Anatomija ljubavi

by Helen Fisher

Anatomija ljubavi fascinantna je knjiga (prvi put objavljena 1992.) na temu ljubavi i ljubavnih odnosa. Od tada do danas, ugledna atropologinja Helen Fisher provela je revolucionarna ispitivanja na mozgu i koristeći se najnovijim metodama snimanja mozga istražila što se u mozgu događa kada osjećamo požudu, zaljubljenost, privrženost i ljubav. U tim je istraživanjima ispitano više od 80 000 ljudi, a na uzorku više od 30 000 muškaraca i žena prikupljeni su podaci o razmjeni seksi SMS poruka, komunikaciji putem društvenih mreža, neobveznim seksualnim odnosima, prijateljima s povlasticama i drugim suvremenim trendovima udvaranja i braka. Suprotno mnogim pesimističnim razmišljanjima, Helen Fisher uvjerena je kako raznolikost komunikacije u digitalnom dobu potiče umrežavanje i ljubavne veze te predstavlja nov, znanstveno utemeljen i optimističan koncept spore ljubavi.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Science, Relationships, History, Sexuality, Love

517 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

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.

Reviews

[Charlene · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.
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.

[Michael Canoeist · Rating 1 out of 5]

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.... " Oy vey. 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. 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.

[Tara · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book, and it definitely gave me a lot to think about in terms of the biological/sociological urge to pair up and produce offspring.

The main problem in this book for me was that the writer tried too hard to convince me of her point of view. The book was written in defence of a particular theory, not as an exploration of a range of ideas.

I have no objection to the writing holding a particular viewpoint, I just prefer to find my own.

[jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you're not ready to have your illusions about romance roundly leveled by facts and science, this is not the book for you.

[Patti · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Ariadna73 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Me he reido muchísimo leyendo este libro. Cuenta desde un punto de vista científico, los vericuetos del amor romántico, y se pregunta si los animales se enamoran como nosotros los humanos, o si los humanos nos inventamos todo ese cuento del enamoramiento y en realidad solo seguimos instintos como los animales.
Lo que más recuerdo es la descripción de los comportamientos de infidelidad entre los primates, que han sido bien documentados: dos de esos monos que están ""emparejados"" en uniones estables, dejan temporalmente a sus ""parejas"" y se pierden en el bosque para aparearse sin que sus respectivos ""esposos"" se enteren. Me dió mucha risa el razonamiento de la autora con respecto a las infidelidades entre los humanos: si un alto porcentaje de hombres están siendo infieles a sus esposas, seguramente estarán siendo infieles con las mujeres de otros, y por lo tanto, esas mujeres de otros estarán siendo infieles a su vez. Yo no lo digo tan bien como ella, pero después de varios párrafos de razonamiento uno llega a la conclusión de que tanto las mujeres como los hombres son infieles (y de pronto las mujeres lo son más)... En fin, habrá que leer el libro para forjarse una opinión propia. Suerte.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is the Chief Scientific Officer of Match.com and is a published scientist with her own scientific love scale. So she knows love.

This book was first published more than 20 years ago, and then updated in 2017. The styles are clearly different. I found the modern update revealing but the arguments of the older book weak.

So why do people fall in love, get married, then some have affairs and some divorce? And then some marry again? It turns out there are 3 separate neurological systems in the brain:
1. One for romantic passionate love
2. One for sex
3. One for Long term companionship

People who are in love for a Long time have fMRI scans done which showed areas governing empathy, emotional control and positive bias of their spouse are still together 4 years after falling in love.

Women often initiate the first encounter by tilting their head, playing with their hair, looking just until the men notice them and quickly looking away, and smiling. And men don’t even know it.

Divorce peaks at 3 year, and most remarry. Heart broken people only get over it in 3 years. People with more kids are less prone to divorce, as are older people. Despite the family-wrecking effects of affairs, people still do it.

The older part tries to argue for an evolution of love. However, most animals do not ‘marry’ like humans. Only a minority are monogamous, and those only for the period between mating and young ones need care. Even chimpanzees and orang-utans do not practice it, so I think her arguments are weak here. The part about how love could have evolved, are rather boring because evidence is weak.

More interesting is her description of the tribes people, how they have a mate but often also have lovers, how their children learn about sex from the adults from a young age, and how egalitarian hunter-gatherers are. Then farming happens and women became second class citizens because of lack of independent financial power. Now in the postindustrial world, women have their own jobs and assets and so unhappy marriages end, leaving existing marriages all happier.

[Donald Powell · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Dov Zeller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Whelp, this "non fiction" book essentializes gender and sex in ways I would consider highly fictional. Also, I thought it was pretty poorly written and fyi didn't make it to the half way mark. An interesting topic with some intriguing research and poor analysis. Apparently she has a 2006 ted talk out that's not bad. Not sure I will bother watching it.

[Aurélien Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

Why do we chose a partner over others? Why do we behave in certain ways when we intend to seduce? Is monogamy natural? What about polygamy? Incest? Can love even last at all?

These questions might be from disconcerting to plain embarrassing, if not taboo, yet, the anthropologist Helen Fisher, helped by ethnology, ethology, evolutionary biology, prehistory, and neurosciences, here attempts to answer them.

It's an engrossing and enthralling read, challenging our preconceptions more than once (about love, marriage, divorce, re-marriages, sexism, and else!). The thing is, it all reads as a collection of just-so stories, and, therefore, the hypotheses she puts forward cannot but strike as being, well, dubious... Another disappointment: I was expecting more about homosexuality/bisexuality and, the topic is just brushed over in a matter of a few lines...

It's not bad; just questionable, and, far from being as enlightening as one of her other book, Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love.

[Eli Mandel · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only essential piece of history not covered in this excellent book is the development of the Kleenex.

[Adam · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sociology and sexuality fascinate me endlessly. I adore analyses of human nature unbuttoned, unrehearsed, unrefined. I love learning about and reflecting upon the tensions between our civil and animal sides and so I was eager, at long last, to dive into Ms. Fisher's analysis.

The book seemed promising for the first 100 or so pages, during which it dealt with, well, evidence -- or at least robust data. Then, for purposes that elude me, the text careened into a tautological, evolutionary fantasy land.

The main character of these flights of fancy is Lucy, aka "several hundred pieces of fossilized bone" which large parts of the scientific community, and then the world, have decided to classify as an individual, representative example of a whole class of progenitors of humanity.

For our convenience, this person has been photographed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re...
as have all of her notable relatives (aka several skulls, a knee joint, a shard of mandible, and some footprints): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...

Now, on the strength of these collected shards of bone, Ms. Fisher decided to imagine (at length) what social and sexual life might have been like for Lucy australopithecus. Dozens and dozens of pages are positively stuffed with statements like "perhaps" Lucy this, and "maybe" Lucy felt that, and phrases in the vein of we can only imagine that Lucy was motivated by X. When, at long last, all this insubstantial conjecture finally seemed to be drawing to a close, it was then used as evidence for why people are the way they are now, a la, "In the 2000's, then, we see men acting like P and women acting like Q, which makes perfect sense considering what we fantasized know that Lucy did."

This does not constitute natural history. Or, giving the author the greatest benefit of the doubt, the book mutates into a religious or mythic text for any reader who does not have the level of training that I imagine it requires to see proof in its arguments. Part of what drives me mad about the implicit attitude of a book like this is that it seems to assume either

A) that the average reader already knows all the information that is missing from the book, and which would be required for this to be a fully-functioning argument

or

B) that the average reader is too simple-minded, and will have to take on faith that the author is not crazy or playing an elaborate prank on them

or

C) that whether the average reader knows the information or not, and whether that reader can learn the information or not, the priors of the position are too plainly evident to waste valuable page space in laying them out.

I suppose this whole grievance of mine falls under the umbrella of epistemological problems. I wonder if the dilemma is that knowledge has so completely outstripped the sense-making capacity of the average individual (or maybe it's just me) that almost every category of knowledge must look like magic or mumbo jumbo to the layperson, and the layperson must take 99% of the information they encounter on faith, or if the dilemma is a meta problem: that power brokers have convinced everyone that knowledge has completely outstripped the average person. One way or another, societies seem to have absorbed the belief (whether promoted by establishment types or adopted organically in an Overton Window manner) that any information that seems confusing or obscure must be responded to in one of two ways:

1) It is a malicious lie by my enemies, and I'd better get with the program of rejecting it, lest I look like a fool
or
2) It is self-evident to everyone else, and I'd better get with the program of accepting it, lest I look like a fool

Sadly, in all cases, faith in nominal experts (whether positive or negative faith) and ignorant acceptance/rejection of incomplete arguments seems to be the primary path. Or, again, maybe it's just me.

Shall I get back to the book?

I would like to believe that no rationally-thinking person would be convinced by a lawyer who argued, "your honor, today my client is on trial for murder, but please bear in mind exhibit A, a picture of a bow tie that I have reason to believe my client once wore, and permit me to elaborate for you, in great detail, an imaginary story about how she obtained that tie which, I'm sure you'll agree with me, proves that she is not guilty of anything." Yet this is just how a significant portion of this book is composed.

A friend of mine recently entertained me with a teleological test which I believe he called, "the 1860 question." He takes issue with a lot of what passes for research and scholarship, and says that whenever he reads anything with a historical dimension, he observes writers contorting information to make the story conclude with today. As an antidote, he asks himself, "how would someone in 1860 have told this story?"

In short, my friend was talking about recency bias. There is probably no way that Ms. Fisher's book (or any book, or any person) could have avoided recency bias altogether, but it feels particularly painful to read fictional accounts of australopithecene society, concocted by a human who is a product of and participant in the 2010s, which are then used to explain how everything in human sexual history was leading up to the 2010s.

In shorter short, I grew too exasperated with this book to continue, so about halfway through, I quit. Why couldn't it just have been a book about documented human history, with recency bias?

Postscript
Because I digressed into fulminations about evolution, I'd like to give a full disclosure: I grew up in an ultraconservative environment, and in my high school biology class I was treated to a 6-week section the theme of which was, "how to debunk evolution." During and since that time, I have been extremely skeptical of many features of what I was taught, but damned if the scientific and educational communities -- not to mention our toxic, shaming culture-at-large -- make it hard to undo that conditioning.

This book is not an outlier. In print, in TV, in museums, evolution and plenty of other subjects are not explained, they are simply presented as self-evident. This leaves consumers in the awkward position of asking, "why do I feel like I'm being told and not taught? Am I the only one this doesn't make sense to? Do I need to go to college (again)?"

So, there you have it. I didn't like this book, and I don't get evolution (even though I want to believe it)!

[William Irvine · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Nicole · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm definitely conflicted on this book. There was a lot of interesting information and theories, but it also frequently felt problematic to me. Part of it was the language used. I understand that Fisher wanted to avoid using the same words over again, but I felt like she too often resorted to vocabulary whose connotations were inappropriate for a scientific work. Examples include words like dulcet to describe women's higher voices and streetwalker to specify a particular kind of prostitute. I frequently felt like she could have both chosen her words better as well as repeated her main points less doggedly and avoided the variety question altogether. Though small, I was also bothered by the book not revising Zaire (probably in the first edition) to the Congo.

I was more bothered by the section on innate differences between men and women due to evolution. While she acknowledged it can be hard to separate out social convention when determining what boys and girls do better than each other, she basically determined that there are just certain differences we can see. For example, she noted males can't thread a needle because they lack fine dexterity. Why on earth she would pick such a viciously gendered example is beyond me. It only took me a moment to think of stereotypically male past times like making model airplanes and painting small figurines to make me question whether men really struggle with that. And girls don't run and jump and throw things because they just aren't inclined to do so, which again seemed as much socially determined as not. Fisher also spent a lot of time backing up the theory that men are better than women at math naturally. She did admit there is more variation of ability within the sexes than between them, begging the question, is the difference between them statistically significant? She didn't address that.

The last area that was a little odd was the way gays and lesbians were frequently missing. When focusing on how mate selection with an eye on procreation, the choice made sense. There was a short section on possible biological determiners of homosexuality that was interesting and started making use of more recent experiments. At the beginning, though, she spent a significant amount of time on how men and women flirt and signal their interest to each other. Not once was there any data on what happens when the couples aren't heterosexual. In addition to the problems of leaving them out of the relationship equation, it simply would have been fascinating to know how their flirting patterns compare. If our flirting behavior is evolutionarily driven (as Fisher suggests), wouldn't observing gays and lesbians add valuable data to the question?

I definitely felt like I learned some interesting things, but I still feel like this book could have done better.

[Brenda · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.)

[Mary · Rating 1 out of 5]

There is one really good aspect of the book: the author uses a lot, really a lot, of interesting research. It is a rare gift to find so many scientific data in one place.

Unfortunately she then goes and makes assumptions and leaps that are neither scientific nor verifiable. Then to make things even worse she builds her hypothesis on that, what is really pure conjecture. Afterwards she makes conclusions based on those hypothesis which are based on, well, nothing at all really. At the end we are given those baseless assumptions and expected to take them for a fact... Hmm, right - sorry but it's a 'no' from me.

[Morana Mazor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Zgodan (znanstveni) pregled muško- ženskih odnosa.. Knjiga koju uvijek možeš malo prolistati i pročitati koji odlomak.

[Swati · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reviewing this book is actually a bit tricky. I think it is one of those books where our experience of it depends on our own expectations. I came here after reading another book, Sex at Dawn , and expected this to be highly biased against women's sexual autonomy. I must say I was pleasantly surprised that this wasn't the case at all.

Fisher's theory that we humans have a three prong conflicting mating strategy does seem to ring a chord with me. I think it could be a very plausible explanation of why we have a tendency to take on many partners through our life time while perpetually longing for that illusive romantic love. There is also a fair attempt at pointing out that there are many exceptions to the norm. Also, I personally did not feel that Fisher is at any point generalizing the role of women at all.

The book tries to follow a research and empirical data based deductive approach. The research of course is not rock solid and sometimes Fisher jumps into her own preset conclusions instead of following the natural flow of logic. May be she has more unpublished data that cements her conclusions, but unless she shares that in the book I am unwilling to concur with her. Some of the research is also repeat read for those already acquainted with human evolutionary storyline. But in any case, despite everything, a lot of the research on their own were interesting reads. I really like the fact that she tries to complete the time continuum. She starts at present dating scene, then goes back to 5million years and traces the story from there all the way looping back to today's age of online dating and FWBs. The book is also a treasure trove of references.

However this is not a book of exploring many different theories. It is rather a book of hypothesis testing - a process where we already pick a hypothesis and then go ahead to test if its true. Overall its a good book to start on this subject.

[Sireesha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. Loved it to the core. Many of my questions related to love and marriage have been answered. Very thorough.

[Richard Carilo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Critical Score: 4
Personal Score: 3.5
Total Score: 7.5

[Zbyszek Sokolowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Książka w zasadzie antropologiczna. Bardzo dużo tłumaczenia i opisów zarówno różnych człekokształtnych jak i przodków homo-sapiens. Generalnie interesująca, cytaty:

Woń świeżego męskiego potu podnosi u kobiet poziom LH (hormonu luteinizującego), wzmagając podniecenie. A zapach kobiecych wydzielin pochwowych, nazywanych kopulinami, może u mężczyzn pobudzić uwalnianie testosteronu, wyzwalając podniecenie – w szczególności gdy kopuliny wydzielane są w trakcie owulacji. Później, po tym aromatycznym wstępie, stymulacja genitaliów w trakcie stosunku seksualnego może zwiększyć aktywność szlaków dopaminowych w mózgu łączonych z namiętnością, potencjalnie sprzyjając przekroczeniu granicy zakochania

Większość z nas natomiast pociąga osoba, która rozwija nasze zainteresowania, idee, doświadczenia i samopostrzeganie; zjawisko to opisuje model samorozszerzania Co więcej, przyciągają nas osoby mające podobne do naszego pochodzenie etniczne i społeczne, o podobnym poziomie inteligencji, wykształcenia i zewnętrznej atrakcyjności, a także podzielające nasze wartości i cele reprodukcyjne – antropolodzy mówią tu o „dodatnim kojarzeniu selektywnym”.

Ci mężczyźni i kobiety, którzy wykazywali się w szczególności ekspresją cech związanych z układem dopaminowym, lgnęli do ludzi podobnych sobie – równie ciekawskich, pomysłowych, spontanicznych, pełnych energii, zainteresowanych nowinkami i mających otwarty umysł. Te osoby urodziły się wolne. Jedne poszukują partnera, który porzuci kanapę, by udać się z nimi na poszukiwanie przygody – w góry, na pustynie, oceany lub do miast.

Istnieją jednak pewne dane na temat trwania tego zjawiska. Tennov mierzyła czas utrzymywania się miłości od momentu zauroczenia po „wrażenie obojętności” wobec jej dawnego obiektu. Wysnuła taki oto wniosek: „Najczęściej występujący, jak również uśredniony interwał to okres obejmujący od około 18 miesięcy do trzech lat”.

Z jednym wyjątkiem: u uczestników, którzy od niedawna doświadczali miłości, wykryliśmy aktywność w specyficznym obszarze mózgu powiązanym z uczuciem lęku, natomiast u osób żyjących w okrzepłych już związkach tę aktywność zastępowała nowa – w obszarach mających związek z poczuciem spokoju i hamowaniem bólu. Acevedo oraz jej współpracownicy sądzą obecnie, że u kochanków z wieloletnim stażem uczucia intensywności, koncentracji i popędu seksualnego wynikające z miłości romantycznej mogą się utrzymywać. Zanika natomiast stan obsesji i otumaniającej ekstazy.

Przeciętna kobieta nie jest w stanie w ciągu życia wydać na świat więcej niż dwadzieścioro pięcioro dzieci. Palmę pierwszeństwa dzierży tu pewna Rosjanka, która urodziła sześćdziesięcioro dziewięcioro dzieci z dwudziestu siedmiu ciąż, przeważnie mnogich. To jednak fenomen. Większość kobiet w kulturach zbieracko-łowieckich wydawała na świat nie więcej niż pięcioro dzieci

Co ciekawe, wiele spośród takich młodych par zakochuje się w sobie. Dobrze udokumentowano to w Indiach. Hinduskie dzieci uczy się, że miłość małżeńska jest sensem życia. Dlatego mężczyźni i kobiety często wchodzą w życie małżeńskie z entuzjazmem, spodziewając się, że ich miłość rozkwitnie. I rzeczywiście często tak właśnie bywa. Jak tłumaczą to sami hindusi: „Najpierw bierzemy ślub, potem się zakochujemy”

Na pierwszym miejscu jest stopień usatysfakcjonowania obecnym związkiem. Jeśli uważasz, że twoje potrzeby nie są w pełni zaspokojone, nie czujesz miłości czy wsparcia ze strony partnera i uważasz swoje życie seksualne za niewystarczające, jesteś bardziej skłonny do zdrady. Podatność na cudzołóstwo podsyca też nuda. Brak komunikacji z małżonkiem lub przewaga komunikatów negatywnych nad pozytywnymi prowadzi do zdrady seksualnej

Tymczasem gdyby zapytać Clellana Forda i Franka Beacha, seksuologów prowadzących swoje badania w latach pięćdziesiątych XX wieku, obaj odparliby: „W tych społecznościach, które nie posiadają podwójnych standardów w sprawach dotyczących seksu i które dopuszczają różne konfiguracje związków, kobiety korzystają z nadarzających się okazji równie chętnie jak mężczyźni”

Wszędzie tam, gdzie mężczyźni i kobiety nie są od siebie ekonomicznie zależni, złe małżeństwa można zakończyć – i często tak się dzieje.

Związek pomiędzy niezależnością ekonomiczną a odsetkiem rozwodów jest zauważalny w wielu kulturach

Tam, gdzie kobiety i mężczyźni mogą od siebie odejść, ludzie nieszczęśliwi w związku często korzystają z tej sposobności. A potem tradycyjnie ponownie biorą ślub.

Najlepszymi prognostykami stabilności małżeńskiej są: podobieństwo cech osobowości, wspólne nawyki, podobne zainteresowania, wspólnota wartości, wspólne spędzanie czasu wolnego oraz to samo grono przyjaciół.

„Pomocne jest również, gdy ślub bierze się w wieku dojrzałym, jest się bardzo zakochanym, ma się białą skórę i pochodzi z bliskiej sobie, kochającej się rodziny”. Brak tych czynników stanowi o większym ryzyku.

Psychologowie twierdzą, że ludzie nieustępliwi tworzą niestabilne związki. Terapeuci powiedzą, że jeśli więzi łączące parę przeważają nad siłami, które próbują ją rozdzielić, ludzie są bardziej skłonni pozostać ze sobą. Istotny jest również sposób, w jaki ludzie dostosowują się do siebie, jak negocjują, walczą, słuchają się i przekonują. Tam, gdzie pole do kompromisu jest niewielkie, małżeństwa częściej się rozpadają.

Wzorce te są obecne do dziś. Mężczyźni i kobiety często płodzą pierwsze dziecko z jednym partnerem, kolejne zaś z innym. Mężczyźni wciąż żenią się z młodszymi kobietami, kobiety zaś wychodzą ponownie za mąż za mężczyzn, których oceniają jako bardziej opiekuńczych i wspierających. Mimo że taki „odzysk” partnerów może powodować skomplikowanie relacji społecznych, z ewolucyjnego punktu widzenia posiadanie dzieci z więcej niż jednym osobnikiem niesie za sobą genetyczne korzyści.

Silne uczucie euforii związanej z początkiem miłości zaczyna z czasem zanikać. Gdy minie ekscytacja i zachwyt nowością, rozkwita łagodniejsze uczucie głębokiej jedności. Psycholog Elaine Hatfield nazywa to „miłością partnerską”, którą definiuje jako „uczucie radości związanej z przebywaniem w towarzystwie osoby, której życie w znacznym stopniu splotło się z twoim". Uważam, że miłość partnerska powstaje w odrębnym układzie w mózgu – odpowiadającym za przywiązanie.

Każdy z tych trzech podstawowych popędów odpowiada za inne zachowania, uczucia, nadzieje i marzenia. Każdy związany jest też w głównej mierze z innymi neuroprzekaźnikami. Za pożądanie, tak u kobiet, jak i u mężczyzn, odpowiada przede wszystkim testosteron.

Miłość romantyczną należy łączyć z naturalnym środkiem pobudzającym, dopaminą, a być może również z adrenaliną i niskim poziomem aktywności serotoniny. Uczucie głębokiego przywiązania natomiast wywoływane jest głównie przez neuropeptydy: oksytocynę i wazopresynę.

Stres wzmaga reakcję dopaminową. Gdy jest silny, wyzwala szereg reakcji fizjologicznych, m.in. nasilając aktywność dopaminy i adrenaliny w ośrodkowym układzie nerwowym oraz hamując wydzielanie serotoniny; zjawisko to nosi nazwę reakcji stresowej

Ogólne szlaki dla układów dopaminy, wazopresyny i oksytocyny – odpowiedzialnych za pociąg i przywiązanie u ludzi – odgrywają podobną rolę u nornika preriowego i człowieka. Łączy nas nawet podobieństwo genów układu wazopresynowego, co wskazuje, że analogiczny układ biologiczny ma udział w powstawaniu przywiązania u człowieka.

Grube męskie penisy mogły się pojawić w procesie ewolucji po prostu dlatego, że przodkinie Lucy oraz ich koleżanki lubiły grube penisy. Fallus o dużej średnicy rozciąga mięśnie zewnętrznej jednej trzeciej pochwy, odciągając napletek łechtaczki i poprzez tarcie ułatwiając osiągnięcie orgazmu. Ten zaś mógł powodować wessanie nasienia przez szyjkę macicy do jej wnętrza i zwiększać w ten sposób szansę zapłodnienia.

Przyczyny najpewniej są w znacznej mierze ewolucyjne. Według Singha kobiety, u których stosunek obwodu talii do bioder jest zbliżony do 70%, częściej rodzą dzieci. Mają bowiem właściwie rozłożoną tkankę tłuszczową – ze względu na wysoki poziom estrogenów w stosunku do testosteronu. Kobiety, których sylwetka znacząco odbiega od tych proporcji, trudniej i później zachodzą w ciążę, częściej też ronią. Kobiety o sylwetce jabłka, gruszki czy prostokąta częściej cierpią na choroby przewlekłe, takie jak cukrzyca, nadciśnienie, choroby serca, niektóre nowotwory i choroby układu krążenia. Są także bardziej podatne na zaburzenia osobowości.

Medal ten ma jednak dwie strony. Całowanie może wzmocnić związek. Mężczyźni i kobiety w społeczeństwach Zachodu twierdzą, że pocałunki zbliżają ich emocjonalnie do partnera. Nie można odmówić im racji. Całowanie się z osobą, z którą pozostaje się w długotrwałym związku, zwiększa aktywność oksytocyny, neuroprzekaźnika mającego związek z zaufaniem, przywiązaniem i poczuciem wspólnoty emocjonalnej. Pocałunki obniżają również poziom kortyzolu, hormonu stresu – co także przyczynia się do wzmocnienia uczucia przywiązania. Są nawet w stanie spowodować wzrost tętna i ciśnienia krwi, zwężenie źrenic i pogłębienie oddechu – aspekty reakcji seksualnej, które mogą zachęcić do odbycia stosunku z ukochaną osobą. A jak ci wiadomo, orgazm przynosi gwałtowny wyrzut oksytocyny – jeszcze silniej wzmacniając więź.

Uważa się, że najlepsze, co można zrobić dla dzieci, to obdarzyć swojego partnera miłością. Może dlatego że całowanie wzmacnia uczucie przywiązania do drugiej osoby, w subtelny sposób przyczynia się również do zwiększenia zdolności reprodukcyjnych i rodzicielskich.

Kobiecy orgazm mógł także ułatwiać zajście w ciążę z Księciem. Szczytowanie powoduje rytmiczne skurcze macicy, które prowadzą do wessania nasienia do jej wnętrza poprzez szyjkę macicy. Orgazm odpręża kobietę, tym samym motywując ją do pozostania w pozycji leżącej – co utrudnia nasieniu wypływanie z pochwy. Rzeczywiście: po seksie kobiety zachowują więcej nasienia mężczyzn, którzy dali im orgazm.

Pozostanę więc przy niepopularnym poglądzie, że kobiecy orgazm wyewoluował w określonym celu: aby zachęcać kobiety do seksu z Księciem zamiast z Dzikusem oraz do inicjowania i podtrzymywania związku ze zdrowym, opiekuńczym partnerem reprodukcyjnym. Krótko mówiąc, wyewoluował być może nie po to, by kobiety miały więcej potomstwa, ale po to, by wybierały partnerów lepiej przystosowanych, zarówno pod względem psychicznym, jak i fizycznym, którzy zapewnialiby im wsparcie w wychowywaniu dzieci w stabilnym związku – tym samym znacząco zwiększając szanse ich przeżycia.

Kobiety kłamią na temat swojej masy ciała – to kolejna nieuświadomiona strategia rozrodcza. Jak wiemy, kobieta, której obwód w talii stanowi około 70% obwodu bioder, ma odpowiednie proporcje estrogenów, testosteronu i innych hormonów, by wydać na świat zdrowe potomstwo. Pociąg do kobiet o jędrnej, kształtnej figurze jest więc męską cechą przystosowawczą.

Obecnie biegłość kobiet w dziedzinie mowy wiązana jest także z estrogenami. Badając dwieście kobiet w wieku reprodukcyjnym, psychologowie ustalili, że w połowie cyklu miesięcznego, gdy poziom estrogenów osiąga maksymalne wartości, poziom umiejętności werbalnych także osiąga swój szczyt

Nie oznacza to wcale, że chłopcy nie potrafią się wysłowić ani że wszyscy chłopcy ustępują pod względem umiejętności werbalnych wszystkim dziewczynkom. Mężczyźni są różni; kobiety także. Zasadniczo różnice w obrębie jednej płci są większe niż te pomiędzy płciami

Kobiety posiadają przeciętnie więcej włókien nerwowych łączących obie półkule mózgu. Występuje też u nich więcej odległych połączeń w obrębie każdej z półkul. Mężczyźni natomiast posiadają więcej krótkich połączeń pomiędzy blisko położonymi obszarami mózgu w każdej półkuli. A zatem mózg kobiecy jest – przeciętnie – lepiej połączony, podczas gdy mózg mężczyzny – bardziej poszufladkowany

Psychologowie zauważyli jednak, że kiedy kobiety myślą, gromadzą więcej danych, łączą je w bardziej złożone wzory i rozważają więcej sposobów postępowania. Kobiety uogólniają, syntetyzują, do wszystkich swoich rozważań podchodzą z bardziej globalnej perspektywy. Nie myślą liniowo, lecz sieciowo – o całej siatce czynników. Dla odmiany mężczyźni mają skłonność do koncentrowania się na celu; odrzucają zbędne informacje i w procesie decyzyjnym poruszają się bardziej liniowo, bardziej przyczynowo – nazywam to myśleniem etapowym.

Myślenie sieciowe dało kobiecie inne naturalne przewagi. Pozwoliło jej lepiej tolerować niejednoznaczność. Najprawdopodobniej przyczyniło się również do psychicznej elastyczności kobiet, ich skłonności do wybiegania myślami daleko naprzód oraz ich żywej wyobraźni

Nie istniała żadna społeczność, w której kobiety dominowałyby nad mężczyznami w większości sfer życia społecznego. Mity o Amazonkach, legendy o matriarchatach rządzonych aksamitną pięścią okazały się dokładnie tym, czym były: fikcją. W 67% spośród wszystkich kultur (głównie ludów rolniczych) mężczyźni mieli władzę nad kobietami w większości obszarów życia. W całkiem sporej liczbie społeczności (30%) mężczyźni i kobiety mieli względnie równą pozycję – w szczególności wśród ogrodników i ludów zbieracko-łowieckich. A w 50% kultur nieformalne wpływy kobiet znacząco przekraczały te, które wynikałyby z porządku społecznego.

Czy mężczyźni w naturalny sposób wykazują skłonność do budowania hierarchii i walki o lepszą pozycję, podczas gdy kobiety tworzą bardziej egalitarne, stabilne kliki? Tak. Wskazuje na to wiele danych.

Niezbędną pomocą służyły również babki – mające swój udział w ewolucji uniwersalnej kobiecej cechy: menopauzy. Tak zwana hipoteza babki głosi, że wraz z menopauzą kobiety w średnim wieku mogły zrezygnować z rodzenia kolejnych dzieci na rzecz pomocy w wychowywaniu wnucząt635. Jakość ponad ilość. Dzięki „wczesnemu wyhamowaniu” kobiety zachowywały siły, unikały rywalizacji rozrodczej z własnymi córkami i skupiały energię na pomaganiu swojemu potomstwu w przetrwaniu.

Rolnictwo oparte na orce przyniosło kobietom ogólne podporządkowanie, powołując do życia cały wachlarz zachowań seksualnych i społecznych, w tym powstanie podwójnych standardów.

Na przykład w badaniu z udziałem 350 kobiet te, które w życiu płodowym były wystawione na oddziaływanie wysokich dawek testosteronu, rzadziej wychodziły za mąż, miewały mniej dzieci, przedkładały karierę ponad rodzinę, podejmowały zawody zdominowane przez mężczyzn i zdobywały wyższą pozycję zawodową. U kobiet zajmujących stanowiska specjalistyczne, techniczne i zarządcze poziom testosteronu jest na ogół wyższy niż u urzędniczek, gospodyń domowych i kobiet pracujących w usługach

Niemniej jednak młodzi mężczyźni posiadają przynajmniej siedem razy więcej testosteronu niż młode kobiety. I podobnie jak samce wielu innych gatunków, mężczyźni na całym świecie są bardziej skłonni do agresywnej rywalizacji o rangę – poświęcają swój czas, przyjemności, zdrowie, bezpieczeństwo, uczucia, czas wolny i życie rodzinne, by osiągnąć pozycję związaną z wysoką rangą, autorytetem i władzą.

[Parvu Andreea · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Asia · Rating 2 out of 5]

Mam mnóstwo uwag do tej książki. Mocno się zastanawiałam, czy nie dać jej jednej gwiazdki, ale się powstrzymałam ze względu na całkiem rozsądnie brzmiącą część wniosków z ostatniego rozdziału. Ma multum przypisów, co się bardzo chwali. Natomiast zdecydowaną większość wniosków samej autorki warto potraktować z dużym dystansem i bardzo krytycznie. Nowe wydanie "Anatomii miłości" zostało w Polsce wydane w 2017, a przez te 4 lata książka strasznie się zestarzała. Czasem nie byłam pewna, czy fragment, który czytam, nie pochodzi z poprzedniej wersji książki, sprzed 30 lat. Książka prezentuje mega heteronormatywną perspektywę, która próbuje znaleźć pewne uniwersalne prawdy dotyczące miłości, wtrącając w dwóch miejscach książki, że w sumie osoby homoseksualne mają podobnie. O transpłciowości nie ma nawet wzmianki, cała książka przyjmuje istnienie dwóch płci. Wiem, że przez ostatnie kilka lat świadomość transpłciowości zdecydowanie się zmienia, ale skoro wspomniano o osobach homoseksualnych, to zupełnie pominięcie transpłciowości i niebinarności uważam za znaczące. W ogóle mam wrażenie, że to uniwersalistycznej podejście do miłości kompletnie się obecnie dezaktualizuje. Autorka próbuje przez całą książkę przekonać czytelników do swojej tezy, że ludzie są z natury seryjnie monogamicznymi cudzołożnikami, specjalnie dobierając przykłady potwierdzające jej zdanie, a czasem wręcz czyniąc jakieś logiczne fikołki i coś tam sobie rozważając ("może nasi przodkowie mieli tak? a może tak? pewnie tak" aha, dzięki). Natomiast jeśli przyjrzeć się przekazywanym przez nią treściom krytycznie, czasem mieszają one pojęcia, tworzą nadmierne uogólnienia, a autorka dochodzi do wniosków, które bardzo łatwo obalić, nawet podpierając się podawanymi przez nią przykładami. Chociaż książka wydaje się dość porządną cegłą, sporą część zajmują konserwatywne i mononormatywne poglądy autorki, pomijające w ogóle ludzką różnorodność. Dodatkowo, czasem autorka sugeruje, jakoby ewolucja człowieka zatrzymała się kilkaset tysięcy lat temu. Byłoby to osobliwe, bo obecnie przyznaje się, że skutki ciągle trwającej ewolucji gatunków można dostrzec już po 30 pokoleniach, czyli w przypadku człowieka po jakichś 900 latach. "Anatomię miłości" uważam za książkę momentami wręcz szkodliwą, bo niezbyt krytyczny czytelnik sugerujący się doświadczeniem naukowym autorki i liczbą przypisów może uznać jej opinie za jednoznacznie potwierdzone badaniami, przy czym w wielu miejscach są to raczej luźne rozważania. Po przeczytaniu tej książki czuję się wręcz zrażona do antropologii jako dziedziny nauki, chociaż pozostaje we mnie iskierka nadziei, że młodsi antropologowie przejawiają bardziej otwarte poglądy niż Helen Fisher i nie cała ta nauka polega na luźnych wnioskach opartych na wybranych przez siebie dowodach. Po tym, jak polubiłam autorkę za świetne TED Talki, czuję się zawiedziona tą książką i oszukana dobrym wrażeniem, jakie zrobiła na mnie niegdyś Helen Fisher. Polecam tę pozycje jedynie ciekawym i krytycznym czytelnikom potrafiącym zachować stoicki spokój. Albo konserwatywnym osobom, które szukają lektury, która wpasuje się w ich obraz świata. Tylko takim nie za mocno konserwatywnym, bo mogą się zdziwić, że dla gatunku ludzkiego za normę uważać można więcej niż jednego partnera w życiu i zdradę, a osoby homoseksualne kochają tak samo jak heteroseksualne (szok i niedowierzanie!).

[Mathias · Rating 3 out of 5]

Becoming one flesh is the final stage of escalation in the mating game, and the meaning of thus is total synchronization of imitation requiring the full recruitment of attention which is achieved by the laws that govern human nature integrated with the particular biography of the individual person.

Strikingly, the significance of body language in human communication is displayed, a cliché in intellectual reasoning but still massively omitted in common sense talk about these issues. The hallmark of great litterature is of course the capacity to describe body language in verbal language, interpreting its perceptual meaning. The medical branch of psychiatry does exactly this, namely doing an assessment of the body language as well as verbal language, drawing conclusions as to the perceptual content of the subject and its intention to commit suicide, for instance.

I think the same attitude is properly employed also in generic human communication, and when this pertains to communication between the sexes, aswell as among the sexes, this will indicate the internal motifs of the human person which is unconcious, but it will reveal the truths about human nature that we participate in the girardian model of mimetic desire.

Swedish religion is completely oblivious to authentic human communication, as it is riddled with nervous collective engagement rather than healthy social behavior. This is a systemic problem probably caused by the evil teaching of Carl Olof Rosenius, false prophecy, constituting an opiate for the masses that has caused generations of swedes to waste their human potential in service of false mythology

Lastly, I take note of that Christ commands lifelong monogamy, this is why I always had this attitude in approach to women. Imitation is furthermore the cornerstone of morality, and the laws of religion are constructions of taboo symbols to avoid violence. The birth of the symbol in hominization is through the death of the victim, ( Christ is the A and the O , as told by the book of revelations ).

[Muhannad · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Andy Bigley · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Caitlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Lauren Keys · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating look into how we mate by a leading anthropologist and the current consultant on such matters for Match.com.....if you are fascinated with romance and why it happens, why we are attracted to some and not to others, and why there is divorce and adultery then this book is a treasure of information going all the way back into our human history and comparing humans to other species. If you are not as interested in the in-depth look into the primates you can easily skip those sections without missing the continuity (which I did since I had very little interest in those sections). So if you find yourself fascinated, then bored--skip and finish it gets good in various parts and is well worth finishing.

[Ria · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Todd Cheng · Rating 5 out of 5]

A much better read than the famed Men are From Mars and Woman are from Venus. The author in easily clear narrative uncovers the current state of the scientific knowledge on human relationships. It is a dense delve into the topic. The author at times revisits activities across 200,000 years, the studies of other mammals, and biochemistry to drive home the norms and understanding of intimacies today. This work adds a richer appreciation for all the subtle catalyst of human connections that hijack and cloud the rational thoughts.