Enter your mobile number or email address below and well send you a link to download the free kindle app then you can start reading kindle books on your smartphone. Anatomy of love spanish edition ebook anatomy of love spanish edition currently available at wwwturktravestileriorg for review only if you need complete ebook. Anatomy of love spanish edition edsaschoolorg amazoncom lucha libre anatomy anatomia english and spanish edition 911 patty rodriguez ariana stein citlali. For journalists around the world helen fisher has been the go to authority on love and heartache since the first edition of anatomy of love. Mix zoe and mal anatomy of a love seen hoy spanish version youtube jennifers body anatomy of a love seen youtube movies drama 2014 from.
First published in 1992, Helen Fisher’s “fascinating” ( New York Times) Anatomy of Love quickly became a classic. Since then, Fisher has conducted pioneering brain research on lust, romantic love, and attachment; gathered data on more than 80,000 people to explain why you love who you love; and collected information on more than 30,000 men and women on sexting, hooking up, First published in 1992, Helen Fisher’s “fascinating” ( New York Times) Anatomy of Love quickly became a classic. Since then, Fisher has conducted pioneering brain research on lust, romantic love, and attachment; gathered data on more than 80,000 people to explain why you love who you love; and collected information on more than 30,000 men and women on sexting, hooking up, friends with benefits, and other current trends in courtship and marriage. And she presents a new, scientifically based and optimistic perspective on relationships in our digital age—what she calls “slow love.” This is a cutting-edge tour de force that traces human family life from its origins in Africa over 20 million years ago to the Internet dating sites and bedrooms of today. And it’s got it all: the copulatory gaze and other natural courting ploys; the who, when, where, and why of adultery; love addictions; her discovery of four broad chemically based personality styles and what each seeks in romance; the newest data on worldwide (biologically based) patterns of divorce; how and why men and women think differently; the real story of women, men, and power; the rise—and fall—of the sexual double standard; and what brain science tells us about how to make and keep a happy partnership. I am not sure where to start. This book was one colossal dichotomy.
If Fisher had presented her evidence in a responsible manner, this would have been a 5 star book all the way. So many things to love! But, even though it had some of the most exciting neuroscience research on love that I have read about to date, the overreaching conclusions at which Helen Fisher arrives has rendered it a pseudoscientific book.
What a shame. There was so much here to work with. Reading this book is a lot like rea I am not sure where to start. This book was one colossal dichotomy. If Fisher had presented her evidence in a responsible manner, this would have been a 5 star book all the way. So many things to love! But, even though it had some of the most exciting neuroscience research on love that I have read about to date, the overreaching conclusions at which Helen Fisher arrives has rendered it a pseudoscientific book.
What a shame. There was so much here to work with. Reading this book is a lot like reading books by the likes of Michael Behe.
There is an awful lot of cool science (and boy is it beautiful) but the conclusion the researcher draws show a lack of understanding of that beautiful science, a lack of logic when constructing an argument, and the compulsion to make unwarranted assumptions to fit extremely outdated notions.What was good about this book: Unlike Richard Dawkins, Helen Fisher at least attempted to update her understanding of evolution. When Dick Dawkins wrote the 30th anniversary edition of The Selfish Gene, he basically said something like, 'Yeah, it's been 30 years since I wrote my book. Despite all the evidence that has been gathered since then (umm like epigenetics), I am so brilliant that what I said 30 years ago still stands, and I have found that I don't need to change anything (what a fossil). Furthermore, I would like to humble brag about how tough it is that my book has sold so many copies. It's hard to sign so many books you know!'
Helen Fisher, on the other hand, said of writing her book many years later, something to the effect of, 'I found that since so many new studies had been conducted and so much new evidence filtered in since I came up with my theories on love and attachment, I had to basically rewrite the entire book.' She certainly delivered when it came to writing about new evidence but not when it came to interpreting what that evidence meant. Here are some of the findings turned up by her stellar work (her methods were great, her sample sizes were huge, and her data are just fantastic!!!).
Through questionnaire, interview, and brain imaging, Fisher found the following: - Dating and sex Republicans report having less sex but more orgasms. 56% of male and 48% of female respondents said they imagine a future together with the person on a first date. More than one out of three report falling in love at first sight.
35% say they fell in love with someone whom they didn't initially find attractive. 92% of men are in favor of women asking them out 65% of men report that at least one woman has been the one to ask them out -Romantic love Helen Fisher and colleagues found that on average, the smitten phase lasted about 12-18 months according to brain imaging and blood tests (aimed at detecting higher levels of hormones associated with love) and 2-5 years according to questionnaires.
What about those married for 20 years or more. Less than 10% are 'madly in love.' Those who reported being madly in love were put in scanners and, surprisingly, their brains looked like the brains of new lovers. With one exception. There was no activation in regions associated with anxiety, like there is with almost all new lovers. This lucky subset of long married people had all the crazy hormone activation of falling in love (for 20 plus years) but without the angst.
Instead, pain suppression regions lit up. Congrats to anyone who falls in this category. The rest of those married for that long felt love for their partner but did not feel the intense falling in love feelings that they had early on.
Most people seem to fall in love and then after 5 or 10 years, settle into a calmer love that is not fueled with as much passion. - Divorce Far more young women divorce than older women. 10% of American women have had three or more husbands before the age of 40. Most women divorce in their late 20s and early 30s. 80% of women who divorced before the age of 25 remarried before turning 35. After their breeding years were over, only 1 in 3 of today's American women divorced. 43% of divorced couples have no children.
Libros De Anatomia Pdf
29% have one child. 18% have two children. Only 5% of couples with three children will divorce. Couples with four or more children rarely ever get divorced Marriage tends to get stronger during the birth of children, but divorce peaks when kids r 5 yrs old.
-The first kiss is extremely important. 59% of men and 66% of women said they ended a relationship after being disappointed with the first kiss. If it's not good, it seems the majority of people will cut and run. The above is just a sampling of the data collected by Fisher and colleagues when they surveyed people on Match.com and Chemistry.com. Fisher also discussed some of the older findings such as: -Vasopressin and monogamy Monogamy almost always involves cheating.
While some individuals in monogamous relationships can remain faithful, there is not one species who hasn't been caught cheating. Birds were thought to be monogamous because they mate for life. How cute, right? While one poor sap sits on the egg (doesn't matter if it's male or female), the other bird flies out to find food. 'Don't worry honey, I am just running to grab us a bite to eat.' They stop for a little 'extra pair copulation'along the way.
They get back to the nest, and the parent who has been caring for the kids the whole time is none the wiser. During genetic testing, it was found that 56% of a bird's offspring were fathered by a different bird than the one the female made a home with. Some humans are very trustworthy and faithful, but as a species, humans cannot be called a monogamous species because so many 'monogamous' people cheat.
Also, most humans have more than one sexual partner over a lifetime. Thus, even if those individuals remain faithful in each relationship, they can only be said to be serial monogamists. Genetic testing has found that men who more inclined to cheat have a different version of the vasopressin gene (different in length/repeats) than men who are not as inclined to cheat. - Men paying for dinner on the first date (and usually many dates thereafter) Fisher lists the many male insects and other male animals who produce a meal in order to entice a female to spend time with them so they can copulate. (Really witty/funny).
. What was not good about this book: - The evidence did not support her outdated, conservative, biological essentialist view of males and females. Fisher REALLY loves her gender roles and works very hard to shape the data to fit her biases. For example, She discussed some solid evidence about the various systems that are activated in different groups of people when talking about a potential love. Some people's serotonin systems activate while others have more active dopamine systems. (I mean, how great is that!? What a super research question.
This is an example of what could have made this a 5 star book.) But, sadly Fisher quickly, and often!, departs from science and spouts nonsense. She pretended that she was in possession of studies showing causal (or even a correlation!!!) effects of estrogen on 'feminine' traits such as being talkative, emotional, blah, blah, blah. She went through a list of people who she thinks might have more estrogen or testosterone and made up stupid, unscientific stories about what that meant about them as lovers. It was absolutely absurd and should be a huge red flag to everyone.
She should not be called a scientist and definitely not an 'expert.' In my opinion, there is no worse scientist than the type who takes solid, well-replicated, beautiful findings and concocts some stupid story that is in no way scientifically studied or supported. Studies (good ones) have shown that if a false story is sold to the public using neuroscience (dubbed 'sexy science because it's so alluring), the public will believe that story more than they will believe a true story that is supported by facts from a less sexy science. Helen Fisher has conducted research that is some of the most awesome neuroscience research I have seen to date. The data she presents about love and the brain is crazy good. Instead of writing a book about what she knows (from solid evidence gained from good methodology), she makes wild assumptions about our evolutionary past and our behaviors today that are not supported by the evidence she has gathered. Why do so many evolutionary psych people reach way beyond what the data tell them?
They give science a bad name. Worse yet, it's the evolutionary psych people who 'help' scientists fight against absurd creationist attacks.
Please, don't 'help' us anymore. In reality, when you compromise science in this way, you help the creationists, not the scientists. If a researcher concocts what Stephen Jay Gould calls a 'just so story' and another researcher can concoct an equally plausible just so story as well, then they are likely missing something at best and completely wrong at worst. It's irresponsible and serves as a prescription to society. If Helen Fisher the 'expert' states that her sexy neuroscience proves that women are emotional, not good at math (yes she said that!
Guess she missed the cross culture studies), and all the other oppressive bullshit women have been fed over the years, then society will keep these ridiculous notions around longer. And not one bit of her evidence supports her claims. She had so much data to work with. Why overreach? It was good enough to just present her findings. In Sex at Dawn, Chris Ryan overreached at times as well.
However, it was not nearly to the degree that Helen Fisher did. She tried to argue against many of his claims. She never named him, probably in some lame attempt to keep attention away from his much better book. She failed so miserably. At least Ryan was logically consistent when he overreached.
The reader could stop and say, 'Hmmmm, that seems like quite a stretch.' But the could not really say, 'He just argued.for. this point 2 chapters ago and is now arguing.against. this point now.' She seemed wholly unaware of her lack of logic (what I have now dubbed 'Fisher Logic'). What an embarrassment to science. Helen Fisher sounded so interesting years ago on a NPR interview, I made a note to read this book.
Took me 10 or 15 years to get to it. Maybe that was the problem, although I think not. Her technique is to discuss mating practices across myriad species, and meld that with statistics on human behavior. OK, fair enough, although there is vast room for selection bias.
But after doing all that, she offers her theory with nothing more than: 'Perhaps humans have the same impulse as the tse-tse fly in Helen Fisher sounded so interesting years ago on a NPR interview, I made a note to read this book. Took me 10 or 15 years to get to it. Maybe that was the problem, although I think not. Her technique is to discuss mating practices across myriad species, and meld that with statistics on human behavior. OK, fair enough, although there is vast room for selection bias. But after doing all that, she offers her theory with nothing more than: 'Perhaps humans have the same impulse as the tse-tse fly in that.
Almost every chapter ends like that. Yes, perhaps we do, Dr. Fisher - OR, perhaps we don't! All that research, much of which is more widely known today than when she was writing this, seemed only a cover for interjecting her own thought. Cara instal opl di flashdisk. Which did not necessarily seem based on the research as a whole; rather, on just one aspect of it that she had seized upon for that particular point she wanted to make. I slogged and slogged through it, repeatedly disappointed by this technique, and finally reached the last chapter 'Sex in the Future,' and could not make myself pick the book up again. I picked this up on the recommendation of Rebecca Schinsky from Book Riot.
As a psychology major, she always seeks out smart nonfiction titles. Fisher originally published this in 1992, and while I had wanted to read that edition for some time, the online dating and texting environment of modern times has made many parts obsolete. In the prologue, Fisher admits that most of this book is new. Quick note: Don't let the length of this text put you off.
It's technically only 320 pages, with the las I picked this up on the recommendation of Rebecca Schinsky from Book Riot. As a psychology major, she always seeks out smart nonfiction titles.
Fisher originally published this in 1992, and while I had wanted to read that edition for some time, the online dating and texting environment of modern times has made many parts obsolete. In the prologue, Fisher admits that most of this book is new.
Quick note: Don't let the length of this text put you off. It's technically only 320 pages, with the last 130 pages devoted to Appendices, Notes, Bibliography, and a couple fun quizzes if you're interested. All par for the course when science is involved, man!
Fisher's prominence as a biological anthropologist allows her to give in-depth detail on the mating habits and courtship of early hominins millions of years ago, as well as comparisons to loving behaviors of wide-ranging species.The cultural experiences that affect romance- determining whom you love, where, and when- were quite fascinating, as well as the reasons that the Seven Year Itch phenomenon is biologically more like the 3-4 year itch. This book will give you a case of the 'Did you knows?' One more neat (and kind of annoying fact).did you know that going from traveling on all fours to bipedalism in the jungle made carrying infants more difficult, thus forcing females to become more reliant on men for food procurement while they 'stayed home' with their young? Way to reduce an even hunting partnership!
Walking on two feet instead of all fours had many benefits though, so I'm mostly okay with it.ha. The informative ways in which she discusses humanity's evolution from four broad, basic styles of thinking (each associated with one of four brain systems: dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, and estrogen) provided explanation to all the 'chemical' talk you hear thrown around concerning infatuation and love. There is a lot of repetition, but that worked for me since science isn't my strong point, and hearing details multiple times helped the absorption of material. There were sections I found tedious and skimmed only briefly. While some of the info isn't surprising, I did find the positive outlook she has on the future of dating (with the prevalence of I-phones and dating apps) surprising.
This made me breathe a bit easier as I have girls who will be navigating this territory in the upcoming years. I would recommend to anyone who has a strong interest in this subject, but might pick up a more anecdotal book if not. I would have given this one 4 stars except that the book was written in 1994 so I had this constant nagging that some of the info may have changed in the intervening years.
She mostly looks back to our evolutionary past to make sense of monogamy, adultery, and divorce so I don't know how much that info has changed. She also looks at present traditional societies to look for clues. The basic idea I took away from this book is that serial monogamy with plenty of adultery thrown in seems to be our h I would have given this one 4 stars except that the book was written in 1994 so I had this constant nagging that some of the info may have changed in the intervening years. She mostly looks back to our evolutionary past to make sense of monogamy, adultery, and divorce so I don't know how much that info has changed. She also looks at present traditional societies to look for clues. The basic idea I took away from this book is that serial monogamy with plenty of adultery thrown in seems to be our historic pattern (with exceptions of course - notably farming societies).
How much this will change over time (if at all) remains to be seen. I kind of enjoyed reading the last chapter where she tries to take an educated guess at how some of these things will change in the future. Her future at the time (1994) is our present so it was interesting seeing where she hit the mark and where she missed it. A few of my favourite quotes from the book: p.256 'No one has to teach you to feel guilty; people just teach you what to feel guilty about.' P.258 'They also developed a conscience, 'the still small voice,' as Alexander puts it, 'that tells us how far we can go in serving our own interests without incurring intolerable risks.' ' p.304 'The famiily is the most adaptable of all human institutions, changing with every social demand.
The family does not break in a storm as oak or pine trees do, but bends before the wind like the bamboo tree in Oriental tales and springs up again.' ' (Will be interesting to see how 'family' bends in the future.). This was an interesting, if somewhat unsettling, read. In all honesty, I would recommend Dr. Fisher's 2006 TED talk-which was very compelling and succinct-over her book. She's able to elaborate more on the technical details of her work in 'Anatomy of Love,' and while she never loses focus on her thesis that humans have and always will fall in love, stray, and fall in love again, the poignancy of the whole process is somehow mitigated. I felt a little hollow after finishing the final chapter, a This was an interesting, if somewhat unsettling, read.
In all honesty, I would recommend Dr. Fisher's 2006 TED talk-which was very compelling and succinct-over her book. She's able to elaborate more on the technical details of her work in 'Anatomy of Love,' and while she never loses focus on her thesis that humans have and always will fall in love, stray, and fall in love again, the poignancy of the whole process is somehow mitigated.
I felt a little hollow after finishing the final chapter, although I'll be thinking about the book's contents for some time to come. A word of warning: don't try reading this shortly before or after 'He's Just Not That Into You.' HJNTIY places an emphasis on fidelity in all successful relationships; AoL makes a pretty convincing case that most relationships are not permanent and that cheating is coded into our DNA.
If you're at a place in your life where you can make space for both, awesome. If not, enjoy and embrace one at a time.
Packed with fascinating information and analysis. The writing is clear, organized and consistent.
She uses great quotes and analogies. She shows incredible insight! There are huge subjects and competing powers at play in this study and discussion. The anthropology is given a great weight and she has obviously studied, thought and compared to draw her conclusions. The book is certainly 'food for thought' and will rattle in my brain for a long time. The battle of moving humanity toward less selfis Packed with fascinating information and analysis. The writing is clear, organized and consistent.
She uses great quotes and analogies. She shows incredible insight! There are huge subjects and competing powers at play in this study and discussion.
The anthropology is given a great weight and she has obviously studied, thought and compared to draw her conclusions. The book is certainly 'food for thought' and will rattle in my brain for a long time. The battle of moving humanity toward less selfishness and more love is not ruled out of the book.
The scientific and genetic focus leave me wondering if she may have given too little attention to the power of the human soul to reduce the conflict among the urges she documents so well. Caveat: Have just read the 1992 edition and learned (after the event) Helen Fisher has updated this extensively in light of new evidence As a school sixth-former I was lucky enough to attend a series of extra-curricular classes on comparative religion and alternative approaches to ethics. Whilst I was enthralled to learn for the fist time the tenets of the world’s major religions - plus what the Stoics, Epicureans and Hedonists had to say; there was a problem. The classes were taught by a dye-in- Caveat: Have just read the 1992 edition and learned (after the event) Helen Fisher has updated this extensively in light of new evidence As a school sixth-former I was lucky enough to attend a series of extra-curricular classes on comparative religion and alternative approaches to ethics.
Whilst I was enthralled to learn for the fist time the tenets of the world’s major religions - plus what the Stoics, Epicureans and Hedonists had to say; there was a problem. The classes were taught by a dye-in-the-wool Christian. As a result, whatever ideas we examined, the conclusion was always that they were inferior to Christianity. ‘Christianity is the answer now what’s the question?’ At certain points in Helen Fisher’s book I felt the same way.
Her haste in concluding that monogamy is the ‘most natural’ way for our species to live let down what was an otherwise interesting and informative book. The monogamy hard sell starts with Fisher speculating that our australopithecine ancestors (probably, not definitely) would have been better off in exclusive sexual relationships because their bipedalism meant that the females’ hands would have been devoted almost entirely to the need to carry or hold infants. Dependence on a single male partner for the period of the offspring’s infancy was ‘obviously’ the way these creatures solved this problem. The australopithecines existed, incidentally, around four million years ago, so no soft tissue (and very few fossils) survive to provide clues re their reproductive anatomy, nor would the comparisons Fisher makes between modern chimpanzee lifestyles and those of the australopithecines bear much scrutiny – the evolutionary timescales of the two species being separated by millions of years. It must be admitted that the book was written in 1992.
Ideas in this area have moved along a great deal since. Yet, Fisher does know about and briefly refer to sperm competition – cited today as a pointer to promiscuity.
However, she makes nothing of it, not factoring it into her arguments either for or against her case for monogamy being natural. I did enjoy the author’s ethological perspective, particularly her comparisons of what other creatures get up to in order to cheat on their primary partner. Disappointingly she didn’t look at the biological strategies of creatures like dolphins who don’t fit her monogamous model. Like humans, dolphin infants take years to grow up, presumably because of their large brain sizes. Mothers are supported by the other females in the pod as well as a subset of the males who protect the female group - often from other unattached males.
Dolphins demonstrate a successful social approach to rearing dependents without resorting to exclusive pairing. She also cites Chimpanzee behaviour far more than that of the far more promiscuous and matriarchal bonobos. Dutch primatologist, Frans de Waal, is worth quoting here: ‘Just imagine if we had never heard of chimpanzees and had known bonobos first. We would at present most likely believe that early hominids lived in female-centred societies, in which sex served important social functions and in which warfare was rare of absent.’ In the penultimate chapter of Anatomy of Love, Fisher looks at the pairing habits of!Kung tribespeople in the Kalahari and the Mehinaku in the Amazon basin. Although she fails to discuss tribes like the Canela or the Mosui - who operate perfectly viable, and entirely non-monogamous, sexual cultures - I enjoyed this part of the book most. Amongst both peoples, whilst there are one-to-one marriages, multiple extra-marital affairs are common, if not ubiquitous.
Discovery of an affair can result in a major ruckus – even divorce - yet at some level all members of these tribes must know their partner is ‘getting up to something somewhere with someone’. Fisher combines these observations with others about the frequency of divorce, particularly amongst people of reproductive age with less than two offspring – what she cites, based on statistical analysis, as an evolutionary ‘four year itch’. What she gives us is a different version of ‘monogamy’, one based on not-very-exclusive pair-bonding. One that its participants are half aware of, but prefer not to confront.
This is a model of monogamy I had not particularly considered before, and I am grateful to Helen Fisher for introducing me to it in Anatomy of Love. I was thinking for a couple of times to buy or not to buy this book. Reading the title, my first impression was “not another love book”:) but after seeing Helen performing on the stage, she convinced me. Then I knew it was all about science, evolution and anthropology. It is a perfect combination between real facts, how other species react in various situations. We humans, are not that special:) it is clear that we evolved together with all other species and we still have a lot of things to le I was thinking for a couple of times to buy or not to buy this book. Reading the title, my first impression was “not another love book”:) but after seeing Helen performing on the stage, she convinced me.
Then I knew it was all about science, evolution and anthropology. It is a perfect combination between real facts, how other species react in various situations.
We humans, are not that special:) it is clear that we evolved together with all other species and we still have a lot of things to learn from them. Of course there are some theories I don’t agree with, but this book should be read by open minded and not religious people:) I definitely recommend this book. It was difficult to put this book down, especially for a non-fiction book. Helen Fisher writes like a skilled story teller, and a tiems poetic.
Yet the topic is anthropology and human behavious. She managed to turn her solid research into an entertaining read. At many points of the book, it did feel like the information was an overload of what should have been elementary knowledge taught in schools. Not only does she manage to pull together from all ends of research, but she, as a reseracher of It was difficult to put this book down, especially for a non-fiction book. Helen Fisher writes like a skilled story teller, and a tiems poetic. Yet the topic is anthropology and human behavious.
She managed to turn her solid research into an entertaining read. At many points of the book, it did feel like the information was an overload of what should have been elementary knowledge taught in schools.
Not only does she manage to pull together from all ends of research, but she, as a reseracher of her own right, includes her own locial and thought out ideas as well. The books discussed what the tag line reads: the natural history of human romantic relations. The begining describes current existing statistics and patterns of human love, courting, pick up, marriage, cheating, and divorce. It then tells the story of our anthropological history, and brings in evidence from other animal reserach, including chimps, gorillas, and birds. It tries with convincing arguments to explain how and why we have these existing patterns. Then it attempts to predict what we can expect in the near future in the macro patterns of human relations.
The only infomation I thought this book was missing was what data was collected after the original publication date. What patterns can we brings in from the 1990 and the early 2000s.
I believe the 2nd edition is warranted at this point. One of the longer reads I've completed on love, Fisher builds a compelling case that despite our best intentions, evolution has encoded us to move in and out of pair-bonding relationships for most of our lives, especially during fertile child rearing years. Nature adopts what works for survival of the species and in the case of emotional love, feelings aren't considered. Depending on where you're at in your life and what state your relationship(s) is (are) in (I expect somewhere in the range of One of the longer reads I've completed on love, Fisher builds a compelling case that despite our best intentions, evolution has encoded us to move in and out of pair-bonding relationships for most of our lives, especially during fertile child rearing years. Nature adopts what works for survival of the species and in the case of emotional love, feelings aren't considered. Depending on where you're at in your life and what state your relationship(s) is (are) in (I expect somewhere in the range of new romance to just dumped), you will read through the chapters with interest, alarm, hope, humor, and amazement.
All-in-all, a very good read especially if you are fascinated by the science of love and its role in propagating human and primate societies. If you're looking for a relationship guide or other 'find your soulmate' self help book, you should probably spend time elsewhere, as the research and conclusions presented can be long. I purchased a hardback copy for access to the data tables that support Fisher's position. A fascinating book charting the history of human and animal love through the ages. Every aspect of love, monogamy, adultery and other aspects of human relationships are dealt with chapter by chapter. From love / mating in the insect world to primates and human beings.
This is like a biology, psychology, history and natural history lesson all rolled into one. So many topics are covered it is hard to narrow this book down and pinpoint each section. A must read on many levels.
Well worth reading whate A fascinating book charting the history of human and animal love through the ages. Every aspect of love, monogamy, adultery and other aspects of human relationships are dealt with chapter by chapter. From love / mating in the insect world to primates and human beings. This is like a biology, psychology, history and natural history lesson all rolled into one. So many topics are covered it is hard to narrow this book down and pinpoint each section. A must read on many levels.
Well worth reading whatever your knowledge on the subject as the breadth and depth of the matter related is so wide that any reader is sure to find information they didn't know. Much of the information presented I had already surmised and even written about it in the past.
However, it’s a whole different matter to read something from the perspective of a biological anthropologist. She explains it clearly, which helps me to reinforce my educated guesses and understand our common nature, in spite of different cultural influences and morals. Helen Fisher uses her studies in hominid evolution and comparative biology to illustrate and give evidence to our current mating beha Much of the information presented I had already surmised and even written about it in the past. However, it’s a whole different matter to read something from the perspective of a biological anthropologist. She explains it clearly, which helps me to reinforce my educated guesses and understand our common nature, in spite of different cultural influences and morals.
Helen Fisher uses her studies in hominid evolution and comparative biology to illustrate and give evidence to our current mating behaviors. She compares current love habits to those of other species as well as to more primitive versions of homo sapiens millions of years ago.
She also discusses some of our most deep-seated morals as she examines social and religious evolution, and how it has influenced modern opinions on relationships, gender issues, marriage and sex. It is basically a biological and cultural history of sex. I can tell Fisher is well-versed in the classics, which is something I highly appreciate. She opens every chapter with an insightful quote from classical literature. The first chapter, for example, opens with a quote which I believe summarizes the concept of the entire book.
From one of the poems by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: “Moved by the force of love,/ fragments of the world seek out one another/ so that a world may be.” In the introduction, Fisher clarifies as a disclaimer: “Along the way I make many generalizations. Neither your behavior nor mine fits all patterns I will describe. Why should it? There is no reason to expect a tight correlation between all human actions and general rules of human nature. I focus on the predominant patterns, rather than on the exceptions.” Good reminder. She also warns: “I make no effort to be ‘politically correct. Nature designed men and women to work together.
But I cannot pretend they are alike. They are not alike. And I have given evolutionary and biological explanations for their differences where I find them appropriate.” You can agree or disagree, she only presents her educated guesses based on her research. Finally, in the introduction she says that she is “certainly not advocating infidelity or desertion; rather, I am trying to understand these disturbing facts of human life.” I find it fascinating to know about the roots of cultural habits.
I want to know when they started and why, and not just accept a belief because authority (parental, religious and political) figures say so. For example, if you ever wondered why until recently there was a double standard between men and women, in which men are allowed many things that would be punishable by death in women (still the case in more archaic cultures)- well, look no further. One of the events that changed everything for women in history was the introduction of agriculture some few thousand years ago. Before that, humans led a nomadic lifestyle in which both men and women contributed more or less equally, and both enjoyed the same amount of freedoms and privileges. (Of course, there is no such thing as complete equality or a perfect 50/50 on any balance give and take, it all balances out in the end, more or less. In my opinion, those who seek complete 50/50 balance 100% of the time will always be disappointed because life doesn’t work that way). However, when humans learned to plow the land and grow food, they began to settle down in one place.
They became tied to homes, land, and spouses. Much of the farming tools required men’s strength, so women were no longer independent gatherers. Due to the needs of the new economy, which relied mainly on men's strength with the plow, women were now judged as inferior to men. Men- their politicians and their priests started to make the rules according to their own convenience.
Pantera vulgar display of power remastered rar. Country: USA.
It’s amazing that so many of our modern-day beliefs of right and wrong stem from those twisted man-made rules that were established with the introduction of agriculture. I know most people don’t follow books like The Rules anymore (creepy to think some people still do!), yet there is still much of the same conservative feeling in the background of our liberal ways. We follow these rules and judge others based on these rules as if they were eternal truths rather than relics of our recent agricultural past “when women were pawns in elaborate property exchanges at marriage and their value depended on their ‘purity.’ Hence girls were strictly chaperoned, and their sex drive was denied” (33). If you think that the “sexual revolution” is a new outgrowth of modern culture, think again. Fisher argues that we are simply turning full circle in the history of sex- now that women work again, we are returning to a nomadic past when both genders enjoyed independence and less of a double standard.
In fact, in the last chapter where she predicts the future of relationships based on our history, Fisher opens with this quote by T.S. Eliot: “And the end of all our exploring/ Will be to arrive where we started/ And know the place for the first time” (Four Quartets). Such is the cyclical nature of truth and history. Helen Fisher tells us that scientists refer to the different love rituals ( ways beings seduce each other in order to replicate themselves) as reproductive strategies. Even for couples who choose to not have kids, these rituals can still be referred as such from a Darwinian perspective. Monogamy (one spouse), polygamy (more than one wife), polyandry (more than one husband), adultery (monogamous with occasional philandering).
The most common reproductive strategies seen in homo sapiens in both nature and the social contract are serial monogamy and adultery. No, the pair is not oxymoronic. Monogamy is not defined as sexually loyal, but simply means that one has only one spouse.
Serial monogamy refers to the habit of having one spouse or serious relationship at a time, combined with occasional adultery. Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule— there are relationships that make it last forever, and even more rare, couples who remain sexually loyal forever. However, let us recall that Fisher studies general themes, not exceptions. And if we were to study the general themes of the human love story and the behaviors of other primates, this is the general theme. Even in places where adultery is punishable by death, it still happens, so it seems it is a deep part of the genetic blueprint. Fisher poetically expresses about the mating game that “no other aspect of our behavior is so complex, so subtle, or so pervasive. And although these sexual strategies differ from one individual to the next, the essential choreography of human courtship, love, and marriage has myriad designs that seem etched into the human psyche, the product of time, selection, and evolution.” The book is much deeper and informative than I could ever illustrate in a book review.
There are simply so many topics in the books, analyzed from various angles, on a historical journey based on the research that was available in the late 80s or early 90s when this book was published. Nevertheless, the topics are timeless and no less insightful than if it had been written in 2013. From courting, to infatuation, to bonding, to marriage, to adultery, to divorce, to remarriage, Fisher analyzes it all and insists that this is the most common story script and will continue through the ages. Fisher is an anthropologist. Besides research, she works with an online dating site conducting surveys and presumably advising. She is also a poetic writer. Fisher looks at love and romance through the lenses of evolution, evidence from modern hunter/gather societies that live like our prehistoric ancestors, patterns among the other apes and especially chimpanzees, and survey data.
Its an attempt to put human mating habits in the context of humans as animals. She covers a lot of ground previously Fisher is an anthropologist. Besides research, she works with an online dating site conducting surveys and presumably advising. She is also a poetic writer. Fisher looks at love and romance through the lenses of evolution, evidence from modern hunter/gather societies that live like our prehistoric ancestors, patterns among the other apes and especially chimpanzees, and survey data.
Its an attempt to put human mating habits in the context of humans as animals. She covers a lot of ground previously covered by others (especially Jared Diamond). Her main conclusions are that humans are essentially serially monogamous, but they often have clandestine romantic liaisons as well. This reflects evolutionary pressures in raising children with a long childhood balanced by the neat to propagate genes with the best available mate.
She believes that there is a peak period for divorce after about 4 years, which has a suggestive relationship with when a child is first more independent. She proposes that this was most pronounced with prehistoric humans, but men became more dominant and monogamy became more important with the agricultural revolution and civilization. She sees some current trends in dating (e.g., hookup culture, internet dating, long courtships) as a return to something more akin to the prehistoric style as women become less economically dependent on men.
I think her message is essentially positive and supportive of both monogamy and of those for which monogamy fails (at least for a while). She sees monogamous relationships as essentially the norm (and the ideal), and people returning to these as much as they can. She doesn't really make the point, but data she cites shows that the longer a relationship lasts the less likely it is too fail. I find some of her arguments quite speculative.
For example, the association she sees between a divorce peak at 4 years and the length of time required for a child to become somewhat independent. There really isn't any data to support this as the cause and other possibilities certainly exist.
Her data on relationships in pre-modern societies is heavily based on ethnographic research on just two surviving cultures. This is obviously a very small sample and prone to misinterpretation. But on the whole, I found this thought provoking and somewhat persuasive.
I wondered why Fisher delved so deeply into the anthropological aspects of potential ancestral romantic and sexual pairing, but she brought it full circle at the end drawing connections between primate behavior and primitive men's and women's behavior and the shaping of romance and sex in our modern society. She also provided a clear explanation as to the division from this natural or historic behavior through the establishment of agrarian societies and religion. I ended up really liking this bo I wondered why Fisher delved so deeply into the anthropological aspects of potential ancestral romantic and sexual pairing, but she brought it full circle at the end drawing connections between primate behavior and primitive men's and women's behavior and the shaping of romance and sex in our modern society. She also provided a clear explanation as to the division from this natural or historic behavior through the establishment of agrarian societies and religion. I ended up really liking this book. What I thought was dry and kind of off-putting considering what could be such an exciting and fun topic ended up elucidating the topic of love in a very precise way.
This is truly love considered anatomically. 'Those who own the purse strings rule the world.' '-her duty to raise children and serve a man.' The establishment of agrarian societies placed women in subservient roles to men, severely reducing their personal agency, creating a sexual double standard that allowed men to control women and treat them as inferiors. 'Sex is the pepper that gives life and verve.' Interesting ideas but no evidence or explanation behind them. Lots of 'I suppose.'
'It's likely that.' 'I can imagine that 5m years ago a female would.' I started skipping huge sections of this book when it became apparent that none of it was backed by evidence and was just a story I think the worst part of this book is when she asserts that men and women are equally likely and driven to have multiple sexual partners and gives as an example a woman in Africa who when interviewed and asked w Interesting ideas but no evidence or explanation behind them.
Lots of 'I suppose.' 'It's likely that.' 'I can imagine that 5m years ago a female would.' I started skipping huge sections of this book when it became apparent that none of it was backed by evidence and was just a story I think the worst part of this book is when she asserts that men and women are equally likely and driven to have multiple sexual partners and gives as an example a woman in Africa who when interviewed and asked why she had sex with multiple men said something like 'well that man can get me bananas and that other man can get me meat' sigh. There's something creepy about how there's no comment about a messed up situation where men have sex because they want to and women have sex because they have to. Fisher's books are always a joy in that they are well thought out, researched and delivered.
My takeaways: 1. 'love' is remarkedly similar among various creatures and clearly bares little difference between apes and modern humans. Anthropology is highly predictive of traits of modern dating and love. There is a clear track and relation between economics, self-interest and the types of pair-bonds that exist.
Ultimately, 'love' at the individual level usually reflects traits which are best for Fisher's books are always a joy in that they are well thought out, researched and delivered. My takeaways: 1. 'love' is remarkedly similar among various creatures and clearly bares little difference between apes and modern humans.
Anthropology is highly predictive of traits of modern dating and love. There is a clear track and relation between economics, self-interest and the types of pair-bonds that exist.
Ultimately, 'love' at the individual level usually reflects traits which are best for the survival of the species, and subserviently survival of the community. Mating patterns today are considerably healthier than for much of modern history due to economic and social advantages of modern women. Fisher is an anthropology professor and human behavior researcher at the Rutgers University and is one of the major researchers in the field of romantic interpersonal attraction.Prior to becoming a research professor at Rutgers University, she was a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. By many accounts, Fisher is considered the world’s leading expe Helen E.
Fisher is an anthropology professor and human behavior researcher at the Rutgers University and is one of the major researchers in the field of romantic interpersonal attraction.Prior to becoming a research professor at Rutgers University, she was a research associate at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. By many accounts, Fisher is considered the world’s leading expert on the topic of love. Presently, Fisher is the most referenced scholar in the love research community. In 2005, she was hired by match.com to help structure the chemistry.com pair-matching website using both hormonal-based and personality-based matching techniques.