I can't figure out why we need only one attachment figure. Why do we have to get so emotionally involved with one person? Why can't we spread it out over lots of people? It's driving me NUTS! Does anyone have any insight?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I thought it was okay to have many people to be attached to? No rules! 
Maybe?
My Ts have always said 'different friends for different things' which is what you're sayin about getting what we need in many places whether we need to care for or be taken care of... Or see a movie or hike or hug or laugh...
Sorry my insight is uninsight
Maybe?My Ts have always said 'different friends for different things' which is what you're sayin about getting what we need in many places
whether we need to care for or be taken care of... Or see a movie or hike or hug or laugh...Sorry my insight is uninsight
Hi Liese,
A safe base to explore from??
Seems to me though that more than one person is helpful. Like friends...different friends for different needs. I don't know though...just guessing and using personal experience. I've kind of found that having just "T" is not such a healthy thing for me personally...I found it to be very isolating until I had to include a few people in my story. I don't know if that's the same thing but the pressure from counseling sometimes became way over the top for me.
Hope you're doing well!
Hopeful
A safe base to explore from??
Seems to me though that more than one person is helpful. Like friends...different friends for different needs. I don't know though...just guessing and using personal experience. I've kind of found that having just "T" is not such a healthy thing for me personally...I found it to be very isolating until I had to include a few people in my story. I don't know if that's the same thing but the pressure from counseling sometimes became way over the top for me.
Hope you're doing well!Hopeful
I think we attach to many different people to different degrees and in different ways. I think in early infancy, there will be one main figure that the child identifies with, usually (though not always) the mother. The baby's sense of self is not distinct from that figure initially. And his or her sense of safety has to do with the level of care/responsiveness he or she receives from that caregiver. The child will attach to all consistent caregivers to a certain degree, but early on, there is one that is probably more main that the "self" gets identified with, through whom they learn about him or herself. I don't know, I'd have to look it up in more detail to make sense. I think later attachment patterns, which spread out to many different people, usually relate to how this first, early, significant attachment developed. That said, my nephew and niece get about 50/50 care from my sister and her fiance, so I guess it's possible for a kid to have a pretty evenly represented attachment? This sister is a former nanny and they are both really good parents, so I wonder how that attachment has developed. I don't see them often enough to really observe it. Interesting to think about, though, and a good question.
Hey guys,
Yes we do attach to many people in different ways but we are still geared towards partnering up with someone, as in a significant other. Why do we need to attach so deeply with one person?
Yes we do attach to many people in different ways but we are still geared towards partnering up with someone, as in a significant other. Why do we need to attach so deeply with one person?
Hmmmm! Never thought of that. All I can think of is because that's what "everyone" does. Not a good answer but I don't know any other answer.
Spiritual narratives and evolutionary biology at least will give their own answers to the question if it is in reference to the drive toward monogamy. How much is social construct and how much is biologically driven is up for debate. Obviously, not everyone feels driven to exclusivity of significance in those sort of relationships, though how much that is societal or pathological or evolutionary is up for debate... Sorry if I misunderstood the question before...or maybe am misunderstanding it now.
Hey Liese,
Well my thoughts are pretty much in line with what Anon said and I believe it is primarily because at infancy our brains haven't wired properly yet, and so to a large extent our ability to attach to our caregiver has to do with our survival. The amygdala forms part of both the limbic system and the reptilian brain *I think*, and associates emotions with events, although it is the hippocampus that converts the information into memory. Something like that... So basically what I am saying is our brains are wired to connect to our caregivers before they are wired to do anything else. Biologically nature has ensured that through things like breast feeding we connect more intensely to one caregiver in our initial stages of life. (Don't take that the wrong way if you bottle feed)
Regarding your question on why do we seek to connect deeply with one person:
Could it be a case of perhaps not needing to only connect deeply with one person, but more a case of seeking the ultimate connection? In other words, could it be a case of us seeking to recreate that level of ultimate connection that we once experienced with our caregiver where we felt accepted and safe and unconditionally loved, because somewhere in our subconscious we are aware of that powerful connection we once experienced and so it becomes a sort of longing in a sense? Just a thought. ????
B2W
Well my thoughts are pretty much in line with what Anon said and I believe it is primarily because at infancy our brains haven't wired properly yet, and so to a large extent our ability to attach to our caregiver has to do with our survival. The amygdala forms part of both the limbic system and the reptilian brain *I think*, and associates emotions with events, although it is the hippocampus that converts the information into memory. Something like that... So basically what I am saying is our brains are wired to connect to our caregivers before they are wired to do anything else. Biologically nature has ensured that through things like breast feeding we connect more intensely to one caregiver in our initial stages of life. (Don't take that the wrong way if you bottle feed)
Regarding your question on why do we seek to connect deeply with one person:
Could it be a case of perhaps not needing to only connect deeply with one person, but more a case of seeking the ultimate connection? In other words, could it be a case of us seeking to recreate that level of ultimate connection that we once experienced with our caregiver where we felt accepted and safe and unconditionally loved, because somewhere in our subconscious we are aware of that powerful connection we once experienced and so it becomes a sort of longing in a sense? Just a thought. ????
B2W
Now this is something I've not really considered before, just accepted that the search for one specific main AF is normal. But reading some of these replies, it's making me think.
I suppose for a lot of us, well me anyway, it's hard enough to find even ONE person to care about me, so the idea of spreading attachment around amongst many doesn't even exist in my world (ok I exaggerate a little, but you get the picture?)
Got me thinking all the same though. Anyone else got any thoughts on this, it's a really interesting question that I'd like to know more about. Good thread Liese!
LL
I suppose for a lot of us, well me anyway, it's hard enough to find even ONE person to care about me, so the idea of spreading attachment around amongst many doesn't even exist in my world (ok I exaggerate a little, but you get the picture?)
Got me thinking all the same though. Anyone else got any thoughts on this, it's a really interesting question that I'd like to know more about. Good thread Liese!
LL
I guess the only thought I can add is why does it seem that for people who didn't have secure attachments growing up, end up attaching to a semi-unavailable attachment figure, such as their therapist? I know my T is my secure attachment figure, and as strange as the attachment is, it's the only one I've got.
Mmmm... I think B2W is talking about stuff I've read before.
I also have my (probably misunderstood) way of looking at it.
So, from birth we are primed for connection and this is wired into us as a survival mechanism. Generally, there is a primary care giver and we learn to rely on this person (and the capacity strong attachments is limited, particularly early in life). Suddenly, this connection lets us down and we realise the world is indeed a scary place to be alone in, so we seek this secure figure again and again. Eventually we learn that this need is not going to be met and we adapt in order to survive. However, in therapy we might be exposed to unconditional positive regard, consistency, safety and this incomplete circuit for attachment is triggered into life, regardless of how long we have managed without it. Apparently, the hope is that once I've laid down a new relational blue print, I will transfer what I have learned to other relationships in my life. But it is taking a while. That's not to say that I don't have other relationships I value in my life, just that I don't have the same overwhelming need to feel safe with them - I built those relationships on the basis of there being a core of me which is safe from hurt.
I don't know if that's at all of interest but I do know it is currently causing me huge difficulty. It is such a battle to allow myself to feel what I really feel.
s to all struggling with this xx
I also have my (probably misunderstood) way of looking at it.
So, from birth we are primed for connection and this is wired into us as a survival mechanism. Generally, there is a primary care giver and we learn to rely on this person (and the capacity strong attachments is limited, particularly early in life). Suddenly, this connection lets us down and we realise the world is indeed a scary place to be alone in, so we seek this secure figure again and again. Eventually we learn that this need is not going to be met and we adapt in order to survive. However, in therapy we might be exposed to unconditional positive regard, consistency, safety and this incomplete circuit for attachment is triggered into life, regardless of how long we have managed without it. Apparently, the hope is that once I've laid down a new relational blue print, I will transfer what I have learned to other relationships in my life. But it is taking a while. That's not to say that I don't have other relationships I value in my life, just that I don't have the same overwhelming need to feel safe with them - I built those relationships on the basis of there being a core of me which is safe from hurt.
I don't know if that's at all of interest but I do know it is currently causing me huge difficulty. It is such a battle to allow myself to feel what I really feel.
s to all struggling with this xx
Just realised I've answered a question about attaching to a therapist and not about why we end up with one main relationship...
I reckon that's a mixture of biological drivers and social constructs... In terms of child rearing, some societies have a much more communal approach than a traditionally western one...
Sure there are many papers on it. I may search when I get some free time.
Sorry for the digression (indicative of my current pre-occupation, I feel...).
I reckon that's a mixture of biological drivers and social constructs... In terms of child rearing, some societies have a much more communal approach than a traditionally western one...
Sure there are many papers on it. I may search when I get some free time.
Sorry for the digression (indicative of my current pre-occupation, I feel...).
Your replies are all so thoughtful that I need to take some time to digest it all and reply. But I want to thank you all for helping think this through. It's AWESOME!!!
(((CAT)))
Not so uninsightful, at least for me. It made me think of, like, let's say we each have 100 emotional strands that make us up. Some are surface strands and some are deep strands.
A and B only have 1 surface strand in common. A and C have two strands in common, one surface and one deep. A and D have 60 strands in common, a mixture of both again. A and E have 100 strands in common.
So A and B share the 1 strand together but their relationship is not so strong or intimate. But if there aren't enough surface strands to connect, we may never get to the deeper strands. I don't really know where I am going with that but that's what your post evoked for me.
(((HOPEFUL)))
It's true for me too. It doesn't feel healthy to rely on one person to meet all our needs, especially when they don't rely on us except to meet a few needs.
((((ANON)))
If we are driven to attach because of evolutionary biology and our bodies actually have a built in pain system when the attachment is threatened, perhaps the spiritual narratives grew out of a need to minimize pain and loss and disruption and chaos?
(((B2W))))
In which case, then, would it be necessary for our survival or do we just think it's necessary for our survival?
(((DRAGGERS)))
What part of it sucks for you?
(((LL)))
Awwww, LL. You are NOT uncared for even though it might feel like that sometimes.
(((R2G)))
My T is the only one I've too. It's not strange. It's a part of being human.
(((IRIS)))
If we don't need the attachment when we grow older as much as we needed it at birth, then perhaps we could outgrow the need to attach? If it is more of a real threat when we are little than it is when we grow up, and we learn as we grow that our caregivers do come back, well, I guess that would fulfill the need for security but not other needs, necessarily, like for affection and belonging.
What part of it, Iris, is causing you problems right now?
I don't know exactly what part of it I am struggling with. I don't what it is I can't see. Uggggghhhhh.
quote:Sorry my insight is uninsight
Not so uninsightful, at least for me. It made me think of, like, let's say we each have 100 emotional strands that make us up. Some are surface strands and some are deep strands.
A and B only have 1 surface strand in common. A and C have two strands in common, one surface and one deep. A and D have 60 strands in common, a mixture of both again. A and E have 100 strands in common.
So A and B share the 1 strand together but their relationship is not so strong or intimate. But if there aren't enough surface strands to connect, we may never get to the deeper strands. I don't really know where I am going with that but that's what your post evoked for me.
(((HOPEFUL)))
quote:I've kind of found that having just "T" is not such a healthy thing for me personally...I found it to be very isolating until I had to include a few people in my story. I don't know if that's the same thing but the pressure from counseling sometimes became way over the top for me.
It's true for me too. It doesn't feel healthy to rely on one person to meet all our needs, especially when they don't rely on us except to meet a few needs.
((((ANON)))
quote:Spiritual narratives and evolutionary biology at least will give their own answers to the question if it is in reference to the drive toward monogamy. How much is social construct and how much is biologically driven is up for debate.
If we are driven to attach because of evolutionary biology and our bodies actually have a built in pain system when the attachment is threatened, perhaps the spiritual narratives grew out of a need to minimize pain and loss and disruption and chaos?
(((B2W))))
quote:In other words, could it be a case of us seeking to recreate that level of ultimate connection that we once experienced with our caregiver where we felt accepted and safe and unconditionally loved, because somewhere in our subconscious we are aware of that powerful connection we once experienced and so it becomes a sort of longing in a sense?
In which case, then, would it be necessary for our survival or do we just think it's necessary for our survival?
(((DRAGGERS)))
What part of it sucks for you?
(((LL)))
quote:I suppose for a lot of us, well me anyway, it's hard enough to find even ONE person to care about me,
Awwww, LL. You are NOT uncared for even though it might feel like that sometimes.
(((R2G)))
quote:I know my T is my secure attachment figure, and as strange as the attachment is, it's the only one I've got.
My T is the only one I've too. It's not strange. It's a part of being human.
(((IRIS)))
quote:So, from birth we are primed for connection and this is wired into us as a survival mechanism.
If we don't need the attachment when we grow older as much as we needed it at birth, then perhaps we could outgrow the need to attach? If it is more of a real threat when we are little than it is when we grow up, and we learn as we grow that our caregivers do come back, well, I guess that would fulfill the need for security but not other needs, necessarily, like for affection and belonging.
quote:I don't know if that's at all of interest but I do know it is currently causing me huge difficulty.
What part of it, Iris, is causing you problems right now?
I don't know exactly what part of it I am struggling with. I don't what it is I can't see. Uggggghhhhh.
Liese, to answer your question about my question/sort of theory.... 
My theory:
Your question re my theory Liese:
Answer to your question Liese: I would say that what started off as connecting for the purpose of survival was so fulfilling in emotional respects as well, that it drove the need to seek that feeling/connection again. Make sense? Hey I don't even know if that is the correct answer, it is just a thought, and possibly what I am inclined to understand by it.
Sometimes there is more than one answer to a question, and I think this question is probably one of those.
B2W
My theory:
quote:
In other words, could it be a case of us seeking to recreate that level of ultimate connection that we once experienced with our caregiver where we felt accepted and safe and unconditionally loved, because somewhere in our subconscious we are aware of that powerful connection we once experienced and so it becomes a sort of longing in a sense?
Your question re my theory Liese:
quote:In which case, then, would it be necessary for our survival or do we just think it's necessary for our survival?
Answer to your question Liese: I would say that what started off as connecting for the purpose of survival was so fulfilling in emotional respects as well, that it drove the need to seek that feeling/connection again. Make sense? Hey I don't even know if that is the correct answer, it is just a thought, and possibly what I am inclined to understand by it.
Sometimes there is more than one answer to a question, and I think this question is probably one of those.
B2W
Totally off topic Liese - but I love your new avatar
AWww, 
Thanks R2G.
Thanks R2G.