Warmth, attachment, friendship, longing: different shades of the same colour?

The Senses. Not only are our sensory inputs critical to our immediate reactions, they form the base data upon which later processing is performed. If we can simply get over our instant, sometimes instinctive, reactions: pain, disgust, attraction, rejection or whatever, we then have time to consider the pros and cons of anyone and anything. We can arrive at a considered opinion. Which seems sensible, in a sense.

How we arrive at that later opinion can be less obvious – it can of course be an upfront logical processing where we actively consider whatever the “question” may be, thereby deriving a sensible “answer” - or instead a subconscious process, at times involving dreams, where we at length ‘suddenly’ realise our opinion or view on the issue. Whether we meant to or not!

My interest right now is in attachment. How do we mesh senses and logical processing with overall brain function and arrive at effective relationships? More interestingly, could friendship and love be the flipside of the same wonderful brain function?

Such a basic function, and clearly a very important one, may have evolved at a very early stage in human evolution. But what evidence do we have for this? Should we care? And why is it important to consider the hows and whys?

Whatever the evolutionary advantage gained, these emotional bonds of attachment are formed naturally and fairly constantly. When I say ‘naturally’, I don’t mean to say ‘easily’ or ‘without constraint’, because there are clearly some regulatory issues in place. For example there is little or no advantage in forming the wrong type of attachment, or of forming an attachment with the wrong person. Admittedly, both occur, but presumably not so often that any evolutionary advantage is lost.

One wonders if this attachment function is so different from the longing for place, or for a much loved teddy bear, or for many other inanimate objects to which humans become enamoured. Just another variation on the theme, really? Or an extension of a basic animal instinct: hang on to what works for you, be it territory, tool, ally or mate?

Overlaying this evolutionary ‘hard-wiring’ is free will. Whilst much of our relationship building is ‘fated’ to some degree – we don’t choose our relatives, for instance, and we are never likely to meet more than a fraction of all compatible people – there is always the action of choice. We can overrule our innate attachment drive by simply choosing to do so. And by habit, or by lack of acquired skill we can just as easily limit our range of choice. It’s all in our minds, after all.

Putting those thoughts aside for a moment, I contend here and now that 3 main mechanisms are at play when we form an attachment. These mechanisms can be mixed in any ratio, which is to say 1, 2 or all 3 mechanisms may active during any individual attachment formation.

These I call the Instant, Propinquitous and Logical mechanisms. Let me explain how these mechanisms may work.

Instant. One look and your mind is made up. There is evidence to suggest that the first 5 seconds of any first encounter is indeed the most critical. Whilst we don’t like to admit to judging a book by its cover, inevitably we do. Unless we choose to pause and contemplate the logic of our “feeling”, we are likely to persist with “first impressions”. In the cut and thrust of an animal existence this makes perfect sense – the better the judgement, the more likely to eat, to find shelter, to mate well or to form worthwhile alliances. Poor judgement, or indecision, leads to poor diet, bad choice of cave, inappropriate gene swapping and non-strategic investments in unhelpful allies. This mechanism is characterised by instant assessment, and if that assessment proves wrong then we discard and move on quickly. Quirkily, just a few correct instant assessments are enough to reinforce this approach. It’s like building a house with a wave of a magic wand.

Propinquitous. At its simplest, proximity. Spend enough time together and you start to feel close. Not always so, but in the right situation a common outcome. Why? Did our “first impressions” prove wrong? Did we misjudge and then recant, or is this a genuinely separate attachment path? This mechanism is characterised by attachment forming over the medium to long term , and it doesn’t appear to be a sudden revelation, as in waking one morning and thinking “Eureka, I was wrong”. It’s more a gradual, increasing reliance on that person’s company, and it sneaks up on you. This is not a transparent decision making process. It’s like sleepwalking and in your sleep building a house brick by brick. Each time you wake up you see bit more house but not enough to say, “Oh, I’m building a house.”

Logical. We have so much in common, we really are meant to be friends. Again, usually medium term rather than instant, but decidedly quicker than Propinquitous. It takes time and proximity to really get to know someone, and if enough factors are in alignment then it friendship really becomes a natural outcome. Almost a given. Inevitable. It can appear to be a non-decision, in the sense that no ‘decision’ is made but that an obvious attachment has formed anyway.

Of course we can mix and match these mechanisms.