Romantic love. Obsessive love. Passionate love. Infatuation. Call it what you will, men and women of every era and every culture have been ‘bewitched, bothered, and bewildered’ by this irresistible power. Being in love is universal to humanity; it is part of human nature – Helen Fisher

Love, or the kind of love associated with romance, is a fundamental human drive. Or so Helen Fisher, a biological anthropologist who has spent her academic career exploring this topic, proposes. She further argues that the drive to pursue and obtain a mating partner is both ‘a physiological need [and] a profound urge.’    

Indeed, as she demonstrates in her books, the ecstatic joys and excruciating pains of love experienced the world over has created the most incredible works of creativity, from operas, plays, and novels, to poems, music, and works of art. And not to mention those in popular culture.

The ancient Greeks had more than ten words for love. Six categories among them emerge:  

ἔρως

Eros—passionate, sexual, erotic, joyous, high-energy love

μᾰνῐ́ᾱ

Mania—obsessive, jealous, irrational, possessive, dependent love

λυδυς

Ludus—playful, unserious and uncommitted

στοργή

Storge—affectionate, brotherly or sisterly, love; a deep feeling of special friendship that lacks a display of emotion

ἀγάπη

Agape—gentle, unselfish, dutiful, all-giving, often spiritual love

πραγμα

Pragma— a love based on compatibility and common sense, pragmatic love

Among the written artifacts from history, we also find poems, songs, and stories of love and sexual desire in every society. Consider, for example, Vedic and other Indian texts,

‘He saw Sati and himself on a mountain pinnacle / enlaced in love’ (Shiva, Lord of the Universe)

The Hebrew Bible,

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth, for your love is more delightful than wine – Song of Solomon

Chinese fables,

Since the heaven and earth were created, you were made for me and I was made for you and I will not let you go – Chang Po to Meilan, the Jade Goddess

And, in the Western Canon, we get the familiar Romeo and Juliet, Paris and Helen, Orpheus and Eurydice, Abelard and Eloise, Troilus and Cressida, and Tristan and Iseult.

Furthermore, even sans written documents, peoples across time and space have left evidence of their romantic passion. Among the 166 cultures that anthropologists have researched, they found evidence of romantic love in 147 of them. That is about 90 percent! The remaining societies left no evidence for it. But, the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. For these cultures, we may draw the conclusion that their members also experienced romantic love because of our prior thesis – argued by Fisher – that romantic love is a universal trait (more evidence will be provided for this below).  

Love is a powerful force. Because of it, many elope, and many others suffer from unrequited love. Some kill their lovers; some kill themselves. And some sink into a sadness so great that they lose their appetite and their ability to sleep.

In addition, stalking, depression, and high divorce and adultery rates remain prevalent in societies around the world. All this prompted Fisher to seek answers to the question: ‘What is this volatile, often uncontrollable feeling that hijacks the mind, bringing bliss one moment, despair the next?’

This article will proffer her insights, beginning with the biological history of the mating instinct, or love, and the universal traits of attraction that evolved along with it. It will continue with the science of personality that Fisher herself developed with the copious data she obtained from dating sites she helped found, using hormone-based and personality-based matching systems; and it will conclude with the relevance of such information to love.

Life, Finds a Way

There isn’t any strong consensus yet about why our first bacterial ancestors became dependent on one another to exchange vital DNA, and why it narrowed down to the reproductive system, i.e., the male sperm, a genetic missile, and the female egg, a nutrient-rich dome, along the evolutionary tree that led to us.   

But not only have we inherited our particular brand of sexual reproduction, anthropological data show that, while polygyny and polyandry have featured in human (and animal) history – especially where rank and wealth could be accrued to (male) individuals and could function as markers of privilege – they are vastly outnumbered by pair-bonds, which have proliferated in almost every society on earth. Serial monogamy – single partners, sometimes one after another (because of divorce, death, etc.) – is the most common human mating pattern by a long shot.

An impartial observer employing the criterion of numerical preponderance, consequently, would be compelled to characterize nearly every known human society as monogamous, despite the preference for …. polygyny in the overwhelming majority – George Peter Murdock

Fisher also hypothesizes from paleo-archaeological and genetic evidence that when our hominin ancestors transitioned to bipedalism as they descended from the trees five million years ago, natural selection furnished among them different dispositions to take on roles necessary for survival in their small foraging and gathering groups.

They may be shoehorned into four temperamental types: explorers, builders, directors, and negotiators. Explorers would travel far into unknown places, returning with food and vital information. Builders guarded the group and built the rituals of tribal life, such that shared living could occur in a stable and harmonious fashion. Directors invented the ‘better mousetrap,’ and uncovered the workings of nature that the tribe could use to their advantage. Finally, negotiators were the glue that held the group together with their empathy, their social skills, and their visionary outlook.

Nature sometimes preserved organisms that investigated their environment; nature sometimes also preserved the more cautious or more confrontational or more socially able. Gradually, these temperaments, each with their adaptive advantages, coalesced into a relatively stable relationship – at the populational level – with each other within the human species. As Fisher points out, the value of genetic and cultural diversity for organismic flourishing cannot be denied:

[When] our ancestors pooled their natural strengths, they lived another day, another generation. Variability within the group had important social and economic payoffs. So, these four basic personality types prevailed.

Imagine, if the world was predominantly composed of one of these types. Explorers would be on a perpetual (and unsustainable) wanderlust party.

Builders would erect rules and regulations for everything and punish those who don’t conform to their cherished ways of life (watch from 1:27). 

Directors would run the world like Enron on steroids.

And negotiators are liable to turn reality into a virtue signaling leftist college.

(These videos are linked in the spirit of jest)

Researchers have since identified the genes related to the above dispositions that, through natural selection and deep time, were passed on to us. The idea that these four constellations of behavioural traits that we’d otherwise more commonly denote as ‘personalities’ could be categorised thusly finds correlates both among other scientific personality measures and intuitively among thinkers throughout history.

For example, the Greek physician Hippocrates suggested that people could be divided into sanguine, melancholic, phlegmatic and choleric types, each of which maps onto the Fisher four.

Several North American Indian tribes also subscribed to a medicine wheel which features four animals: the eagle, which symbolized vision and illumination; the bear, a steady, cautious creature; the buffalo, the repository of reason and wisdom; and the mouse, symbolizing innocence and trust. Again, these creatures embodied a set of traits that mapped on to the explorer, builder, director, and negotiator types that Fisher identified.  

Within the Western Canon, the sixteenth-century Viennese physician Paracelsus, the eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, and many others including Rudolf Steiner, Alfred Adler, Erich Adickes, Erich Fromm, and Carl Jung all held that individuals inherited personality traits from their biology.

The Fisher four is also consistent with – and conceptualized independently from – David Keirsey’s famous schema of basic personality types (of MBTI fame, which, notwithstanding its misuses in the corporate and popular domains, does have a theoretical and empirical core): The Artisan, Guardian, Rational and Idealist.

Fatal Attraction

We pay attention to the way our potential suitors speak. The voice offers vital information about background, education, and intentions. We think speedy speakers are more intelligent, and those who modulate their tone more appealing. Words merely constitute about 10 percent of the signal others receive. Vocal tones make up another 35 percent of the message and body language make up the last 55 percent.

We consider a potential suitor’s ability to keep to a rhythm. Rhythmic people (as well as those with more attractive voices) are more physically symmetrical, a sign of immunological health. So, as coordinated men and women hold and move their bodies rhythmically, i.e., when they are showing off their dance moves, they are flaunting their strong immune systems, and possibly their athleticism.

We are inclined to those who match our socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds; who possess the same level of education and intelligence, political and religious views, social goals, financial stability, social and communication skills, and sense of humour. Like attracts like. This is also known to anthropologists as ‘positive assortative mating.’

We are attracted to those who are nearby, to the girl or guy next door. Sixty-three among a hundred young Americans reported in a study that they had fallen in love with someone because they were geographically proximate. Paradoxically enough, barriers also stoke romantic love. If we consider someone to be unattainable, we tend to desire them even more. When denied access, the brain’s system for desire goes into overdrive, urging its owner to carry on desiring with more intensity.

We are attracted to those who are attracted to us. Love begets love. We are more likely to fall in love with those who are in love with us, especially if they meet some of the above criteria.

Men the world over, sans the occasional cultural accruements, are more attracted to a woman’s physical features, especially her voluptuousness and curviness, than just her face. They also prefer women who are shorter than them. Studies show that men in many countries are particularly attracted to women whose waist circumference is about 70 percent of their hip measurement, the obvious reason being related to childbearing potential. The myriad statues of women around the world with these proportions indicate that this preference isn’t a recent phenomenon.

Women often downplay the importance of looks in their suitors. But when they are hooked up to lie detectors, they admit that physical appearance is important in the beginning stages of attraction. Women prefer tall men (an indicator of testosterone) with a developed chest, broad shoulders, narrow hips and legs, and small buttocks. Women are also drawn to men who are self-confident, intelligent, coordinated, strong, courageous, with money, status, education, and resources. Women are also more easily affected by words, images, and themes in films and stories. Their fantasies include more affection, commitment, and sex with well-known partners.

Unfortunately, because of a limited supply and competition (the engines of evolution), not everyone can get what they want. For that reason, individuals erect a hierarchy of needs, with many partner qualities lower down the hierarchy that they’re willing to forgo. But no two people’s non-negotiables are the same. Some give up a good sex life for intellectual stimulation, while others will tolerate controlling and abusive partners if they also receive money, influence, and connections.

Fisher suggests that this is ‘one reason why it is difficult to introduce single friends to one another; we don’t know their love maps. It also helps to explain why some couples remain together even though none of their friends can fathom why.’ For instance, a woman raised by an unpredictable parent – attentive one day, and distant the next – might develop feelings of attraction toward unpredictable men. Her ‘love map’ has been inscribed in a such a way that capricious behaviours offer her the familiar cycles of elation and dejection she has come to know and internalize from those closest to her.   

Our love maps can also include myriad things like our mother’s way with words; our father’s love of sports, our uncle’s humour, etc., how communication is handled in the household, the norms of our larger community; what our mentors like and dislike; the media we consume, and many more.

Outside of love maps, positive illusions also play a key role in who we remain attracted to. As long as we are convinced that this person fits our love map, regardless of whether or not they actually do, we can be happy with them. Putting our partners on a pedestal, egged on by perceptual biases and a dose of self-deception, allows us to remain attracted to them longer and more profoundly than if we could only ever apprehend them in the cold hard light of reality.

For that reason, we often become the person our partner believes we are (though remaining consistent with our temperament). Among happy couples, partners – to some extent – assume the character and personality their mate projects onto them, and this shapes the relationship positively. Lovers faun at their partner’s ideal qualities, even when they’re at odds with reality.  

But love … it’s only an illusion. A story one makes up in one’s mind about another person. And one knows all the time it isn’t true. Of course, one knows; why one’s always taking care not to destroy the illusion  – Virginia Woolf

Fisher’s surveys of American and Japanese couples reveal that, among them, 55 to 65 percent agree with the statements: “_____ has some faults but they don’t really bother me,” and “I love everything about _____.”

Along with romantic love comes sexual craving. Both these motivations operating in tandem would have been necessary for our ancestors to focus their mating efforts on one individual until insemination. Since insemination can happen quite quickly, feelings of romantic love and the peculiar behaviour that comes with it, i.e., dogged pursuit; loss of appetite; persistence; tender stroking, kissing, licking, snuggling, and coquettish playing, tend not to last for more than eighteen months.

Animals are also choosy. No one hops into bed with anything compatible that moves. We, and many other animals rebuff some and choose others.

Lions, baboons, wolves, bats, probably even butterflies distinguish between suitors, assiduously avoiding mating with some and doggedly focussing their courtship energy on others – Helen Fisher

There are several terms for this in the scientific literature, including ‘mate preference,’ ‘selective proceptivity,’ ‘individual preference,’ ‘favouritism,’ ‘sexual choice,’ and ‘mate choice.’ But as choosy as animals are, most express their preferences fast; hence the phenomena of love at first sight. While some of us might be sceptical of this, up to a third of couples among American samples report that they had fallen in love the moment they laid their eyes on their beloved. A woman living in Caruaru, a town in northeast Brazil, told an anthropologist that she had decided to marry a man when they locked eyes. She did. Another woman on the island Mangaia noted, concerning her long-time husband, that ‘when I saw this man, I wished that he would be my husband, and this feeling was a surprise because I had never seen him before.’

Among sheep, neurotransmitters like norepinephrine (and dopamine) spike when females look at slides of male sheep faces. Norepinephrine is linked with a specific mammalian courting pose: lordosis—wherein the female crouches, arching her back and tipping up her buttocks to display sexual availability. Likewise, dopamine and norepinephrine, as well as serotonin constitute the cluster of chemicals that feature in human romantic passion.

Because sexual activity raises testosterone levels, which, in turn, raise dopamine and norepinephrine, sexual activity can fan the flames of romantic passion. This is why casual sex and one-night stands are a bad idea when no romantic commitment or long-term attachment is intended. In so doing, you might just fall in love.

When two people are first together, their hearts are on fire and their passion is very great. After a while, the fire cools and that’s how it stays. They continue to love each other, but it’s in a different way, warm and dependable – Nisa !Kung Bushman woman of the Kalahari Desert of Botswana

Just as romantic love and lust fade, feelings of attachment come to take its place. The chemicals related to this warm and dependable feeling are vasopressin and oxytocin, and they share a complex relationship with the chemicals for the sex drive and romantic passion: they can have a negative effect on one another. Increasing testosterone can sometimes drive down levels of vasopressin (and oxytocin) and elevated levels of vasopressin can decrease testosterone. This is why the prospect of being romantically intimate and having sex with a long-term partner doesn’t seem as appealing as when we imagine doing those things with someone new.  

Romantic love did not evolve to help people maintain an enduring partnership. Rather, it drove people to pursue specific mating partners long enough to reproduce with them. Once partners become parents, they need a new set of chemicals to build a successful family life and rear their infants as a team. The resultant feelings of attachment, born from the vasopressin and oxytocin cocktail, dampens the ecstasy of romance (for good reason: the passion characteristic of romantic love is metabolically unsustainable in the long run), replacing it instead with a sense of union (watch from 3:15):  

Note: I disagree with the theoretical core that undergirds much of the material on this channel because it subscribes to a school of psychoanalysis that is unempirical, but I do agree with the point made at the time stamp above. 

But if love is such a primal and powerful force, how has it been stifled in much of human history from the dawn of agriculture to the industrial revolution? 

His and Her-story

They used to say that a child conceived in love has a greater chance of happiness. They don’t say that anymore – Vincent Freeman, Gattaca

Our Pleistocene hunting and gathering forebears, of both genders, worked hard to sustain themselves. They were fiercely egalitarian, and because power was distributed relatively freely between the genders, men and women were free to make most of their own personal decisions and were therefore autonomous. Women were powerful, economically, sexually, and socially; and they didn’t need to wed for security, they could wed for love, and did so for millions of years.

Then, about ten thousand years ago, humans across the world almost simultaneously invented agriculture. They stopped foraging and settled down to farm. Individual autonomy and the economic balance of power between the sexes gradually eroded when men (usually) amassed the lion’s share and codified laws that enabled them to own the land, the livestock, and inherit most of their family’s wealth. Women no longer needed to be foragers and could not contribute to this new economy. And, because they lacked property and access to education, they lost their status in cultures around the world. Marriage became a business venture: an exchange of property, political alliances, and social ties, but not necessarily one of love.

But romance cannot be stifled. Many, especially the poor, still wed for love even though it became feared and shunned in parts of the world like Asia and Africa.

With the Industrial Revolution, the decline of agricultural life, and with unmoored peoples pouring into urban environments to find work, men and woman again returned to marrying for love. As women entered the marketplace and became financially independent, they desired to find partners with whom they could connect.

‘I do.’ In a 1991 American survey, 86 percent of men and 91 percent of women reported that they would not say these words to someone they were not in love with, even if that person had every other quality they were looking for in a mate. The Chinese of Hong Kong are equally determined to wed for love. In a survey done in the 1990s, only 5.8 percent of these men and women said they would marry someone they were not in love with. Even more remarkable, some 50 percent of American men and women now believe they have the right to divorce if romantic passion fades – Helen Fisher

Because of the return to relative autonomy in love, and the high cost of divorce – legally, emotionally, socially, and financially – many singles in the developed world (unless they are dyed-in-the-wool builders) have ushered in an era of long pre-commitment courtship phases, to find out everything about their partners before they tie the knot.

For the past 10,000 years, marriage was the beginning of a partnership; today it’s the finale – Helen Fisher  

Fisher notes that this trend, which she terms slow love, has been a positive development. Surveys among American couples show that they are mostly happy with their marriage to their particular spouse and would marry the same person again. Couples in their fifties report that they are still very much in love with their spouse. Outside of America, more than three-quarters of 12000 couples surveyed reported that they were happily married, most likely because of that long pre-commitment courtship process and the fact that many unhappy relationships can end before partners tie the knot.

Sweet Chemicals

Because the chemicals that govern romantic passion, the sex drive, and attachment are also associated with the four personality traits identified by Fisher, personality, or more specifically, temperament, plays an important role in attraction.  

Dopamine	Serotonin	Testosterone	Oestrogen
Explorer	Builder	Director	Negotiator

We’ve noted how love maps, a facet of one’s personality, affects attraction. These can include beliefs about family and taste in literature and music and vary depending on upbringing. But the temperamental aspect of personality, which constitutes the other half, is biologically grounded and emerges to produce a rather consistent pattern of behaviour by early childhood. Traits like curiosity; creativity; novelty seeking; compassion; cautiousness; competitiveness are, to some degree, inherited.

Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope and confidence – Helen Keller

Those who frequently sought novelty in their experiences were also likely to be energetic, spontaneous, risk-taking, curious and creative. These traits are linked with dopamine system (Explorers).

Discipline is the soul of an army. It makes small numbers formidable; procures success to the weak, and esteem to all – George Washington

Those who find great solace in tradition are likely to also be loyal, cautious, respectful of authority and eager to make plans and follow schedules. These traits are linked with the serotonin system (Builders).

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma – Steve Jobs

Then there are those who are direct, decisive, focused, analytical, logical. They excel at figuring out rule-based systems. These traits are linked with the testosterone system (Directors).

The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others – Mohandas Gandhi

Finally, those who are disposed to see the big picture, tend to also be imaginative, good at reading body language, have great social skills, are intuitive, sympathetic, agreeable, idealistic, and emotionally expressive. These traits are linked with the oestrogen system (Negotiators).

While all of us have these qualities to a certain degree, one or two of them will present more strongly than the others. Fisher classifies them as the primary and secondary type.

Fisher’s Chemistry.com, a dating site which she founded, along with Match.com, where she is scientific advisor, allow her to gather data from over 14 million users and track who the temperamental types naturally gravitate to:  

When I examined whom these men and women chose to meet, I saw nature’s plan: Explorers are attracted to other Explorers—people with many similar traits of temperament. Builders also gravitate to people like themselves, other Builders. Directors, however, gravitate to Negotiators. And Negotiators are drawn to Directors. These two personality types are attracted to individuals with a complementary temperament.

Of course, self-reported personality measures, even if they are grounded in biology and corroborated with social-science, aren’t going to provide mathematically precise descriptions of the people who identify with them. For one, people can misrepresent their traits to project some preferred image of themselves to others. Sometimes, who we think we are and who we really are are also at odds.

Children and teenagers also get more varied results from personality tests because they are still discovering their identity. Adults who test most consistently tend to be in circumstances in their lives where they are most free to express their natural dispositions.

Furthermore, temperament do change, if slightly, with age. Young people around the world tend to be more open to new experiences (liberal) and extroverted, as well as less conscientious and agreeable. By the time they reach their twenties and thirties, these will change. By middle age, men and women of different ethnic backgrounds become more conscientious and agreeable, less extroverted, and less open to new experiences (conservative). Anecdotally, this could explain the general liberal and conservative political divide among the young and the old, exemplified by the recent Brexit voting demographics:

In addition, taking a personality test while going through a life-altering experience can create distortions. Life-altering events can even turn specific genes on and off, resulting in persistent changes in our personality.

Regardless, because temperament is rooted in biology, pretending to be someone inconsistent with one’s temperament to please a partner often leads to unhappiness. With that in mind, here’s a list of positive and negative traits for each temperament.

Explorers (dopamine)	Builders (serotonin)	Directors (testosterone)	Negotiators (oestrogen)
Sexy. Playful. Generous. Flamboyant. Strive to make an impact. Curious. Creative. Energetic and spontaneous. Optimistic. Adaptable. Liberal (socially and politically). Crave novelty.	Preservers of tradition. Conservative (socially and politically). Prefer to live in suburbs. Seek certainty and order. Frugal. Literal and fact-oriented. Stoical.  Pillar of society. Crave belonging.	Speak their mind. Self-controlled. Analytical. Sceptical. Independent. Pragmatic. Inventive. Skilled at spatial games. Heroic.  Charming.   Informative conversations. Crave achievement.	Altruistic. Skilled in the nuances of social exchange.   Compassionate. Imaginative. Theoretical. Intuitive. Able to think contextually, holistically, and synthetically. Tolerates ambiguity. Crave helping others.
Tendency to exaggerate. Impulsive. Easily bored. Most likely to divorce. Prone to addictions. Procrastinate a lot.	Feelings of moral superiority. Overly critical and judgmental.   Misses emotional cues. Controlling. Can’t task-switch.	Politically incorrect. Prone to power-mongering.   Can respect tradition, but grudgingly. Impatient. Easily angered.	Manipulative. Easily offended. Likely to hold grudges. Too self-critical. Indecisive. Susceptible to depression.

For more, see Fisher’s books.

Now that we know what these types are like, how do they love? (Note: these are broad brushstrokes and will not apply evenly to real people. Use them as a rough guide)

(Ludus) Explorers live through their senses. They enjoy all sorts of arts and cultural events, especially stimulating ones, like horror shows and the like. Many are adventurous with food. They also like intense and complex music. Most are comfortable in their skin. They also have a lot of experience dating. Because they are friendly and enthusiastic and have no desire to control others, they can build rapport quickly.

(Pragma) Builders are the most likely to make romantic decisions on pragmatic grounds. They seek a stable and predictable team player, someone who shares their interests in and commitment to family and tradition. One might think of well-adjusted conservative religious couples as shining exemplars. At a singles party, these folks are most likely to be wearing formal clothes.

(Storge) Directors tend to seek mates who are emotionally expressive. Because their independence pushes them away from controlling people, they are attracted to those who are flexible. And they gravitate to negotiator types who have the empathy and patience to handle their strong personalities. They like partners with particularly feminine features (on either sex).

(Agape) Negotiators prefer to go out with one person at a time and to explore the depths of this potential partnership. They look for deep and authentic personal connections and are drawn to directors because their temperaments complement one another. They are the least likely to treat the pledge of matrimony as sacred since what they prize is deep personal commitment sans external validation. Many choose to write their own wedding vows.  

And, So It Goes

We are dancing to nature’s rhythm. Nature furnished our brains, this three-pound blob, with some mighty fine systems to get us to love and contribute to future generations.

As much as some of us might be tempted to deny it, romantic love, the sex drive, and attachment are fundamental human motivations. Together, they feed the flame of life.

If you are inclined, take the personality tests on Fisher’s website to learn more about your temperament and those of your loved ones!