Posted by seldomseen on November 23, 2008, at 7:27:31
So much of psychiatric theory is based on the premise that the ability to form stable attachments is necessary for stable relationships, and these relationships form the basis of a mentally healthy human.
I beginning to wonder if this is true.
My years as a clinical scientist have taught me that there is considerable (that is a gross understatement) variability among individuals. We are all sooooo very different in our physiology.
I mean some people must, simply due to their nature, attach very freely and without reserve. Others may be much more resistant to attachment. Still others are in the middle.
I think this continuum surely exists regardless of pathology but is rather dictated by genetic, physiological factors within the individual.
Surely this physiological basis can be directly influenced by environment, but in this baseline ability there must be marked difference between individuals.
I wonder if I am on the outer end of the continuum of attachment and it is just my nature to be solitary. That, in fact, there is nothing wrong with me at all. My resistance is just *me*.
There is a complicating factor, however, (at least for me) - the history of abuse that would be predicted to influence my ability to attach. Therefore, it may not be *me* but a true morbidity.
So the question is, how to tell the difference between pathology and physiology.
The answer to this question does have some ramifications - namely, whether or not to continue therapy and treatment.
And I just don't know the answer to it.
Any ideas?
Seldom.
poster:seldomseen
thread:864830
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20081120/msgs/864830.html