Taking it In

Slade and I attended a lecture last night. The speaker was Helen Fisher, an anthropologist who is the Chief Science Advisor for Chemistry.com. (We are NOT on the hunt for a better match or anything. haha) It is actually a portion of a series of discussions about desire and how it affects the environment. At first I didn't see the connection. But once we started thinking about it it makes sense. We have been hard-wired, genetically, for years to seek after our "needs." But in reality, those basic (transportation, shelter, food, etc.) are easily met. So, what do I do with that desire when I don't have to run after my food for a majority of my day?

It was fascinating to hear the SCIENCE behind love. There are plenty of books out there with people's opinions or social stereotypes. But Dr. Fisher kept taking it back to the science. (MRI, the levels of different chemicals in the body, and a huge, world-wide sample of questionnaires. And in true science, she admitted where some of the fallacies may lay in her sampling.)

She went on to discuss how and why the body changes with different levels of these chemicals. For example, the increased dopamine when "falling in love" is felt in the same place in the brain as the increase when taking drugs. Falling in love does feel good. And when in this stage, the change in chemicals does make you more creative (think of all the songs of love lost or gained, the poems pining for the affections of the "one," stories of love), have more energy, cause a focus of energy, increase obsessions and more. At the same time, if you have feelings towards someone that are NOT being reciprocated, the brain actually increases the chemicals to have you even more focused and jazzed by the idea. (Kind of mean of the brain, if you ask me, but it certainly explains those adolescent feelings where I just thought I was crazy.)

She also measured the brain activity of those who are "still in love." And those parts of the brain were still active. Just not over-active when you are in the "falling in love" stage. (How many songs or other art about the long term relationship?)

She then hypothesizes that people will match up with different people based on the amounts of these chemicals, which help make up personality temperament. And not that certain traits are better or worse, just understanding the differences in people. (Spouse, kids, national leaders, etc.)

Not to say we are out of the loop, our bodies take over or that we don't have a voice in our lives. But just to understand that the science of our genes and bodies is to perpetuate our DNA. And they are doing what they are supposed to do.

Perhaps I was just interested in hearing about anything other than national/local financial woes, but it was wonderful to hear an intelligent speaker who loves her work.