Interesting conclusion on passion/sparks vs compatibility

[Eternal Sunshine]

I have read number of articles on how brain chemistry contributes to feeling of infatuation/OMG passion and sparks. They liken it to being high on cocaine, similar receptors are triggered.

 

It is also said that amount of passion/sparks is not going to determine if you will stay with someone longer term. It always wears off, lasting from few weeks to few months most commonly.

 

 

They advise that if you have two guys: one with 6 on the passion scale and 9 on the compatibility scale, another with 9 on the passion scale and 6 on the compatibility scale; you are much wiser in choosing the first one and much more likely to have a happy and long R.

 

Of course in an ideal world, you will meet someone who is a 10 on both scales, but that's rarer than most people think.

[vsmini]

True! I think it's also about core values. People get so caught up in "chemistry" and "passion" that they let a man treat them like garbage because of the "spark"

 

Attraction is important but I swear - the things I have heard women and men put up with from their SO's in the name of Chemistry is insane!

[stace79]

True! I think it's also about core values. People get so caught up in "chemistry" and "passion" that they let a man treat them like garbage because of the "spark"

 

Attraction is important but I swear - the things I have heard women and men put up with from their SO's in the name of Chemistry is insane!

 

Totally agree with this. And I agree with the OP's conclusion, too. Compatibility is much more important than spark.

[Mme. Chaucer]

OP, why not internalize this information for your own use?

[Eternal Sunshine]

OP, why not internalize this information for your own use?

 

I am - it makes things a lot clearer to me now. That's why I was seeking those articles. They also say that if you keep constantly chasing that feeling of super-passion, you will end up with a string of short term relationships that will ultimately leave you empty.

 

My current bf is 6.5 on passion scale and 10 (really 10) on the compatibility scale (core values, shared interests, similar senses of humor, ease of conversation).

[Kamille]

My current bf is 6.5 on passion scale and 10 (really 10) on the compatibility scale (core values, shared interests, similar senses of humor, ease of conversation).

 

 

That's awesome E! :bunny:

[somedude81]

[/b]

 

Totally agree with this. And I agree with the OP's conclusion, too. Compatibility is much more important than spark.

You mind broadcasting that to every woman in the world?

 

For whatever reason, I'm not very sparky to women, but I often have great compatibility. So I become their best friend :sick::sick:

[Eternal Sunshine]

You mind broadcasting that to every woman in the world?

 

For whatever reason, I'm not very sparky to women, but I often have great compatibility. So I become their best friend :sick::sick:

 

They usually learn with age...

[stace79]

You mind broadcasting that to every woman in the world?

 

For whatever reason, I'm not very sparky to women, but I often have great compatibility. So I become their best friend :sick::sick:

 

They usually learn with age...

 

In my case, it was that I just didn't know what was truly important to me until I hit 30. Also, my self-esteem was not great and so I would put up with a lot of crap just to "have" somebody.

 

Also, somedude81, what you think is compatibility may not be the same to the women you date. And just b/c compatibility is most important, doesn't mean there doesn't need to be some attraction.

[alphamale]

Of course in an ideal world, you will meet someone who is a 10 on both scales, but that's rarer than most people think.

i think thats quite impossible...

[betterdeal]

"Affection is responsible for nine-tenths of whatever solid and durable happiness there is in our lives.”

[vsmini]

In my case, it was that I just didn't know what was truly important to me until I hit 30. Also, my self-esteem was not great and so I would put up with a lot of crap just to "have" somebody.

 

Also, somedude81, what you think is compatibility may not be the same to the women you date. And just b/c compatibility is most important, doesn't mean there doesn't need to be some attraction.

 

Stacie - I agree! I'm almost 29 and I'm really starting to see what's important and learning to appreciate the good guy. My pattern was good guy, bad buy, good guy, bad guy.

 

Get bored with the good guy, think if he's giving up a relationship so easy something must be wrong (yea, something wrong with me) and leave for a guy that I have to chase - my rationale was...if I have to chase it...it must be worth it and if he doesn't treat me properly I must have to IMPROVE for him. My thinking was SO messed up.

Now I'm in a good relationship that I appreciate. I had to learn the lessons the hard way and glad I did.

 

This is why I cringe when people in their early/mid twenties get married!

[alphamale]

This is why I cringe when people in their early/mid twenties get married!

people in their twenties really treat each other quite badly

[Woggle]

The problem is that single men in their 30s tend to be some of the biggest misogynists I know. They are very bitter at the way some women treated them early on.

[stace79]

The problem is that single men in their 30s tend to be some of the biggest misogynists I know. They are very bitter at the way some women treated them early on.

 

I think that could be better phrased that single people in their 30s tend to be cynical pessimists because of the way the opposite sex treated them early on.

[Woggle]

I think that could be better phrased that single people in their 30s tend to be cynical pessimists because of the way the opposite sex treated them early on.

 

I don't know about single women but with some of my single friends it seems that women have finally gotten enough of dating jerks and these men who now in many cases are quite successful are telling the women to drop dead.

[somedude81]

In my case, it was that I just didn't know what was truly important to me until I hit 30. Also, my self-esteem was not great and so I would put up with a lot of crap just to "have" somebody.

 

Also, somedude81, what you think is compatibility may not be the same to the women you date. And just b/c compatibility is most important, doesn't mean there doesn't need to be some attraction.

No, just to "have" somebody wasn't the reason. You wanted excitement, or danger or whatever the reason it is why girls don't date guys like me.

 

For if it was just to have somebody, I would actually have some relationship history, of which I have none.

The problem is that single men in their 30s tend to be some of the biggest misogynists I know. They are very bitter at the way some women treated them early on.

Exactly.

 

After getting stepped on my whole life, I have some very strong misogynist issues.

 

There is a constant battle within me of whether I love, or hate women.

 

I don't verbalize my feelings at all, but if enough time passes and I'm still alone; I won't be able to keep it all inside anymore.

[threebyfate]

ES, do you have a link to the brain chemistry information that you're referring to? I'd be curious to read it. Hope it's in a peer reviewed journal because you have to be careful about a lot of pop culture misinformation from icons like Oprah and Dr. Phil.

 

I'm not sure it's as simple or clear-cut as "it always wears out". Depends on the relationship and also, what constitutes spark/passion.

[betterdeal]

The same hormones that are released when we sense danger are released (adrenaline, cortisol) when we're in the throws of passion. Blood is prioritised for systems that can do something about the threat / opportunity. The frontal lobe and digestive system receive less blood. We are excited, in a state of alert.

 

If one is used to being in this state often, it's easy to see that one can feel confused and out of place being content, after the threat / opportunity has gone: All that extra blood to the cognitive rather than reflexive part of the brain makes us think. And we over-think. And since most of our time we have been dealing with similar but jaggedly disjointed collections of memories, we're adept at working with themes and patterns, but not narratives and continuum. We make great multi-taskers but aren't details people. We make decisions more than we have realisations.

 

It takes time for someone used to being stressed to unwind properly. It's taken me a year so far. Half the secret to success is in finding other things to do when things are okay. Things to do that don't make you stressed, but do interest or excite you in pleasurable ways outwith any particular relationship with any particular person other than yourself.

Edited May 7, 2011 by betterdeal

[Eternal Sunshine]

ES, do you have a link to the brain chemistry information that you're referring to? I'd be curious to read it. Hope it's in a peer reviewed journal because you have to be careful about a lot of pop culture misinformation from icons like Oprah and Dr. Phil.

 

I'm not sure it's as simple or clear-cut as "it always wears out". Depends on the relationship and also, what constitutes spark/passion.

 

I will have a look TBF. I know it's not by Oprah or Dr Phil but I remember it looking like a pop culture article that referenced some real, peer-reviewed ones. I kept clicking and read about 5, which all came to the same conclusion.

 

This was by doing brain scans of people that were initially describing their R as high on passion and sparks (a 9 or 10 rating) and those that had passion ratings lower. Brain scans looked remarkably different at the start, but as some time passed by (weeks or months in some cases) they ended up looking the same, leading to the conclusion that chemical high wears off with time.

 

Having said that, they do say that there are rare exceptions of people that stay in that high passion state for years or even decades.

 

They didn't really specify the definition of passion/sparks.

[Eternal Sunshine]

BTW TBF, I am curious.

 

What does passion/sparks mean to you? How would you define it?

[alethean]

I have read number of articles on how brain chemistry contributes to feeling of infatuation/OMG passion and sparks. They liken it to being high on cocaine, similar receptors are triggered.

 

It is also said that amount of passion/sparks is not going to determine if you will stay with someone longer term. It always wears off, lasting from few weeks to few months most commonly.

 

 

They advise that if you have two guys: one with 6 on the passion scale and 9 on the compatibility scale, another with 9 on the passion scale and 6 on the compatibility scale; you are much wiser in choosing the first one and much more likely to have a happy and long R.

 

Of course in an ideal world, you will meet someone who is a 10 on both scales, but that's rarer than most people think.

 

Your conclusion has been my truth even when I was a child. I have never believed in the fairy tale ending, or that the romance, "fireworks," and "chemistry" last forever. It was probably watching my parents relate to each other. They are a great team and obviously love and care for each other, but they aren't particularly passionate or affectionate. To me, that's always been real love, not that wishy-washy stuff they portray in romantic comedies. They will do anything for each other and for their family; they are stable, and they are best friends.

 

I once told my professor that "'love' is a chemical reaction that leads to insanity," and she laughed. Little did she know that I was serious.

[EasyHeart]

"Why We Love" by Helen Fisher.

 

Read it, learn it, live it.

[Titania22]

Great find Eternal Sunshine, and seems to make alot of sense.

 

Of course if the OMG Passion is like a cocaine addiction, it's no wonder we can get addicted to the feeling, and even miss the feeling when we haven't had it in a while. I guess it is maturity that allows some of us, to grow into making better relationship choices.

[threebyfate]

I will have a look TBF. I know it's not by Oprah or Dr Phil but I remember it looking like a pop culture article that referenced some real, peer-reviewed ones. I kept clicking and read about 5, which all came to the same conclusion.

 

This was by doing brain scans of people that were initially describing their R as high on passion and sparks (a 9 or 10 rating) and those that had passion ratings lower. Brain scans looked remarkably different at the start, but as some time passed by (weeks or months in some cases) they ended up looking the same, leading to the conclusion that chemical high wears off with time.

 

Having said that, they do say that there are rare exceptions of people that stay in that high passion state for years or even decades.

 

They didn't really specify the definition of passion/sparks.

I'm guessing the study you're referencing is called "Reward, Motivation and Emotion Systems Associated With Early-Stage Romantic Love". If so, that study was based on only 7 men and 10 women. A very small sampling.

 

What also concerns me about the study is that Helen Fisher's (PhD in Anthropology) involved who's the current pop culture guru of love, relationships and marriage. In her books, she appears to use all kinds of studies to support her own "findings" and theories, without referencing the cautionary caveats from those same studies.

 

The good part was since neuroscience isn't and wasn't her field of expertise, the referenced study included assorted experts in radiology, psychology and neuroscience. How qualified, no idea.

 

The fMRI study found some fascinating differences in brain activity, specifically regions of the brain, between the early stage romantic loves and long-term romantic loves (longer termers were gauged by making references to prior studies by other researchers). But in this particular study, they solely focused on dopamine-rich areas of the brain instead of the brain, in its entirety. So the conclusion they reached suggests that the early stage is reward driven and yet, if you focus on dopamine-rich areas only, how can you arrive at this conclusion since it's a form of confirmation bias?

 

There was also separation made between "early-stage romantic love" and "sex drive".

 

As you're well aware, I'm just a layperson reading this study and providing my opinion of it. While I think they've made some significant findings, I also think that more and broader studies are required to conclude anything.

 

BTW TBF, I am curious.

 

What does passion/sparks mean to you? How would you define it?

My opinion doesn't really count in this but I will include the above referenced study's definition of early-stage romantic love:

 

These include emotional responses such as euphoria, intense focused attention on a preferred individual, obsessive thinking about him or her, emotional dependency on and craving for emotional union with this beloved, and increased energy.

 

Do you agree with its definition?