Posted by alexandra_k on October 26, 2005, at 5:47:58
In reply to Re: romantic love » Declan, posted by alexandra_k on October 26, 2005, at 5:38:58
i think... an infant is pretty helpless. defenceless. unable to care for itself. without someone else to look after it. to feed it. to protect it. to keep it safe. it will die.
and thus...
there is an evolutionary advantage conferred on infants who are able to elicit more / better care from others.
smiling...
responsiveness to touch...
cuddling...are such mechanisms... reflexes really. but they mean a lot to us. how happy does a babys reflexive smile make its parents???
doesn't it make you go all gooey?
yup.
thats the point...attachment to mother elicits caring behaviour from mother.
another mechanism.
you can observe filial imprinting in... goslings i think it was. Konrad Lorenz. I think the story goes that... he took some eggs? anyways... they hatched and the first thing they saw was Konrad and so they imprinted on him (attached to him) they followed him around just like they would follow mummy goose around. they are biologically hardwired to attach to... the first big living thing they see (or similar). the mechanism isn't perfect (it doesn't map the truth perfectly) but it is good enough mostly... mostly the first big living thing they see is mummy goose so everything works fine. but then ethologists come along and do stuff like that... to confuse the mechanisms... to see whether it is possible to confuse them... to see under what conditions they break down etc.
the 'projecting of an ideal'.
i dunno.
it just seems to lead to further questions...
does everyone have this?
why do we have it?
where does it come from?
is this really what is going on?
how are we to decide?
poster:alexandra_k
thread:568417
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/relate/20051002/msgs/571994.html