Barbara Lee Fredrickson, a psychologist, introduces a new conception of love to the readers. She tries to simplify the perception of love most people have known for their entire life. The special bonds and magical bond that continues the love for eternity are all myths and lies. Something that poisons our minds to be committed to one another. The definition of Fredrickson’s conception of “love” is more scientific than emotional. When defining love, it is more dependent on the activity of the brain, “positivity resonance”, and love hormones. The claim that Fredrickson makes in Love 2.0 does give a critical point of love, that it is simpler than you think. However, not every conception of love does Fredrickson explain it to be biological. The …show more content…
An essential question of mine while reading Love 2.0 by Barbara Fredrickson. After understanding Fredrickson’s point of view, it came to a certain point where I became convinced that “love" is not something that is quite special. The conception of Love 2.0 is not to diminish the meaning of love but to simplify the definition, to downgrade the specialty. Many micro-changes in the brain can indicate that love is growing because love is simply a “positivity resonance”. “Positivity resonance”, according to Fredrickson, is a term that is defined as it is shown. Positivity is being optimistic or showing positive actions and attitude. And “Resonance” is to be in sync with the sound and waves nearby. Fredrickson essentially replaces the word “love” with “positivity resonance” indicating that love is simply defined as a wave of positive emotion that is shared between two people. Fredrickson briefly sums up that “Love is a momentary upwelling of three tightly interwoven events: first, a sharing of one or more positive emotions between you and another; second, a synchrony between your and the other person’s biochemistry and behaviors; and third, a reflected motive to invest in each other’s well-being that brings mutual care”. It supports the concept that love is no more than a simple harmony between two people. The topic, idea, or pain they both share forms the conceptual and imaginative object called love inside the …show more content…
In the first few pages of the essay Love 2.0, Fredrickson gives a brief summary of how there have been multiple misunderstanding of the definition of love. Fredrickson states that “Love is not sexual desire or the blood-ties of kinship. Nor is it a special bond or commitment” (Fredrickson 108). However, how is the word “special” defined when she utilizes to break the ice of the “fake love”? This is where the explanation of Love 2.0 is controversial and ambiguous to the readers. Thus, to what extent is anything “special”? Fredrickson forces the reader to ask another question such stated in the previous sentence. Throughout the essay, Fredrickson contradicts herself by stating her claim as love being a biological process, then explaining such concepts that love is created through the “special bonds” that Fredrickson stated as a false definition of love. At times, Fredrickson’s explanation of love portrays a simple biological connection, or “neural coupling”, between two strangers. She elaborately gives the reader the experiment in which was tested at a Princeton University Lab. However, later in the essay, Fredrickson explains how love can be defined when an infant and the parent interact with each other. Essentially, Fredrickson is stating that the love formed between an infant and his or her parents is identically created as two strangers empathizing with each other. Wouldn’t the
The notion behind loving someone is simply very complicated and esoteric in nature. People often describe a certain chemistry, as in a certain attraction, needed between two individuals who are in love, but Barbara Fredrickson is able to coordinate the definition of love on the basis of chemicals. Barbara Fredrickson is able to provide the definition of love on the deductive reasoning based on chemistry, biology, and neurology explained in Love 2.0: How our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything we Feel, Think, Do, and Become. As Barbara explains, “With each micro-moment of love, then, you climb another rung on the spiraling ladder that lifts you up to your higher ground, to richer and more compassionate social relationships, to greater resilience and wisdom, and to better physical health.” (121).
love in the context of being a device that is used to protect and to care for people
Love and affection is an indispensable part of human life. In different culture love may appear differently. In the poem “My god my lotus” lovers responded to each other differently than in the poem “Fishhawk”. Likewise, the presentation of female sexuality, gender disparity and presentation of love were shown inversely in these two poems. Some may argue that love in the past was not as same as love in present. However, we can still find some lovers who are staying with their partners just to maintain the relationship. We may also find some lovers having relationship only because of self-interest. However, a love relationship should always be out of self-interest and must be based on mutual interest. A love usually obtains its perfectness when it develops from both partners equally and with same affection.
The warm fuzzy feelings, the constant daydreams of “what ifs” and the smiles that come after everything they say. Crushes tend to make your day better just by appearing in your everyday life, but they are called crushes for a reason. The sudden anguish you feel when you realize they don’t feel the same way about you is demoralizing. In Judith Ortiz Cofer’s short story “Lessons of Love,” she tells of the time where she met her first love who used the way she felt against her. Her momentary infatuation is one type of character used in the story to leave anticipating readers hoping for something to happen all the while epitomizing how your own fear can trick you into seeing things differently from what they really are. Judith Cofer also uses herself to portray the ordinary character who may or may not share characteristics with yourself as a reader, and an immigrant from Poland to represent envy and one’s insecurities. These characters describe the mindset of young Judith and many other people throughout the world.
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 depending on the individual. A simple action such as a deep look into someone's eyes can start the simulation in the body that an increased production of hand sweat will start. The tingly feeling inside your body is a result of a scientific delineation which makes the concept of love more concretely and more factually mainly for researchers and the wide...
This passage marks the first of several types of love, and gives us an intuitive
A developed relationship can be interpreted as one where the couple is interdependent, tolerant, and dedicated. Equity allows a relationship to efficiently develop in this manner. Judith Viorst illustrates a poem depicting a couple’s struggles and their sacrifices for the other in “True Love”. In many points of the poem, the couple is compromising for the other’s flaws in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts. “I do not resent watching the Green Bay Packers / Even though I am philosophically opposed to football” (Stanza 1) is an example of the wife forcing herself
Love is a concept that has puzzled humanity for centuries. This attachment of one human being to another, not seen as intensely in other organisms, is something people just cannot wrap their heads around easily. So, in an effort to understand, people write their thoughts down. Stories of love, theories of love, memories of love; they all help us come closer to better knowing this emotional bond. One writer in particular, Sei Shōnagon, explains two types of lovers in her essay "A Lover’s Departure": the good and the bad.
In The New Humanities Reader edited by Richard E. Miller and Kurt Spellmeyer. We read about Barbara Fredrickson the author of the book “Love 2.0” copy right (2013). Barbara Fredrickson is a psychologist who show in her research how our supreme emotion affects everything we Feel, Think, Do and become. Barbara also uses her research from her lab to describe her ideas about love. She defines love not as a romance or stable emotion between friends, partners and families, but as a micro-moment between all people even stranger (108). She went farther in her interpretation of love and how the existence of love can improve a person’s mental and physical health (107). Through reading
This theory involves three different dimensions which include passion, intimacy, and commitment. When combined in different ways, these dimensions show different kinds of love. The different forms of love discussed in our text are infatuation, affectionate love, fatuous love, and consummate love. In my own life I have only experienced a couple different forms of the love that Sternberg describes. The two forms that I know I have experienced are affectionate love and infatuation. Consummate love is a type of love that I have never experienced. I hope to one day reach consummate love with someone and spend the rest of my life with him. I realize that not everyone gets to experience that kind of love, but I’m hopeful
One may ask what love is, how do you define love? You can look up the word love in the dictionary and find ten or more different explanations. Most sociologists consider love to be learned through cultural experiences (Love). This would mean that however or if persons parents showed them love while growing up, that is how that individual would interpret love throughout their life. When the Puritans first came to America, their concept of love was less of a romantic passion and more of a deepening reciprocal of respect and affection (Seidman 16). During the Enlightenment (1714-1818), love was typically viewed as a rational and orderly experience that could be controlled by those who experienced it (Sternberg 69). Love was assumed to be a rational feeling made by rational people and thus could be controlled. This belief had a major alteration during the eighteenth and nineteenth century when people began to believe that love was uncontrollable and could happen without reason (Sternberg 70). This change in the perception of love being uncontrollable also shifted the conclusion that people were not as rational as first presumed. In the late twentieth century, love became more sexualized and erotic which became perceived as a crisis in sexual morality and marriage (Seidman 66). Love today is viewed as unobtainable by reason of Americans have unrealistic expectations of love, true love, love at first sight, and the idea that love conquers all (Love). As a result of these unrealistic views, Americans have moved back to the concept that love is controllable but not necessary for a “romantic” relationship (Sternberg 63). As presented, love and the interpretation of what love is has transformed dramatically over the past two hundred years ...
"What Is Love: Theories on the Greatest Emotion of All Time." World News. N.p., 13 Dec. 2012. Web. 09 May 2014. .
Love is many things; it has not one description that can be pin pointed. Love can be described as the openness of a relationship, the sexual attraction between partners, or can be seen as pure attraction to each other’s personalities. In Jonathon Haidt’s book, The Happiness Hypothesis, he writes about the types of love there are and which he believes is the most important. There are two main types of love, companionate and passionate love. Haidt defines true love as companionate love, having more importance in a relationship than that of passionate love. Companionate love is perceived as a stronger love than Passionate love, because of a better understanding in companionship and passionate love will not be everlasting. The idea of companionate over passionate makes sense, but media has formed a different outlook on love that has warped the genuine imagery of love.
Love is ubiquitous and universal, and we have all encountered and relished in the power of love. Many people associate the meaning of love with feelings of strong affection and personal attachment. While this is very accurate, there are several different aspects of love that we neglect to acknowledge. Psychologist Barbara Fredrickson steps up and takes up this challenge in convergence with the magic of science. In doing so, she concludes that the things in which our brain thinks love is, are actually just the products of love. Love itself is something much greater and it is worth figuring out what this supreme emotion is all about. Fredrickson’s work primarily centered around the broaden-and-build theory, in which states “positive emotions
Boston: Bedford/St. Martins,. 349. The. “Psychological Theories About the Dynamics of Love (I).” 01 Mar. 2005 http://psychology.about.com/library/weekly/aa022000a.htm Richmond, Raymond Lloyd.