Hr Videos

Dr. Helen Fisher: “Anatomy of Love” | Talks At Google


Dr. Helen Fisher joined us at Google New York to talk about the neuroscience behind falling in love, why we love who we love, and the future of romantic love.

Dr. Helen Fisher is Senior Research Fellow at The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, Member of the Center for Human Evolutionary Studies in the Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, and Chief Scientific Advisor to She has written six internationally best-selling books on the evolution and future of romantic love and attachment, including her newest book, ANATOMY OF LOVE (2nd Ed), published this year. Helen is also studying the biological basis of personality and is a pioneer in examining the neuroscience of leadership and innovation.

Get the book here:


Show More

Related Articles


  1. The mgtow seem better able to reach the truth of the matter.   People waiting later for marriage and then staying in said marriages is likely due to them not being able to do better in the sexual market place at that point.  Survey questions like "would you marry your partner again" are pre filtered by the very fact that they are still with their partners, the others have already divorced, and I have doubts people with so much to lose due to the legal system would dare admit it anywhere regardless.  Nothing is private anymore, just look at the Ashley Madison database leak.Channels like Colttaine and his biology/culture/ideology trilogy are closer to the truth.  Talk is cheap, what people do is the data that matters.The conditions which have led to a feministic, hedonistic and nihilistic society aren't going to change. I do wonder, even with googlers being able to afford a family, how many actually do.How far below replacement rate are even you?

  2. neurocolor seems similar to MBTI/Big5 but scientifically put together (Data driven). Since there are many complexities involved in interactions of alphabets of this theory (i.e. Dopamine, Serotonin, Testosterone, Estrogen,…) and how they emerge as personality patterns (co-orchestrating regions, pathways, …) there are more complex patterns yet to be discovered and there are more research yet to be done.

  3. she keeps repeating that technology cannot change the way we cour, parade, and love, etc, but this claim is absurd. there is now a huge community of men who have cracked the code on dating. pick up artists have shown that it is possible to manipulate attraction by purposefully (and insincerely) exhibiting the behaviors that unconsciously trigger attraction in others. these techniques are being taught online to thousands, perhaps millions of men.

  4. It seems to me that she is a fake scientist, only recycling what we already know but putting it into a package which makes it look all "new" and "fresh". Also she constantly confirms her biased feministic view with her science. In my opinion, many scientists can abuse their high position, can allow themselves a lot as they know that nobody will challenge them as science is all "reliable".

  5. I love the biology of it and the research however I'd be interested in the measurement of how the finer spiritual matter or energy of each person coincides with the Love and attachment as I've been taught that even after death the energy of a persons spirit still exists and can never be destroyed and I don't believe that spiritual matter can be measured with any existent tools of science today but the attraction of spirits to one another is real and relevant in Love.

  6. I would have been very interested to hear more about the integration of the 4 types within each person. For example, even if someone is dominant in one type, that doesn't prevent them from having aspects of the other types. Like a highly empathic person who is estrogen dominant can also possess many qualities from the serotonin and dopamine categories, and even some from the testosterone category. Wouldn't the combination of these 4 within each person be a more accurate picture of how we experience love as an individual? Rather than only talking about individuals as being completely encompassed in 1 group, I think it would be much more applicable to understand individuals by the complexity of the interactions between these 4 groups within that individual.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button