Image: iStockPhoto/craftvision
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
On Wednesday, March 10, I had the pleasure of making love with Scientific American's editor in chief, Mariette DiChristina—in front of a large audience, no less.
Hey, calm down. We didn’t make love with each other. We did something even better. We showed about a hundred smart, skeptical New Yorkers that we could, fairly easily and on demand, increase the love that people feel toward each other—people who are already in love, people who are just friends, and even total strangers.
The venue was the classy 92YTribeca, the fairly new home of art and intellect in lower Manhattan, and the excuse was Scientific American Mind's January/February cover story about how science can help you fall in love. Our presentation began, consistent with the occasion, with a prolonged hug that prompted laughter and applause.
When, eventually, the embrace ended, I asked four volunteers to come up on stage, and I paired them off into couples that had never met before. I then asked them, on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 was low and 10 was high), a) how much they liked each other, b) how much they loved each other, c) how close they felt to each other, and d) how attracted they were to each other.
Next, I asked the individuals in each couple simply to look deeply into each other’s eyes for two minutes in an exercise I call “Soul Gazing.” After the giggling stopped, they got down to business and started looking quite serious.
Then I asked for those numbers again: liking, loving, closeness and attraction. To the delight and astonishment of the audience, the numbers went up for all four people—14 percent overall.
But why should just four people have all the fun? I now asked everyone in the audience to turn toward the person in the seat next to him or her and gaze —after which I asked people to raise their hands if they felt closer to the person they had just faced. Nearly every hand went up.
Research and Love
Can emotional intimacy truly be increased on demand? Mariette now explored the issue by reviewing some of the scientific studies that have been conducted on this topic in recent years, which show, among other things, that:
* Emotional bonds are strengthened when people engage in physically arousing activities together (get thee to the gym)
* People tend to bond when they’re in frightening situations together (bungee jumping anyone?)
* Feelings of love indeed grow when total strangers simply gaze into each other’s eyes for two minutes (but please read on before you start staring at strangers on New York subways)
* People feel closer when they do new things together (been to the new Museum of Sex on 5th Avenue yet?)
More than 80 scientific studies demonstrate such phenomena. Mariette, switching to journalist mode, then asked me questions about the research, such as, “Isn’t staring at someone threatening? Why would people fall in love simply by gazing at each other? And why do any of these procedures work at all?”
Having studied such matters now for seven years, in part by interviewing people who are in arranged marriages in which love has grown over time, I answered as follows:
Emotional bonds often get stronger when people feel vulnerable, and this works for two reasons. First, when you see someone who is in a weak and vulnerable state, you often feel like comforting or protecting that person; those tendencies make you feel close to someone, and they often bring you physically closer, too. Second, when you are feeling vulnerable yourself, you might interpret your emotional state as a loving one—especially if someone nearby happens to reach out to comfort you. If two people feel vulnerable simultaneously, these two tendencies can interlock and increase synergistically.
Most of the experiences that lead to increases in emotional intimacy produce this kind of dynamic. Strong sexual attraction, scary situations, vigorous exercise and novel situations all make people feel vulnerable to some extent. And, yes, even gazing can have this effect. The difference between mutual gazing and staring is the consent; people are giving each other permission to invade their privacy in way that is normally quite threatening. It’s like saying, “Okay, you can see me naked. No problem.” Do you feel vulnerable? You bet.
Love Games
Enough talk. We spent the next half hour demonstrating three other techniques that quickly increased emotional bonds: “The Love Aura,” “Let Me Inside,” and the “I-Love-You Game.” In the last, two strangers took turns saying “I love you” to each other in different ways. In our culture, that phrase is one of the hardest things there is to say to someone; saying it makes people feel especially vulnerable. Our volunteers were nervous and giggly at first, but then became increasingly earnest and emphatic—intense, in fact. Their intimacy numbers nearly doubled in just over two minutes, and they embraced each other warmly the moment exercise ended. It was breathtaking to watch.
Was this just a series of parlor tricks? Not at all. I’ve become increasingly convinced over the years that the way we seek and form relationships in Western countries is deeply flawed—and that we can do better. Our relationships typically begin with a burst of physical attraction that we interpret, often incorrectly, as love. Over time, both the passion and the loving feelings subside. Worse still, we leave the entire process to chance—to the Fates, as it were. In some cultures in Africa and Asia, however, love is on a very different trajectory. Many couples are able to make love grow stronger over time, taking responsibility for their feelings and taking control over the process of loving. “First comes marriage, then comes love,” people say in India.
I now believe I understand a good deal about how this process works, and I believe that it can be packaged to suit Western tastes and needs without importing foreign cultures or the practice of arranged marriage. That was the message Mariette and I left with an appreciative—and dare I even say loving?—audience.
As I left the stage, a woman approached me and said that the gazing exercise, which she had done with man who was a total stranger to her, had made her cry. “There was a whole world in those eyes,” she said.
Yes, of course. We only have to learn how to see.
Want to feel the love? If you’re near the California Academy of Sciences on Thursday, March 25, Scientific American editor in chief Mariette DiChristina and contributing editor and distinguished psychologist Robert Epstein will speak about “The Science of Love” starting at 7:30 p.m. as part of the NightLife 2010 series.
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentWhen are you having this in NYC again? I missed it in large part because I was too scared of this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWonderful article, a breath of fresh air. I am a Healing Through Love Mentor, always looking for new ways to define, interprest and explain love and all its nuances and ramifications. Your work validates my life's work. I have a quiz at www.CreateHealingAndLoveNow.com and my Facebook page at http://budurl.com/HealingThroughLove.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for showing how easy it can be to connect people in a loving and intimate way - without even having to touch. But of course, we touch with all of our senses, including and especially the eyes.
I've long believed love is a constant, only obscured by self-obsession. Love appears to me to be the driver in nature-- love with the elements of life, love in the senses of life, love with respiration, love with metabolism-- eclipsed by momentary preoccupations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe it was Maya Angelou who said, "Love holds the stars in their courses." And just that subtle effect could be the essence of gravity, love being the unified field.
Couples that try new things together, and generally consider their marriage a wonderful place in which to do things they might not otherwise, find their partners more interesting -- great that science is showing the "love" aspect can deepen!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.ashortguidetoahappymarriage.com
Interesting psychological experiment. But where is the interesting questions to enlight?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides the common problem of what love is and what kind of different love there is, the very interesting problem of how hate is connected to love, is missing.
Of Course I understand the problems of making a public experiment with hate. But trying to make knowledge out of love without hate. Isn´t that as useless as knowing heat without knowing cold?
I believe that one of the most important questions for mankind is how we could love without promoting hate.
Let,s take an easy example: You love your child, and someone do something terrible to it. What will be your feelings to that person?
Is there an answer to the question: Can we stop hate?
Did Jesus Christ gave us an answer? Why then is many people, that claim they believe in him, so full of hate?
Interesting psychological experiment. But where is the interesting questions to enlight?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBesides the common problem of what love is and what kind of different love there is, the very interesting problem of how hate is connected to love, is missing.
Of Course I understand the problems of making a public experiment with hate. But trying to make knowledge out of love without hate. Isn´t that as useless as knowing heat without knowing cold?
I believe that one of the most important questions for mankind is how we could love without promoting hate.
Let,s take an easy example: You love your child, and someone do something terrible to it. What will be your feelings to that person?
Is there an answer to the question: Can we stop hate?
Did Jesus Christ gave us an answer? Why then is many people, that claim they believe in him, so full of hate?
It is courious that the point of hate was brought up. I believe that if someone has brought an experiment stating it is about butterflies, and the response is, why is it not on cows as well, then it is not understood from the onset. Interesting as to how many people believe they can speak for others as to how they will feel or perceive this experiment. The group is a controled group. They are already humans that are capable of love and hate. The subject matter however was on love. I myself do not believe that I could say how anyone could, would or should feel (or speak) about any given situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVeronica
Arne, Several years ago there was a story in the headlines about a young Amish child who was murdered. That Amish family didn't hate the parents and family of the murderer. In fact, that Amish family (even while grieving for their murdered child) actually embraced, forgave, empathized with, and welcomed into their lives the family of the murderer. That was a perfect example of people who have learned to love.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a monstrous bunch of porky pies. Staring into peoples eyes is not love nor is it increasing love by 14% in 2 minutes or whatever rubbish you noted. If that were the case youd get true love in little under 15 minutes. I have never heard so much much rubbish from people who obviously have never had love, never seen it or know bugger all about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you piddling buffoons have discovered is the emotions called Curiosity, Denial, etc. Among other things like suggestion. Im sure if you told people to slap the person next to them they would have, then you could have said love is painful sometimes.
If the world was full of idiots like you nothing would get done.
Try actually asking people who are in love and been married for a while. After 50 years being in love you may find out its simpler than you realise, you either have love or you dont there arent degrees. Looking in another girls or guys eyes brings lust and longing at most. I bet the 14% increase you noted from the men was mainly around there groin area.
There is a difference between lust and love. When you meet someone you want to spend time with to see if they are right its more of a love from the off.
The forced marriage is companionship not true love in any definition of the word. oh my goodness i dont even know why im bothering to correct foolish people like yourselves.
Youll find items like putting yourself out for them is probably high on the list for people in love. Youll find responsibility high too like men realising their offspring need a father and how would they feel if they grew up without a dad. Lust gets you kids, love gets you a family.
Can you grow love...depends on your definition of love...if you twist the definitions of love you can twist your answers. If you decide to stay with true love between 2 people searching for each other and finding each other then no love is there from the off instead of lust or two strangers. And if you want to twist a word as lovely as love the most beautiful word in the world to encompass twisted things like forced marriage then you are as twisted as the results you get.
Oh well ive had my 2cents of worthless banter. Happy hunting with your hunt for love. lol.
It is wonderful to see science embrace love. I enjoyed the article, but the science of love has been empirically observed for almost 2 decades through the lens of attachment theory. Any discussion of the science of love without some reference to attachment theory, omits probably the largest body of scientific evidence around love that exists today. And the most empirically validated approach to couples therapy, for example (Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy founded by Dr. Susan Johnson at the University of Ottawa), is built on a firm foundation of attachment theory. It would be wonderful to see this get a bit more coverage in this discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContra dancing is a "community" activity -- the people who show up regularly get to know each other. And contra dancing involves a couple of the mentioned activities: People do vigorous, risky (learning the steps) things together, and they frequently spend time gazing into each others eyes. One of the primary activities of prehistoric clans was the acknowledgment of all members on an intimate level. Churches today frequently ask congregants to greet the people next to them at the end of the service.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue love is unmeasurable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue love cannot be measured.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIam 100% for you m
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIam 100% for you m, i think if you bring those who you have tested one hour later,then they would not remember any of these feeling they claimed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI beg your pardon. Can you kindly define what is meant by 'to love'?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou better delete the item "b) how much they loved each other" in the questionnaire, because it is not a meaningful statement at all and any answer to this item would be no more than groundless fuzzy feeling. (I am not even talking about divine love.)
Eric Berne psychiatrist, of books such as "Games People Play" says he developed these techniques in 1964!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswow talk about semantic slanting. the love can truly be felt from you. there is a difference between an arranged marriage and a force marriage . As you say to try talking to people that have been married for a while to understand love how about talking to people who have are in arranged marriages? Not all fifty year marriages are good ones, not all arranged marriages are good ones however there not all are bad either .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you saying that an arranged marraige and a forced marriage are the same thing? As you say to find out about love you should talk to people that have been married for a long time perhaps talking to people that are in arranged marriages could show that not all are forced. not all 50 year marraiges are good and full of love and the same goes for arranged marriages however in both cases some of them are not bad. All cultures view and approach love differently that doesnt mean there are not pros and cons to both.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sorry, but how, as a scientist, can you ignore the external factors at work here? Such as, say, the social pressure factor? The fact that four people - facing a hundred others, on stage - when asked if they 'liked' someone more after staring at their face, wouldn't answer a little bit higher for politeness' sake rather than any increase in supposed feeling?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI imagine most people would suffer a little wounded pride if, after being examined for two minutes, their examiner found them no more agreeable than they had before. I mean, our eyes are windows to the soul or some such nonsense, right? (and yes, that is sarcasm). I know I would probably answer higher the second time, and probably raise my hand too, for the sake of not being rude or offensive to someone I barely know at all.
And also, aren't the results of your experiment and your statement concerning 'Western' love contradictory?
You say, "Our [Western] relationships typically begin with a burst of physical attraction that we interpret, often incorrectly, as love."
Yet, you claim to have facilitated 'making love' in front of an audience by making strangers stare at each other - face value - without speaking for two minutes. Windows to the soul, indeed.
I just hate to be nit-picky, but honestly, this article is lackluster in comparison to what I enjoy reading on this site. It doesn't seem to be thoroughly thought out at all and just goes all over the place - from attraction, to like, to love, to what Western/Asian love is (an incredible oversimplification that, honestly, is quite insulting to both parties) - without real logical links between the ideas.
Bad. Just... bad.
Love .. conjugal or otherwise can be perpetuated best by 'generalizing it as a common sentiment'... meaning to say conjugal love also needs to be transcended above the marriage bond and 'sublimated' ...as a 'valid adoration of the gender mutuality'... Of course at this state/stage of love sex is not physical at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this