She adopts a biological definition of love that seems to have a deeper meaning at first, but ultimately sets additional limitations to what love is and how social connections are created. The book supports Fredrickson’s practice of psychological positivity but fails to consider the negative social and biological aspects of love and social relationships (Miller Spellmeyer 105). Fredrickson’s limitations continue to exceed social connectivity through negativity because she only describes love and connections as the synchronization of two brains rather than connecting emotionally with an artist or a spirit. Ultimately, Fredrickson challenges society’s preconceptions of relationships but fails to provide theory and evidence that counter her personal
She adopts a biological definition of love that seems to have a deeper meaning at first, but ultimately sets additional limitations to what love is and how social connections are created. The book supports Fredrickson’s practice of psychological positivity but fails to consider the negative social and biological aspects of love and social relationships (Miller Spellmeyer 105). Fredrickson’s limitations continue to exceed social connectivity through negativity because she only describes love and connections as the synchronization of two brains rather than connecting emotionally with an artist or a spirit. Ultimately, Fredrickson challenges society’s preconceptions of relationships but fails to provide theory and evidence that counter her personal