trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Love can be reliably measured through objective scientific methods

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
7 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Objective scientific methods—including psychometric scales and functional neuroimaging—reliably measure the biological and psychological components of love.

The analysis

The retrieved literature robustly supports the claim. Multiple peer-reviewed studies validate psychometric questionnaires designed to measure love and romantic inclinations (e.g., [2], [4], [9]), while functional neuroimaging and molecular biology studies (e.g., [0], [1], [6], [7]) reliably map the neural circuits, reward systems, and neurochemical underpinnings associated with different forms of love and attachment. No papers refute the claim.

Evidence for · 7
Recorded source metadata

Bortolini T, Laport MC, Latgé-Tovar S, Fischer R, Zahn R, de Oliveira-Souza R, Moll J. The extended neural architecture of human attachment: An fMRI coordinate-based meta-analysis of affiliative studies.. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105584

Paper [0] utilizes fMRI coordinate-based meta-analyses to reliably identify the neural architecture and substrates of human attachment.

See more details
More for · 6
Recorded source metadata

Rinne P, Lahnakoski JM, Saarimäki H, Tavast M, Sams M, Henriksson L. Six types of loves differentially recruit reward and social cognition brain areas.. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhae331

Paper [1] maps distinct neural activation patterns associated with different types of love using functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Recorded source metadata

Barani Kanth, Manfred H. M. van Dulmen, Haylee De Luca Bishop, Kadhiravan S. Psychometric validation and cross‐cultural comparison of the Romantic Inclination Scale. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12402

Paper [2] establishes valid and reliable psychometric tools, such as the Romantic Inclination Scale, to quantitatively assess romantic involvement.

Recorded source metadata

Jennifer Chalmers. A Measure of Romantic Love: The Psychometric Properties of the Love Bank Inventory. 2023. https://doi.org/10.31580/jrp.v4i2.2622

Paper [4] demonstrates the psychometric validity, internal consistency, and reliability of the Love Bank Inventory for measuring romantic love.

Recorded source metadata

Esch T, Stefano GB. The neurobiology of love and addiction: Central nervous system signaling and energy metabolism.. 2025. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-025-01333-w

Paper [6] examines the neurobiological connections and central reward system signaling shared by romantic love and other measured states.

Recorded source metadata

Babková J, Repiská G. The Molecular Basis of Love.. 2025. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26041533

Paper [7] reviews the biochemical and molecular basis of love, focusing on measurable hormones and neuromodulators.

Recorded source metadata

Runze Li, Lanbing Li, Yuan Zheng, Chuanxiao Li, Xianglong Zeng. Measuring Love Toward AI: Development and Validation of the Love Attitudes Scale toward Artificial Intelligence (LAS-AI). 2026. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.12871

Paper [9] develops and validates the Love Attitudes Scale toward Artificial Intelligence, demonstrating the empirical measurement of love-related attitudes.

The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked01 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 8101 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt