Summary Of Barbara Fredrickson's Definition Of Love

The capacity to feel higher emotions: feelings, the cause of our imperfection, but the thing that makes us unique. While analyzing the “contact zone” one has to view it from a psychological point of view, we are afraid of the unknown. Being afraid of the unknown is what makes us clash and, the main reason a Utopian community could never be possible.

Love is a powerful emotion that every human being has experience at least once in their life. There are numerous connotations that refer to this emotion, but there is only one kind of love that can make a person change completely in unexpected ways. It is the kind of love that consumes the soul and everything within. Mixed with excitement, adventure, heartbreak, happiness and joy; it is a big ball of feelings, all concentrated in one simple, yet extremely complicated necessity to have, protect, please and give all of oneself to that one person. In certain occasions, love can grow very intense and, consequently,

One of the most complicated experiences in life, love cannot be precisely defined, but some basic indications help to characterize the feeling. Love is a very deep, passionate affection one person has for another or a relationship of the same nature that implies a unique intensity of emotion. It requires an especially strong connection and compatibility between two people, usually identified by a total understanding and respect for each other and a fundamental similarity in ideology. Love can also be seen in the way it alters people’s normal behavior; when someone is in love, the object of their affection seems like the most important thing in the world, and they do extreme things for that feeling to be requited. Love cannot easily be

Nature and nurture both rely on the brain to help organisms make relationships, learn, and develop over time. Neuroscientists have recently tested the brain: “Neuroscience has discovered that the brain’s very design makes it sociable, inexorably drawn into an intimate brain-to-brain linkup whenever engaged with another person”(Goleman). The relationships that people are involved in help mold them: “Relationships have the power to not only mold human experience but also human biology”(Goleman). Relationships impact people on an emotional level and people are easily influenced by the internal state of the people that surround them. Interactions with others affect the brain and body of everyone that is interacted with. The brain is also referred to as the social brain: “The social brain is

The article '' love: the right chemistry'' by Anastasia Toufexis efforts to explain the concept of love from a scientific aspect in which an amateur will understand. Briefly this essay explains and describe in a scientific way how people's stimulation of the body works when you're falling in love. The new scientific researches have given the answer through human physiology how genes behave when your feelings for example get swept away. The justification for this is explained by how the brain gets flooded by chemicals. The author expresses in one point that love isn't just a nonsense behavior nor a feeling that exhibits similar properties as of a narcotic drug. This is brought about by an organized chemical chain who controls different

peace” and “a sense of release” (Armstrong, 14). For Fredrickson, this emptying would lead to positivity resonance. She would go on to explain each of the three parts; the brain, oxytocin, and

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.

Love comes in numerous ways and can be expressed in countless fashions. Love is powerful, has a meaning, and is capable of eclipsing time all due to the human psyche. One can love anything from a family member, to a fictional character in a TV show, or even an inanimate object. The fluidity of love is what makes it so difficult to understand if one is “in love” or has ever experienced love. Experiences often mold a person’s perspective on what love truly is. Love is not an emotion, but rather a condition of the mind that cause one to act in ways that are uncharacteristic. It can be blinding, obsessive, and pure, depending on the reciprocation of the love. Since love is an abstract concept, one simply cannot measure how much love they have received or given alike. Although the human brain can perceive and interpret other’s actions or words as signs of love and care, in which the mind processes this into the mental psyche that is love.

Love can be whatever one makes it out to be. From basic science to a complex philosophical or mystical idea. A person’s own unique experiences with love make it a concept that is so widely perceived and interpreted. Throughout her piece, Selections from Love 2.0 Barbara Fredrickson tries to broaden her audience’s understanding to a new idea of love. Overall, she claims that love is a biological need. The claim that longevity and quality of life might have lots to do with not only ‘clean air and nutritious food’ but also ‘your supply of love’ are accurate to a certain extent. A constant supply of love is needed for a better quality of life but it is not necessarily needed to live a long life. If the claim is taken to be true, then a weak supply of love would result in a person just existing and not living life to their fullest or connecting to other human beings; therefore, they would be incomplete without it.

The process of neural coupling makes people have empathy. Empathy is something that you gain when you feel other people’s emotions. It can only be earned when you understand one’s pain. According to Fredrickson, these conscious acts can only be reached by sharing a unified connection. When talking to people, you typically share a smile or you attentively pay attention to their expressions. By doing so, you can reach the level of happiness that you deserve. Yet, Gilbert would say that all these emotions are not possible. You have to rely on your unconscious during these types of moments. These are rare moments that you typically share between family, friends, or strangers. Usually, we rely on our psychological immune system to make us happy. If the process is typically unconscious, how do we know that what we are feeling in Love 2.0 is a real connection between a stranger or soul mate? This concludes that Fredrickson’s theory needs to be assisted by Gilbert’s.

But they define someone as a human being, capable of seeing and interpreting the world in ways vastly different from others. For along with being an individual comes a certain understanding that we each have unique characteristics, and thus no one human experience is alike. Moreover, these unconscious processes that constitute the most private realms of our mind affect how and with whom we interact. I contend, therefore, that the will to give others more insight into our thoughts is dependent on the emotional connection that we feel toward that person, regardless of the definition of the relationship. Though we can never completely convey our own human experiences, there are some people with whom we will inevitably connect easily.

Some say, to love is to be willing to die. Others say, to love is to be willing to do whatever a loved one asks. Barbara Fredrickson says love is neither of these. In her book, Fredrickson attempts to redefine love through the biological microscope. The author compiles a variety of studies and research data to prove her claim that love is the product of neural coupling, oxytocin in the brain, and the work of the vagus nerve. Fredrickson presents a well-rounded claim, but there are some deficiencies that hinder the strength of her argument. Fredrickson’s use of vague language throughout this excerpt causes the reader to call into question the validity of said studies. In addition, Fredrickson’s use of first person point of view is a clever

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.

“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,

Another similar theory proposed by Patterson in 1982 deals with providing information, regulating interaction, and expressing intimacy. “However, Patterson (1982) also proposed two other functional categories, social control and service-task functions, neither of which is identified in the earlier classification systems” (Edinger and Patterson, 1983, p. 31). The main function, and more readily accepted is social control. Social control, or attempting to change the behavior of another, is unique because it describes a motivational contrast with the function of intimacy (Edinger and Patterson, 1983, p. 31). Intimacy, or the underlying affectionate reaction towards another, also deals with negative and positive reactions. The positive affect could result in concern for, liking, love, or interest in another; however, the negative ends results in dislike or hate (Edinger and Patterson, 1983, p 31). “…The social control function is characterized by independence of affect and nonverbal behavior…in some cases the real affect is opposite to the affect represented behaviorally; for example, when smiling at, gazing at, and standing close to a disliked superior to win favor with that person”(edinger and Patterson, 1983, p. 31). In this case, by standing close, smiling at and gazing at a disliked superior the person is using intimacy to gain