Editing Limerence (section)

==Evolutionary purpose==
{{See also|Biology of romantic love}}

[[Dorothy Tennov]]'s speculation is that limerence has an [[evolution]]ary purpose.<ref>{{harvnb|Tennov|1999|pp=242–249}}</ref><ref name="Tennov 1998 81–82">{{harvnb|Tennov|1998|pp=81–82}}</ref>

<blockquote>For what ultimate cause might the state of limerence be a proximate cause? In other words, why were people who became limerent successful, maybe more successful than others, in passing their genes on to succeeding generations back a few hundred thousand or million years ago when heads grew larger and fathers who left mother and child to fend for themselves were less "reproductively successful"—in the long run, that is (Morgan 1993). Did limerence evolve to cement a relationship long enough to get the offspring up and running? [...] The most consistent result of limerence is mating, not merely sexual interaction but also commitment, the establishment of a shared domicile in the form of a cozy nest built for the enjoyment of ecstasy, for reproduction, and for the rearing of children.</blockquote>

[[Helen Fisher (anthropologist)|Helen Fisher]]'s theory is that limerence is the activation of a motivation system for choosing and focusing energy on a potential mating partner. According to Fisher, this brain system evolved for mammalian [[mate choice]], also called "courtship attraction". In this phenomenon, a preferred mating partner is chosen based on a display of physical traits (such as a [[peacock]]'s tail feathers) or other behaviors.<ref name="fisher1998" /><ref name="fisher2002" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last=Fisher |first=Helen E |last2=Aron |first2=Arthur |last3=Brown |first3=Lucy L |date=2006-12-29 |title=Romantic love: a mammalian brain system for mate choice |url=https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2006.1938 |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences |language=en |volume=361 |issue=1476 |pages=2173–2186 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2006.1938 |issn=0962-8436 |pmc=1764845 |pmid=17118931}}</ref> Fisher also includes the attraction to [[personality traits]] and other characteristics in her mate choice theory for humans.<ref>{{harvnb|Fisher|2009|pp=11,37,142-143,157-159,284}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Fisher|2016|pp=20-23,26-27}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |last=Fisher |first=Helen |author-link=Helen Fisher (anthropologist) |date=2012 |title=We have chemistry! The role of four primary temperament dimensions in mate choice and partner compatibility |issue=52 |magazine=The Psychotherapist |location=[[United Kingdom]] |publisher=[[United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy]] |issn=2049-4912}}: "Passionate love, obsessive love, being in love, whatever you wish to call it. [...] In short, Explorers preferentially sought Explorers, Builders sought other Builders, and Directors and Negotiators were drawn to one another."</ref> Who a person falls in love with then is determined by their "[[Lovemap|love map]]", a largely unconscious list of traits they desire in an ideal partner. Love maps begin forming during childhood based on experiences with parents and friends, among other associations, but also change over time.<ref>{{harvnb|Fisher|2016|pp=26-27}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Fisher|2009|pp=157-159,234-235}}</ref> In most species, courtship attraction is brief, but intense romantic love can last much longer in humans.<ref name=":8" /> A competing evolutionary theory to Fisher's is that courtship attraction only encompasses [[love at first sight]] attraction, and the obsessive thoughts and intense attraction associated with early-stage romantic love instead evolved by [[Exaptation|co-opting]] (or re-using) the brain systems for mother-infant bonding. In this theory, romantic love may serve the function of mate choice but the brain systems were not originally for this.<ref name="proximateandultimate" /><ref name="co-opted" /><ref name="diamond2003" /> In Fisher's theory, only the [[Attachment theory|attachment]] system is co-opted in this way.<ref name="fisher1998" /><ref name="fisher2002" /><ref name="co-opted" />

Tennov has suggested that if the neurophysiological "machinery" for limerence is not a universal among all humans, then having both [[phenotype]]s (limerent and nonlimerent) in the population might be beneficial and an [[evolutionarily stable strategy]].<ref>{{harvnb|Tennov|2005|p=413}}</ref>