown and there are a lot of information that I have a very hard time digesting, but the more I learn about my body and the secret world I live in, the more I am aware of my expansion into the places where thoughts start disappearing and where I start connecting myself with the higher consciousness. The whole purpose.
But the process is very subjective, individual and based solely on the object鈥檚 perception. What I know is that the whole humankind is on the same path, just some learn it sooner, some will within hundred or more years. But we will all learn and know. It is the progress of evolution, if I have to use just this physical/matter word.
All is one, all is one vibration, one big connection and time and space exist only in human parameters. What I didn鈥檛 understand until I started reading anthropology is how much general population doesn鈥檛 understand the magnificence of our physical brain, DNA and evolution, let alone things which are beyond our 3rd dimension and where we don鈥檛 depend on the narrow senses.
Spectacular book, it talks about 3 different brains of love: 1. romantic love 2. lust (passionate love) 3. attachment and how each of these brains are connected with different hormones and how all 3 are intertwined and work separately.
Stunning, stunning material to know why we physically love, why he have sex and why we stay in relationships. I say, physically since H. Fisher can鈥檛 explain and is nowhere close explaining the all encompassed fusion that body makes due to this LOVE reaction. Since science can only measure palpable and the rest is left to individual comprehension and higher realms.
'Why We Love' fails to answer the very provocative question in poses | Disappointingly, it is more pop and less anthropology; she does not even offer a nuanced understanding of the various cultures she discusses (i.e. Australia, Japan) | The most interesting parts of the book were the poets and thinkers the writer decided to quote, but her writing did a poor job of converting those creative expressions into a strong, informative narrative; it was also surprising that there is only a weak discussion around statistical findings and no real diagrams throughout the book.
It's in essence a random collection of quotations from love-themed literary works, which is interspersed with poorly structured sentences on the nature and chemistry of love that don't even qualify as solid arguments.
This book is full of bias, contraries and neurotrash.
If you don't want to read the full review here's a real gem for you: "Gays and lesbians in all cultures also feel romantic passion. [...] I feel sure these men and women carry in their brains exactly the same human wiring and chemistry for romantic love as everybody else." Fisher was also very surprised, that an introverted guy's brain would show a reaction in the fMRT: "Do still waters run deep?" - no, genius, introverts aren't capable of feeling love at all.
If that didn't convince you, that Fisher is a real brainiac for finding this out and including it in her book... I don't know. So queer folks and introverts are capable of feeling love like every other human being. What a mind blowing discovery.
You also really could make a drinking game out of it: Every time Fisher starts a sentence with "I think", "It may be", "I guess" or something similar that hints at the fact that she does not really know what she is writing about you have to drink.
The book begins with a chapter that descibes the feeling of being in love with all side effects of New Relationship Energy (Intrusive Thinking, focussed attention...). Fair enough. There are a lot of quotes in this chapter and every following chapter, which was okay for me 鈥� but it's really a little too much after a while.
Then there's the chapter 鈥濧nimal Magnetism鈥� in which she describes what animal love looks like, which includes some cute stories. Later Fisher writes: 鈥濱 once believed that these animals feel the same sensations that you and I feel [鈥 I changed my mind.鈥� Why in the sweet earth would she include the chapter then? At least she mentioned that 鈥瀞ome scientists question how 鈥瀋onscious鈥� these creatures are of their emotions. No one knows.鈥� [sic] 鈥� yeah, as far as I know it's canon in serious neurology (I am saying this as a vegan and animal lover).
Then she tries to tell us, that humans, especially men, are naturally born to be jealous and stalk, batter and murder because of love. 鈥濻hould lawyers, judges and legislators regard those who commit crimes of passion as chemically disabled?鈥� It doesn't seem like Fisher even researched anything about criminals, psychopaths and murderers and why they do what they do. It's always a mix of genes and environmental factors, like nurture, trauma and so on. Don't listen to people like Fisher, who claim that this is natural behaviour, just raise your children with love, tell them to treat others like they want to be treated, so they won't become maniacs. Even children with the 鈥瀙sychopathy gene鈥� do not have to become criminals and murderers, if they have a good family home.
There's a lot of problematic stuff icluded. Long debunked whack-a-mole-myths of neurosexism like: "Men are, on average, more skilled at all sorts of mechanical and spatial tasks than women are. Men are problem solvers." [sic] - it's exactly the same kind of dull neurotrash like 鈥濿hy Men Don't Listen & Women Can't Read Maps鈥�. Men brag and women like to be helpless to attract lovers? Again: Raise all your children with respect. Every girl can learn that she does not have to act helpless to be attractive.
What struck me as most surprising: I found the book recommendation in Cunning Minx's 鈥濫ight Things I Wish I'd Known About Polyamory鈥� - but Fisher seems more anti poly: 鈥濰umankind does not share love gracefully.鈥�
Wow. This was the dullest read of the year so far and I'll definitely read no more books that scream 鈥濱 am neurotrash鈥�. I am sorry for myself for wasting so much time reading this. I still really want to read some serious stuff about love in neurology, so if you have any better recommendations: Please tell me.
What an important, entertaining and light yet heavy book. Helen Fisher has been studying a subject that is the most important of all: love. I've been following her stuff for a long time, watching interviews et cetera, but only now I got my hands on her writing. Familiar stuff, yet a way deeper view. I loved the structure of this and the references. Of course it's full of quotes from poets. Love is a science for the poets. As we are just vessels for bacteria and all of our emotions are guided by chemicals it's important that this went through the physiology of love. Oxytocin drives love, testosterone lust, to simplify it. It's a kind of a bummer that you have to choose between action and stability as testosterone and serotonin work on different ends of the spectrum. So to put it in a humorous way: it's either a turbulent, burning, lustful relationship or a stable, pleasant thing with less touching. Safety and adventure are polar opposites. It's not that simple, though: our days have wildly different moods and the pendulum swings all the time. To keep the spark going you should live a dangerous life in terms of trying out new things and having a lot of humour, that should do the trick. Doing something dangerous together always works. We shouldn't be so surprised that we grow tired of kissing and touching each other when sitting on the couch on the evenings, watching Netflix. This spoke surprisingly critically about polyamory. Only a few sentences and claiming that "the polyamorous spend many hours a week settling their jealous disputes..." Hmm. Based on what? Do the monogamous not? And to me the monogamous are more jealous as they try to fight it with marriage and a million other things. They deal with jealousy all the time, don't they? So I'm not quite sure this got to the core of the issues in those terms. But I understand that when it comes to brain chemistry it's not that easy to manage multiple loves. It's a tricky one. It's interesting that people have been actually kind of upset for me when I've been researching love. A common comment has been "should everything be studied/dissected" to which, of course, the answer is: "no, but I want to, why shouldn't I?". And I feel like it's important for me. People seem to know a lot about love but do they really? And what is their knowledge based on? Because so many people live their love lives like its a transaction of some kind. They don't really knowledge our history as humans and get mad when things don't work out like they do in romantic films. Interesting assumptions from the history of humans: men think it's easier to talk while being side-by-side, coming from the history of hunting and being side-by-side by a trusted companion while the opposing, gazing position seems like a threat. And women enjoy the opposing gaze very much, claiming it's something they do with their offspring. It's funny how we still have the hunter-gatherer brain (though a bit smaller) and how we used to live in groups, be more equal in terms of family and love in a way as women where providing more and the whole community was taking care of the kids and so on, then came agriculture and the men got rich and powerful and greedy and it's been a huge change and we haven't adapted. This took interesting angles to that, definitely. Hmm. What else. The parts about the animals were nice, too. Maybe educate yourself on love? And if you are too tired on reading these guides and studies, I'll try to pick out the most interesting parts and share them to you in my next novel.
Romantic love is the result of chemical processes in the brain.听
The origins of romantic love can be traced back 3.5 million years.
As human evolved so did their capacity of romantic love.The appearance of language in 1.8 millions years ago whitin evolutionary development helped expression of love with words.
For thousands of years, people have wondered what the cause of love is. Some believe it is a profoundly spiritual phenomenon, but modern science has proven that it is the result of chemicals in the brain. In particular, the experience of love is caused by three key neurotransmitters: dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin.听
Dopamine is one of the key neurotransmitters researchers have found to coincide with feelings of romantic love. In fact, it鈥檚 one of the most powerful neurotransmitters responsible for your mood in general, influencing attention, motivation and addiction 鈥� all important characteristics of being in love.听
Dopamine helps explain why love is so addictive. Researchers have shown that when you鈥檙e with someone you love, you experience something similar to taking a drug like cocaine. Dopamine floods your brain, filling you with a feeling of bliss that you can鈥檛 wait to relive. That鈥檚 why people who鈥檙e in love feel dependent on and crave their loved ones 鈥� just as drug addicts do with their substances.听
The next key neurotransmitter involved is norepinephrine, which has effects that resemble dopamine鈥檚.
The feelings of exhilaration and stimulation that accompany love 鈥� like butterflies in the stomach or a rapid heartbeat 鈥� are caused by the release of norepinephrine. But this neurotransmitter also causes some of love鈥檚 unpleasant feelings: it鈥檚 often hard to fall and stay asleep when we鈥檙e in love, and many of us also experience a loss of appetite 鈥� both of which are caused by norepinephrine.听
The last of the key love neurotransmitters is serotonin.听
Serotonin is responsible for the increased restlessness and the constant thinking about your beloved. But, unlike the other two neurotransmitters, serotonin levels are actually lower when you鈥檙e in love. That鈥檚 because the level of serotonin is pushed downwards when the levels of the other two chemicals rise. In this case, less is more 鈥� the less serotonin, the more you obsess about your loved one.
Imprescindible para entender la mec谩nica del enamoramiento humano, y de paso para derrumbar cualquier concepci贸n "misteriosa" sobre el amor rom谩ntico. Como era de esperarse, las explicaciones son evolutivas, pero la autora las expone en t茅rminos muy accesibles a pesar de los tecnicismos requeridos. Con su entretenida prosa, Fisher nos dice que el amor rom谩ntico existe, que tiene una raz贸n de ser biol贸gica y que nuestro cerebro ha evolucionado para experimentarlo y manejarlo. Estructura su narraci贸n sobre la base de un estudio real aplicado con alta tecnolog铆a de im谩genes, y lo salpica con innumerables citas de autores que nos hacen ver no s贸lo que el amor es experimentado por igual en todas las sociedades humanas del planeta, sino que lo ha sido por toda nuestra especie desde hace cientos de miles de a帽os. El optimista corolario es que si el amor ha sido de todas las 茅pocas hist贸ricas y prehist贸ricas, tambi茅n lo es para todas las edades: al margen de las manifestaciones t铆picas de cada momento, el amor puede ser experimentado por todas las personas, desde la ni帽ez hasta la ancianidad.
I recently read this book and I thought it was average. This book was about the science of love and why we love. It tells you about the different stages of love and how we deal with it on a mental, emotional, physical level within the body and mind. It was somewhat interesting to read and learn about the author's scientific theory of love. This book was based mainly on a couple of functional MRI studies of people in love. I liked all the details of the chemical images of the brains; however, I found the writing of this book kind of repetitive. It was nice to learn that that the emotions that you believe are personal and unique are in fact related to specific chemical processes equal to all human beings. I think that this book is meant for a more mature audience and reading it now in 10th grade made it less interesting. Although I didn't really "connect" with the book, it was thought provoking. It was different to think of love in a scientific way that can all be explained. I would recommend this book to others wanting to learn more about the scientific reasoning behind love.