So i read on in my informative Wikipedia article and was further enlightened on love - in the psychological sense this time. Well, scientific-psychological, not emotional-psychological, which is good because i'm still on the hunt for knowledge - not going to trust those pesky emotions!
Have you heard about the triangular theory of love (Robert Sternberg)? Basically, it says that there are three components to love; intimacy, commitment and passion. Intimacy comes from the sharing of secrets and lives. I suppose that's in friendships as much as it is in romantic relationships. Commitment is the part that signifies permanence, again in both types of relationships. The real difference seems to lie in passion; attraction and passion, in infatuation or love. Real love seems to hold some kind of combination of these three. But in what measure? What makes real love? Is it the passion that is apparently just a chemical reaction that will die out in a year? Or is it the commitment to sharing your life and your secrets with someone you trust?
Of course, it's not as simple as just deciding on the balance between these three components. There are competing theories, just to make things confusing. One states a different set of three components (Zick Rubin); attachment, caring and intimacy. I suppose attachment is commitment, and caring could be passionate? So maybe these two theories are just the same thing, by two different dudes trying to look smart.
Everyone has heard of the theory that 'opposite's attract' (unless they're living under a rock, or happily married). I always thought that was just an old saying that someone had invented a few hundred years ago to justify some kind of relationship that their family and friends thought would never work. However, it appears that some Coulomb guy came up with it and made it a law of his own, scientific and all! It seems to have something to do with negative and positive charges attracting. Just like magnets!! While research has shown that people generally go for people who's character and personality are similar to their own, there are more subtle areas in which we're attracted to our opposites! Examples of this are things like immune systems, because a mix of two can benefit any children. Maybe on a basic, instinctual level we know the genetic structures we should be with, while our emotions get in the way and make things all confusing, as we try to search for our perfect personality match...
Now, this article of mine did have one thing that i do agree with. Scott Peck thinks that love is an activity and not just a feeling. I definitely think that's true. Nobody can expect to just sit back and wait until love finds them, and then expect it to last forever without an ounce of effort! People have to work at love. Peck calls it a 'concern for the spiritual growth of another' - i suppose it would take a fair bit of work to help guide someone's growth. At any rate, it's no easy ride!
So there's the scientific psychology of it all... maybe it brings me a little closer to understanding the whole 'love' concept. Commitment, attachment, passion - they're all crucial, but there's no set amount for any of them. It's what's right for your relationship. And it's nice to read that the fairytale romance where we're swept of our feet, fall in love and live happily ever after with little or no effort is perhaps a gross over-generalisation. I don't mind working for things (well, uni is an exception of course!), love included, and it's nice to see confirmation that this is normal, if not necessary!
Still, i don't have the whole idea straight yet, so i'm going to keep digging. I'll get back to you soon.
Have you heard about the triangular theory of love (Robert Sternberg)? Basically, it says that there are three components to love; intimacy, commitment and passion. Intimacy comes from the sharing of secrets and lives. I suppose that's in friendships as much as it is in romantic relationships. Commitment is the part that signifies permanence, again in both types of relationships. The real difference seems to lie in passion; attraction and passion, in infatuation or love. Real love seems to hold some kind of combination of these three. But in what measure? What makes real love? Is it the passion that is apparently just a chemical reaction that will die out in a year? Or is it the commitment to sharing your life and your secrets with someone you trust?
Of course, it's not as simple as just deciding on the balance between these three components. There are competing theories, just to make things confusing. One states a different set of three components (Zick Rubin); attachment, caring and intimacy. I suppose attachment is commitment, and caring could be passionate? So maybe these two theories are just the same thing, by two different dudes trying to look smart.
Everyone has heard of the theory that 'opposite's attract' (unless they're living under a rock, or happily married). I always thought that was just an old saying that someone had invented a few hundred years ago to justify some kind of relationship that their family and friends thought would never work. However, it appears that some Coulomb guy came up with it and made it a law of his own, scientific and all! It seems to have something to do with negative and positive charges attracting. Just like magnets!! While research has shown that people generally go for people who's character and personality are similar to their own, there are more subtle areas in which we're attracted to our opposites! Examples of this are things like immune systems, because a mix of two can benefit any children. Maybe on a basic, instinctual level we know the genetic structures we should be with, while our emotions get in the way and make things all confusing, as we try to search for our perfect personality match...
Now, this article of mine did have one thing that i do agree with. Scott Peck thinks that love is an activity and not just a feeling. I definitely think that's true. Nobody can expect to just sit back and wait until love finds them, and then expect it to last forever without an ounce of effort! People have to work at love. Peck calls it a 'concern for the spiritual growth of another' - i suppose it would take a fair bit of work to help guide someone's growth. At any rate, it's no easy ride!
So there's the scientific psychology of it all... maybe it brings me a little closer to understanding the whole 'love' concept. Commitment, attachment, passion - they're all crucial, but there's no set amount for any of them. It's what's right for your relationship. And it's nice to read that the fairytale romance where we're swept of our feet, fall in love and live happily ever after with little or no effort is perhaps a gross over-generalisation. I don't mind working for things (well, uni is an exception of course!), love included, and it's nice to see confirmation that this is normal, if not necessary!
Still, i don't have the whole idea straight yet, so i'm going to keep digging. I'll get back to you soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment