- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted July 21, 2013
If it ain't face to face that's not love your feeling.
What a disappointing book! I had hoped to learn some of the modern science beyond love. Instead very early on love is redefined to mean brief periods of "synchronous positivity" you feel while engaged in a conversation with someone. She tells us when she thinks of her husband of 18 years at her keyboard she knows at that moment she is not feeling love for him just remembering the trust and loyalty they experienced. THIS PISSES ME OFF! And it's totally unscientific. Her only reason for doing this is she wants to study love so she has defined the entire experience of love as what she CAN study.
Next when describing her research she just tells her results. Apparently she is God and therefore being entirely worthy of our trust we should take it at her word that she has done adequate research. That possible sources of bias and confounding factors in doing research to support her findings are enormous and her mentioning her study sizes and controls, if she had any, would have reassured me a little that I was actually reading something that might be true.
Lastly, this scientist loves LOVE. According to her there are never any downsides to LOVE. And you should endeavor to to have as many moments of love as possible during the day including ones with strangers at the airport. What kind of scientist can advance such an implausible theoretical statement? I can cast strong doubt on this totally unsupported supposition of hers presented as scientific consensus by noting that if "All you need is love, all you need is love" then evolution would certainly have selected for all love, all the time people a long time ago and we would not have the capacity to shut down our positive feelings.
But as her book pushes metta meditation, a Buddhist meditation practice, sometimes known as "loving-kindness meditation" as a way to develop compassion for all and experience more love towards everyone I'd have to say this author is probably been captured by Buddhist attitudes towards love. She has also been hanging out with some of the United State's rock stars of Buddhism but she never self-identifies as Buddhist which I take issue with. Scientists are supposed to disclose possible biases.
On the one hand as a secular Buddhist who practice metta meditation daily I am delighted to have empirical support for my actions. (I do think their are potential downsides for true universal compassion but I am willing to pay them.) On the other I place no trust in this author with her hyperbolic language ("Love creates ripples in space and time"), her hiding of the science of love in her brief descriptions of results, and her redefining the meaning of the emotion love from it's historical definition to one that is amenable to her experimental methods.
Don't read this book.
0 out of 2 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted March 24, 2013
Great way of learning about love
I love this book but i had to re read it to completely understand it. There were some words and even sentences that i had to go over to grasp the message. It is not an easy to read book it however when you grasp the message of love it really speaks to you. Be patient with it.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.