6 ms·

> “Real love stories reflect the wisdom of attachment science, which states that love is an ancient survival code designed to keep a few precious others that we

by mlthoughts2018 7y ago

> “Real love stories reflect the wisdom of attachment science, which states that love is an ancient survival code designed to keep a few precious others that we can count on close. We are wired by millions of years of evolution for this kind of connection, and it is as essential to us as our next breath.“ I hate stuff like this because it’s some of the most “just-so” evolutionary reasoning there is. It reminds me a lot of the way “ancient” or “evolutionary” stories are used to justify fad diets. No amount of statistical studies on current couples therapy outcomes can confirm such a highly specific evolutionary marketing tag line. Not to mention that, like with many parts of social science, we should be hugely skeptical of the research basis for this technique. I’d need much more compelling discussion of the study methodologies before finding it worthwhile to invest in really reading them and deciding if there is credibility to it, or if the outcomes are due to confounding factors or selection effects. But hearing just-so reasoning about attachment bonds is a non-starter. What about forager societies with loose sexual norms and cultures that did not emphasize monogamy or long-term partner bonding?

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
I wish I could upvote this many times. This "just so" reasoning about evolution is basically pure pseudosience, and yet it is so prevalent in so many books, seminars, videos of today... It's like people assume that if they just think up of some reason that would losely make some vague sense and use some of evolutionary terms, if there is a way to picture a mechanism that they are describing and if that mechanism in the picture would have some evolutionary mechanics - that it automaticallt means that it applies to reality, to our physical historical evolution and the exact way that it played out; that they understand the evolutionary traits of those behaviors/qualities... It's like they think that just because evolution itself is basically a status quo in the scientific community, then any other random preposterous bs argument that you make about it, or just use the evolutionary terms in, would somehow automatically by association have as much predictive power/internal coherence/pure basic connection to reality as the evolution itself. It's a disgrace this is so prevalent nowadays... It is a clear sign that whoever writes the content is no real scientist.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Yes, it's called evolutionary psychology and it is (to paint with a broad brush that doesn't accurately describe everyone researching related concepts) bullshit.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  What irks me is that the every time someone finds an evolutionary reason for something, it is just as easy to find an evolutionary reason to explain the opposite of it, which makes the explanation useless. For example, "men evolved to be promiscuous because having many children gave the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes sense until you realize "men evolved to be faithful because nurturing their children gave them the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes just as much sense. When your theory can explain everything, it can explain nothing.
  - kebbekaise 7y ago
    Both of those explanations vaguely make sense. And indeed both strategies are seen in nature. Neither approach is strictly better than the other. It's situational. You gotta look at how many resources are available how easy and predation pressure and probably lots of more factors.
    - MiroF 7y ago
      But this isn't falsifiable.
tony 7y ago
I understand the marketing tagline / spin part. To be fair, since it's a theoretical framework, the analogy is done in such a way it's hard to disprove. There's a Barnum effect thing to it. I could keep firing off examples and make it really hard to disprove. I don't necessarily accept this as science, but as way of analogize complex human behavior without being overwhelmed by variables and contradictions. A framework will tend to pick what's important and be a way of handling signal:noise. For example, you could take a more grim framework, like terror management theory will say we're all in fear of death and so society make rules, individuals focus on self-esteem, all to shake off the anxiety mortality gives us. It's hard to disprove that, but that's the point: it posits a core human motivation while willfully ignoring other things to get from Point A -> Point B (example: the motivation of Alexander the Great's military campaigns were to spread his cultural standards/law and ensure forces threatening those rules at home were contained / eliminated. Him naming cities after himself explains the self-esteem motive :P. Napoleon, Emperor Qin, all conquered and placed legal/regulatory systems in their wake) Back to frameworks in general: It's built off observational anecdotes and if put to the rigors of say - a physics experiment - it'd be hard to give that kind control / certainty. We can't read minds, and various types of reporting methods may not pan out. Our whole lives we're forming object relations that have meanings/associations/intricacies on an individual basis. So to handle things, we pick a common denominator and use that to inspect the situation. We have to look back into relationships and see conditions / cause / effect, rather than being able to simulate in a controlled setting. > What about forager societies with loose sexual norms and cultures that did not emphasize monogamy or long-term partner bonding? Attachment theory tries to be a theory of everything. It'd then be chalked up to difference in culture/customs, rather than the theory not fitting. If a monogamous relationship isn't there, some other bond likely will. Doesn't have to be romantic. The relations between the hunting group, the teamwork and dynamics of the tribe. It could be argued the cooperation based on trust is what kept it together, so they could survive. It involved letting their guard down at times to trust someone else. It could also explain betrayals, outcasts and desertion, longstanding protracted hostilities and alliances.
empthought 7y ago
Attachment science is developmental psychology, not couples therapy. I’m not sure what exactly you’re objecting to (the “real love stories” phrase is extraordinarily tenuous), but the “wired by millions of years of evolution” part is pretty well substantiated. The author has perhaps unfortunately led you to fill in the blanks about what “this kind of connection” means, but the attachment science part has nothing to do with monogamy or sexual norms.
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  > “but the “wired by millions of years of evolution” part is pretty well substantiated.” Can you point to the studies on this? I’m extremely skeptical. I’m sure lots of research papers have been published, much like in evolutionary game theory, while the reality is none of the generalized comments of million-year evolutionary processes has actually been backed up. Most often these claims aren’t even falsifiable.

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago

I wish I could upvote this many times. This "just so" reasoning about evolution is basically pure pseudosience, and yet it is so prevalent in so many books, seminars, videos of today... It's like people assume that if they just think up of some reason that would losely make some vague sense and use some of evolutionary terms, if there is a way to picture a mechanism that they are describing and if that mechanism in the picture would have some evolutionary mechanics - that it automaticallt means that it applies to reality, to our physical historical evolution and the exact way that it played out; that they understand the evolutionary traits of those behaviors/qualities... It's like they think that just because evolution itself is basically a status quo in the scientific community, then any other random preposterous bs argument that you make about it, or just use the evolutionary terms in, would somehow automatically by association have as much predictive power/internal coherence/pure basic connection to reality as the evolution itself. It's a disgrace this is so prevalent nowadays... It is a clear sign that whoever writes the content is no real scientist.

MiroF 7y ago
Yes, it's called evolutionary psychology and it is (to paint with a broad brush that doesn't accurately describe everyone researching related concepts) bullshit.
StavrosK 7y ago
What irks me is that the every time someone finds an evolutionary reason for something, it is just as easy to find an evolutionary reason to explain the opposite of it, which makes the explanation useless. For example, "men evolved to be promiscuous because having many children gave the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes sense until you realize "men evolved to be faithful because nurturing their children gave them the biggest chance at surviving offspring" makes just as much sense. When your theory can explain everything, it can explain nothing.
- kebbekaise 7y ago
  Both of those explanations vaguely make sense. And indeed both strategies are seen in nature. Neither approach is strictly better than the other. It's situational. You gotta look at how many resources are available how easy and predation pressure and probably lots of more factors.
  - MiroF 7y ago
    But this isn't falsifiable.

tony 7y ago

I understand the marketing tagline / spin part. To be fair, since it's a theoretical framework, the analogy is done in such a way it's hard to disprove. There's a Barnum effect thing to it. I could keep firing off examples and make it really hard to disprove. I don't necessarily accept this as science, but as way of analogize complex human behavior without being overwhelmed by variables and contradictions. A framework will tend to pick what's important and be a way of handling signal:noise. For example, you could take a more grim framework, like terror management theory will say we're all in fear of death and so society make rules, individuals focus on self-esteem, all to shake off the anxiety mortality gives us. It's hard to disprove that, but that's the point: it posits a core human motivation while willfully ignoring other things to get from Point A -> Point B (example: the motivation of Alexander the Great's military campaigns were to spread his cultural standards/law and ensure forces threatening those rules at home were contained / eliminated. Him naming cities after himself explains the self-esteem motive :P. Napoleon, Emperor Qin, all conquered and placed legal/regulatory systems in their wake) Back to frameworks in general: It's built off observational anecdotes and if put to the rigors of say - a physics experiment - it'd be hard to give that kind control / certainty. We can't read minds, and various types of reporting methods may not pan out. Our whole lives we're forming object relations that have meanings/associations/intricacies on an individual basis. So to handle things, we pick a common denominator and use that to inspect the situation. We have to look back into relationships and see conditions / cause / effect, rather than being able to simulate in a controlled setting. > What about forager societies with loose sexual norms and cultures that did not emphasize monogamy or long-term partner bonding? Attachment theory tries to be a theory of everything. It'd then be chalked up to difference in culture/customs, rather than the theory not fitting. If a monogamous relationship isn't there, some other bond likely will. Doesn't have to be romantic. The relations between the hunting group, the teamwork and dynamics of the tribe. It could be argued the cooperation based on trust is what kept it together, so they could survive. It involved letting their guard down at times to trust someone else. It could also explain betrayals, outcasts and desertion, longstanding protracted hostilities and alliances.

empthought 7y ago

Attachment science is developmental psychology, not couples therapy. I’m not sure what exactly you’re objecting to (the “real love stories” phrase is extraordinarily tenuous), but the “wired by millions of years of evolution” part is pretty well substantiated. The author has perhaps unfortunately led you to fill in the blanks about what “this kind of connection” means, but the attachment science part has nothing to do with monogamy or sexual norms.

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
> “but the “wired by millions of years of evolution” part is pretty well substantiated.” Can you point to the studies on this? I’m extremely skeptical. I’m sure lots of research papers have been published, much like in evolutionary game theory, while the reality is none of the generalized comments of million-year evolutionary processes has actually been backed up. Most often these claims aren’t even falsifiable.