How do you know if it's true love?

[emokid18]

well i hope all this pointless debating has answered the orignal posters question.

[bluesummer]

well i hope all this pointless debating has answered the orignal posters question.

I hardly call it pointless. We were debating what we thought love really is, because that's what the poster was asking, no?
Speaking of pointless, I don't see you offering any thoughts on the original post.

[Da Kaucasian]

I hardly call it pointless. We were debating what we thought love really is, because that's what the poster was asking, no?
Speaking of pointless, I don't see you offering any thoughts on the original post.

I was asking what is the difference between true love and "puppy love". What kind of feelings do you get when you have true love for a person, and what kind of feelings do you get when you just have puppy love?

-DK

[Fawn]

My beliefs over the argument go to bluesummer. I have the same thoughts.

In my opinion, love is unexplainable. Its a mountain of feelings and emotions that are so finely mixed. Even when you try to explain it, there are no words that can express the passion and enjoyment that the person gives you.

Puppy love is a form of infatuation. Its similar to the feelings of having a "crush" on a person. Even when you believe there is a future together, it obviously ends quickly do to one or to annoying traits. There's only small amounts of compromise. You go to the next relationship in a short amount of time and even though that person may pop up into your head every once in a while, there are no/little feelings attached to it.

[Only-virgins]

In my opinion, love is unexplainable. Its a mountain of feelings and emotions that are so finely mixed. Even when you try to explain it, there are no words that can express the passion and enjoyment that the person gives you.

Yes, and doves fly around, Beautiful butterflies are everywere, flowers blossom, and all suffering ends. *sarcasm*

[indigosoul]

Yes, and doves fly around, Beautiful butterflies are everywere, flowers blossom, and all suffering ends. *sarcasm*

Well, OV, usually I completely agree with your to-the-point comments, however, I feel they need some expansion in this case. Case in point is the statement above. Doves DO fly around, butterflies & flowers exist, etc. Or not, as the case may be. Not too helpful RE the original question, tho.

There were 2 interesting points that came up in this thread: what are the characteristics associated with "real love" vs. "puppy love or infatuation" and what happens in our brains when we feel love?

I think there is a definite problem with the word LOVE. I would suggest that OVs definition: LOVE = Chemical brain infatuation is too simplistic. It is like trying to define LIFE as a series of chemical processes (scientists still struggle with this one). Which it is, of course, but so are many other things, like the production of plastic for example. Regarding brain chemicals, it is known that certain brain chemicals increase when "in love" feelings exist, but these seem to be more related to what I would define as "infatuation"= where another person stimulates a positive response/feelings in one's brain. This response can be completely independent of the other persons knowledge (as OV said).

I think "true" or "mature" love can only develop with time and has more to do with reinforcing certain neural/brain PATHWAYS vs. a simple release of chemicals. I think this b/c if love was simply chemical release, then providing a chemical "antidote" (called an antagonist) should be able to eliminate love. I have yet to hear of such an experiment. And what a shame if it existed!

My thinking (which is, of course, all that anyone can do!) is that all those other words: trust, bond (familiarity), comfort, attraction, ability to respond to the needs of the other, etc. are the elements that go into LOVE of this kind. They are related, not defined separately. It are these rich elements that will go into reinforcing a strong neural pathway/brain connection for this other person. Which cannot exist independent of the other person, of course, unless you create some kind of fantasy or somesuch. A messy definition, for sure, but one that provides a more workable framework for questions of this sort. I would argue, for example, that based on this definition that if you cannot easily trust your closest feelings to this person that MATURE LOVE doesn't exist, since you haven't interacted enough w/this individual to develop the associated neural pathways.

Any further neural pathways/chemical releases on this?

[misombra]

there's no such thing as "true love." love is love. it's not an emotion. it has nothing to do with feelings. you can love something or someone or everything and you don't have to feel good about them/it/whatever. i love many people and many things, but i don't have to be around them all the time and control or dominate them or suck them into my world to show them i love them. i don't even have to see them or talk to them. i think love is the acceptance that this world is this world and we have to do with our insignificant little lives what we can. but anyway i don't claim to be any kind of expert on love this is just all my humble opinion. i'm just as stumped as everybody else.

[Only-virgins]

develop the associated neural pathways.

Would you be so kind as to provide proof of any form of "developing neural pathways" during love? . I can provide proof of chemicals being released into the brain during interaction. Knowing a person for a long time doesn't develope any neural pathways. Sorry....but that is just bogus.

[Only-virgins]

there's no such thing as "true love." love is love. it's not an emotion. it has nothing to do with feelings. you can love something or someone or everything and you don't have to feel good about them/it/whatever. i love many people and many things, but i don't have to be around them all the time and control or dominate them or suck them into my world to show them i love them. i don't even have to see them or talk to them. i think love is the acceptance that this world is this world and we have to do with our insignificant little lives what we can. but anyway i don't claim to be any kind of expert on love this is just all my humble opinion. i'm just as stumped as everybody else.

You can look at it that way but then what do I call the feeling I have to the one and only girl I really desire were there is no other? I want to say "love" but that is what we are trying to define lol. When the other person seems perfect I mean. This ONLY is capable towards one person at a time. If this isnt love then what is it? lust and infatuation? if so then....INFATUATION>LOVE lol

[misombra]

but love and infatuation are different things i think. i guess i'm trying to say that you don't have to be infatuated with someone or something to love them. they're not mutually exclusive things. anyway if you want to call that desire to be with 'that one person' love then call it that. i'd just like to think that love is beyond all this relationship stuff. relationships end and love goes on. death occurs and love goes on... i'm beginning to sound like a damn celine dion song aren't i? anyway, you know what i mean. people say they love each other all the time and that's fine and dandy but they could fall out of that love, or that feeling of wanting to be with only that one person could go away. what's left? love. it's always there.

[Only-virgins]

but love and infatuation are different things i think. i guess i'm trying to say that you don't have to be infatuated with someone or something to love them. they're not mutually exclusive things. anyway if you want to call that desire to be with 'that one person' love then call it that. i'd just like to think that love is beyond all this relationship stuff. relationships end and love goes on. death occurs and love goes on... i'm beginning to sound like a damn celine dion song aren't i? anyway, you know what i mean. people say they love each other all the time and that's fine and dandy but they could fall out of that love, or that feeling of wanting to be with only that one person could go away. what's left? love. it's always there.

Nothing lasts for-ever.

[misombra]

thus true love doesn't exist...right?

[indigosoul]

Would you be so kind as to provide proof of any form of "developing neural pathways" during love? . I can provide proof of chemicals being released into the brain during interaction. Knowing a person for a long time doesn't develope any neural pathways. Sorry....but that is just bogus.

Hi OV,

My use of the term "develop", for those who know about brain physiology is imprecise. I am NOT talking about the production of new neural tissue (a la developmental biology), sorry for the confusion. I think my original term "reinforcing neural pathways" is probably closer to what I am trying to describe. I am thinking of something analogous to how learning occurs, which is thought to occur by something similar (the repeated release of brain chemicals results in changes to brain cells that are more permanent and less reversible--I use my terminology loosely here for the non-science types). Anway, my basis for this statement is some work from behavioural pyschology that looked at long-time couples/married people and the ability to extinguish certain feelings/behaviours when one of the spouses die. The longer the couples were together, the harder it took for those behaviours to go away (extinguish). At least I think this was the research; it's been a really long time for me since undergrad psychology (I'm a mol biol/biochem type) and I'm remembering this from a lecture. I can try to find the original source if you're interested OV!

I'm aware of the chemical release papers, but they still fail to explain the difference b/t feelings of "infatuation" vs. (what some would call) "love". If this is all it is, then it should all feel the same, right? I propose the difference is qualitative (amount of neural associations for the SO) AND quantitative (amount & frequency of chemicals released). This may not be as bogus as you think if you look at research on how long and short term memories are thought to be stored. I guess I'm proposing that LOVE is a learned behaviour that requires, at least at SOME point, stimulation from the SO to occur. Note, I'm NOT saying it can't REMAIN once the connections are made, yes; you can love someone in their absence...or you can create a fantasy, i guess, that would do the same thing. In fact I'm arguing a mechanism for WHY the feeling remains! Infatuation is a more simple chemical process that doesn't require the other person at all, and is more fleeting/reversible for this reason.

Anyway,the absence of data on idea this doesn't rule it out, it just means noones done the experiment yet... Maybe we should all get MRIs of our brain activity 2 weeks, 6 months & 2 years into our relationships. I bet we might see some interesting time-dependent effects... I would further guess that any drugs that might reverse the "infatuation" chemicals early on wouldn't work as well at later times, which would argue for a more complex model. BS? Probably, but at least the explanation is testable.

[Only-virgins]

Hi OV,

My use of the term "develop", for those who know about brain physiology is imprecise. I am NOT talking about the production of new neural tissue (a la developmental biology), sorry for the confusion. I think my original term "reinforcing neural pathways" is probably closer to what I am trying to describe. I am thinking of something analogous to how learning occurs, which is thought to occur by something similar (the repeated release of brain chemicals results in changes to brain cells that are more permanent and less reversible--I use my terminology loosely here for the non-science types). Anway, my basis for this statement is some work from behavioural pyschology that looked at long-time couples/married people and the ability to extinguish certain feelings/behaviours when one of the spouses die. The longer the couples were together, the harder it took for those behaviours to go away (extinguish). At least I think this was the research; it's been a really long time for me since undergrad psychology (I'm a mol biol/biochem type) and I'm remembering this from a lecture. I can try to find the original source if you're interested OV!

I'm aware of the chemical release papers, but they still fail to explain the difference b/t feelings of "infatuation" vs. (what some would call) "love". If this is all it is, then it should all feel the same, right? I propose the difference is qualitative (amount of neural associations for the SO) AND quantitative (amount & frequency of chemicals released). This may not be as bogus as you think if you look at research on how long and short term memories are thought to be stored. I guess I'm proposing that LOVE is a learned behaviour that requires, at least at SOME point, stimulation from the SO to occur. Note, I'm NOT saying it can't REMAIN once the connections are made, yes; you can love someone in their absence...or you can create a fantasy, i guess, that would do the same thing. In fact I'm arguing a mechanism for WHY the feeling remains! Infatuation is a more simple chemical process that doesn't require the other person at all, and is more fleeting/reversible for this reason.

Anyway,the absence of data on idea this doesn't rule it out, it just means noones done the experiment yet... Maybe we should all get MRIs of our brain activity 2 weeks, 6 months & 2 years into our relationships. I bet we might see some interesting time-dependent effects... I would further guess that any drugs that might reverse the "infatuation" chemicals early on wouldn't work as well at later times, which would argue for a more complex model. BS? Probably, but at least the explanation is testable.

I have taken psychology classes. I have taken sociology calsses and philosophy/ethics classes...I do have to say that psychologist in most cases are very full of them selves. There is a problem with behavior and trying to explain it threw brain workings. The problem is obvious..The exernal world experiences have a major effect on the future decisions and feelings of a person. The problem lies here. It seems like those scientist in your case would be trying to figure out the brain workings behind the attachment feelings. What they don't realize is that this is one of those situations were it is pretty much all a feeling of loss. Really has nothing to do with any brain path ways. I would miss my brother if he passed away but that is attachment...there is no deep brain functions behind it accept that I would miss the previous interactions between us(because of previous experiences with him). Love is a actually EXISTING chemical (it is hormonal no?) believe one was called something along the lines of "oxytocin". Physically...that is all there is to love. True love and love are the same thing. Attachment could arise towards anything really....pets and family. I prefer to think that love is only male-female exclusive. Thats what the word is meant to mean anyways. Sure...I would miss anyone I have been with for a long time...What does that have to do with love...nothing.

I debate like this over such an issue because I find it offending that in the definiton of infatuation (which some people claim to be the chemical release in the brain and not love) includes words such as foolish feeling, blind feeling, exagerated feeling. I am sorry but the people who wrote that are not very wise. Who are you(them) to call anyone foolish? maybe I prefer that chemical stimuli over you attachment feelings that grow over time? I loved a girl ( everyone says it was lust and infatuation) ..never the less I say I loved her and I meant every word...thats what makes "love" love... simply just believing that it is the strongest feeling you ever had towards a persons.

PS: thanks for the good informative reply indigosoul.

[indigosoul]

Love is a actually EXISTING chemical (it is hormonal no?) believe one was called something along the lines of "oxytocin". Physically...that is all there is to love. True love and love are the same thing. Attachment could arise towards anything really....pets and family. I prefer to think that love is only male-female exclusive. Thats what the word is meant to mean anyways. Sure...I would miss anyone I have been with for a long time...What does that have to do with love...nothing.

PS: thanks for the good informative reply indigosoul.

Yes! That is Cort Pedersen's work. He blocked mothers rats "love" for their pups by blocking oxytocin. But, before you say "see, I told ya", the interesting thing is that this blocking was PREVENTED if there was a few days of physical contact b/t mum & pup! So some other system had been ACTIVATED, which is what I'm arguing for!

He makes a distinction b/w the first response, which REQUIRES oxytocin (he called it "intiation") and that which NO LONGER required it ("maintainance"). If you permit me a direct analogy, then "initiation=infatuation" would be a prerequisite for "maintainance=love". But LOVE no longer requires "infatuation".

What a fascinating discussion! I'm NOT a psychologist, BTW (ha, not even close), just find it neat that modern science allows us to even attempt to tease apart human emotions. The old poets would either be jealous or appalled.

Anway, since we won't get any definitive answers from this, I'm prepared to give up this thread. Unless we're prepared to inject ourselves w/an oxytocin antagonist on our next date, that is. (Is it REAL?--hey, lets INJECT TO CHECK!). Sad. It would take all the guesswork out of it...

Hope this all helped DK!