larry young of emory, who did this, is also known for shoiwing a relationship between certain genotypes and monogamy (among voles); some of that research was shown to be fallacious (there was no '1-1' correlation; it appeared young didn't know his 'field' voles, which differ from the house or 'lab' voles ). young acknowledged this, but subsequently (a quick pub med search) one sees it is apparently ignored---who ever heard of u. kansas anyway except from oz?. one sees the nature piece headlines 'drug therapy' (and for love, that or genetic therapy, actually might be a cure worth looking into---current views see it as a disorder although some deviants try to normalize it). emory u of course is well known for their psychiatrist on the pay of big pharma promoting various drug therapies---maybe drug therapy is in the water there.
predicatably e balaban (from the left) and melvin konner (from the proof its natural.
newer software programs i think can show that love actually is informational, rather than chemical. its better in second life.
--- On Thu, 1/8/09, Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> From: Michael Balter <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Is love just a chemical cocktail?
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 2:08 AM
> Attached is the actual Nature essay if anyone wants to read
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Claudia Hemphill Pine <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > *takes a bow*
> > I love the idea of Ultra Reductionist as a toothpaste
> - or some kind of
> > cleaner. It's worse than "Gets the Red
> out" - although that out to be a
> > comic strip!
> > More like it's one way to "Take people right
> out of the picture! Nothing
> > left but science!" (And hopefully, lots of
> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Mitchel Cohen
> <[log in to unmask]
> > > wrote:
> >> Right fucking on!, Claudia!
> >> Extremely well put. And succinct.
> >> I'm sick of those ultra-reductionist lunatics
> (sounds like a toothpaste,
> >> "Ultra Reductionist" -- gets the Red
> >> Mitchel
> >> At 06:53 PM 1/7/2009, you wrote:
> >> What a Cartesian syllogism his work rests upon!
> >> Assertion: Animals have no "real"
> emotions behind their behavior; they
> >> are merely cellular clumps that jerk and move in
> response to external
> >> commands (like a whip) and internal happenstance
> (like chemicals, or
> >> feeding).
> >> Assertion: Humans are animals.
> >> Conclusion: Human behavior is also, then, solely a
> response to physical
> >> and chemical stimuli.
> >> It's a great example both of the inanities of
> hyper-reduction and the
> >> fallacy of assuming your conclusion (organisms
> have no super-organismic
> >> properties) before your research has begun.
> >> Not to mention the waste of money by a researcher
> who admits there are
> >> "hundreds of signalling molecules in the
> brain - [which] all act in
> >> different brain areas" (multiply that out!),
> who can only point to one
> >> molecule that works in one area to influence one
> part of one emotional
> >> behavior, but then sweepingly proclaims it a
> "very real" route to
> >> controlling human emotions.
> >> Yeah sure. And, "as if."
> >> I would love to think that funding agencies would
> recognize the ultimate
> >> futility (not to mention the fallacious reasoning
> and ethical drawbacks) of
> >> this proposed research. But then, funding is so
> rarely given on the basis
> >> of "making good sense."
> >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Phil Gasper
> <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >> Nature moves down one or two notches in my
> estimation. --PG
> >> Published: 2009/01/07 18:04:17 GMT
> >> Is love just a chemical cocktail?
> >> By Pallab Ghosh
> >> BBC News science correspondent
> >> It is said that love is a drug. But is it just a
> >> That is the contention of Larry Young, a professor
> of neuroscience at
> >> Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.
> >> Writing in the respected scientific journal
> Nature, Professor Young argues
> >> that love can be explained by a series of
> neurochemical events that are
> >> happening in specific brain areas.
> >> If that is true then, he says, one would no longer
> have to rely on oysters
> >> or chocolates to create a loving mood.
> >> Instead, it will be possible for scientists to
> develop aphrodisiacs -
> >> chemicals that would make people fall in love with
> the first person they
> >> see.
> >> And for those who have fallen in love with someone
> they shouldn't have
> >> fallen in love with, an antidote to unrequited
> >> There is even the prospect of a genetic "love
> test" to assess whether two
> >> potential love birds are predisposed to a happy
> married life.
> >> No poetry
> >> Poets would have us believe that love is one of
> those things that are
> >> beyond understanding. But that concept is anathema
> to Professor Young.
> >> "I'm not sure we'll be able to
> understand it fully," he said.
> >> "But my belief is that our emotions have
> evolved from behaviours and
> >> emotions that are in the animal kingdom.
> >> "I don't think that the way a mother
> loves her baby is that different to a
> >> mother's love in a chimpanzees or a rhesus
> monkeys - or even a rat."
> >> In animals, scientists have observed that a
> chemical called oxytocin is
> >> involved in developing a bond between a mother and
> her young.
> >> Professor Young believes it is very likely that a
> similar process is going
> >> on in humans.
> >> "It's just that when we experience these
> emotions they are so rich we
> >> can't imagine that they are just a series of
> chemical events," he said.
> >> But even if that is true of maternal love, is
> romantic love simply down to
> >> a squirt of oxytocin and a few other love
> chemicals at a timely moment?
> >> Professor Young thinks it might.
> >> Bonding
> >> Researchers have found that oxytocin is involved
> the bonding of male and
> >> the female prairie voles which like humans form an
> intense bond with each
> >> other that lasts for a very long time
> >> And there have been studies in humans that show
> that oxytocin increases
> >> trust - the ability to read the emotions of
> >> So, Professor Young argues that it makes sense
> that the same sort of
> >> molecule might be involved in strengthening the
> bond between individuals.
> >> He believes there are other chemicals involved in
> strengthening that bond
> >> - it is just a matter of doing the research and
> finding out which ones they
> >> are.
> >> "I'm sure that we are just beginning to
> tap the surface," he said.#
> >> "There are hundreds of signalling molecules
> in the brain - they all act in
> >> different brain areas.
> >> "I think one day we will have a much better
> understanding of how all these
> >> chemicals interact and act in specific brain areas
> that have specific
> >> function that give rise to these complex
> >> Role of upbringing
> >> Having put poets firmly in their place, Professor
> Young will have to take
> >> on the arguments of scientific colleagues who
> might take issue with his view
> >> that love is all down to chemicals.
> >> Surely upbringing and psychology play a part?
> >> "Nurture has an important part to play,"
> he conceeds.
> >> "But they way nurture works is through
> changing neurochemistry.
> >> "We know from studies in humans that women
> that have experienced abuse or
> >> neglect early in their life have decreased levels
> of oxytocin in their
> >> brain.
> >> "So I totally agree that our experiences have
> a huge impact on our ability
> >> to form relationships - but that impact occurs
> through changes in
> >> neurochemistry and gene expression."
> >> Manipulation
> >> So, if love really is just a complex chemical
> reaction, could that most
> >> powerful of human emotions be manipulated?
> Professor Young thinks so.
> >> "Oxytocin increases eye gaze, increases our
> ability to recognise emotions
> >> in others," he said.
> >> "It may actually enhance our ability to form
> relationships, and so it is a
> >> very real possibility that something like oxytocin
> could be used in
> >> conjunction with marital therapies to bring back
> that spark."
> >> There are already perfumes on the market
> containing octocin, but Professor
> >> Young believes the levels are too low to be an
> effective aphrodisiac.
> >> "But I think in the future we can develop
> drugs that readily pass into the
> >> brain and can target certain brain areas that
> could do this," he said.
> >> Professor Nick Bostrom, director of Oxford
> University's Future of Humanity
> >> Institute, is not entirely convinced by Professor
> Young's theory.
> >> He said "It is very interesting to explore
> the neuro-chemical bases of
> >> romantic attachment, but we shouldn't think
> that this perspective on its own
> >> provides a full understanding of what love is.
> >> "There are also evolutionary, psychological,
> >> phenomenological and humanistic perspectives that
> offer important insights."
> >> However, he does believe it will become
> increasingly possible to modulate
> >> the neurological mechanisms that do play a role in
> romantic attachment.
> >> "Used wisely, such pharmacology could enhance
> human experience and
> >> mitigate unnecessary suffering.
> >> "However, this kind of manipulation would
> raise a thicket of ethical and
> >> cultural issues, which would need to be carefully
> >> --
> >> "EVERY GUN that is made, every warship
> launched, every rocket fired
> >> signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those
> who hunger and are not
> >> fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This
> world in arms is not spending
> >> money alone. It is spending the sweat of its
> laborers, the genius of its
> >> scientists, the hopes of its children."
> --U.S. president Dwight D.
> >> Eisenhower, 1953.
> >> "War is a way of shattering to pieces, or
> pouring into the stratosphere,
> >> or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials
> which might otherwise be used
> >> to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in
> the long run, too
> >> intelligent." --British author George Orwell
> > --
> > "EVERY GUN that is made, every warship launched,
> every rocket fired
> > signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who
> hunger and are not
> > fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in
> arms is not spending
> > money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers,
> the genius of its
> > scientists, the hopes of its children." --U.S.
> president Dwight D.
> > Eisenhower, 1953.
> > "War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring
> into the stratosphere, or
> > sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which
> might otherwise be used to
> > make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the
> long run, too
> > intelligent." --British author George Orwell
> Michael Balter
> Contributing Correspondent, Science
> Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
> Boston University
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Website: michaelbalter.com
> Balter's Blog: michael-balter.blogspot.com