Why We Love

The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love

By: Helen Fisher

Narrated by: Marie Hoffman

A groundbreaking exploration of our most complex and mysterious emotion.

Elation, mood swings, sleeplessness, and obsession - these are the tell-tale signs of someone in the throes of romantic passion. In this revealing new book, renowned anthropologist Helen Fisher explains why this experience - which cuts across time, geography, and gender - is a force as powerful as the need for food or sleep.

Why We Love begins by presenting the results of a scientific study in which Fisher scanned the brains of people who had just fallen madly in love. She proves, at last, what researchers had only suspected: When you fall in love, primordial areas of the brain "light up" with increased blood flow, creating romantic passion. Fisher uses this new research to tell you exactly what you experience when you fall in love, why you choose one person rather than another, and how romantic love affects your sex drive and your feelings of attachment to a partner. She argues that all animals feel romantic attraction, that love at first sight comes out of nature, and that human romance evolved for crucial reasons of survival. Lastly, she offers concrete suggestions on how to control this ancient passion, and she optimistically explores the future of romantic love in our chaotic modern world.

Provocative, enlightening, and persuasive, Why We Love offers radical new answers to the age-old question of what love is and thus provides invaluable new insights into keeping love alive.

©2004 Helen Fisher (P)2018 Tantor

Statements of fact?

Seems like she draws conclusions from observations and presents them as facts. I’m more accustomed to people saying “may” to qualify opinions. Like “taking SSRIs reduces a women’s ability to judge the commitment of a mate” because she hypothesizes that “reduced serotonin is required to judge the commitment of a mate” Her hypothesis would need to be a proven fact from a clinical study first, which it is not. I wish I had not wasted my time

Historical and Social Facts

I feel more informed about the historical and social facts of Romantic love and alternatives such as Companionate love and how they work in an interwoven experience of an enduring marriage. I sought this book because my wife and I are out of sync, she previously loved me more than I loved her and now the roles have flipped. The difference is I had not seriously considered leaving the marriage and now I am considering her position and where I can meet her if she'll still have me. This book was wonderfully informative to that end. I appreciate the research and consideration of other's research in comparison.

Key message.

Romantic love as we know it has developed throughout our evolutionary history. By harnessing our knowledge of the science of love, we can keep the romantic spark alive and deal with the negative feelings of rejection.

monogamy bias clear throughout book

From the beginning of the book, Helen Fishers bias is quite obvious. Near the end of the book, I started warming up to the content. Then, in her conclusion, she shamelessly bashes non-monogamy

So Repetitive

I often listen to books while doing some necessary mindless task, like weeding a garden bed. I like a good book, but while doing these tasks, I'm often happy to be only a little entertained or engaged, and thus, have listened to a lot of books that weren't top notch. Usually, I found something to appreciate. I made it about 1/2 way through this book waiting for that small appreciating. It never comes. The book is so hopelessly repetitive that it begins to seem like each chapter starts at the beginning again. I'm wondering if the entire book could have been condensed into one chapter? At the very least, it needed the active involvement of an editor. Can't recommend.

scientifically inaccurate

A darwinian story about love from the perspective of a modern woman with the objective of touting the natural and obvious advantages conferred by evolution.