A high school classmate owns this nice company... CLICK on the picture to check it out!
My readings for today:
“Fourth graders flock to information like middle schoolers to a Justin Bieber concert. At ages 9 and 10, kids often make decisions by trying to integrate lots of previously learned material, when focusing on one particularly useful cue would work better, say psychologist Rui Mata of the University of Basel in Switzerland and his colleagues.
That’s a surprising tendency, given 9- and 10-year-olds’ limited ability to keep more than one piece of information in mind.”
“A new meta-analysis study conducted by Syracuse University Professor Stephanie Ortigue reveals falling in love can elicit not only the same euphoric feeling as using cocaine, but also affects intellectual areas of the brain. Researchers also found falling in love only takes about a fifth of a second.”
4 Comments
rpoppin · October 25, 2010 at 1:08 pm
“Got .2 seconds? then fall in love!”
This was a pretty interesting article. I must say that I find the idea of brain chemicals being SOLELY responsible for feelings of “love” and Ortigue’s comment that “…these results confirm love has a scientific basis,” a little… uncomfortable. I suppose I like the idea that some other force or attraction brings two people together, not a simple chemical reaction in the nucleus acumbens/reward center. It just seems less “romantic” to me, but as my fiance will tell you, I am a romantic.
This is not to say that I doubt that there is a scientific basis for the feelings of love; as a biology major (and a student in this class) I know that emotions and feelings like “butterflies” all constitute physiological reactions. However, simplifying the force that keeps couples together for decades to half a century down to a few hormones and brain centers just doesn’t sit right with me. I definitely don’t agree with the .2 seconds assertion; I had no idea if I was in love with my fiance in our first few months of dating, and neither did she. I think the word “love” is being used a bit loose here, maybe a better word is “attraction” or “bond,” but not love. I suppose that depends on your definition of love though.
In any case, this was an enlightening article, but I prefer to think of “love” as something that can’t be quantized, “boiled down,” or predicted 🙂
Vix · October 25, 2010 at 8:08 pm
It is interesting to see that kids learn how to keep information in mind. As an adult, I always make my own decisions, whether if it’s drawing, playing video games or browsing the Internet. Reading these articles can be good for your brain.
johnson · October 27, 2010 at 11:55 am
I find it hard to believe that researchers have narrowed down how long it takes to fall in love with someone, it took me quite a long time to finally figure out that I love my boyfriend. It’s interesting to think that the brain does have such a functional role when falling in love, but I still believe that it’s not only the brain or the heart that contributes to falling in love.
I’d be curious to see how the blood levels of NGF are in the long run, do couples who have been together for a significant amount of time, and still get excited to see each other, experience the same elevation of blood levels? As for the part of the brain that sparks unconditional love, is that part damaged or is functioning at lower levels when a mother has post-partum depression?
Tweets that mention Laura’s Psychology Blog » readings in psychology for october 25th 2010 -- Topsy.com · October 25, 2010 at 1:56 pm
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Laura Freberg, Laura Freberg. Laura Freberg said: New blog post today: readings in psychology for october 25th 2010: My readings for today: kids learn late to handl… http://bit.ly/8YCrfZ […]
Comments are closed.