IQ2US recently did a debate about whether true love being real or not. Helen Fisher, chief scientific advisor at match.com, argued pro, and Renea Franuick, PhD, argued against. In addition there was a post-segment with Daniel Jones, editor at New York Times.
An important definition during the debate is about what love is. Renea Franuick talks about her work defining it as a mapping onto sex drive, romantic love and attachment, and thus defines love as commitment, intimacy and passion. Renea agrees with Renea and also includes explicitly sex drive and deep feelings. But then there are also other kind of questions like whether or not we can love our pets, and whether they can love us, and how we less disagreeably can have true love for our own children. The latter questions excludes romance, of course.
The oppositve of believing in true love is “growth theory”. This is thinking that you could be happy with many people, assuming you grow a little with them.
One pro for true love, argued by both, is that it benefits us in holding relationships. We can assign positive illusions about our partners and downplay their weaknesses. This is beneficial to motivate us and build relationships together. However, it can also make us stick together with abusive partners.
0 comments