Kamille Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 I was listening to the biological anthropologist Helen Fischer on TED Talks and found one of her argument very interesting. She argues that love is a drive, much like a sex drive. She bases this idea on the fact that brain scans of people in love show loads of activity in a part of the brain associated with basic functions. She even says that evidence shows that love is a stronger drive than sex: people are willing to die/kill for love, we have countless works of art dedicated to the topic (and, one might add, we even countless advice forums in place to help us navigage it;)). Basically, seeking, wanting and enjoying love is part of our biological nature. She then goes on to distinguish 3 drives: Lust/sex Love Attachment. What I find compelling about the "drive" argument is that it that she stresses it is stronger than a sex drive. And I wonder: does that mean that the people who focus solely on sex are doing themselves a disservice and denying a core tenet of their beings? 2
d'Arthez Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 That is a hard question to answer, since it is really related to the question of how society harnesses and channels our psychological energy. Capitalism has destroyed many organic bonds of prior economic systems. It has made us individuals, but at the price of being organically more cut-off from the rest of the group / herd. The psychological threat of loneliness or even being considered an Outcast () is enough to put most people back in line. Nearly everything is expressed in monetary terms. Even old customs and tradition are reconstrued in monetary terms. Just look at the arguments made in discussions on who should pay for dates. The value of a man being in the wedding ring he buys, the value of a woman is measured in how "hot" she is. We are often fooled into equating lust to love, attachment to a certificate (marriage, life partnership). Some of it is youthful naiveté. The warped morality system that capitalism actively promotes influences us all to a smaller or greater degree. The tension between outward beauty and inner beauty is not as accidental as people may assume it is. There is no escaping this; we are all predator and prey, at least often perceived as such, or construed as such for instance in advertising and social perceptions. It is not surprising that men and women seek to express themselves in the roles they are prescribed; men become men through power and money. Women become women through beauty and assumed fertility. Babies and children cannot rationally argue with customs they are subjected to - it is simply the norm. It is not strange that people focus more on sex as a means to acquire power and wealth, rather than love and attachment (which are bland and meaningless; the desire to upgrade is a desire to increase our power and wealth or at least our perceived power and wealth). This has nothing to do with the immorality of youth - rather it has more to do with the immorality of the parents and the powers that be. Life at times can be a cruel teacher. Some of us learn through heartache. After sowing one's wild oats for 10-15-20 years, most people have reached the ceiling of what they can achieve through sex. Only then will they learn that the sex drive has not gotten them far; and one can ask serious questions about the character of the people who have blindly focused on this aspect of life. There will be a few successful ones, but also a lot of discarded men and women in this process. Few of us are not participating in this race to the bottom. Most of those, as evidenced by the nice guys / girls posting on these boards do not even opt out voluntarily. Thankfully at least, there is space to disagree and opt out. So, yes in summary, I have to answer your question in the affirmative Kamille. 2
threebyfate Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Fisher's lecture focused too much on the warm and fuzzy parts, hence so vague and not enough on hard science. Found it frustrating. As far as the casual sex component, she states it doesn't exist and then separates lust/sex from love and attachment. She also mentions something about how late at night, our brains can be attached to one person, have romantic love for another and also, be in lust with another. There were other contradictions but must admit, forgot them. My working memory sucks if I don't jot down quick notes as reference points to trigger the abstraction of the memory. Frankly, if her lecture is any indication of her theories, she needs to do more research to create more holistic theories.
Author Kamille Posted May 19, 2012 Author Posted May 19, 2012 I agree that the TED lecture left much to desire. I haven't read much of Fischer's work. I saw some of her pop-psych articles in Women's Health and reports of her studies in Psychology Today. Generally, I find she tends towards biological reductionism. Case in point, her attempts to identify two major social trends are completely vapid: she doesn't rest the social part of her theory on any kind of data. It felt like broad generalizations about men and women - generalizations that did not take into account socialization and the structures of society (namely how a shift from an industrial to a knowledge economy is changing gender relations). But I still found the "drive" argument interesting - especially since in that instance she does have data to support her claim. If love is part of our biology and part of our drives, then I have to wonder, with D'Artez, how our social institutions (financial and media for instance) are supporting or impeding that drive. Why is the focus primarily on Sex when it comes to how both masculinity and feminity are constructed? To push the thought to the extreme: what if capitalism recognized love as the main drive and not sex? Would things change? (I offer myself a rebuttal here: it seems to me that Sex serves as the symbol for the capacity to find love... But this is so for the first time in human history... Anyway, rambling... ) Ok, off to make myself more coffee. Thanks for the thought provoking input!
Ruby Slippers Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 I read this pretty good book, The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck, in which he defines love as basically the choice and commitment to support your partner's long-term growth, as they do the same for you. Infatuation is the initial period of mating lust, which usually lasts up to a couple of years. After that, you choose whether or not to love and nurture your partner. You can recreate and revisit the feeling of infatuation, but it's natural that it drops off after a certain period of time. It would make sense to me that people who actively love have more active brains - because you simply have to do more work to support the relationship and the person you love, as they do, too. And if you are really committed, I can see that you do feel a drive to honor it by giving your best. I don't think I agree that it's stronger than the sex drive. I do think it's more beneficial and productive in the long run. But having sex is pretty easy - truly loving demands a lot more from you.
somedude81 Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Was there any mention of people who try to find love but are unable to? I'm sure there are a few negative effects of going without for long periods of time.
USMCHokie Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Was there any mention of people who try to find love but are unable to? I'm sure there are a few negative effects of going without for long periods of time. Based on having no prior knowledge of this theory, I infer that the "love" drive is one that you could have with a family member? That is, you have "love" someone without having any sexual desire for them?
Ruby Slippers Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Based on having no prior knowledge of this theory, I infer that the "love" drive is one that you could have with a family member? That is, you have "love" someone without having any sexual desire for them? Yeah, but it's different. IMO, nothing compares to romantic love. (Must be the sex chemicals!) I am starting to understand why people "settle", why it's better to love someone with more flaws than you'd like to accept, than to love no one at all. I'm still looking for a great match, but I'm thinking that some of the things I wanted might not be so important.
USMCHokie Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Yeah, but it's different. IMO, nothing compares to romantic love. (Must be the sex chemicals!) Which is why I don't really buy this theory...are the three "drives" completely separate and independent? Or is the a correlation? And if there is a relation, why even distinguish them?
Author Kamille Posted May 19, 2012 Author Posted May 19, 2012 It would make sense to me that people who actively love have more active brains - because you simply have to do more work to support the relationship and the person you love, as they do, too. And if you are really committed, I can see that you do feel a drive to honor it by giving your best. What you describe is what Fischer calls the "Attachment drive". She maps it out in the brain, but in short: lust/sex provokes one chain of chemical reactions, love another (and that one, she shows, is the one that stimulates the brain the most) and attachment a third. Attachment she basically defines as "the biological reaction that makes it possible for us to like somebody long enough to raise a child". I don't think I agree that it's stronger than the sex drive. I do think it's more beneficial and productive in the long run. But having sex is pretty easy - truly loving demands a lot more from you. Maybe the love drive is stronger but the sex drive is the one that provides the most instant gratification. Hence, in this age of advertisement, sex is the drive most often used by capitalism to expand markets (does that work d'Artez? ). Was there any mention of people who try to find love but are unable to? I'm sure there are a few negative effects of going without for long periods of time. She doesn't mention it in the talk that I recall. But if it is a drive, than it biological anthropologists would argue that it is linked to our survival. Going without would therefore definitely be a cause of suffering. That said, she does distinguish love and sex, saying love can be triggered without sex - and that, therefore, our understanding or romantic love, commitment and lust are a contemporary evolution, but not necessarily the only way these drives can be fulfilled. Based on having no prior knowledge of this theory, I infer that the "love" drive is one that you could have with a family member? That is, you have "love" someone without having any sexual desire for them? That's what I understood.
Author Kamille Posted May 19, 2012 Author Posted May 19, 2012 Yeah, but it's different. IMO, nothing compares to romantic love. (Must be the sex chemicals!) According to Fischer, the sex chemicals are not the same as the romantic love ones. I am starting to understand why people "settle", why it's better to love someone with more flaws than you'd like to accept, than to love no one at all. I'm still looking for a great match, but I'm thinking that some of the things I wanted might not be so important. I know for a fact that I love to be in love. Her talk helped me understand why I so easily gloss over some important red flags. I think it'll help me focus on what really matters: the person, not the status.
threebyfate Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Fisher's basically renamed the infatuation stage to romantic love.
d'Arthez Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Maybe the love drive is stronger but the sex drive is the one that provides the most instant gratification. Hence, in this age of advertisement, sex is the drive most often used by capitalism to expand markets (does that work d'Artez? ). Yup, that works. To get back to your question in post #4: To push the thought to the extreme: what if capitalism recognized love as the main drive and not sex? Would things change? Capitalism would collapse. Because love is not based on what we get or what we give (in material terms), but more in spiritual terms. Was there any mention of people who try to find love but are unable to? I am not familiar with Fischer's work at all (hence going slightly on a tangent in post #2), but that is just one of the social costs of the society we live in. It sucks, but that is just the way things are.
Author Kamille Posted May 19, 2012 Author Posted May 19, 2012 Which is why I don't really buy this theory...are the three "drives" completely separate and independent? Or is the a correlation? And if there is a relation, why even distinguish them? You have to understand the theory is based on brainscans: what gets activated at what stage of the relationship. So they're separate, but of course they're related. Lust sets off a particular chain of reactions which may or may not lead to the kind of "focused thinking" love does. An orgasm releases dopamine which creates a feeling of attachment. (Oh, how I love my vibrator???), etc. Societies in the past did easily separate the three drives: marriages were arranged, love was professed but chaste, lust was often expressed towards non-marital partners. We'd be one type of society, one that links all three under the notion of the romantic marriage. But this isn't necessarily so.
melodymatters Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 I believe we all have a drive for " connection"; Tribes, social clubs, neighborhoods. Our sense of connection to our fellow human beings has shrunk incredibly in the last century. I know personally, and this is against current thinking, but I believe very much aligned with the natural human state, that I am a much happier person when partnered. It feels natural to me to have someone to build a life with, eat dinner with, take care of each other when ill or sad, make goals, plans, have FUN ! Can I take care of myself and enjoy my life without a partner ? Sure. But MY ideal state is one of social connection, bolstered by my primary "mate relationship". So, anecdotaly, YES, I have a very high " Love Drive" and function best when it is fufilled ! 1
threebyfate Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 You have to understand the theory is based on brainscans: what gets activated at what stage of the relationship. So they're separate, but of course they're related. Lust sets off a particular chain of reactions which may or may not lead to the kind of "focused thinking" love does. An orgasm releases dopamine which creates a feeling of attachment. (Oh, how I love my vibrator???), etc. Societies in the past did easily separate the three drives: marriages were arranged, love was professed but chaste, lust was often expressed towards non-marital partners. We'd be one type of society, one that links all three under the notion of the romantic marriage. But this isn't necessarily so.If I recall correctly, they only did fMRI scans on people in the romantic love/infatuation stage. If this is inaccurate which is possible considering how she hopped, skipped and jumped all over the place during the lecture, let me know.
somedude81 Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Based on having no prior knowledge of this theory, I infer that the "love" drive is one that you could have with a family member? That is, you have "love" someone without having any sexual desire for them? I really don't think that love from your family is the same as romantic love. She doesn't mention it in the talk that I recall. But if it is a drive, than it biological anthropologists would argue that it is linked to our survival. Going without would therefore definitely be a cause of suffering. That said, she does distinguish love and sex, saying love can be triggered without sex - and that, therefore, our understanding or romantic love, commitment and lust are a contemporary evolution, but not necessarily the only way these drives can be fulfilled.Makes perfect sense to me. It reminds me of Maslow chart.
Recommended Posts