What's the science behind love?

r3nu4l

An interesting exchange in the homosexuality and evolution thread has led me to start this thread.

What is the science behind love? What's the biochemistry? What genes suddenly show a massive increase in transcription and translation in the early stages of love?

What are the physical 'symptoms' of love? Increased-heart rate, increased vaso-dilation, contraction of alveoli?

I'll go looking for some papers later but let's be bold sciency-types and see if we can reduce the wonderful feeling of love down to the cold, functional, component parts that are nothing more exciting than a few chemical surges

5uspect

I'm sure many people here will be aware of Harlow's rather cruel experiments with monkeys.
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/studies/HarlowMLE.htm

It shows some very interesting aspects to the role of nature/nurture in parental love.

As regards romantic love I'm not aware of any enlightening research.

marco_polo

r3nu4l wrote: »

An interesting exchange in the homosexuality and evolution thread has led me to start this thread.

What is the science behind love? What's the biochemistry? What genes suddenly show a massive increase in transcription and translation in the early stages of love?

What are the physical 'symptoms' of love? Increased-heart rate, increased vaso-dilation, contraction of alveoli?

I'll go looking for some papers later but let's be bold sciency-types and see if we can reduce the wonderful feeling of love down to the cold, functional, component parts that are nothing more exciting than a few chemical surges

Summary of a few of the main hormones believed to be involved in the various stages. At the very least will give you some google ammo for further investigation.

http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm

Marvinthefish

The Royal Society of Chemistry often publish books like this "Chem in the Garden" or "The Chemistry of Chocolate". A quick search revealed they have one on love also--link. I haven't read it myself.

My suggestion is Rhodopsin. A vital chemical if you want to see your potential other-half across a crowded room say.

nozzferrahhtoo

5uspect wrote: »

It shows some very interesting aspects to the role of nature/nurture in parental love.

As regards romantic love I'm not aware of any enlightening research.

You have touched gently on exactly the aspect of it that inspired the thread.

What is the difference between the "types" of love. What studies have been done on this that we can link to and learn from? Anyone got links?

Anything I have read shows that the same areas of the brain "light up" when experiencing love, regardless of the target. The hormones and such chemical pathways are all essentially the same.

Yes ok we EXPRESS our love differently with each person. Sometimes its sexual, sometimes filial, sometimes it is to a sibling, sometimes to a friend.

Expression aside however what is the different? I am aware of none chemical or electrical, quite the contrary as I said above. And the basic feelings of safety and protection, concern and sacrifice, trust and being trusted, curiosity and sharing are all essentially the same in all cases.

Azelfafage

The sense Taste evolved to keep our genes alive long enough to pass them on to future generations.

So did the sense of sound and sight and touch and hearing.

Above all..so did the sense of Pain.

Your genes dictate that the person you must "love" must be a good carririer of your genes.

Healthy,young and fit in body and mind.

Never heard of any young female falling in love with an 80 year old male.
(Looking for money from an ol'-codger does NOT count for love!)

As all the songs say...Love and Pain come from the exact same place.

Our genes REALLY write the love songs.
.

Prof.Badass

r3nu4l wrote: »

An interesting exchange in the homosexuality and evolution thread has led me to start this thread. I'll go looking for some papers later but let's be bold sciency-types and see if we can reduce the wonderful feeling of love down to the cold, functional, component parts that are nothing more exciting than a few chemical surges

The main difference between monogamous and polygamous species is in the oxytocin and vasopressin systems. Oxytocin seems to be more important in females and vasopressin more important in males. If you want to do some in depth reading, here looks like a good place to start;

http://refworks.springer.com/mrw/fileadmin/pdf/Neurochemistry/0387303480C25.PDF

In some experimetns with praire voles and montane voles they found that the polygamous montane voles had a lower density of oxytocin and vasopressin receptors in the areas of the brain associated with reward. Which could mean it's simply a matter of monogamous species deriving pleasure from the activation of these systems whereas polygamous species not so much.

If i recall correctly in some adoption experiments they found that 50% of male voles with polygamous genes would stick around to defend their young if they had been adopted by a monogamous pair. Suggesting a cultural influence.

Three interesting things;

1. Alcohol inhibits vasopressin (hence it's dueretic properties). Now if it does this in the brain it could explain a lot about alcohol-fuelled sexual behaviour. I'm not trying to defend cheaters, it wouldn't make you want to cheat, but it could change the subconcious drive of a single guy from "find a girlfriend" to "find someone to ****".

2. Different vasopressin-related genes are found within the human population. Men with two copies of a certain vasopressin-related gene report lower levels of marital satisfaction than the rest.

3. This, possibly the world's first true aphrodisiac. I know it's wikipedia, but this is really cutting edge stuff with not much written about it. Any papers about it seem inaccesable to the general public (although i can get one on the college computers so if someone wants it i could pm it to them).

EDIT- A 4th interesting thing. Different vasopressin receptor genes have been found to be related to musical ability (which could add further weight to the theory that music has a social function). And this is just me here, but aren't music and maths supposed to be really related in the brain?