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

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.