![](/uploads/1/2/7/5/127597334/329278857.png)
First published in 1992, Helen Fisher’s “fascinating” ( New York Times) Anatomy of Love quickly became a classic. Since then, Fisher has conducted pioneering brain research on lust, romantic love, and attachment; gathered data on more than 80,000 people to explain why you love who you love; and collected information on more than 30,000 men and women on sexting, hooking up, First published in 1992, Helen Fisher’s “fascinating” ( New York Times) Anatomy of Love quickly became a classic. Since then, Fisher has conducted pioneering brain research on lust, romantic love, and attachment; gathered data on more than 80,000 people to explain why you love who you love; and collected information on more than 30,000 men and women on sexting, hooking up, friends with benefits, and other current trends in courtship and marriage. And she presents a new, scientifically based and optimistic perspective on relationships in our digital age—what she calls “slow love.”This is a cutting-edge tour de force that traces human family life from its origins in Africa over 20 million years ago to the Internet dating sites and bedrooms of today. And it’s got it all: the copulatory gaze and other natural courting ploys; the who, when, where, and why of adultery; love addictions; her discovery of four broad chemically based personality styles and what each seeks in romance; the newest data on worldwide (biologically based) patterns of divorce; how and why men and women think differently; the real story of women, men, and power; the rise—and fall—of the sexual double standard; and what brain science tells us about how to make and keep a happy partnership. I am not sure where to start.
This book was one colossal dichotomy. If Fisher had presented her evidence in a responsible manner, this would have been a 5 star book all the way. Game manual madden 07 gameboy advance rom. 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 I am not sure where to start.
Finalmente, utiliza toda esa informacion para hacer algunas predicciones sobre los vinculos del manana y, si helen fisher anatomia del amor pdf como especie, de los proximos milenios. Clipping is a handy way to collect important anatomia del amor helen fisher pdf you want to go back to later. Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray (Completely Revised and Updated with a New Introduction) Helen Fisher on.
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!!!). Helen Fisher sounded so interesting years ago on a NPR interview, I made a note to read this book. Took me 10 or 15 years to get to it.
Maybe that was the problem, although I think not. Her technique is to discuss mating practices across myriad species, and meld that with statistics on human behavior. OK, fair enough, although there is vast room for selection bias. But after doing all that, she offers her theory with nothing more than: 'Perhaps humans have the same impulse as the tse-tse fly in Helen Fisher sounded so interesting years ago on a NPR interview, I made a note to read this book.
Took me 10 or 15 years to get to it. Maybe that was the problem, although I think not. Her technique is to discuss mating practices across myriad species, and meld that with statistics on human behavior. OK, fair enough, although there is vast room for selection bias.
But after doing all that, she offers her theory with nothing more than: 'Perhaps humans have the same impulse as the tse-tse fly in that. Almost every chapter ends like that. Yes, perhaps we do, Dr. Fisher - OR, perhaps we don't!
All that research, much of which is more widely known today than when she was writing this, seemed only a cover for interjecting her own thought. Which did not necessarily seem based on the research as a whole; rather, on just one aspect of it that she had seized upon for that particular point she wanted to make. I slogged and slogged through it, repeatedly disappointed by this technique, and finally reached the last chapter 'Sex in the Future,' and could not make myself pick the book up again. I picked this up on the recommendation of Rebecca Schinsky from Book Riot. As a psychology major, she always seeks out smart nonfiction titles. Fisher originally published this in 1992, and while I had wanted to read that edition for some time, the online dating and texting environment of modern times has made many parts obsolete. In the prologue, Fisher admits that most of this book is new.Quick note: Don't let the length of this text put you off.
It's technically only 320 pages, with the 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. 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 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. 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 I would have given this one 4 stars except that the book was written in 1994 so I had this constant nagging that some of the info may have changed in the intervening years. She mostly looks back to our evolutionary past to make sense of monogamy, adultery, and divorce so I don't know how much that info has changed. She also looks at present traditional societies to look for clues.The basic idea I took away from this book is that serial monogamy with plenty of adultery thrown in seems to be our historic pattern (with exceptions of course - notably farming societies). How much this will change over time (if at all) remains to be seen.I kind of enjoyed reading the last chapter where she tries to take an educated guess at how some of these things will change in the future.
Her future at the time (1994) is our present so it was interesting seeing where she hit the mark and where she missed it.A few of my favourite quotes from the book:p.256 'No one has to teach you to feel guilty; people just teach you what to feel guilty about.' P.258 'They also developed a conscience, 'the still small voice,' as Alexander puts it, 'that tells us how far we can go in serving our own interests without incurring intolerable risks.' 'p.304 'The famiily is the most adaptable of all human institutions, changing with every social demand. The family does not break in a storm as oak or pine trees do, but bends before the wind like the bamboo tree in Oriental tales and springs up again.' ' (Will be interesting to see how 'family' bends in the future.).
This was an interesting, if somewhat unsettling, read. In all honesty, I would recommend Dr. Fisher's 2006 TED talk-which was very compelling and succinct-over her book. She's able to elaborate more on the technical details of her work in 'Anatomy of Love,' and while she never loses focus on her thesis that humans have and always will fall in love, stray, and fall in love again, the poignancy of the whole process is somehow mitigated.
Whitewashed adobe chapter summary. I felt a little hollow after finishing the final chapter, 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. Caveat: Have just read the 1992 edition and learned (after the event) Helen Fisher has updated this extensively in light of new evidenceAs 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 Caveat: Have just read the 1992 edition and learned (after the event) Helen Fisher has updated this extensively in light of new evidenceAs a school sixth-former I was lucky enough to attend a series of extra-curricular classes on comparative religion and alternative approaches to ethics. Whilst I was enthralled to learn for the fist time the tenets of the world’s major religions - plus what the Stoics, Epicureans and Hedonists had to say; there was a problem.
The classes were taught by a dye-in-the-wool Christian. As a result, whatever ideas we examined, the conclusion was always that they were inferior to Christianity. ‘Christianity is the answer now what’s the question?’ At certain points in Helen Fisher’s book I felt the same way. Her haste in concluding that monogamy is the ‘most natural’ way for our species to live let down what was an otherwise interesting and informative book.The monogamy hard sell starts with Fisher speculating that our australopithecine ancestors (probably, not definitely) would have been better off in exclusive sexual relationships because their bipedalism meant that the females’ hands would have been devoted almost entirely to the need to carry or hold infants. Dependence on a single male partner for the period of the offspring’s infancy was ‘obviously’ the way these creatures solved this problem.
The australopithecines existed, incidentally, around four million years ago, so no soft tissue (and very few fossils) survive to provide clues re their reproductive anatomy, nor would the comparisons Fisher makes between modern chimpanzee lifestyles and those of the australopithecines bear much scrutiny – the evolutionary timescales of the two species being separated by millions of years.It must be admitted that the book was written in 1992. Ideas in this area have moved along a great deal since. Yet, Fisher does know about and briefly refer to sperm competition – cited today as a pointer to promiscuity. However, she makes nothing of it, not factoring it into her arguments either for or against her case for monogamy being natural.I did enjoy the author’s ethological perspective, particularly her comparisons of what other creatures get up to in order to cheat on their primary partner. Disappointingly she didn’t look at the biological strategies of creatures like dolphins who don’t fit her monogamous model. Like humans, dolphin infants take years to grow up, presumably because of their large brain sizes. Mothers are supported by the other females in the pod as well as a subset of the males who protect the female group - often from other unattached males.
Dolphins demonstrate a successful social approach to rearing dependents without resorting to exclusive pairing. She also cites Chimpanzee behaviour far more than that of the far more promiscuous and matriarchal bonobos. Dutch primatologist, Frans de Waal, is worth quoting here: ‘Just imagine if we had never heard of chimpanzees and had known bonobos first. We would at present most likely believe that early hominids lived in female-centred societies, in which sex served important social functions and in which warfare was rare of absent.’In the penultimate chapter of Anatomy of Love, Fisher looks at the pairing habits of!Kung tribespeople in the Kalahari and the Mehinaku in the Amazon basin. Although she fails to discuss tribes like the Canela or the Mosui - who operate perfectly viable, and entirely non-monogamous, sexual cultures - I enjoyed this part of the book most. Amongst both peoples, whilst there are one-to-one marriages, multiple extra-marital affairs are common, if not ubiquitous.
Discovery of an affair can result in a major ruckus – even divorce - yet at some level all members of these tribes must know their partner is ‘getting up to something somewhere with someone’. Fisher combines these observations with others about the frequency of divorce, particularly amongst people of reproductive age with less than two offspring – what she cites, based on statistical analysis, as an evolutionary ‘four year itch’. What she gives us is a different version of ‘monogamy’, one based on not-very-exclusive pair-bonding. One that its participants are half aware of, but prefer not to confront. This is a model of monogamy I had not particularly considered before, and I am grateful to Helen Fisher for introducing me to it in Anatomy of Love. I'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 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.
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 I was thinking for a couple of times to buy or not to buy this book.
Reading the title, my first impression was “not another love book”:) but after seeing Helen performing on the stage, she convinced me.Then I knew it was all about science, evolution and anthropology. It is a perfect combination between real facts, how other species react in various situations. We humans, are not that special:) it is clear that we evolved together with all other species and we still have a lot of things to learn from them.Of course there are some theories I don’t agree with, but this book should be read by open minded and not religious people:)I definitely recommend this book. It was difficult to put this book down, especially for a non-fiction book.
Helen Fisher writes like a skilled story teller, and a tiems poetic. Yet the topic is anthropology and human behavious. She managed to turn her solid research into an entertaining read. At many points of the book, it did feel like the information was an overload of what should have been elementary knowledge taught in schools. Not only does she manage to pull together from all ends of research, but she, as a reseracher of It was difficult to put this book down, especially for a non-fiction book. Helen Fisher writes like a skilled story teller, and a tiems poetic. Yet the topic is anthropology and human behavious.
She managed to turn her solid research into an entertaining read. At many points of the book, it did feel like the information was an overload of what should have been elementary knowledge taught in schools. Not only does she manage to pull together from all ends of research, but she, as a reseracher of her own right, includes her own locial and thought out ideas as well.The books discussed what the tag line reads: the natural history of human romantic relations.
The begining describes current existing statistics and patterns of human love, courting, pick up, marriage, cheating, and divorce. It then tells the story of our anthropological history, and brings in evidence from other animal reserach, including chimps, gorillas, and birds. It tries with convincing arguments to explain how and why we have these existing patterns. Then it attempts to predict what we can expect in the near future in the macro patterns of human relations.The only infomation I thought this book was missing was what data was collected after the original publication date. What patterns can we brings in from the 1990 and the early 2000s. I believe the 2nd edition is warranted at this point. One of the longer reads I've completed on love, Fisher builds a compelling case that despite our best intentions, evolution has encoded us to move in and out of pair-bonding relationships for most of our lives, especially during fertile child rearing years.
Nature adopts what works for survival of the species and in the case of emotional love, feelings aren't considered. Depending on where you're at in your life and what state your relationship(s) is (are) in (I expect somewhere in the range of One of the longer reads I've completed on love, Fisher builds a compelling case that despite our best intentions, evolution has encoded us to move in and out of pair-bonding relationships for most of our lives, especially during fertile child rearing years. Nature adopts what works for survival of the species and in the case of emotional love, feelings aren't considered. Depending on where you're at in your life and what state your relationship(s) is (are) in (I expect somewhere in the range of new romance to just dumped), you will read through the chapters with interest, alarm, hope, humor, and amazement. All-in-all, a very good read especially if you are fascinated by the science of love and its role in propagating human and primate societies. If you're looking for a relationship guide or other 'find your soulmate' self help book, you should probably spend time elsewhere, as the research and conclusions presented can be long.
I purchased a hardback copy for access to the data tables that support Fisher's position. Much of the information presented I had already surmised and even written about it in the past. However, it’s a whole different matter to read something from the perspective of a biological anthropologist. She explains it clearly, which helps me to reinforce my educated guesses and understand our common nature, in spite of different cultural influences and morals.
Helen Fisher uses her studies in hominid evolution and comparative biology to illustrate and give evidence to our current matingMuch of the information presented I had already surmised and even written about it in the past. However, it’s a whole different matter to read something from the perspective of a biological anthropologist.
She explains it clearly, which helps me to reinforce my educated guesses and understand our common nature, in spite of different cultural influences and morals. Helen Fisher uses her studies in hominid evolution and comparative biology to illustrate and give evidence to our current mating behaviors. She compares current love habits to those of other species as well as to more primitive versions of homo sapiens millions of years ago. She also discusses some of our most deep-seated morals as she examines social and religious evolution, and how it has influenced modern opinions on relationships, gender issues, marriage and sex. It is basically a biological and cultural history of sex.I can tell Fisher is well-versed in the classics, which is something I highly appreciate.
She opens every chapter with an insightful quote from classical literature. The first chapter, for example, opens with a quote which I believe summarizes the concept of the entire book. From one of the poems by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: “Moved by the force of love,/ fragments of the world seek out one another/ so that a world may be.”In the introduction, Fisher clarifies as a disclaimer: “Along the way I make many generalizations. Neither your behavior nor mine fits all patterns I will describe. Why should it? There is no reason to expect a tight correlation between all human actions and general rules of human nature.
I focus on the predominant patterns, rather than on the exceptions.” Good reminder. She also warns: “I make no effort to be ‘politically correct. Nature designed men and women to work together. But I cannot pretend they are alike. They are not alike. And I have given evolutionary and biological explanations for their differences where I find them appropriate.” You can agree or disagree, she only presents her educated guesses based on her research.
Finally, in the introduction she says that she is “certainly not advocating infidelity or desertion; rather, I am trying to understand these disturbing facts of human life.” I find it fascinating to know about the roots of cultural habits. I want to know when they started and why, and not just accept a belief because authority (parental, religious and political) figures say so.For example, if you ever wondered why until recently there was a double standard between men and women, in which men are allowed many things that would be punishable by death in women (still the case in more archaic cultures)- well, look no further. One of the events that changed everything for women in history was the introduction of agriculture some few thousand years ago. Before that, humans led a nomadic lifestyle in which both men and women contributed more or less equally, and both enjoyed the same amount of freedoms and privileges. (Of course, there is no such thing as complete equality or a perfect 50/50 on any balance give and take, it all balances out in the end, more or less. In my opinion, those who seek complete 50/50 balance 100% of the time will always be disappointed because life doesn’t work that way).
However, when humans learned to plow the land and grow food, they began to settle down in one place. They became tied to homes, land, and spouses. Much of the farming tools required men’s strength, so women were no longer independent gatherers. Due to the needs of the new economy, which relied mainly on men's strength with the plow, women were now judged as inferior to men. Men- their politicians and their priests started to make the rules according to their own convenience.It’s amazing that so many of our modern-day beliefs of right and wrong stem from those twisted man-made rules that were established with the introduction of agriculture. I know most people don’t follow books like The Rules anymore (creepy to think some people still do!), yet there is still much of the same conservative feeling in the background of our liberal ways.
We follow these rules and judge others based on these rules as if they were eternal truths rather than relics of our recent agricultural past “when women were pawns in elaborate property exchanges at marriage and their value depended on their ‘purity.’ Hence girls were strictly chaperoned, and their sex drive was denied” (33). If you think that the “sexual revolution” is a new outgrowth of modern culture, think again. Fisher argues that we are simply turning full circle in the history of sex- now that women work again, we are returning to a nomadic past when both genders enjoyed independence and less of a double standard. In fact, in the last chapter where she predicts the future of relationships based on our history, Fisher opens with this quote by T.S. Eliot: “And the end of all our exploring/ Will be to arrive where we started/ And know the place for the first time” (Four Quartets). Such is the cyclical nature of truth and history.Helen Fisher tells us that scientists refer to the different love rituals ( ways beings seduce each other in order to replicate themselves) as reproductive strategies.
Even for couples who choose to not have kids, these rituals can still be referred as such from a Darwinian perspective. Monogamy (one spouse), polygamy (more than one wife), polyandry (more than one husband), adultery (monogamous with occasional philandering). The most common reproductive strategies seen in homo sapiens in both nature and the social contract are serial monogamy and adultery. No, the pair is not oxymoronic. Monogamy is not defined as sexually loyal, but simply means that one has only one spouse. Serial monogamy refers to the habit of having one spouse or serious relationship at a time, combined with occasional adultery.
Yes, there are always exceptions to the rule— there are relationships that make it last forever, and even more rare, couples who remain sexually loyal forever. However, let us recall that Fisher studies general themes, not exceptions. And if we were to study the general themes of the human love story and the behaviors of other primates, this is the general theme. Even in places where adultery is punishable by death, it still happens, so it seems it is a deep part of the genetic blueprint. Fisher poetically expresses about the mating game that “no other aspect of our behavior is so complex, so subtle, or so pervasive. And although these sexual strategies differ from one individual to the next, the essential choreography of human courtship, love, and marriage has myriad designs that seem etched into the human psyche, the product of time, selection, and evolution.”The book is much deeper and informative than I could ever illustrate in a book review. There are simply so many topics in the books, analyzed from various angles, on a historical journey based on the research that was available in the late 80s or early 90s when this book was published.
Nevertheless, the topics are timeless and no less insightful than if it had been written in 2013. From courting, to infatuation, to bonding, to marriage, to adultery, to divorce, to remarriage, Fisher analyzes it all and insists that this is the most common story script and will continue through the ages. Fisher is an anthropologist. Besides research, she works with an online dating site conducting surveys and presumably advising. She is also a poetic writer.Fisher looks at love and romance through the lenses of evolution, evidence from modern hunter/gather societies that live like our prehistoric ancestors, patterns among the other apes and especially chimpanzees, and survey data.
Its an attempt to put human mating habits in the context of humans as animals. She covers a lot of ground previously Fisher is an anthropologist. Besides research, she works with an online dating site conducting surveys and presumably advising. She is also a poetic writer.Fisher looks at love and romance through the lenses of evolution, evidence from modern hunter/gather societies that live like our prehistoric ancestors, patterns among the other apes and especially chimpanzees, and survey data. Its an attempt to put human mating habits in the context of humans as animals. She covers a lot of ground previously covered by others (especially Jared Diamond).Her main conclusions are that humans are essentially serially monogamous, but they often have clandestine romantic liaisons as well.
This reflects evolutionary pressures in raising children with a long childhood balanced by the neat to propagate genes with the best available mate. She believes that there is a peak period for divorce after about 4 years, which has a suggestive relationship with when a child is first more independent.
She proposes that this was most pronounced with prehistoric humans, but men became more dominant and monogamy became more important with the agricultural revolution and civilization. She sees some current trends in dating (e.g., hookup culture, internet dating, long courtships) as a return to something more akin to the prehistoric style as women become less economically dependent on men.I think her message is essentially positive and supportive of both monogamy and of those for which monogamy fails (at least for a while). She sees monogamous relationships as essentially the norm (and the ideal), and people returning to these as much as they can.
She doesn't really make the point, but data she cites shows that the longer a relationship lasts the less likely it is too fail.I find some of her arguments quite speculative. For example, the association she sees between a divorce peak at 4 years and the length of time required for a child to become somewhat independent. There really isn't any data to support this as the cause and other possibilities certainly exist. Her data on relationships in pre-modern societies is heavily based on ethnographic research on just two surviving cultures. This is obviously a very small sample and prone to misinterpretation.But on the whole, I found this thought provoking and somewhat persuasive. Interesting anthropological, psychological and sociological analysis of love, sex and romantic relationships.
Contains much of the same and/or similar information to that of Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan, but the author here is more neutral in tone and expansive in scope. Whereas Sex at Dawn primarily dealt with sex and the evolution of monogamous and polyamorous cultural norms, this book discusses a wider range of topics including romantic love, pair bonding, attachment theory, mate Interesting anthropological, psychological and sociological analysis of love, sex and romantic relationships. Contains much of the same and/or similar information to that of Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan, but the author here is more neutral in tone and expansive in scope. Whereas Sex at Dawn primarily dealt with sex and the evolution of monogamous and polyamorous cultural norms, this book discusses a wider range of topics including romantic love, pair bonding, attachment theory, mate addiction, co-parenting, seven and four-year itch theories, emotional and physiological fallout from breakups, sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and human perceptions of attractiveness.
The tone of this book is more academic than apologetic or proselytizing with regard to infidelity and polyamory. Unfortunately, the author's descriptions of gender roles, aptitudes and predilections are often glaringly stereotypical (e.g. Men like football; women like talking).
![Fisher Fisher](/uploads/1/2/7/5/127597334/395052648.jpg)
She also alludes to stereotypical, but disproven gender divisions in her descriptions of attachment theories of Bowlby and Ainsworth. Overall, Fisher does a good job synthesizing evolutionary anthropology, cultural anthropology and modern social psychology while qualifying her own hypotheses and opinions. What an incredible book and reference. Fisher leaves no stone unturned- she works through the fossil record, the history of agriculture, language, religion AND symbolic thinking, anthropological examples of various cultures in different stages of development, examines patterns in nature with both primate relatives and other animals, and addresses issues of patriarchy without turning every problem in the world into a race or gender issue. Though there are a few times she makes an argument based What an incredible book and reference. Fisher leaves no stone unturned- she works through the fossil record, the history of agriculture, language, religion AND symbolic thinking, anthropological examples of various cultures in different stages of development, examines patterns in nature with both primate relatives and other animals, and addresses issues of patriarchy without turning every problem in the world into a race or gender issue.
Though there are a few times she makes an argument based on research and data for a way she thinks humans might be best suited to live, she immediately shows the flip side to her argument and demonstrates no preference based on personal feelings or beliefs. I would actually be curious as to what she believes and feels, because by the end of the book the reader has no idea. I've gifted this book to three people in the course of my reading it, and I'm sure to gift it to more. I appreciate how much data and information Fisher has accumulated over her years of researches, and her ability to put into simple words everyone understands.
It is, indeed, a history book, as she mainly dove into our past history of mating and marriage. A great deal of this book is spent on the mating behavior of other primates, our homo ancestors and native tribe worldwide. The evolutionary explanation and resemblance between human and other species seemed plausible as it served her points, I appreciate how much data and information Fisher has accumulated over her years of researches, and her ability to put into simple words everyone understands.
It is, indeed, a history book, as she mainly dove into our past history of mating and marriage. A great deal of this book is spent on the mating behavior of other primates, our homo ancestors and native tribe worldwide. The evolutionary explanation and resemblance between human and other species seemed plausible as it served her points, but most of the references are quite dated. Nevertheless, her data consisting of thousands of responses over the year, including all types of sexuality, are truly impressive.I don't think I would re-read this book soon, but overall, I felt the author did a great job of translating science work to public literature. Fisher's books are always a joy in that they are well thought out, researched and delivered.My takeaways:1. 'love' is remarkedly similar among various creatures and clearly bares little difference between apes and modern humans.2. Anthropology is highly predictive of traits of modern dating and love.3.
There is a clear track and relation between economics, self-interest and the types of pair-bonds that exist. Ultimately, 'love' at the individual level usually reflects traits which are best for Fisher's books are always a joy in that they are well thought out, researched and delivered.My takeaways:1. 'love' is remarkedly similar among various creatures and clearly bares little difference between apes and modern humans.2. Anthropology is highly predictive of traits of modern dating and love.3. There is a clear track and relation between economics, self-interest and the types of pair-bonds that exist. Ultimately, 'love' at the individual level usually reflects traits which are best for the survival of the species, and subserviently survival of the community.4. Mating patterns today are considerably healthier than for much of modern history due to economic and social advantages of modern women.
Interesting ideas but no evidence or explanation behind them. Lots of 'I suppose.' 'It's likely that.' 'I can imagine that 5m years ago a female would.' I started skipping huge sections of this book when it became apparent that none of it was backed by evidence and was just a storyI think the worst part of this book is when she asserts that men and women are equally likely and driven to have multiple sexual partners and gives as an example a woman in Africa who when interviewed and asked Interesting ideas but no evidence or explanation behind them. Lots of 'I suppose.'
'It's likely that.' 'I can imagine that 5m years ago a female would.' I started skipping huge sections of this book when it became apparent that none of it was backed by evidence and was just a storyI think the worst part of this book is when she asserts that men and women are equally likely and driven to have multiple sexual partners and gives as an example a woman in Africa who when interviewed and asked why she had sex with multiple men said something like 'well that man can get me bananas and that other man can get me meat' sigh. There's something creepy about how there's no comment about a messed up situation where men have sex because they want to and women have sex because they have to. Fisher 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 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.
![](/uploads/1/2/7/5/127597334/329278857.png)