Helen Fisher: Why Do Fools Fall in Love?

Complete video at: fora.tv/2010/01/24/Digital_Lif...
Why do you fall in love with one person rather than another? Biological anthropologist Helen Fisher refutes Cupid's arrow and explains her theory of four personality types, each based on a chemical found in the brain.
-----
DLD is an inspiring community for the 21st century which features digital innovation, science and culture and brings together thought leaders, creators, entrepreneurs and investors from Europe, the Middle-East, the Americas and Asia. This session on human emotion features Helen Fisher (Rutgers University). - DLD
Helen Fisher, PhD Biological Anthropologist, is a Research Professor and member of the Center for Human Evolution Studies in the Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Internet dating site, Chemistry.com, a division of Match.com.
She has conducted extensive research and written five books on the evolution and future of human sex, love, marriage, gender differences in the brain and how your personality type shapes who you are and who you love.

[@vids721]

This is a brilliant study! Really interesting!

[@annemarie7467]

wow she is right on point!!! smart woman amazing!!!

[@arknihil]

surprisingly this rings true in my own life. i am definitely more of a director than anything else, and anyone who i have ever been attracted to or who has been attracted to me has been a negotiator, yet this seems to spit in the face of a lot of other psychological theories i have heard. it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense that opposites would attract in the case of rationality vs. emotion.

[@blackiron60]

I couldn't agree more: these people love to categorize the diversity of humanity to suit themselves.

[@endsequence]

You missed part of the premise, I think. She starts off by acknowledging those very things.

[@mrzack888]

true, none of her categories applied to me either. i feel special.

[@amenRAamen]

mrzack888 that's why she says everyone has a bit of every system. It would be impossible to be only one.

[@DonQuixotedeKaw]

I took their test, it said that there was not one human on Earth that would tolerate me. Nice.

[@RocknCorruptrepublic]

I took that, after watching one of her TEDTalks I think...got Director-Explorer. seems kinda like two different people but oh well...Negotiator was my lowest. I think as far as romantically those graphs work for me...but I think I go for more "Negotiator-Director" (or even more crudely "confidence, intellect, but more emotions than I have" lol.) I seem to have a lot of 'director' type friends who are women--virtually no physical attraction...& men not so much..idk, Im weird I guess. lol.

[@Amine1990G]

Where can I take the test??

[@McArrowni]

This has nothing to do with generalizations. They are trends and statistics. She's merely pointing out where the big part of the bell curve where most of us resides is.

[@MassZombicide]

Virtually every one of the rare girls I fall in love with at first sight tries to initiate a relationship with me or flirts with me, that has to be physiognomical, I can attest to my own attraction being based on physiognomy, my interest being that I fancy they've the same temperament as my own. Maybe there's a subcategory of negotiators or they fit into a more specific / reliable blanket category. I like the theory, just not keen on her findings on account of attested inconsistencies with them.

[@1RadicalOne]

Maya and I do not fit any of these descriptions; we are both likely closest to the "Director" style, as we are both analytical (we are both scientists), but we also exhibit several traits from other groups.

[@griggiorouge]

@ortegad123 what percentages? this 09:36 do add up to 100 percent.

[@RocknCorruptrepublic]

@David J. Bauman that would be interesting...I dont think any of the 3 are empirical, but I get Type 5, Director-Explorer, NT ("Rationals.") ...so many it's just me thats empirical. ha.

[@loveit4u]

Negotiator / Director

[@clk211bu]

we love because of 'mind consciousness systems', we are organic robots. love, divine experiences, feelings etc anything you can imagine, was implanted there to make sure we lose ourselves in bliss and nirvanna--accepting diversity as unity--that change quickly when we are on the receiving end of this polarity called consciousness. Bernard Poolman

[@DavidJBauman]

Interesting research. I would like to see it in dialogue with the more complex system of the Enniagram institute's personality profiles.

[@ortegad123]

how come all these percentages don't add up to 100%?

[@RocknCorruptrepublic]

maybe**

[@nevalans9524]

The reason why we are pulled to someone is because they remind us of our parents. There. You’re sleeping with your dad.

[@xyixuanx]

opposites attract... true ;)

[@1RadicalOne]

And it was not a case of "opposites attract", either.

[@magina23]

i am type 4 i guess ...

[@quangjd]

This looks like another case of our progressive culture wanting to see something so we find a way to fit reality into these neat boxes. I do think she has done a interesting work, but in my opinion it is nothing more then interesting. Many people have very different set of attributes and even if one were to say the chemical makeup in a combination of those descriptions, there's no logical way to piece it together to formulate all the general different personalities.

[@mrzack888]

when nobody laffed at her obama joke, she was a bit nervous.

[@Andybaby]

This is about as scientific as Astrology. ForaTV: the world is not thinking.

[@ekbergiw]

Darwin was Definitely a NT/Director/ Rational No way was he an NF

[@alexiseptimus]

Good study, fucked up examples though. Except for Darwin.