In Love 2.0, Barbara Fredrickson stands by the belief that her improved definition love does not have to happen in close relationships, and can happen anywhere, between anyone. This essay will seek to explore the extent to which close personal relationships influence positivity resonance - a better measure of love - by analyzing the documented experiments and research found in the selection.
Fredrickson describes love as “true positivity-charged connection with other living beings” (107). With this definition in mind, it becomes plain at the outset that love need not take place within close relationships. Any “positivity-charged” (107) interaction and connection with anyone, including strangers, can be love. While “cultural heritage” …show more content…
When presented with the facts of the experiment, the fact that the participants in the study were strangers becomes a point of interest. There needed not be a close connection fostered over the years in order to for two brains to sync up. If neural coupling is “the means by which we understand each other” (108) - and as such, the means by which positivity resonance comes to be - and can happen between almost any two people depending on the interest, body language, and attentiveness between the two of them as Fredrickson is suggesting, close relationships do not influence her definition of positivity resonance to a large extent.
Brain synchronicity is a scientific measure of positivity resonance, and as such, love. The nature of good communication goes further than just “a single act performed by two brains” (112) in the context of love, because the understanding that comes with neural coupling extends further when the same emotion is being experienced by two people (113). Neural coupling of this kind gives way to what Fredrickson calls “micro-moments of love” (113). These are experienced more frequently when positive emotions are shared and two brains act as one (113). These moments require merely a connection rather than
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Love is unique in its striking ability to be a driving force in dictating interpersonal relationships. It patterns behavior and orients individuals towards their distinct, unique attractions. According to Velleman, love penetrates deeper than one’s qualities; it extends to one’s rational will, or the essence of a person. To him, though love appears to have particularity, it is also a moral emotion. Kolodny subscribes to the relationship theory, asserting that an ongoing, interpersonal, and historical relationship with a relative is a part of the reason for love. In Kolodny’s view, the existence of the true self is irrelevant, as is the morality of love. Both Velleman and Kolodny disprove the quality theory; however, their perceptions of love and its morality differ. I believe that Kolodny is correct in his view that morality is irrelevant to love and that there must be factual reasons for love. Although it is enticing to believe that one is attracted to the essence of another, the essence is not motivation enough for love. The relationship theory takes into account the motivation needed to love a particular person from a historical, interpersonal, and ongoing perspective.
When one looks at romantic love, one would conclude that it is a social dyad that brings about certain responsibilities between two people in a relationship such as honesty, protection, openness and expressions of love. (William, 2008: 76). Contrasting with
The idea of universal love is one that is prevalent in the media. With the news filled with grim stories and horror many people are calling to the idea of loving everyone. Tensions are high concerning race relations, gender discrimination, and sexual orientation. Many in the general public are calling for humanity to embrace humanity. Many in the general public are asking “why we can’t just love one another”? Stephen T. Asma tackles this idea of love in his article published in the New York Times. Asma discusses two different ideas about universal love before offering his own take on the subject. Just as Asma states, universal love is a myth and closer personal relationships should be favored.
On psychology today “Dr. Arthur Aron, a psychologist at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, says “intense passionate love uses the same system of the brain that gets activated when a person becomes
In the movie Casablanca, directed by Michael Curtiz, two different kinds of love are exposed. The love relationship between Ilsa Lund and Rick is a more passionate relationship while the one between Ilsa and Victor Laszlo is more intimate. Love is composed of different feelings and because of that it can be expressed, as seen in Casablanca, in different ways. “The Intimate Relationship Mind”, a text by Garth J. O. Fletcher and Megan Stenswick, helps support that claim providing a scientific background on how love is shaped by those different feelings. It says that “love is composed of three distinct and basic components that each represent evolved adaptations; namely, intimacy, commitment,
In his article “Watching New Love as It Sears the Brain,” Benedict Carey expresses that love is not necessarily an emotion but rather a neurological and physical phenomenon. After comparing new love to mania and obsession, Carey offers evidence of romantic love as a neuropsychological event through the description of the caudate nucleus (a specific part of the brain which produces the neurotransmitter dopamine), explaining the cause of desire and passion in relation to love.
The human idea of love is quite possibly the most misunderstood in today’s society. Love can be between a man and woman, mother/father and their kids, or even really good friends. However, these relationships of love go through many interactions and stages to start and progress. Many psychological events must occur and be worked through in order to be successful. All relationships must endure the five perspectives of human behavior. These perspectives are biological, learning, social and cultural, cognitive, and psychodynamic influences.
Proximity or being close to a person has a big influence on our choice of friends or romantic partners, previous research suggests that the
The original study “The nature of love” was focused on gaining more understanding of human development (Hock, 2013). It involved a series of experiments done by Harry Harlow in 1958, in which he
Love exists in the short story “The Bear Came Over the Mountain” by Alice Munro and in the short story “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” by Raymond Carver. in Munro’s short story the plot is that of a mentally ill wife, Fiona, who falls in love with another patient while her husband still tries to hang on to their old love. Her husband eventually wants to have an affair with the wife of the man his wife is having an affair with. Their love changed because of their circumstances due to ill health. Carver’s story discusses the different definitions of love due to the type and quality of relationships; everyone has a different definition. Love also exists all over the world within different environments and cultures. The concept of love depends upon the environment in which it inhabits. Love is dependent on the life of the people in love and it also depends on their current environment. Nature and nurture are also huge factors into the development and process of love. What nature and nurture mean is whether it is due to how the person lives and acts along with their personality compared to whether it’s all in their genetics beforehand. Love is more on the nurture side instead of the nature side of human experience.
How people interact with each other can us tell a lot about society. It can tell us about their interests and goals in life. In Sherry Turkle, Selections from “Selections from Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other”, Turkle explores Artificial intelligence and how humans interact with it. Turkles explores how people (specifically children) are able to develop love for AI’s how their relationship develops. Talking more specifically about love, Barbara Fredrickson, in Selections from “Love 2.0: How Our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything We Feel, Think, Do, and Become” shares her research about her discovery of “love 2.0” and how the old idea of love is outdated and misunderstood. Giving us an insight of how
Love is said to be the greatest human experience in which mankind are privilege to partake in. To love can be a wondrous experience filling life with bliss and other strong emotions. Some people believe to love is to be alive and be able to see the good in the world and others. The purpose of this paper is to examine and find a better understanding of what is love, to explore what people believe love to be, and what lies surround the perception of love and to explore and expose what the meaning true love is or at the very least the authors understanding of the perception of love. In addition to exploring the concept, deception and the truth of love,
While people are often able to identify when they feel the emotion love, love itself seems to defy definition. In her polemic “Against Love”, Laura Kipnis argues that love cannot exist as traditional expressions of love such as marriage, monogamy, and mutuality. However, in her argument, she defines love incorrectly by equating love to expressions of love. This definition lacks a component essential to understanding the abstract concept of love: emotion. Recognizing love as emotion helps us realize that, contrary to Kipnis’ argument love by nature transcends all expressions of love. Love is subjective and exists in any and all forms. In her argument that love cannot survive as conventional expressions of love, Kipnis ignores the nature of love as emotion in favor of equating love to different expressions of love. Love is a force which exists above expressions of love; a true understanding of love can only come from an assessment of how individuals, not societies, respond to the emotion.
Some of the areas Homann focuses are arousal and rest, emotional regulation, implicit and explicit memory, right/left brain integration, and the mirror neuron system. Naturally, humans crave relationships with other humans via communication. People are always aware and attuning their behaviors to match those around them. This helps people to be empathetic and creates the baseline for people to establish attachment and interrelationships with others. In particular, mirror neurons play a crucial role in the intersubjective experience of the mind. Mirroring is thought to be seen as a way to create “intimacy” between oneself and others. This occurs via the mirror neuron system focusing on nonverbal communication by focusing in on people’s movement and expression. This is then sent to specific areas in the brain of the person watching, such as the amygdala, insula, and prefrontal cortex. Then from the insula, it travels to the limbic system. Mirror neurons help people to find empathy towards others which is important for recreating relationships with people around us. In dance/movement therapy, the therapists use the mirror neuron system to attune to clients’
“Goleman persuasively argues for a new social model of intelligence drawn from the emerging field of social neuroscience. Describing what happens to our brains when we connect with others, Goleman demonstrates how relationships have the power to mold not only human experience but also human biology. In lucid prose he describes from a neurobiological perspective sexual attraction, marriage, parenting, psychopathic behaviors and the group dynamics of teachers and workers. Goleman frames his discussion in a critique of society 's creeping disconnection in the age of the iPod, constant digital connectivity and multitasking. Vividly evoking the power of social interaction to influence mood and brain chemistry, Goleman discusses the "toxicity" of insult and unpleasant social experience as he warns of the dangers of self-absorption and poor attention and reveals the positive effects of feel-good neurochemicals that are released in loving relationships and in caregiving. Drawing on numerous studies, Goleman illuminates new theories about attachment, bonding, and the making and remaking of memory as he examines how our brains are wired for altruism,