Love: An Analysis Part I: The Biological Stance

My, what a valid and thought-provoking question Mr. Haddaway, if that is your real name. Throughout the ages love has been one of the most talked about things probably... ever. It's an obsession of some (that ex-girlfriend that wanted to get married, and when you refused because you were only 19 she left you for some other guy, got married to said guy, then had a kid with said guy), and a bane of others (me).

But why do we feel love? What does it mean to feel love? How do we feel love? What I'm proposing, and what I'm going to do because none y'all can stop me, is to analyze love from biological, psychological, and evolutionary stances - in two parts. If you're not interested in understanding your deepest urges, turn back now. Like those puppies I sacrificed to Lord Byron in 1823 as he lay on his deathbed asking me to help him find eternal life, this will get messy. But if you're of a sound heart, rigid disposition, and a clear conscience, read on.

We've briefly discussed this before. Many of the emotions that people feel on a day-to-day basis originate in the brain. Love is no different, even if it is an emotion that is a bit harder to define than the others. Allow me to sum it all up in one word: Hormones.

Bam! Puberty!

To put a name to the fist, the actual feeling of love has to do with hormones such as norepinephrine, serotonin, vasopressin, oxytocin and dopamine. These are all amphetamines, meaning they stimulate the pleasure center in the brain. Pheromones such as testosterone and estrogen also play a big role. However, most of the research (that I've found, but I'm also very lazy; I can't stress that point enough) talks about vasopressin, dopamine and oxytocin, so we'll focus on those for the time being.

According to the 2002 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia, dopamine is "a chemical that acts in the brain to influence a wide range of feelings and behaviors... also plays a key role in motivation, pleasure, and addiction." Whoa! Hold on there World Book, you're telling me that dopamine influences addiction? I was under the impression that only my favorite celebrities could influence my addictions! I'm going to have to find someone else that shares your opinion, just to be sure. How about Helen Fisher? In her second talk at TED in February of 2008, she describes romantic love as having all the signs of addiction.

1.) Tolerance - I'm getting used to having you around.

2.) Withdrawl - What do you mean you want a life of your own? No! You stay here with me! I can't get enough!

3.) Relapse - I'm sorry.

Still not enough for ya? How about the fact that under CT Scans, the brains of those shown pictures of the people they felt love for had activity in the same areas of the brain as those under the influence of cocaine. If you ask me, love's some pretty serious stuff that we should probably declare war on. Or at least educate our children on.

It's Taking Over Our Schools!

In the Discover Magazine Special Issue: The Brain, the article "Addicted to Love" by Steven Johnson discussed an experiment done by Larry Young of Emory University. In this experiment he took the genes that encode one of the vasopressin receptors in the prairie vole (a monogamous mammal) and injected it into the forebrains of the meadow vole (a polygamous mammal). The meadow voles given these genes suddenly started forming pairs, and mating with their partners for life. Johnson writes, "Apparently a change in the expression of a single gene, in a context of preexisting genetic and neural circuits, could profoundly alter social behavior." So to all those ladies that are sick of their significant others it looks like you may have two choices: 1.) Leave that deadbeat for me, who will love you unconditionally forever* or 2.) Get him some new genes.

So where does oxytocin fit into all of this? Well considering it's probably the biggest puzzle piece in our little mystery we like to call love, I'd say anywhere it damn well pleases. Much like dopamine, oxytocin is responsible for a lot of different emotional states. According to this article from the April 4th, 2007 issue of Cell Metabolism, oxytocin "modulates social behaviors, including maternal care and aggression, pair bonding, sexual behavior, social memory and support, and human trust, and downregulates stress responses, including anxiety."

That's a lot of commas to go with a lot of responsibilities for this one little hormone to be handling. To dig a little bit deeper, oxytocin has a hand in regulating the neuroendocrine system (local amino acid and noradrenaline release), autoregulation (autoexcitation during birth and suckling), emotional states (positive mood, passive stress coping, and trust), social tenets (maternal behavior, maternal aggression, pair bonding, sexual behaviors), and cognitive aspects of a person (social memory, olfactory memory, and spatial memory).

Hey, where are you going? I told you this was going to be a rough trip! Hurry Craig?... You're losing them... Think quickly! Bam! Hot Girl!

I Knew That'd Get Your Hormones A-Ragin'!

Alright, now that I've got your attention again, the article from Discover Magazine discussed above elaborates on some of these things, and adds to the conversation a reason for some of the physiological things that happen to those of us in love - which has never been me by the way. I'm far too much of a man for falling in love. That gut-tightening feeling I've read so much about? Could be oxytocin's job of downregulating the bodies stress-axis system. That warm fuzzy cliché that people like to drone on and on about? Could be oxytocin working with your bodies other natural opiates and triggering that drive for companionship.

Did I forget to mention that oxytocin seems pretty good at building relationships of its own? In that prairie vole experiment I mentioned earlier, another reason for the prairie voles monogamy (besides that gene) seems to be the placement of their oxytocin and dopamine receptors. In the monogamous prairie voles, their oxytocin receptors overlap with dopamine receptors in their nucleus accumbens. This doesn't seem to be the case in more polygamous species. These voles brains developed in such a way as to make attachment pleasurable. The same is true in people - oxytocin receptors are found in several dopamine rich areas of the brain.

Why? Because oxytocin seems to work in tandem with a lot of other hormones. It is now supposed that oxytocin isn't directly responsible for any sorts of easily describable feelings itself, but instead only heightens the effects of other hormones. This may explain why in monogamous species it is paired with dopamine receptors, dopamine being responsible for addictions and boners and all.

This goes hand in hand with why women seem more obsessed with love than most men; Estrogen seems to heighten oxytocin's effects while testosterone dampens it. So next time your girlfriend is looking for commitment, just calmly explain to her that isn't what she really wants - it's only the estrogen talking. Then gently kiss her forehead and force her into making you dinner, because that's a woman's job**!

Stay Tuned for the Second Half of This Article - Evolution and Psychology!

* Not True - At All.

** This Works for me Every Time.

The Future of Print Research: Really Heavy Loads of Paper v.s. Endless Lightweight Virtual Pages

I work with children between the ages of 7 and 13 on a daily basis, and often times the kids get stumped on a particular word or topic of discussion. In the room I work in, we have access to a collection of encyclopedias from 2003, the World Book collection, as well as a large assortment of atlases, dictionaries, thesauruses, and random primary school text books. I often suggest that the children consult these references if they are in need of any information, and I almost always get a blank stare. The kids have never seen the World Books before, and you can forget an atlas. They, on the contrary, suggest we search for the answer on the internet.

No, how dare we, the internet is full of pages made by average, every day people, how can they be even remotely scientifically accurate?

I have been taught to be very cautious when approaching the internet. I am to make sure, if reading any form of scientific literature, that it is peer-reviewed or under the authority of a University or highly regarded research group. God forbid I elicit the help of, one of my favorite websites, Wikipedia. Throughout my college "career", I was told that Wikipedia was one of the deadly sins of research, and to stay very far away from it. It was nice to find that Wikipedia may not be so bad after all. In 2005 the journal Nature put forth some interesting figures regarding the validity of Wikipedia. They found that the accuracy of science entries found on the Wikipedia website, was nearly on par with those entries in Britannica. The link is here,but you will need access to the site through a subscription, or perhaps you can gain access if you are a college student (just use the portal found in your libraries web page). Now, this article was written almost 5 years ago, and the popularity of Wikipedia has soared since. Many people will fetch up the typical debate against this wonderfully gathered website: anyone can edit it, so there must be falsehoods, Right? Upon further analysis, you will find that most pages on Wikipedia, at least the important ones, can not be edited. If, in fact, the pages can be edited they go through a rigorous moderation period, in which time the page can be reverted back to its original state.

So am I archaic in principles of research, or have I just been taught the archaic ways by old guys who can't get with the times? Maybe I SHOULD steer clear of Wikipedia, but then again, this idea that we can build off of one another, and learn from one another to create one all encompassing, literal World Encyclopedia, is incredible. After all, some really smart guy once said that "We Stand on the Shoulders of Giants." even if those giants are made from a bunch of little smart guys. I would like to think that we could all learn something from one another and this crazy thing called Wikipedia, even if it is in a location surrounded my porn, Facebook, and the World of Warcraft.

Well, at the very least, and most cautious, use Wikipedia as a starting point. Use it to get an understanding of the topic, and then go from there.