Talk:Biology of romantic love

message: [this is from the discussion page of the triangular theory of love, which I added here for suggestion to include some of what is discussed below to the main article.]
I think the theory should be expanded and renamed to include a fourth column: the symbolism of white, which adds purity, cleanliness, and innocence to love. [paul from va]
:But if you did that it wouldn't be Sternberg's theory any more. And we are describing Sternberg's theory in this article not trying to create a new theory. Moreover both the intimacy component and the commitment component are pure, clean and innocent -- for instance a pure friendship with no sexual element consists of intimacy (and possibly commitment for a very strong friendship); the innocent love between a parent and a child consists of commitment (and probably intimacy when the child is older -- on second thoughts that may be true for the father but the mother is normally intimate from the outset). 
:I think I know what you mean by "pure" love and "innocent" love but I'm not sure what you mean by "clean" love so unfortunately I can't give an example for that. However I would guess that you mean one that doesn't involve sexual feelings, in which case any form of love which is a combination of intimacy and commitment without passion would fit the bill. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all very well but it's not the "Triangular theory of love" which is the topic of this article. As to where it should appear in Wikipedia: well, frankly, it looks like original research to me so it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all when viewed as a whole. Parts of it, like the Myers-Briggs stuff and the "six emotions" stuff may be usable in the articles on those topics though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read Sternberg's article last month (I'm presently reading his book Cupid's Arrow) and the above discussion doesn’t' sound familiar.--Sadi Carnot 21:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanded Triangular Theory of Love

message: I added in a paragraph from the main love page that seemed really nice to me, but then I realized something:
That paragraph chemically divides love into three phases: lustful, attraction and attachment.  The section that was already there, the National Geographic article, only has the latter two phases.  This is a contradiction, though it's probably just a matter of wording.  I have the NG article lying around somewhere, so I'll look into it and see what it says. Esn 08:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New biological theories section

message: There's an interesting link here about what causes initial attraction to someone, based on facial features: .  Perhaps this could be incorporated into the article somehow.  I'll try to do this in a few days (rather busy at the moment) - meanwhile, I'm posting the link here so that I don't forget it.  If someone else wants to do it, feel free. Esn 23:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Esn, good work.  I printed out that article.  Another good one is Beauty Check; also, the 2002 book Facial Attractiveness - Evolution, Cognitive, and Social Perspectives, by Gillian Rhodes and Leslie A. Zebrowitz is exceptional. Later: --Sadi Carnot 02:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for initial attraction to a face

message: Human bonding#Neurochemistry says the main article is Love (scientific views), while that very article, under Biological Theories/Chemical love: attraction and attachment, says that "Neurochemistry of bonding" -that very part of Human bonding- is the main article.
They are referring to eachother as the main article. I'm posting this on both talk pages, in hope someone can figure it out and clean it up.
Cheers and happy editting!
JackSparrow Ninja 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double reference error 

message: This article was edited by User:Sadi Carnot who has added large amounts of original research and pseudoscience to this and other Wikipedia articles. I'm going to start cleaning this article. --JWSchmidt 15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preston Wescott's paragraph asserts that love is "a state of emergence". We can contrast that with statements such as, "love is one of the three primary brain systems that evolved in avian and mammalian species to direct reproduction" (source) and "love is better characterized as a motivation or goal-oriented state that leads to various specific emotions such as euphoria or anxiety" (source) which have been published by scientists. What does "state of emergence" tell us about love and how would we test it scientifically? --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly sounds like great material, JW.  If it can be expanded below the TOC, then it makes a fine summary for the lead.  I wish I were an expert; however, I do not know enough about emergence to answer your questions.   .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  05:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: Well, it appears that most of this page is about chemical effects of love, rather than chemical basis... I guess that basis is not appropriate, in the title, correlations or something like would be better.--Popopp (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis or effects? 

message: It either needs to disappear or go through a profound change. Any talk of "mommy and daddy" when discussing ancient humans is simply without biological or anthropological foundations and smacks of religious opinion based pseudo-research.--Tallard (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Paragraph of Evolutionary Psychology 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 12:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Biological basis of love →  – The current title is biased and presupposes an ideological reductionist and biologist view, according to which love can be fully reduced to a biological "basis", love is allegedly "nothing but" some biological processes. Such claims are philosophically highly controversial. The article needs to obey WP:NPOV. rtc (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Sorry, but your arguments are not convincing. It is not even uncontroversial that all cognitive processes have biological aspects, let alone a biological basis. So to claim love has a biological basis is reducing love to biology, which is simply ideological. Love needs at least two persons, so it has social aspects as well. It is ideological to call the one or the other aspect the "basis" of love. I suggest the article should be moved despite the obviously biased oppose arguments, in particular since one of them is not from a registered user. My brain is not a "basis" of why I am able to type that note; it is a mere aspect. Me being able to type that note has certainly as much to do with my education, which, again, is a social aspect. Wikipedia needs to stop being biased towards a reductionist biologism and needs to cover social and other aspects as well.  --rtc (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 February 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Biological basis of love. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515134230/http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk:80/archive/00000137/ to http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000137/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920210137/http://www.duke.edu/~haufe/mate.pdf to http://www.duke.edu/~haufe/mate.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Olefinder (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: PSYC 115 General Psychology

message: We will update the "Love and Motivation" section of this article by adding more helpful sources into this section. We will also add in any content gaps that are present in this section using the three sources that we found. These changes will include more information not just about romantic love, but also the love we feel for our friends and other non-romantic relationships (with citation from Isern-Mas and Gomila), how love functions as a driving motivator, and finally how love is present in other species as well (with citation from Harlow).
--Pinkpenguin17 (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contribution to "Love and Motivation" 

message: I've moved the article per WP:RM and WP:BOLD. This move should be uncontroversial, because romantic love is generally the preferred term in academic material. Adam Bode explains the terminology in these quotes:
Despite [..] attempts to define and describe romantic love, no single term or definition has been universally adopted in the literature. The psychological literature often uses the terms “romantic love,” “love,” and “passionate love” (e.g., Sternberg and Sternberg, 2019). Seminal work called it “limerence” (Tennov, 1979). The biological literature generally uses the term “romantic love” and has investigated “early stage intense romantic love” (e.g., Xu et al., 2011), “long-term intense romantic love” (e.g., Acevedo et al., 2012), or being “in love” (e.g., Marazziti and Canale, 2004). In this review, what we term “romantic love” encompasses all of these definitions, descriptions, and terms. Romantic love contrasts with “companionate love,” which is felt less intensely, often follows a period of romantic love (Hatfield and Walster, 1985), and merges feelings of intimacy and commitment (Sternberg, 1986). 
Unless indicated otherwise, in this review, “romantic love” refers to the state that usually occurs in the early stages of a romantic relationship (i.e., early-stage romantic love) and not long-term romantic love (see Acevedo and Aron, 2009; O’Leary et al., 2011; Acevedo et al., 2012 for explanation of long-term romantic love). Romantic love is sometimes referred to as “passionate love,” in the field of psychology (Feybesse and Hatfield, 2019). I use the term “romantic love” because that tends to be the name conferred in the fields of biology (see Bode and Kushnick, 2021; Bode and Kowal, 2022). Romantic love precedes companionate love (see Hatfield and Walster, 1985), which is the love felt less intensely among individuals in an established pair bond. It tends to last up to about 2-to-3 years and is characteristic of the early stages of a romantic relationship (see Tennov, 1979; Marazziti et al., 1999; Marazziti and Canale, 2004; Emanuele et al., 2006). It is evolutionarily, mechanistically, and psychologically distinct from attachment. 
ShiveryPeaks (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved