"The Science of Love" - A Review

Read it here first: https://triplehelixnus.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/nus-spring-2010.pd (page 22/23)

Well, I have to admit that when I first chanced upon this article, it was in the midst of researching a critical response paper for my university. However, after digesting the information from the text, and mulling it over in my head for a few good, long minutes, I realised just how interesting a concept this was. Now, I'm not certain if this is fully what was meant to be conveyed by the author, but this is what I later understood and perceived the article to be about - and this is my take on it. So here goes:

This interesting paper, by Sofia Castello Tickell – an undergraduate at the esteemed Brown University – is as thought-provoking as it is matter-of-fact, earnestly sincere in its diagnosis of the common phenomenon, 'love', once thought of as abstract and immeasurable in nature. With a clearer understanding of the famous term once thought of as irrational and merely qualitative, an ambitious method discovered by scientists of late has successfully introduced new insight into quantifying what was once perceived as merely universal, deciphering the workings of evolutionary hormones and evaluating the level of heated psychological magnetism between humans as a believable instrument of science. In realizing the truth behind this bold assumption, the author allows us to delve into a method set to quantify romantic love, namely the ‘Passionate Love Scale’, which was developed by duo Elaine Hatfield and Susan Sprecher in 1986. The scale denotes attraction as ratings, from 1 to 9, to a series of questions meant to provoke thoughts of the depth of a person’s true affection for another human being. The results of this test was supported by a later research study launched by researchers Helen Fisher, Arthur Aron and Lucy L. Brown, as part of an experiment launched in 2005, more than a decade after the initial scale was first released.

As a person of a more theoretical nature, I value the more practical insight into what might have once been seen as an involuntary concept. I do believe that the human body is merely a living mechanism of processes and instinctual drives, and is elementally an object that is subject to causal effect, that is – should there be a specific sequence of events or consequences that should stimulate certain effects on an individual, a human’s purely impassive system and mind would undoubtedly be certain to respond in a certain quantifiable way, whether the result be rigidly positive or not. This correlates to the findings achieved through the observed experiment, that speaks of the developing of certain emotions or sensations through the invoking of specific hormones or neurological processes, the stimulation of which can be almost seen as wholly in the hands of the stimulant. For example, neuroimaging scans conducted on subjects thought of as ‘passionately in love’ indicated similarities to precedents that were on certain pleasure-inducing narcotics, such as cocaine – or revealed obvious signs of the activation of the subject’s psychological reward system to provide positive reinforcement of affection. In these cases, the subject made a decision – a perhaps irrational impulse to abuse a drug at hand – to achieve a state of mind that was revealed to be entirely similar to our emotion – or sensation – of interest. And so, whether coincidentally or not, a replication of the phenomenon once thought to be irreplaceable has somehow reared its elusive head, and beckons to human understanding with a whole new universe of possibilities in quantifiable, or even plainly manipulative measures.

In one example, “Invasive Species and the Effects on Society”, Sia Sin Wei (2010) introduces the idea that, despite knowing of the risks and concerns of such an action, people still insist on introducing new potentially invasive species for a wide variety of reasons, whether justified as a measure for food supply, biocontrol, or even purely aesthetic reasons. With such a statement, the evidence of a causal effect situation is clearly identified here – just as how certain actions led to a formation of certain romantic feelings of attraction, so did certain justification and action to introduce a new species result in inevitable ecological problems in local waterways and systems. In another example, “Corporate Medicine: The Economics of Physician-Owned Specialty Hospitals”, Mangaladevi Patil (2010) similarly explains how business executives are now making decisions driven primarily by financial gain rather than for the betterment of the American people, and how profits could soon outweigh the provision of quality healthcare. This highlights a certain decision taken, namely by these executives, even with the consequences of their actions at hand clearly still in the forefront of their minds, informing us plainly of the rigid aftermath of their eventual choice – such as the reduction of affordable public healthcare. 

Thus, as it also is in romantic love, a subject would always have a choice to do something that might have the potential to further stimulate his or her’s human psyche, even knowing full well the consequences that might arise from such a decision, resulting in the consequence, or, namely, the development of certain emotional sensations. That is, if an executive could make a decisions to chase after profits over the general well-being of the public, even after fully knowing the costs, so could a person control the depth of his perhaps growing affection for another by, perhaps, deciding to invest lesser, or even more time or effort into him or her, or even fundamentally reciprocating certain affectionate gestures. Further, withstanding physical or tangible gestures, mentally cultivating certain patterns of beliefs or understandings could also ultimately lead to a known conclusion, such as the development and continued psychological reinforcement in certain manners of thinking, examples being ‘this has been the best partner out of all the others I have ever had, and I am unlikely to find another’, or, ‘I have always been alone, with such an emergence of a new companionship, it must only be right that I should reciprocate fully in my commitment to this other’. In this way, I believe that something as intangible as romantic love, which is already a perplexing condition of the human mind, is as invulnerable to both candid measurement and slow manipulation as any other human process. With years of science and technology trickling ever onwards, I believe methods such as renowned and evolutionary new psychology techniques, or the introduction of certain neurological stimulants or replicates could easily conquer the complex element of passion.

It is my opinion that we could bring key appreciation to this debate by spreading the awareness of such remedies or tests. In a way, I believe feigning ignorance could even be seen as a deceitful tactic of the knowledgeable, to allow lesser-interested persons to believe that the sensations they are feeling are borne entirely of a miracle, or complex forces completely out of their own hands. Even now, it can be seen in the article that there are special oxytocins sold in bottles, or even the sale of certain pheromones meant to improve a person’s romantic aspects. Also, certain sex-specific factors, such as males seeking reproductive potential in their partners – and thus unconsciously analyzing lower waist-to-hip ratio to determine the woman’s level of nourishment and capability to bear a child – or women seeking generic and material resources from theirs – and thus making a decision based on the partner’s genetic prowess as well as his material possessions – are also playing factors in generating attraction. Therefore, it should be educated to the general public that ‘love’ is indeed capable of being cultivated, and fundamentally understood as a basic primal need for survival. And so, I stand by my conclusion that further research and greater candid publication of this knowledge would do greatly to ease society’s beliefs into accepting the bare matter before them.

Romantic love is not complex, irreplaceable or uncontrollable – it is merely a mixture of circumstances, clever and opportune development of certain stimulants, and a veil of naivety that has always seemed to overshadow the tiny sliver of doubt in a scientific mind.

P.S. A relevant, interesting video by Helen Fisher, who was mentioned in the article: http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat#t-181874

Bibliography:

1.                  Sofia Castello Tickell (2010). “The Science of Love”

2.                  Sia Sin Wei (2010) “Invasive Species and the Effects on Society”

3.                 Mangaladevi Patil (2010). “Corporate Medicine: The Economics of Physician-Owned Specialty Hospitals”