Love is ubiquitous and universal, as most of us will encounter some version of love at least once in our lifetime. But what exactly is love? It is such a widespread feeling, yet each individual that experiences it seems to have an unique perspective on it, based on age, culture, and lifestyle. Majority of these people associate love with feelings of strong affection and personal attachment, but one specific psychologist, Barbara Fredrickson, strays away, focusing on the body’s perspective of love. In her novel, Love 2.0: How Our Supreme Emotions affect Everything We Feel, Think, Do, and Become, she argues that her new perspective of love is an upgrade. She uses a variety of scientific data, such as brain scans, to persuade readers that her
…show more content…
A study measuring brain activity of two strangers conversing were measured via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology and results revealed that “ when you truly connect with someone else, you become attuned, with genuine care and concern for the other, as your two brains sync up and act as one” (113). Fredrickson makes the argument that this study shows that our minds literally change when we make connections and we obtain another level of empathy. While this may seem amazing, that study only proves that connections allow people to think on the same level. It is not abnormal for someone to connect with a stranger, in most cases, it is due to simply being interested in the same thing. Love 2.0 does not really make us more productive, it just makes us more aware of what happens in our brain when we connect with others. Instead of Love 2.0 finding something that helps us obtain a more intense feeling of love, it just measures the amount of love that is already …show more content…
Love 2.0 is basically what the body feels when it encounters acts of love. Love is not something that is necessarily taught, it is more learned throughout life experience and media portrayal. So, in a sense, Fredrickson is trying to teaching us how love evolved and how it is maintained. She just approached it the wrong way, basically making it seem like people like people are expressing love the wrong way. If she instead tried to convey her idea as a different attitude towards love, it would have worked a little better. Her downfall was targeting something as big as love because people have “so many pre-existing and strong beliefs about it” (108). Her main purpose was to get rid of stereotypes such as the “happily ever after” type of love. While it can totally be achieved, to educate people with the supplies to do so. For example, Fredrickson says love has two preconditions that have to be met, safety and connection. With people being aware that love needs to regularly be renewed, maybe marriages will be able to last longer. Simply, Fredrickson definitely has good intentions to help people, Instead, she could have produced her argument with phrases such as “think” of love this way, instead of “love” this
A study measuring brain activity of two strangers conversing were measured via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology and results revealed that “ when you truly connect with someone else, you become attuned, with genuine care and concern for the other, as your two brains sync up and act as one” (113). Fredrickson makes the argument that this study shows that our minds literally change when we make connections and we obtain another level of empathy. While this may seem amazing, that study only proves that connections allow people to think on the same level. It is not abnormal for someone to connect with a stranger, in most cases, it is due to simply being interested in the same thing. Love 2.0 does not really make us more productive, it just makes us more aware of what happens in our brain when we connect with others. Instead of Love 2.0 finding something that helps us obtain a more intense feeling of love, it just measures the amount of love that is already …show more content…
Love 2.0 is basically what the body feels when it encounters acts of love. Love is not something that is necessarily taught, it is more learned throughout life experience and media portrayal. So, in a sense, Fredrickson is trying to teaching us how love evolved and how it is maintained. She just approached it the wrong way, basically making it seem like people like people are expressing love the wrong way. If she instead tried to convey her idea as a different attitude towards love, it would have worked a little better. Her downfall was targeting something as big as love because people have “so many pre-existing and strong beliefs about it” (108). Her main purpose was to get rid of stereotypes such as the “happily ever after” type of love. While it can totally be achieved, to educate people with the supplies to do so. For example, Fredrickson says love has two preconditions that have to be met, safety and connection. With people being aware that love needs to regularly be renewed, maybe marriages will be able to last longer. Simply, Fredrickson definitely has good intentions to help people, Instead, she could have produced her argument with phrases such as “think” of love this way, instead of “love” this