|
|
Post by erasmus on Apr 10, 2016 17:22:38 GMT
First of all, Jeb, my apologies for not having read your books--they aren't available at my local library, so I will be putting in interlibrary loan requests for them. Meanwhile, I've started my reading with Amir Levine and Rachel Heller's Attached and have just encountered the idea that the various attachment styles may be evolutionary developments, not just a result of one's upbringing.
Is this possible? What's the evidence? One the one hand, it's a discouraging thought if this sick, dysfunctional, miserable attachment style is genetically hardwired into my brain. But it does make a certain kind of sense in that it fits with the hypothesis of diversity as an adaptive characteristic of a species. And it raises the possibility that there could even be strengths hidden somewhere in the anxious-preoccupied style--that's undoubtedly just wishful thinking, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeb Kinnison on Apr 11, 2016 19:18:23 GMT
Evolutionary psychology can be fun to speculate about, but there's rarely a lot of hard evidence (since "experiments" are difficult.) It's certainly *plausible* that there are evolved tendencies in attachment styles, just as it's clear much of a person's personality is determined by genetics -- that much we know from twin studies, where identical twins raised apart are much more similar than would be expected from their differing environments. So I think it's fair to say some of one's attachment tendencies comes from genetic background, heavily influenced by nurture.
People then ask, why would such personalities -- which appear not to be as successful in establishing stable relationships and having successful children -- persist? The answer is that like other behavioral adaptations, the less-secure types can be *more* successful in some environments -- like war-torn territories where independence and a willingness to abandon relationships may confer a survival advantage, for more dismissive types, and the ability to glom on to a partner whether they respect you or not may allow escape and survival for the preoccupied -- imagine the women of a tribe conquered in war who change loyalties to the conquering men. Survival ain't beanball, so what we think of as secure behaviors are not always optimal for insecure environments.
But there's no behavior so hardwired you can't work your way out of it by conscious thought and effort. Tendencies in something so complex as attachment type aren't destiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by erasmus on Apr 25, 2016 23:00:08 GMT
Not exactly related to the conversation going on in the Dismissive-Avoidant room, but in response to it, I think I'm prepared to answer, with a qualified affirmative, the question I raised above about potential strengths in the anxious-preoccupied style. I think it's true that flaws and weaknesses are often virtues and strengths gone wrong or taken to excess. That hypervigilance? Reined in and made our servant rather than our master, it's great sensitivity to our partner's emotional state and the atmosphere of the relationship. Likewise the strong investment in a relationship and the willingness to hang in there and forgive--those, it seems to me, can be excellent qualities if not taken to an extreme. So maybe we anxious-preoccupied types have at least the possibility of something valuable to bring to relationships, not just deficits to be mitigated.
Of course, this is on--well, I won't say a good day, but not the worst of days. Check in tomorrow and no doubt you'll hear me whining again about what an irredeemably lousy style this is.
|
|
