WHAT GOVERNS LOVE?

We do not love as though this world operated to fuel that of two biological individuals alone. Love is inherently convoluted since it, per se, is the stepping stone to bonding between strangers, as well as to co-existence, which in turn is a lifetime contract.

Love is a societal by-product, a biological instinct laying buried under layer upon layer [of reticence]. It is, to date, incontrovertibly the end-product of millennia of human history, alongside the additives — cultural factors within every civilization.

As science progresses, addressing a host of human issues, the then-idle creatures, in turn, take to breaking up layers — to ferret out the very “core” of love. They, accordingly, have come up with heaps of theories, alongside every neuroscience evidence to back it up — so that future scientists — we, for example, could wield such optics: to grope whether the so-called “love” is genuine; or is it purely an illusion popping by during evolution with the sole purpose of assuring procreation?

1. Why do we love (someone), whilst others, per se, dote on others

There exists a host of latent, distorting factors behind our interpersonal perception: inherently perplexing, they are deemed so inescapable that even your falling head over heels for someone at first sights — is by no means a coincidence.

Take timing: oftentimes, it is during transitional stages — of living environments, of personal financial capacities, or of healings (after breakups) — that we start taking to love [1] . To put into perspective, every change to the environment and mental states acts on the production of dopamine — the hormone that acts as a precursor to our humanly “love”, mental openness and ardor.

Besides, that we dote on one specific person (but not others) is much driven by oodles of other unconscious, latent, inherited-from-mega-annums-of-evolution factors. One’s body scent, for example, may suck women (unconsciously) in the males carrying more diverse genomes [2] . By the same token, being enchanted by symmetrical faces is inherently a pre-designed primitive, animal mechanism which wires humans on genetically cogent mating partners [3] .

Internal hormones also catalyze a such nescience. According to Dr. Helen Fisher, the four hormone systems affecting the formation of human personality are dopamine, serotonin, testosterone and estrogen/oxytocin, with each dominant hormone engendering specific personality traits and taste alongside.

On one hand, those with predominant dopamine content are inclined to curiosity, discovery, and new experiences, yet no less easily bored. They, as a rule, are proactive, creative, impulsive and audacious [4] . On the other, individuals bearing with high serotonin levels are notorious for their conservative, megalomaniac, meticulous, and risk-averse personality. A such population is old-school, rule-, order- and habit-obedient [5] . These groups are sucked in those with kindred personalities [6] .

The testosterone-dominated, nonetheless, are highly analytical, creative, competitive, decisive and rational [7] , whilst those abearing high estrogen/oxytocin levels are oftentimes intuitive, introverted, trusting, empathic, sensitive to surroundings outstanding at interpersonal communications [8] . Despite every fierce difference, they both aim at conflicting-personality partners [9] .

This, after all, evidences that instead of doting on every fellow-human, we are deemed hardwired on those of specific traits. Every so often, our unconscious human instincts urge us to look back or exert a good halo effect at some overpassing strangers. “Worse still”, once psychologically and physically rippen, even the simplest interpersonal interactions (glances?) — by the “one” — violently shake our attention. On the contrary, some never grasp a such haphazard feeling — however hard they strive.

That said, to uphold these initial charms and fuel the so-called love, this “the one” effect alone is never enough.

2. What behind kindred love patterns?

Current studies have ferreted out the very formula of any lasting love: lust, attraction and attachment — combined [10] .

All of which are under profound influence of internal hormones, and governed by stimuli from brain cortexes — mostly the hypothalamus at the lower brain surface. This organ shoulders the secretion of hormones that dictates the regulation of body temperature, appetite, weight, thirst, sleep, mood, and the humanly libido [11] .

Lust, or sexual desire, hails from the natural demand on reproduction and passing on the genes among every species. For humans, lust is tied to hormones testosterone and estrogen in both genders — instead of (the deep-seated prejudice) of merely either. Nevertheless, testosterone is the sensual driver latent in every human — while the effects of its counterpart, if any, are much less noticeable. This desire, after all, can either facilitate or hobble a romantic relationship [12] .

At times, attraction or romance in a relationship is deemed separated from lust, albeit somewhat correlated.

Attraction, on one hand, coerces us to long for “love” and “being loved”. Once in love, we feel bona fide jubilant and rosy; otherwise, desperate and frustrated. Such emotions, after all, are the mere side-products of our mental “reward system” [13] .

This, to all appearances, motivates us to give away everything to win back some love. Dopamine, the hormone hails from the hypothalamus, is deep-seated in this brain’s “rewarding” mechanism. Its prevalence enhances our concentration capacity, along with an all-powerful catalyst toward the ultimate reward — romantic love [14] .

Withal dopamine, norepinephrine’s content also accelerates as we fall head over heels, getting us “charged”, yet hobbling appetite and sleep [15] . In fact, norepinephrine, also known as noradrenalin, is secreted under stress pressure to keep the brain awake and functional. This explains the unrestful state once one is in love. In addition, the hormone also gets lovers to nail down petty behaviors and top-drawer moments [16] .

Howbeit, high levels of dopamine and norepinephrine in love also seem to breed a plunge serotonin content — the hormone in charge of emotion regulation. As long as serotonin is within the normal range, we are emotionally focused and stable. It, otherwise, engenders a host of emotional and behavioral disorders [17] — depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and obsessive-compulsive disorder — as recent studies have revealed. This, thus, exerts an onerous impact for humans “wildly love” for some times at first [18] .

Last but definitely not least, attachment governs the so-called “lasting love”. While lust and attraction are endemic to romantic relationships, attachment serves as the core value that fuels all social relationships including intimacy with family, friendships, co-workers, and other social relationships.

Scientists started breaking up attachment since the British psychiatrist, John Bowlby, proposed that humans hold an innate attachment system including specific behavioral and physiological responses. Only recently, nevertheless, could they begin laying hands on the chemicals that act as a precursor to harmony in long-term relationships. To date, most suggest that oxytocin, together with vasopressin, are the two hormones shouldering bondings [19] .

Akin to dopamine, oxytocin and vasopressin are secreted within the hypothalamus as local nerve cells are stimulated through physical contact — holding hands, hugging, kissing, and the most content during intercourse. Internally, these hormones act as chemical “messengers” that govern such human behaviors as libido, perception, trust, anxiety, and attachment within long-term relationships [20] .

That said, every emotion on attachment, desire, and attraction is administered by specific brain cortexes. This ensures that we can bond deeply with our family without developing other “distorted” emotions. An extremely intelligent mechanism of the brain ensures that it is still enough to induce love diversity to maintain diverse social relationships.

Again, our brain also gives way to the “love-halting” mechanism alongside its romantic counterpart. Coming hand in hand with positive emotions, there is often a host of other grievous, human-like emotions. Dismally enough, what facilitates love, in turn, also brings about every “romantic suffering”.

In-depth studies on the brain assert the sexual desire and romantic feelings in love somehow “turn off” the brain cortexes in charge of critical thinking, perception, behavior, and reasonable decision-making [21] . This reasons out the so-called “love is blind” quote — as younguns often flee from family and friend advice to stick to their lovers.

While governing the brain’s “rewarding” mechanism, dopamine as well administers both rational and irrational behaviors. Again, studies have evidenced the stimulated brain areas of someone in love corresponds to that of a cocaine addict. To a certain extent, love addiction is akin to drugs’, and the long for love is deemed kindred with the crave among rehabbed addicts [22] .

By the same token, oxytocin serves as the “bonding” hormone which magnifies the positive emotions toward our beloveds: as we gain intimacy to family, friends and other important people, oxytocin reminds us of why we doted on whom and hike up our affection. At times, nevertheless, oxytocin also hobbles our attention to other relationships — aversions to strangers.

Which is, nonetheless, ill-favored.

3. What are these for?

To gain some insights into yourselves and how this world functions.

How hormones do somehow clarify what we often experience in love: blindness, attachment, pain at breakups, or enchantment towards someone. Which, in turn, is to forgive yourselves upon grievous events — a must in love.

Many, nonetheless, would backfire “could drugs oust love?”, or “chemical schemes better the human feelings”. Yes, were our “drugs” good enough. Stimulants and addictive substances, to date, are de facto raging — for either are fervently tempting. They do yield the jubilance much greater than our previous experience of the so-called “happiness”. Couples even turn to which to “warm up” their relationships.

Howbeit, the every side effect of which is so woeful that it does away with the aforementioned beguilement. Given the short-lived ecstasy, the horrible effects it exerts on the body is irreversible — a such thing, to all appearances, would only appeal to oldsters. Sticking to a normal romantic relationship, on the other hand, is indeed more favorable [than drugs], and leads a much healthier life — on the balance.

After all, the so-called “ideal lover” does not exist. Every mental mechanism within the brain, soon enough, compromises with undesirable deliverables [of our would-be partners]. For example, we are always preoccupied by the “happy ever after” concept upon falling head over heels for some strangers — though in fact, we oftentimes easily fall for those at the same school, office, vicinity, or sharing kindred opportunities/situations, thereafter running ourselves into oodles of troubles from social relationships. Since these intimate environments, together with our in-born primitive mechanisms, drastically perks up the incidence of which [23] .

Take heed that love is a social phenomenon. We do not love as though this world operated to fuel that of two biological individuals alone. Love is inherently convoluted since it, per se, is the stepping stone to bonding between strangers, as well as to co-existence, which in turn is a lifetime contract.

What, to the best of your knowledge, is atop the priorities of every such contract, and how has each catalyzed this modern society?

Hint: in most contracts, the most critical commitment beforehand is to stave off every humanly emotion.

— — — — — — — — — —

References:

[1] A. Aron, D. G. Dutton, E. N. Aron, and A. Iverson, “Experiences of falling in love,” J. Soc. Pers. Relat., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 243–257, 1989.

[2] C. Wedekind, T. Seebeck, F. Bettens, and A. J. Paepke, “MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans,” Proc. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci., vol. 260, no. 1359, pp. 245–249, Jun. 1995.

[3] S. W. Gangestad and R. Thornhill, “The evolutionary psychology of extrapair sex: The role of fluctuating asymmetry,” Evol. Hum. Behav., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 69–88, Mar. 1997.

[4], [5], [6] L. L. Brown, B. Acevedo, and H. E. Fisher, “Neural Correlates of Four Broad Temperament Dimensions: Testing Predictions for a Novel Construct of Personality,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 11, p. e78734, Nov. 2013.

[7], [8], [9] H. E. Fisher, J. Rich, H. D. Island, and D. Marchalik, “The second to fourth digit ratio: A measure of two hormonally-based temperament dimensions,” Pers. Individ. Dif., vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 773–777, Nov. 2010.

[10] K. Seshadri, “The neuroendocrinology of love,” Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab., vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 558–563, Jul. 2016

[11] “Hypothalamus | Hormone Health Network.” [Online]. Available: https://www.hormone.org/.../glands.../glands/hypothalamus.

[12] “Sexuality, marriage, and well-being: The middle years. — PsycNET.” [Online]. Available: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-98116-009.

[13] X. Zhang, Z. Zou, and A. J. Fallgatter, “Editorial: Beyond reward: Insights from love and addiction,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 7, no. NOV. Frontiers Research Foundation, p. 1776, 15-Nov-2016.

[14] A. Aron, H. Fisher, D. J. Mashek, G. Strong, H. Li, and L. L. Brown, “Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love,” J. Neurophysiol., vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 327–337, Jul. 2005.

[15], [16] M. G. Griffin and G. T. Taylor, “Norepinephrine Modulation of Social Memory: Evidence for a Time-Dependent Functional Recovery of Behavior,” Behav. Neurosci., vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 466–473, 1995.

[17] D. Marazziti, H. S. Akiskal, A. Rossi, and G. B. Cassano, “Alteration of the platelet serotonin transporter in romantic love,” Psychol. Med., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 741–745, 1999.

[18] R. Mottolese, J. Redout́e, N. Costes, D. Le Bars, and A. Sirigu, “Switching brain serotonin with oxytocin,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., vol. 111, no. 23, pp. 8637–8642, Jun. 2014.

[19] A. M. Kelly and J. L. Goodson, “Hypothalamic oxytocin and vasopressin neurons exert sex-specific effects on pair bonding, gregariousness, and aggression in finches,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., vol. 111, no. 16, pp. 6069–6074, Apr. 2014.

[20] K. A. Young, K. L. Gobrogge, Y. Liu, and Z. Wang, “The neurobiology of pair bonding: Insights from a socially monogamous rodent,” Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, vol. 32, no. 1. Academic Press, pp. 53–69, 01-Jan-2011.

[21] S. Ortigue, F. Bianchi-Demicheli, N. Patel, C. Frum, and J. W. Lewis, “Neuroimaging of Love: fMRI Meta-Analysis Evidence toward New Perspectives in Sexual Medicine,” J. Sex. Med., vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 3541–3552, Nov. 2010.

[22] Z. Zou, H. Song, Y. Zhang, and X. Zhang, “Romantic love vs. drug addiction may inspire a new treatment for addiction,” Front. Psychol., vol. 7, no. SEP, p. 1436, Sep. 2016.

[23] J. P. Rushton, “Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection,” Behav. Brain Sci., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 503–518, 1989.