Love explained

The assumption here seems to be that, if people are given a rational explanation for what appears to be the most irrational of human emotions, then the ‘magic’ of love would be removed. And this, supposedly, would diminish or even kill romantic passion. But the argument is obviously silly. The majority of human beings are not so ruled by their heads that knowledge makes the slightest iota of difference to their hearts. Indeed, when knowledge contradicts a person’s emotional needs, they tend to reject the knowledge.

This is one of the reasons why, until about 25 years ago, there wasn’t any real research on love. Sexuality, yes, but not things like what attracts people to each other, what criteria people use in choosing a mate, why some relationships work and others fail, and so on. A second, and probably more prevalent reason for the lack of research was that most scientists were snobs who felt love wasn’t a worthy subject for research. In retrospect, however, it is obviously inexcusable that such a central facet of human life could have remained unexamined, save by poets and Mills&Boon novelists, for so long. Even acknowledging that the truth about love may not change people’s behaviour, understanding this fundamental aspect of our nature could help us create more satisfying lives and, therefore, better societies.

So what does science say? The British psychologist Glen D Wilson has created a Compatibility Indicator which can tell couples how likely they are to form a lasting, satisfying relationship. His questionnaire focuses on physical traits such as height, build, and attractiveness; sexual appetite and attitudes; intelligence, education, and occupational type; personality, religion, and politics; habits like smoking and drinking; preferences in music, entertainment, and food. The more alike people are in these respects (with two of the more important indicators being, strangely, porn and politics) the more likely they are to have a good relationship. "The clich? that opposites attract is often held to be true when it comes to loving relationships. While most people could point to examples where this does seem to apply among people they know, the weight of research evidence does not support the idea that relationships based on difference are the most successful," writes Wilson in his book The Science of Love.

An American psychologist named Robert Sternberg, who was the feature speaker at UWI’s Critical Thinking seminar a few years ago, has proposed a classification of love based on a triangle whose three points represent passion, intimacy, and decision/commitment. By combining these three points in various ways, Sternberg came up with eight possible variations of love. You might, for example have romantic love, which involves intimacy and passion but not commitment.

Or you might have companionate love, which has intimacy and commitment, but not passion. Or you could have infatuation, which involves passion only (which is what we usually have a lot of for Carnival). And then there’s the rarest beast of all: consummate love, which embodies intimacy, passion, and commitment. Researchers have applied Sternberg’s concept and found that it does reflect the reality of male-female relationships. Moreover, the points of the triangle tend to shift over time, and if couples are aware of these shifts and can keep in sync with each other, they are more likely to have satisfactory relationships.

Of course, it’s no use knowing only what works. It is also important to know the danger signs. John Gottman is an American psychologist who can predict with 95 percent accuracy if a couple will still be together 15 years after getting hooked up. Gottman and his team accomplish this feat by videotaping a couple conversing for 15 minutes to an hour, after which they mathematically analyse the persons’ body language, facial expressions, tones of voice, as well as physical signals such as heart and perspiration rates.

Gottman looks out for four particular danger signs, which he calls the Four Horsemen: criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling and, especially, contempt. He has also found that, in order for a relationship to work, the positive emotions must outweigh the negative ones by a ratio of at least five-to-one.

But such traits are difficult to detect without training. However, sociologists Kathleen Kiernan and Ganka Mueller have identified several groups of adults who are divorce-prone: those who are deprived; those who have lived with a partner more than once before a marriage; those who began their relationship at a very young age; those whose parents are divorced; and those who have low emotional well-being.

This does not mean that such persons should be automatically rejected as mates, but it does mean that you should be more cautious about getting into a serious relationship with anyone who falls into these categories. After all, choosing a partner is one of the most important decisions we will make in our entire lives.

Scientific research on love can help us to make a right decision and tell us how to avoid making a wrong one. When we make an informed choice which is bolstered by emotional commitment, then we are more likely to have a lasting and satisfactory relationship. That alone is sufficient reason to teach such information in schools. But knowing how love works is important not just personally but socially, since stable family units are correlated with low crime rates and even economic prosperity. It is in that sense that the otherwise vacuous comment that love can solve our problems is true.

E-mail: kbaldeosingh@hotmail.com

Website: www.caribscape.com/baldeosingh