The Science of Love

[Rollo Tomassi]

Though I consider myself a pretty well read, intellectual fellow, I'm generally not the type of guy to put down good money for a National Geographic Magazine. However this is exactly what I did last weekend when I was perusing the magazine rack at my local grocery store for the latest copy of Flex. The cover story was the 'Science of Love' - an obvious ploy to increase sales around Valentines Day, but one that worked in my case. Although it was flowery in it's approach (written by a woman naturally), it broke down a lot of the bio-chemestry and bio-psychology involved in 'love'. It really refered more to the mechanics of attraction IMHO, but it broke it down into nuts & bolts. I'm recommending this as a good read for the forum here, but unfortunately you'll have to buy the magazine for the full article (it's only $5).

Do however have a look at the forum responses regarding the article though:

Science of Love Forum

This was my reason for starting this thread actually, because it provides us here with a fantastic cross-section of responses to popular opinion with regard to love and/or popular perception of it. Notice how the responses vary between men and women, and also among married and age deliniations. Keep in mind these aren't people on some dating site or necessarily familiar with our community, so their biases are their own. Just from scanning the first few pages you'll be floored by absolute pervasiveness that the 'soulmate myth' plays in the popular consciousness.

Thought this might make for a good discussion.

 

[speedo_meme]

I recommend "Muscle and Fitness" over "Flex"

 

[Heretolearn]

thankyou rollo - good post

 

[Colossus]

I agree with the widespread acceptance and subsequent behavioral manifestations that come from the "soulmate myth". I used to be that guy.

I personally think there are many different potential partners that a person could have a fulfilling relationship with throughout different stages of life. Life changes and so do people. IMO, the soulmate myth is a significant contributory factor to the "relationship-hopping" culture in America today. Nobody can ever live up to an idealized standard of perfection.

On a side note, I am very sceptical of any scientific claims made in tabliod muscle-mags like FLEX. While it makes for motivational and entertaining reading, many of the biological facts and figures found in flex are not substantiated; they are just that--claims. Let me see some peer-reviewed research published in a reputable professional journal, then I'll take it seriously. I think a dissapointing percentage of writers in mags like that are quacks with no science background whatsoever. They are just self-educated meatheads who think that because of their personal success in bodybuilding and selected readings, they are "experts".

Anyways, I had to rant a little (Im a physiology student).

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

COLOSSUS: This article wasn't in FLEX, it was in National Geographic.

 

[Colossus]

Oh, my mistake. NG is a good publication. I read the word FLEX and got all worked up....

 

[treefingers]

Science has explained the underlying neurochemistry that creates the feeling of love/lust. To make a relationship work beyond that takes(I'm guessing here) mutual respect and selflessness. The old timers seemed better at this than todays youngsters.