Frijdas Laws of Emotion -- dissecting falling in love
Last quarter, I took a class called "Seminar on Emotion" at the Psychology department at Stanford. Though the class had a lot of reading and some were rather dry, there were a few gems scattered around here and there which in the end, made it all worth it (of course it was also one of the few classes I had which in which the ratio favored the fairer-sex and so it was always a pleasure to attend!). Now I know I am probably going to get a lot of flack on this a particular blog entry and so before I do so I should probably mention that though I am writing this now, I actually thought of this stuff during my class last quarter. And so this is not precipitated by current events in my life and nor it is it targeted to anyone in particular. I am simply interested in hearing your opinions to help me ponder and solidify my own, so here goes...
One of the readings for my Emotion clas was by Nico Frijda, in which he tried to formulate Laws of Emotion. These were not intended as "laws" per se, but more as guidelines about emotion and to put forth some food for thought. In his paper was the following passage:
"Data from questionnaire studies (Rombouts, 1987) suggest that [falling in love] is triggered by a specific sequence of events, in which the qualities of the love-object are of minor importance. A person is ready to fall in love because of one of a number of reasons - loneliness, sexual need, dissatisfaction, or need or variety. A object then incites interest, again for one of a number of reasons, such as novelty, attractiveness, or mere proximity. Then give the person a moment of promise, a brief response from the object that suggests interest. It may be a confidence; it may be a single glance, such as a young girl may think she received from a pop star. The give the person a brief lapse of time - anywhere between half an hour or half a day, the self-report suggests - during which fantasies can develop. After that sequence, no more than a single confirmation, real or imagined is needed to precipitate falling in love."
-- Nico H. Frijda, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands in his paper on The Laws of Emotion.
Now, I haven't had the time (yet) to go dig up the Rombouts paper and look at the data myself (would be very interesting to do this though -- I looked on PsycInfo already but my preliminary search didn't find this paper/data. If anyone finds a pointer, please do let me know), but I did feel that this is a rather bold and insightful statement which flies in the face of what all of us would like to believe. We are taught from childhoold, either throught friends, family, books and in a lot of ways by movies and the entertainment industry that there is something magical about falling in love. But after having read the above passage, I sincerely wonder, is it just the magic of having our own needs met? Feeling wanted. Having company. Fulfilling our need and desire for sex. Or is it really something about the person we fall in love with? How does one choose who he or she falls in love with??
The latter really is a curious question and so it begs for a little more explanation. I will pose it as a qustion to the reader -- Think about your relationships. How did you initially meet the person you entered into a relationship with? What was the series of events that got you there? From the time that you saw or noticed or heard from the person the first time what was in your head. For a woman -- what makes you go out wiht one guy over another? And what was your mental state at the time? What were your needs? What did you want out of the relationship? In summary, what was it the person you are in a relationship with that got you hooked?
Thinking about and even writing about the questions above scares me. It scares me to think about them because if there is any shred of truth to Frijda's statement then I fear that it may shatter a widely held illusion. It scares me because I too may subscribe to the same illusion. It is easier to live under the protective shield of an illusion. However, my guess is that there is some level of veracity to Frijda's statement. That human beings are indeed just as shallow as animals in more ways than they would like to hear of. To think that you are in a relationship with someone not because of any other reason that you are fulfilling some need for yourself would seem to suggest that the qualities of the the person who is the object of your affection do not matter. Put another way, someone loves you not for what you are, but for what you mean to them.
Falling in love, may not be a quest for waiting for the right person, but more for the right time and right environment. A time where you have a need -- loneliness, sexual need, dissatisfaction or variety (as Frijda puts it) -- and there is someone in the environment who happens to respond to your need and fulfill it. But then again don't we always have one or more of these needs? I know I do. And isn't it scary to think that this need-based dissection of falling in love could potentially explain all kinds of human behavior like love at first sight, infatuation, one-night-stands and even affairs and adultry!?(I'm assuming that is what he is referring to by the need for variety).
It is ironic that as much as people say that love is blind and there is a "soulmate" out there for everyone etc etc, at the end of it all, love itself may actually be more pragmatic than most people realize! Or is Frijda just on crack? Tell me what you think!
One of the readings for my Emotion clas was by Nico Frijda, in which he tried to formulate Laws of Emotion. These were not intended as "laws" per se, but more as guidelines about emotion and to put forth some food for thought. In his paper was the following passage:
"Data from questionnaire studies (Rombouts, 1987) suggest that [falling in love] is triggered by a specific sequence of events, in which the qualities of the love-object are of minor importance. A person is ready to fall in love because of one of a number of reasons - loneliness, sexual need, dissatisfaction, or need or variety. A object then incites interest, again for one of a number of reasons, such as novelty, attractiveness, or mere proximity. Then give the person a moment of promise, a brief response from the object that suggests interest. It may be a confidence; it may be a single glance, such as a young girl may think she received from a pop star. The give the person a brief lapse of time - anywhere between half an hour or half a day, the self-report suggests - during which fantasies can develop. After that sequence, no more than a single confirmation, real or imagined is needed to precipitate falling in love."
-- Nico H. Frijda, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands in his paper on The Laws of Emotion.
Now, I haven't had the time (yet) to go dig up the Rombouts paper and look at the data myself (would be very interesting to do this though -- I looked on PsycInfo already but my preliminary search didn't find this paper/data. If anyone finds a pointer, please do let me know), but I did feel that this is a rather bold and insightful statement which flies in the face of what all of us would like to believe. We are taught from childhoold, either throught friends, family, books and in a lot of ways by movies and the entertainment industry that there is something magical about falling in love. But after having read the above passage, I sincerely wonder, is it just the magic of having our own needs met? Feeling wanted. Having company. Fulfilling our need and desire for sex. Or is it really something about the person we fall in love with? How does one choose who he or she falls in love with??
The latter really is a curious question and so it begs for a little more explanation. I will pose it as a qustion to the reader -- Think about your relationships. How did you initially meet the person you entered into a relationship with? What was the series of events that got you there? From the time that you saw or noticed or heard from the person the first time what was in your head. For a woman -- what makes you go out wiht one guy over another? And what was your mental state at the time? What were your needs? What did you want out of the relationship? In summary, what was it the person you are in a relationship with that got you hooked?
Thinking about and even writing about the questions above scares me. It scares me to think about them because if there is any shred of truth to Frijda's statement then I fear that it may shatter a widely held illusion. It scares me because I too may subscribe to the same illusion. It is easier to live under the protective shield of an illusion. However, my guess is that there is some level of veracity to Frijda's statement. That human beings are indeed just as shallow as animals in more ways than they would like to hear of. To think that you are in a relationship with someone not because of any other reason that you are fulfilling some need for yourself would seem to suggest that the qualities of the the person who is the object of your affection do not matter. Put another way, someone loves you not for what you are, but for what you mean to them.
Falling in love, may not be a quest for waiting for the right person, but more for the right time and right environment. A time where you have a need -- loneliness, sexual need, dissatisfaction or variety (as Frijda puts it) -- and there is someone in the environment who happens to respond to your need and fulfill it. But then again don't we always have one or more of these needs? I know I do. And isn't it scary to think that this need-based dissection of falling in love could potentially explain all kinds of human behavior like love at first sight, infatuation, one-night-stands and even affairs and adultry!?(I'm assuming that is what he is referring to by the need for variety).
It is ironic that as much as people say that love is blind and there is a "soulmate" out there for everyone etc etc, at the end of it all, love itself may actually be more pragmatic than most people realize! Or is Frijda just on crack? Tell me what you think!
posted by sneaker @ 11:20 PM
1 Comments:
At 2:56 PM,
News Kitten said…
Hi Manu Bhaiya,
Interesting what you wrote. I'm eating dinner and was looking for something to read while chowing on my Chinese leftovers, and came to your blog somehow.
I agree with you and Frija on this matter -- love, and everythign else, is really just a matter of choice and necessity. The whole notion of 'falling in love' begins as infatuation and then grows into appreciation and plain habitude towards someone else.
It is a necessity, this love thing. People need to feel connected in order to feel happy and have some sense of purpose in life. Various studies have shown (I'm readign this book called "Full Catastrophe Living" and it cites a lto of this) that feeling connected gives a feeling of calmness in life and makes you heartier and more resilient in terms of dealing with disease and stress. Man is a social animal.
Interestingly enough, Erich told me that he read in some magazine while he was in Iraq that people get into long-term relationships because they need a witness to their lives. I think that's really accurate. I also feel that everyone needs someone to care for and to be cared for by someone. So this falling in love is a matter of survival, at the biological level as well, if we're going to go into passing our genes on and so on.
What I find particularly interesting is the revelation by several people I know that you have to be 'happy with your own life' before you can fall in love. I think that fits into Frija's laws quite well. Why? Simply because when you are happy with yourself and content with your accomplishments, you will be able to make a better choice for yourself to fall in love with and will be more desirable to 'higher quality people.' It's all a matter of necessity. And this is the sort of logical response I'd think you'd appreciate.
;)
Post a Comment
<< Home