Talk:Human bonding

Offensive?
Anyone else find this article specious, jejune and even offensive to human beings and other mammals? The bond between a mother and child, for example, which peaks about a year after weaning, is a passion so intense that everyone knows to steer clear of an animal with cubs to protect. But all the reader gets is a lecture on feeding choices? I've read a lot of Wikipedia for a lot of reasons, and it ranges from numb-skulled-but-I'd-love-to-see-what-word-they-use-over-on-the-German-side to brilliant. This, I'm sorry to say, tells us nothing and bears no resemblance to the world I've lived in for 50 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.233.58 (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article?
Anyone else think this should be nominated as a Featured Article? 80.47.85.202 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think so.CerealBabyMilk 21:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the nod of encouragement. I favor this suggestion as well.  I was the one that started and wrote the majority of this article; however, I also recently started a similar article: interpersonal chemistry, which one would be a better FA nomination? --Sadi Carnot 09:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To me this article seems messy and unstructured. I went in there looking for information about bonds between parents and their children, or people in sexual relationships, and had to scroll through a lot of unrelated information before I found (a bit) of what I was looking for Totorotroll (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review request
Owing to the above comments, I will request a peer review: --Sadi Carnot 09:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The peer review, thus far, has pointed out a few week areas. Owing to these comments, so far I have added a maternal bonding section, paternal bonding section, added to the introduction, beefed up the pair bonding section, trimmed both the see also's and the external links, added more references, added many new images w/ captions, and moved some of the further reading material into the article. It probably still needs more work before FA submission. Later: --Sadi Carnot 13:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Feedback on Human Bonding article
I received these comments via email, from contributor Lynn Liss, and added them below. --Sadi Carnot 13:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Many, good, links within the article
 * 2) I like the ‘contents’ TOC on the left, easy to jump to different sections
 * 3) The pictures are good
 * 4) Regarding the following definition, what about people that click because they have a lot in common, but they don’t stay in touch frequently or constantly, would you have to say that there bond is less strong, then one with frequent or constant association? The term 'human bond', or more generally human bonding, refers to the process or formation of a close personal relationship, as between a mother and child, especially through frequent or constant association.[1]
 * 5) It’s interesting that Ira just brought up a conversation about ‘Spinoza’ this weekend!
 * 6) The following sentence is very relevant and supportive: In 1809 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, in his classic novella Elective Affinities, speaks of the marriage tie and by analogy shows how strong marriage unions are similar in character to that by which the particles of quicksilver find a unity together though the process of chemical affinity.
 * 7) I don’t like the quote in the last part of this sentence, I think it adds more silliness to the article then necessary: The term male bonding refers to bonding between males through shared activities excluding females or the formation of a close personal relationship between men; for example: "the rituals known as male bonding do not necessarily involve drinking beer together".[6]
 * 8) I might suggest getting rid of the ‘labor union’ paragraph, it doesn’t add much to the article
 * 9) I like the ‘Interpersonal Chemistry’ section, though I think you should tie it more clearly to the section before and after.
 * 10) The National Geographic paragraph could also probably be deleted, as it doesn’t add enough value, and sounds too light.
 * 11) Should there be an introduction to the Neurochemistry section?
 * 12) I like the ‘limerace’ and ‘lovemaps’ stuff… I also like the ‘phases’ section within this article
 * 13) Seems like ‘Types’ should come after ‘Bond Distinction”. I like this section.  You should expand on the following sentence a bit: Some scientists speculate that prolonged bonds developed in humans along with increased sharing of food.[22]
 * 14) I like the following set of sentences VERY much! Specifically, more novel information flows to individuals through weak than through strong ties. Because our close friends tend to move in the same circles that we do, the information they receive overlaps considerably with what we already know. Acquaintances, by contrast, know people that we do not, and thus receive more novel information.
 * 15) I don’t like the ‘fluid bonding’ paragraph. It’s too subjective……
 * 16) Reference section is good, many listings, same goes for the books section\


 * 1) I made some alterations to the section on maternal-infant bonding. The strong statements about the role of breastfeeding can be supported only on the basis of experimental work with non-humans, and generalizing from one species to another is not necessarily justified.72.73.242.48 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: the "Human-insect bond"
First, I want to give kudos to Sadi Carnot who (as I easily discerned from looking at the edit history) has contributed so much work to creating a very comprehensive and informative article. I was looking to find what editor had added the section on "Human-insect bond", assuming correctly that it had been added recently -- but assuming incorrectly (oh, well...) that it was added by someone who had no other connection to the article.

The first time I read through the article about 10 days ago, I was a bit taken aback when I first saw that section, but I was focused on other issues at the time, and didn't give it a lot of serious thought. But I've been back 2 or 3 times subsequently, and this time I have given it serious thought.

In a nutshell, I simply do not see how a supposed "bond" between humans and insects can even exist, much less be put on a par with human-animal bonds, which unquestionably do exist in the cases of mammals and some species of birds. I think that using the word "bond" in connection with insects is a serious misuse of the concept. How can there possibly be an actual bond between a human being and a non-sentient creature which lacks a developed brain? -- I'm not aware of any insect which has more than large nerve ganglia, at best.

I'm also not impressed by the fact that two entomologists have written a book apparently promoting the idea. Whatever "attachment" or fixation a person might have for an insect, it certainly doesn't amount to what could properly be considered a real bond. Moreover, if you google the term "Human-insect bond" it gets exactly ONE hit -- for this very Wikipedia article! :) -- whereas, the term "Human-animal bond" gets many thousands of hits.

I really think inclusion of this section detracts from and hurts the credibility of the rest of the article. So the bottom-line here is, I strongly urge that this section be deleted. (I was seriously tempted to remove it myself -- but that's a very un-collegial way to proceed, so I decided to broach the issue here first.) The material is not without interest; perhaps it could be moved to a more suitable location (minus the term "Human-insect bond") -- possibly here: Insect. Hopefully I've persuaded you of my POV on this, fellow editors. Let me know what you think. Cgingold 13:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly see your point; it is a marginal topic and I suppose if enough people object to it we can certainly remove it. On the other hand, it is a published view and I’m sure there are people out there who will agree that they have a strong bond to their hissing cockroach, ant farm, or moths, e.g. Silence of the Lambs, etc.  Likewise, there are probably a few scientists out there who discuss synergistic bonds between humans and bacteria, such as those that live naturally on our skin.  So, although these bottom sections need more work, I don’t think the whole article should be exclusively man-woman bonding.  We’ll have to see what others think? --Sadi Carnot 18:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the bug bonding thing ought to be removed. People who collect insects, alive or dead, are revealing an interest or hobby they have and not a social bond. One may love their bug collection like they love their house or car, and some guys speak of bonding to their cars, but this is overstatement. Social bonds exist between people and between people and their pets. With pets there must be a meaningful emotional connection...it would be hard to truly bond with an ant farm.209.29.81.58 09:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the Human-insect bond section. The section was clearly not-notable, despite being a published viewpoint. The creator and defender of this section Sadi Carnot is known to have introduced many not-notable and questionably referenced topics (sometimes with his own self-published non-peer reviewed works) despite having contributed prolifically and often accurately in other areas. For those actively involved in this article I suggest that his contributions be carefully reviewed with a reasonable level of skepticism but probably not dismissed wholesale.--Nick Y. 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Female bonding?
As there is an article for male bonding, anyone want to help start up an opposite article? Obviously there are unique properties between girlfriends, sisters, mother-daughter, etc. Both the positives and negatives. Tyciol 10:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work Tyciol, I'll chip in a little with a few sources, external link articles, etc. --Sadi Carnot 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Double reference error
Human bonding says the main article is Love (scientific views), while that very article, under Biological Theories/Chemical love: attraction and attachment, says that "Neurochemistry of bonding" -that very part of Human bonding- is the main article. They are referring to eachother as the main article. I'm posting this on both talk pages, in hope someone can figure it out and clean it up. Cheers and happy editting! - JackSparrow Ninja 18:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it from "see main" to "see also". --Sadi Carnot 12:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete and start over
Wikipedia might need an article on this subject, but not this one. Delete the whole thing and start over is my suggestion. Keith Henson 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Clap Trap
I have never read so much rubbish in all my life.

This page represents a feminist point of view dressed up with philosophy and science. Please go to the pages on John Bowlby, Maternal deprivation and the work of Professor Sir Michael Rutter to read an accurate account of bonding. (I have also produced 2 video clips called Bonding The Attachment Theory and Bonding The Attachment Theory - New Perspectives, available on YouTube). I could not agree more with the above comment 'Delete and start over'.

Kingsley Miller 78.146.200.13 (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All,

I have added this comment to my video clips on YouTube;-

Dear All,

If you would like to see how John Bowlby's work is still used to support the theory of 'maternal deprivation' please go to the Wikipedia page called, 'Human bonding'.

Many thanks,

Kingsley Miller

PS I have already produced a video clip on mistakes in Wikipedia which refers to this specific problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.200.13 (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Critique on Wikipedia page on Female Bonding - Even more Clap Trap
This author does not know what they are talking about.

The gist of the webpages is that females are mutually supportive whilst men make wars.

'Bonding' and attachment are extremely important issues in psychology. Individuals with confused feelings may read these articles and seriously believe that there is something wrong with them because either they are in a female body and want to make war or in a male body and want to make cakes.

There are not different genes in our body which make us want to go to war or make cakes according to our gender. The idea is ridiculous.

Mankind is all the same. We all have feelings and emotions and is wrong to assign particular feelings or emotions according to the person's sex.

I have tried to highlight these points in the TALK pages on; Human bonding, Male bonding and now Female bonding.

Whoever is writing this stuff should read up on attachment theory.

Critique on Wikipedia page on Male Bonding - More Clap Trap
Here is the comment I made about the page on 'Human bonding'. The same criticisms are here. As the above person has stated it is not factual.

There is no 'natural' way men and women bond differently. As men we are not pre-programmed to go to war or eat curry or bond in the way suggested. Likewise women are not pre-programmed to do the cooking or for that matter look after children. The author seems to be oblivious to research on attachment.

Critique of 'Human bonding' page on Wikipedia
This article, although well intentioned, lacks intellectual integrity. There is an obvious conflict as to whether 'human bonding' is innate or sociological. The scientific references suggest that 'bonding' is natural and determined by genetics. But the historical references suggest 'bonding' is a man-made or sociological phenomenon. A particular anomaly in this account is the reference to the maternal bond which does not consider infanticide or mothers killing their own children. Indeed the differentiation the account seeks to make between bonding between children and mothers as opposed to fathers is based on popular folklore rather than evidence because as Schaffer in 'Social Development' (2000) states, "It seems likely that social convention explains whatever parenting differences are observed and that when fathers assume the principal responsibility for their children such differences disappear". The account also attributes the application of the term 'bonding' to interpersonal relationships to Merriam-Webster in 1976. But to do so would be to ignore the considerable academic contribution made to psychology before that date. The article is flawed and should be removed from Wikipedia because it seems oblivious to this research and for the other reasons cited. (For further information see Wikipedia page on Attachment theory as well as others) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KingsleyMiller (talk • contribs) 12:44, 6 January 2008

THESE 2 articles are unreliable and should be removed.

apologies
My apologies to anybody I may have offended but what is written here and elsewhere is seriously flawed and damaging. I have e-mailed Wikipedia head office to say that they should be removed but I have received the reply that I should amend them. I have tried to show that these pages are so seriously misguided they should be removed altogether.

PS Thank you for moving my comment to the TALK page. At least somebody is now taking notice!

Kingsley Miller

It is flawed Kip and could do with a little editing - but its a pretty broad topic and covers more than attachment theory as such. I think it might help to work out just what areas the article is trying to cover. (I'm also puzzled as to why you think this page is feminist by the way. All those women who join the armed forces now they're allowed to would probably have something to say as well!) Fainites barley 21:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Kip, I made some suggestions about the parent-infant bonding part, on the "maternal deprivation" page, where you asked me about this. Jean Mercer (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New mother picture
How new is new? That baby looks to be about 10 months old.

In any case, the caption is contradictory to the text material. Jean Mercer (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Solved by the removal of the word 'new'. Fainites barley 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Breastfeeding
The caption under the image of the nursing mother and child is still contradicted by the text.71.125.130.45 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Sorry--Jean Mercer (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to change it too? Fainites barley 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why be consistent? Jean Mercer (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah. That doesn't sound right.Fainites barley 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I read that question as, "What, do you want to change it, too?" But it must have been "What do you want to change it to?" How about "Breastfeeding can form part of early mother-infant realtionships." ? Jean Mercer (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Eats, shoots and leaves. Fainites barley 11:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Decimation
It looks like the article has been decimated (actually worse about half the size). We have lost references to most theories proposed on the subject Spinoza, Goethe, Thomson, Sternberg, Granovetter's Week Ties,  Tennov's Limerence. Basically anything which looks remotely like a theory on the subject. If the edits were a bit more descriminating I'd take it with a little more respect so I'm going to have to revert the lot. --Salix alba (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the revert. I was watching the article, and was surprised by the sudden removal of so much information. Unsourced claims can of course always be removed, but the removed parts included a great number of references so it's not that simple in this case. If any editors think that certain sections are out of place in this article, or that the citations are not from reliable sources, that can certainly be discussed here. But such large-scale deletions of sourced material, in my opinion, really ought to be discussed first. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I "decimated" the article in response to multiple complaints, including the "disputed facts" tag someone had placed, and the many vocal criticisms listed in the discussion section above. Perhaps I was a bit overzealous, but a lot of the information was highly doubtful if not outright goofy, e.g. "Neurological bond – two people bonded owing to neurological adhesion." Is anyone seriously willing to defend that? My intention was to remove information that was improperly referenced, covered in other articles, and otherwise poor quality or off topic. After that I wanted to try to rebuild the article. Instead of simply reverting my efforts in toto, why not selectively restore any information that you think is valuable and relevant? I have put together a compromise position and am willing to work together to solve the numerous problems in this article. Best regards, Jcbutler (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm writing a new "neurobiology" section to replace the long and somewhat misleading list of "bonding chemicals." --Jcbutler (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Be careful of the complaints above from Kingsley Miller (from "claptrap" down to "apologies"). He was indef. banned for WP:POINT, WP:TEN and WP:NPOV a while back. This doesn't mean all his complaints were wrong though. Fainites barley 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

unconscious knowledge
I refer to the 'debonding' section.

What is this 'unconscious knowledge' that is being talked about? OK, I know that Harold Wilson used to be prime minister of the UK, even though I am not chanting the mantra 'Harold Wilson used to be prime minister' all the time. (Thanks to Gilbert Ryle about this.) But I think something else might be meant here which involves plugging into a Freudian model of mind which requires the subject to be at once aware and unconscious of something - i.e. one party is aware of imminent break-up, but is unconscious of it. 'Aware' and 'unconscious' are contradictions.

Perhaps this should be written in terms of 'bad faith'.

OK, I know I have an axe to grind on this issue, but so does the author of the section, or else Diane Vaughan herself.

--Publunch (talk) 18:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Goethe, Elective Affinities
I have read this work on several occasions, and I am far from certain that its inclusion is warranted: From the context and article text, the impression is given that Goethe suggest an at least semi-scientific model for bonding. My impression from the book, however, is that Goethe merely uses a broad analogy and that his main object is to have a suitable "literary device". Unless there are some other references in Goethe's works (in particular his non-fictional writings) that indicate otherwise and that I am unaware of, it is likely best to drop the discussion. 88.77.184.157 (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a link between maternal bonding and mother-infant relationship. Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)son of Fraser & Joyce, January 16th 2010Son of Fraser and Joyce (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: Human fit
What does Human fit refer to? Jacobisq (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * no a clue. I'm going to remove it.--Dia^ (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human bonding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817120257/http://www.seeingeye.org/aboutUs/?M_ID=88 to http://www.seeingeye.org/aboutUs/?M_ID=88

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)