Pan, pan, psychist.

Part three, Sad Love.

So in our previous installment, we spoke about how our ideas of love and what we experienced to be love is shaped by one of, if not two, different forces.

The biology behind what gives rise to these loving experiences and why we

begin to love in the first place, what might think. The reason why we love says those who think

that love is grounded in biology is for the purposes of reproduction, for the purposes of continuing

the species, and that's why you fall head over heels for that special somebody. And then we've

got the social constructivists who say that our ideas of love are shaped by what society teaches

us, by what we see in the newspaper stands on the front page of Cosmo, listening to music on the

radio and watching rom-coms at the cinema. And that's where we get our ideas

of love from. Now, in this installment, we're not just going to be talking about what love is,

but we're going to be moving from the descriptive of what it is to the aught, what love could or should

be. But before we do that, we just want to give Carrie Jenkins's ultimate view

in what love is, which is a bridging of these two views, the biological and the social.

And she says, love is ancient biological machinery embodying a modern social role. Could we say,

what does that mean exactly? Yeah, so she proposes how love's

dual nature fits together with the analogy of a actor playing a role. So she says, quote,

some of our ancient, evolved biological machinery, a collection of neural pathways and chemical

responses, is currently playing the starring role of a romantic love in a show called Modern Society.

So in this show we can see things about the character, how it structures society, how we create love in the process.

And this can be studied by the humanities and the social sciences and it's localized in a time and in a place.

And we can also see things about the actor. So that's how

...