Score: Romantics, 1 - Cynics, 0
Well, we might not be able to prove 'love at first sight', but hopeless romantics out there can defend their belief in long-lasting true love - physiologically.
Cynics and single girls tend to argue that love fades in a relationship, and married couples don't really feel the same way about each other as they once did. Well, that's not necessarily true.
A new study, presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, has found that couples that have been together for a long time and claim to be "madly in love" still actually are, at least as far as brain scans can tell.
Most couples who have been together for a long time feel a shift in the relationship from an energetic, passionate love to one more subtle and comfortable. But the researchers noticed a group that seemed to break the mold - they claimed to be just as passionate as ever. In 2005, a study used fMRI scans to show that a particular part of the brain, the ventral tegmental area, was activated while people who had been in love for a relatively short amount of time (less than seven months) looked at images of their partner. The ventral tegmental area is also activated by cocaine, and is the region that controls production of the natural stimulant dopamine, just FYI.
So to see if the long-term couples really were as madly in love as they once had been, researchers monitored the subjects' brain activity using fMRI while they looked at images of their sweethearts. People who have been madly in love for an average of 21 years had the same activation in that area of the brain associated with the 'honeymoon stage' - the ventral tegmental area.
At the same time, there were key differences between the young couples and the long-lasting bonds that might reveal why some relationships might last. The couples that were freshly in love also showed activation in a part of the brain associated with obsession and anxiety whereas the couples in for the long haul showed activation in areas associated with calmness and pain suppression.
“The difference is that in long term love, the obsession the mania, the anxiety has been replaced with calm,” says coauthor Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist from Rutgers University, in a news conference.
So if you believe that love can be long-lasting and true, well, you're right. Perhaps we shouldn't let too many people know about this study, though. I can see it now. "Honey, you don't really love me!" "Yes I do Sweetie." "Oh yeah? Prove it! Let me see your brain scans!"
See more of my blogs at Observations of a Nerd
- wilcoxclynn's blog |
- Add new comment |
- 45392 reads
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend
Romantic
Lol.. You can love always someone. Dating is for fun people.
"The first date is an
"The first date is an excellent time to discuss what you expect from a relationship, your religious beliefs, your morals and where you see your future.Two people on a different path are going to have a near impossible time forming a life, even if there is love.There is more to a relationship than love and passion." I agree and you can find out about another person a lot in the first date, whether you're connected or not, first date says it!
Awesome!
The more I use it, the more it impresses me. Awesome! This is simply unbelievable!
Wow, what cynics
It's amazing how many cynics are reading this article and then commenting.
It is possible for someone to still be extremely attracted to their mate after a few years and receive the same effects as when they first met.
The definition of 'love' is another subject; I guess they should have called it "attraction and all that weird funny stuff you feel in naughty parts of your body that make you excited and make you want to do naughty things to the other person you are looking at in that really coyish naughty manner"
Not everyone's a cynic
Not everyone's a cynic, Anon. See my comment below.
If you're not a cynic, you might be interested in the book I discuss there.
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
The blog is on a study, and not mine.
I wrote a blog about a study - see the link in the 3rd paragraph. My definition of "love" is merely based on theirs - the lighting up of a particular area of the brain while looking at a picture. If you want to refute their methods, go take a look. This is a blog - it's not a scientific paper, so I didn't go into detail. And, for the record, I am in no way affiliated with the authors of the study - I just thought the results seemed interesting.
Bored?
Ibod Catooga
I like cock.
Maybe...
But I think it goes both ways in this case - you seem to have a narrow view of the word "blog".
http://www.roflposters.com/ch
http://www.roflposters.com/chrtstianity-just-think-e-could-have-been-epi...
What a crock!
What a crock of baloney!
"Sciencblog"
Science doesn't even have a definition for the word 'love' so how can you even begin to formulate a hypothesis on it?
I don't think the people of this blog understand the scientific method.
proves nothing
This proves nothing. Some chemical processes, pf, so what? Love can still be non-existent. Romantics interpret chemistry the way it helps them to prove their nonsense
Dr. Helen Fisher's popular book on Why We Love
It didn't surprise me that the lead researcher on this was Dr. Helen Fisher.
Here's the beginning of my review of her 2004 book Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love:
Roses are red.
Violets are blue.
Want to know Why We Love?
Then just read this review.
Ah, Romance! Who doesn't savor that sensation of longing and intrigue that, when all is right with the world, unites two human beings as if they share a single soul?
Aww, Romance! Who doesn't curse that unwanted, overwhelming craving when the object of one's affection responds with disinterest or scorn?
Romantic love can be inspiring or painful. It can also be embarrassing, such as when its inspiration makes the love-struck believe that they are poets. They scribble Valentine's Day doggerel and offer it as if they are peacocks displaying their reproductive fitness, seeking the approval of mates.
That is one of Rutgers University anthropologist Helen Fisher's many scientific conclusions in her fascinating and readable study of Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. Her prose leaves no doubt that she delights in romance, both as a human experience and as the subject of scientific exploration.
Click this link or the one above for my full review.
Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)
i cant decide if this is a
i cant decide if this is a joke or you are just a self promoting idiot. Have fun reproducing and subjecting to further study that great scientific conclusion you pass along.
I don't understand...
How is the blog-writer "self-promoting" by reporting the results of someone's study? It was a presentation at the Annual Meeting of Neuroscience - take a look at the link. The blog author just put her spin on the reporting. It's just a blog about a study - what's so bad about it?
I just had sex with my hand!
... while reading this post
Love at first sight
I've never understood why love at first sight is allegedly romantic, yet attraction based only on appearance is not. Isn't the former the same as the latter? Isn't it more romantic to know that people only fall in love once they know each other?
"The ventral tegmental area
"The ventral tegmental area is also activated by cocaine..."
I guess the rest of us loveless losers have an alternative. Thanks for the information.