In my opinion the topic in “Love Hurts” is different than
the topic from the Grant study. The topic in “Love Hurts” is about love, and
the Grant study was about happiness. Although there was some mentioning about
the subjects love life, the Grant study was primarily focused on happiness. Both
of these studies are very interesting and really show a different perspective
on things.
“Love Hurts” was an article about how the partners reacted
when taking studies that showcased “potential threats” to their other partner. When
the partners looked at these “threats” they were asked to give their opinions,
and they did not hold back. “… rating them as unattractive, unfriendly and
other insulting adjectives.” This made me realize why the title of this article
was “Love Hurts.” It hurts because these people are lashing out on people of
the same sex that they feel are competition to them. This does show that these
people really do love their partner. They feel that they’re the only ones their
partner should be with. They get a little jealous and talk negatively about
these potential “threats.” I believe
that this study did show to the partners that love sometimes does hurt.
The Grant study was about a few hundred students and how
happy they were throughout their lives. This study literally knew everything
about their subjects. They studied how experiences and people changed the lives
of their subjects. Some were changed for the better, and some were changed for
the worse. Something in this study that was similar to the article was love.
The Grant study also looked at the relationships of the subjects. Some stayed
with their first love and some divorced. Some of the subjects’ parents divorced
as well. These events definitely affected their happiness.
These studies as we can see are different from each other,
but have a similarity. The Grant Study was a more broad study about the lives
of these people and how happy they were. The article “Love Hurts” was about a
specific study that showed a different side of people in long term
relationships.
I agree also that these two texts differ. Joshua Shenk’s article is how he followed “268 men” and was a longitudinal study. Whereas the Love Hurts article only had a few people and was over a much shorter amount of time. One focuses on overall happiness and the other is solely based on love and the light and “dark sides” to it. ‘Is there a formula-?” is the approach that the Case Study has, but in the Love Hurts study is has a more understanding that we are all the same there’s no need for a formula, because “there may not be a difference between low- and high- jealousy people.” The size, time, participants, and the outcomes are all different in these studies. But it shows that’s no matter whether you want people to have a definite formula for something or based on how natural reactions, that people wall different in bow they get love and happiness.
ReplyDeleteHowever, with the video Love- you’re doing it wrong, I feel that is relates more to the Case Study, because there’s a certain way things are supposed to go. The” two hypotheses” that contemporary love could evolve into and how in the Case Study there is an exact way to get happiness, they both express that’s theirs is a right way in going about love and happiness and if you don’t follow or acknowledge these “formulas” than you won’t ever really obtain your goal.
I agree with you on the fact that both Yann Dall’Aglio’s “Love – you’re doing it wrong” and Stephanie Pappas’s “Love Hurts” both have very specific views on love, and the right way to go about it. The video talked about how love was the desire of being desired, and that it can either be rationalized or democratized. It also discussed how in the future, they hope to find “a chemical treatment for breakups that weakens the feelings of attachment.” In the experiment, they talked about how “Love, arguably the most positive of all human emotions, also comes with a dark side.” It then goes into detail about an experiment done on the campus of Florida State University to show how vital and deadline the big green monster is in relationships. Both of these articles speak about love, while in the previous class we read two different essays discussing the search for happiness in life. Rita Dove wrote about how by empathizing with Paul the Apostle, a man she hated majority of her youth due to his explicit rules, she was able to see and understand his journey through life searching for his own form of happiness. Joshua Wolf Shenk went about it a different way, through experimentation with 268 men over 72 years. Both Shenk and Pappas’s both chose the path of experimentation, while Dall’Aglio and Dove both wrote about life examples and experiences and their findings on each. I believe another similarity throughout all 4 of these articles are that through the search for happiness, many believe love is the answer, when in reality it is merely a small factor in it.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree when you say that both of these articles are different from each other because in my opinion these articles are talking about the exact same thing in a way. Love and happiness are two sides of the same coin, they both mean the same thing because being "in love" and being happy are two ways of expressing positive emotion just using different wording.
ReplyDeleteIn "Love Hurts" written by Stephanie Pappas, she includes the thoughts of Jon Maner, who states that, "Love, arguably the most positive of all human emotions, also comes with a dark side...", and this is completely true. The evidence given further in the article proves the quote because people in romantic relations feel threatened by the people that looked attractive because they believed that their partner would prefer them instead. Love comes with a dark side because it forces us to be cruel to others to have the feeling of security, therefore being secure of your happiness.
In the Grant study the situation is somewhat similar because the focus is to be happy and remain happy. In the first sentence Joshua Wolf Shenk questions if there is a formula for happiness, being "some mix of love, work, and psychological adaptation for a good life?" Love is in that mix which emphasized that love is required to be happy. In the article it states that some of the people in the test went through rough marriages and had divorces implying a dark side of love.
Both of these articles are the same because love and happiness are the same idea. Both being positive emotions and both articles show how they could have dark side. But all in all the ideas for both articles are the same.
I agree with your original statement that the Grant study and Stephanie Pappa's article "Love Hurts (Other People)" are different topics, but similar in certain perspectives. While the Grant study appears to focus more so on happiness than love, the article focuses primarily on the reactions caused by love itself. The Grant study does seem to mention "love" in comparison to happiness once or twice, for example; " “On the bright side,” he has written, “reaction formation allows us to care for someone else when we wish to be cared for ourselves.” But in intimate relationships, he continued, the defense “rarely leads to happiness for either party.” " This could easily mistake the two topics as more similar that originally intended. Pappas's article states, "Love, arguably the most positive of all human emotions, also comes with a dark side," Thus introducing the article as more of an experiment observing the different angles of love. This is especially interesting because in Yann Dall’Aglio’s “Love – you’re doing it wrong” he states "Of course, this race for seduction, like every fierce competition, will create huge disparities in narcissistic satisfaction, and therefore a lot of loneliness and frustration." Which compares more so to the Grant study in how love inevitably hurts people in the end. Each of these readings has a common topic of love and the effects it has on people as a whole. This ultimately links each reading together as being more similar than they originally appear to be. In the end these writings prove that love is to inevitably hurt everyone and anyone in its wake no matter who or what the situation.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you when you say that both articles are different from each other. I think that these two articles are the same, because you can't be happy without love, and without happiness they're wouldn't be love. Although both show how being in love and being happy is a positive emotion and end up better they also show that both can have a dark side and in my opinion these are the points that both author's are trying to inform the most to the readers.
ReplyDeleteIn the Grant Study the idea was to show how people ended up after going through tough and positive situations in there life's. Vaillant says, that the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people." Explaining how people that had love in there lives from there families lived a better and longer life than the people that had many divorces which lived a very sad and short life.
In "love hurts" by Stephanie Pappas includes in her article what Jon Maner (psychologist) says, "love arguably the most positive of all human emotions, also comes with a dark side." Jealousy was the main evidence to back up this claim explaining how some people felt threatened by more attractive people feeling that there partner would choose the attractive person over them.
Like I said I fell like these articles have a similarity because love and happiness really mean the same thing and both showing how there positive emotions with also a dark side.
I completely agree with your idea of the difference between “Love Hurts”, and the Grant Study. I also believe that the information being analyzed have a different measurable, which is Love, and happiness. The lengths of both studies independently correspond with the extent of the experiments and data being obtained. The detail that the Grant Study goes into to discovering what makes a happy life far surpasses the amount of background information that the “Love Hurts,” study goes into.
ReplyDeleteThe one subject that you did not touch was the fact that “Love—you’re Doing It Wrong”, supports your view of that love hurts”…other potential threats.” When Dall’Aglio presented the “…cultural phenomena,” it introduced the idea of value. Modernity is the expression of one’s self worth. This means that people would constantly negotiate their independent value of desirability. This in turn would allow all individuals to judge potential partners and would set up the competition. And as you said, competition would lead to hurting someone that is a “threat” to their potential partner.
Overall both studies only went as far as their subjects would take them. Emotions played the biggest role in both studies, but the view and the projected outcome of the studies were clearly two different paths. The fact that the “Love Hurts” study focused primarily on current relationships, which also appeared to be strong relationships, is the key difference between the numerous types of relationships that each of the 268 men went through. Another difference would be that the “Love
Hurts” study also presented the female side of the relationship , whereas the Grant Study only followed males and their particular view of how strong the relationships were.
I disagree with your idea that "Love hurts" and the Grant study are different. Although it may seem like they're two different topics, they actually aren't. Love and Happiness are one and the same. Being happy and in love are said to be a "positive emotion" which is true, but it comes with a price of a "Dark side" as Jon Maner says. Both articles, i believe, inform the same points to the readers.
ReplyDeleteIn the Grant Study it focuses on happiness and how to stay happy. The study was to show if the men had ended up living a happy life while going through the tough situations that life throws at us. Vaillant says, "the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people." As the experiment showed, the men who were in love and stayed in love lived longer lives then the men who went through Divorces in their family or themselves.
In "Love Hurts" the author, Stephanie Pappas, includes the input of psychologist Jon Maner who says that "love, arguably the most positive of all emotions, also comes with a dark side." This is in fact true with everyone. Pappas later shows in the article that the students in the experiments, who were in a long relationship, felt threatened when a more attractive person of the same sex was thrown in. Because they believed their partner would opt to go with them instead of him/her. This dark side of love is what worries and makes people insecure about themselves and their happiness.
These articles show the positive emotions and negatives(dark side) in love and happiness. Like i said, I disagree with you saying that these articles are different because in actuality these articles are both similar because love in happiness are the same.
I agree with your statement when you said that "Love Hurts" and the Grant Study differ from each other and how they both show things on a different perspective. At first, I was believing that they were pretty much the same because the Grant Study was mostly about happiness, however, it was about the love that created them to be happy. In the very first sentence it said "Is there a forumula-some mix of LOVE, work and psychological adaptation- for a good life?" This is the reason I believed at first that the two articles were similar because when I read The Grant Study I was focusing mostly on the love that they talked about that made the men happy. However, The Grant Study was all about following those men throughout their life and watching their happiness while "Love Hurts" is about "...romantic love that can also burn innocent third parties in relationships." So yes while these articles are different and take on different perspectives, they both are in some way parallel to each other also. Both articles show how your emotions can get the best of you at times but also that love is a very special thing and once it comes around it's what you need to keep and what is best for you.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you that both "Love Hurts" and the Grant Study cover different topics. Although love and happiness seem different, people could argue that love and happiness are intertwined and that you can not have one without the other.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance the Grant Study appears to focus on happiness. However, in the article Vaillant says, "the only thing that really matters in life are your relationships to other people." Relationships consist of love. This study followed men for most of their adult lives, and the men with absence of love or lack of love seemed to die sooner and/or at their own hand.
In "Love Hurts" a study is done on people madly in love to see how jealous they get. In the article one of the study researchers, Jon Maner, said, "Love, arguably the most positive of all human emotions, also comes with a dark side," This is shown when people feel their relationship is threatened and put down others to protect it.
Although love and happiness are different words they are very alike in the aspects that they are both positive emotions with dark sides.