Distinct circuits of emotions and love?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of Helen Fisher's article regarding distinct neural circuits associated with emotions of love, specifically lust, attraction, and attachment. Participants express skepticism about the scientific rigor of Fisher's claims, particularly her reliance on hypotheses and speculative language such as "suggests" and "may." While some consensus exists on the amygdala's role in emotional responses, the broader claim that each emotion corresponds to a unique neural circuit lacks definitive evidence. The conversation highlights the need for clearer definitions and stronger empirical support in the field of emotional neuroscience.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of neuroanatomy, particularly the role of the amygdala in emotional responses.
  • Familiarity with scientific research methodologies and the importance of empirical evidence.
  • Knowledge of the distinctions between lust, attraction, and attachment in psychological terms.
  • Awareness of common biases in scientific literature, such as confirmation bias.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the role of the amygdala in emotional processing and its neural pathways.
  • Examine empirical studies on the neurobiology of love and attachment, focusing on hormonal influences.
  • Explore the definitions and psychological implications of lust, attraction, and attachment.
  • Investigate the impact of scientific language on the interpretation of research findings.
USEFUL FOR

Psychologists, neuroscientists, and anyone interested in the biological underpinnings of emotions, particularly in the context of love and attachment theories.

icakeov
Messages
379
Reaction score
27
I am curious about the concept of distinct circuits/systems of neural activity that give rise to basic emotions.

I drew this info from the article below, which focuses specifically on "three kinds of emotions of love" by Helen Fisher (who got popular through her viral TED talk about love).
http://www.helenfisher.com/downloads/articles/14defining.pdf

- Are these "distinct circuits" and emotions attached to each one of them confirmed in science and is there consensus on it? And more generally, is each emotion known to be associated with a distinct and separate neural circuit?

- Right at the beginning, the article has the words "it is hypothesized". First, I personally struggle with passive voice being used when making a point. Second, can a paper make scientific conclusions based on something that is just "hypothesized"?

- In the following paragraphs, Fisher starts to conclude (based on something that is hypothesized?) that these separate "circuits/systems" for lust, attraction and attachment all associate with different hormones, neurotransmitters and a whole set of a different behavioral patterns. Is there actually enough data in all the references she uses to show that this is actually true? It seems that there is much more concluding than showing.

I also struggle with the overuse of the words "suggests" and "may" when making scientific claims.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
icakeov said:
- Are these "distinct circuits" and emotions attached to each one of them confirmed in science and is there consensus on it? And more generally, is each emotion known to be associated with a distinct and separate neural circuit?
Generally speaking, yes. If you take a look at the wiki article on the amygdala, for example, you will see it's generally accepted to be associated with specific emotional responses. In most cases the evidence boils down to a lack of those responses when certain structures are damaged or an intensification of them when the structures are hyperstimulated, as with an externally applied voltage or in the course of a seizure. However, I don't think it would be accurate to say every emotion has been pinned to a specific circuit. It's more like, given the success in mapping some, it is believed everything could eventually be mapped.

There's also an obvious definition problem. Defining the word "attraction" in order to find the neural correlates of attraction is a can of worms.

The particular paper you linked to, however, strikes me as exceptionally "soft," mostly speculation citing studies selected by confirmation bias. I think you're right to be skeptical when studies "suggest" one thing or another, or when it's "indicated" that one thing "may" be connected to another.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman and icakeov
Thanks zoobyshoe, that was very helpful!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Replies
38
Views
10K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
8K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 216 ·
8
Replies
216
Views
30K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K