Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

GreenElementsNW t1_j6lfjhl wrote

Those old couples who die within day or weeks of one another after being together for decades would be considered a bonded pair. One couldn't live much longer once the first one of them dies.

35

ItsAllAboot t1_j6ldx5x wrote

1: Not all animals pair-bond. In fact, it's a minority of them that do

2: Co-dependent behavior involves FAR MORE behavior than just "a very close bond"

25

Pokemonobsessedlesbo OP t1_j6le9n1 wrote

Of course, but the behavior we associate with pair bonding would be similar to the behavior we associate with codependency in humans. And I’m aware most animals do not pair bind but a considerable number of pair bonds have been noticed in both domestic and non domestic mammals, and many birds

−5

phiwong t1_j6leyoy wrote

Yeah, well there are a lot of "natural" animal behavior that would be considered odd for humans. So it isn't clear why this would be normal for humans either.

Human psychology cannot be simply equated or compared to animal instincts or social behavior.

8

Pokemonobsessedlesbo OP t1_j6lfom0 wrote

I guess we can agree to disagree there. I’m of the belief we’re still very motivated by our internal instincts, whether we know it or not

−5

ChibiSailorMercury t1_j6lgqkq wrote

Eat your own poop or your own youngs, and we'll agree to disagree.

Just because humans are mammals it does not mean that all behaviours exhibited by animals are not odd when we adopt them.

6

Pokemonobsessedlesbo OP t1_j6ljn28 wrote

I said some behaviors not all, that’s just silly. Any use of critical thinking would presume that eating poop isn’t a common instinct, even in most animals, pica is not normal.

−4

DressCritical t1_j6ln9bb wrote

Common in dogs and mamma cats with new kittens. So, maybe not common, but common enough.

2

C4-BlueCat t1_j6mlzzi wrote

It’s a common instinct since it catches nutrients that has passed through, and hides the tracks of an animal having been there.

1

lethal_rads t1_j6lgx8w wrote

Internal instincts are species dependent. The social interactions of some species do not inherently extend to other species. Pair bonding is hardly universal as well. Numerous species don’t pair bond. So given these two things, why would it be normal for humans.

4

Pokemonobsessedlesbo OP t1_j6lj9t2 wrote

Yes I already said that in another comment. But to say no instincts translate to basic Survival, or are more common in mammals would be wrong. Even more so if we start looking at specific classifications, youll obviously start seeing more in common. I never state which instincts I thought humans had. But to say any of our instincts don’t have a commonality with at least one other animal species would be wrong.

−4

GalFisk t1_j6m51tz wrote

We have a complex stack of control mechanisms. Intellect on top of emotions on top of instincts on top of reflexes on top of autonomous processes (which are layered too). The lower you go the less control you have and the more primitive the capabilities are. Reflexes and below don't even involve the brain.

While instincts are mostly concerned with immediate survival of the individual and the continuation of the species, most interpersonal, society-forming behavior is regulated by emotion. A lot of our identity lies there - belonging, love, likes and dislikes, connection, who we're comfortable with, who we open up to, but also hate, revenge and callousness.

1

justanotherguyhere16 t1_j6ljfbp wrote

There’s a lot of research that shows animals pick their mating habits based on which is most beneficial for the species. So you generally see most of a species exhibit the same mating habit. Species that have “bonded pairs” generally do so in order for one mate to provide food and protection while the other takes care of the offspring. Species that don’t have bonded pairs generally have either genetic diversity needs or more constrained resources where only the alphas mate (wolves and lions and such)

Humans are more complex animals and have greater ability to think and process emotions. That makes mating take on a whole new complexity.

2

Tanagrabelle t1_j6mf912 wrote

No, it is not. It's considered a good, solid relationship when a pair don't want to be separated because of their intense bond. It's the reason foster systems try to keep siblings together.

Humans, despite being animals, are not dogs, cats, penguins, etc.

2

Uselessmedics t1_j6lgoxg wrote

I mean it's viewed as a bad thing in animals too, but if it happens you can't do much about it

1

jam-and-Tea t1_j6lttan wrote

It is okay for humans to develop pair bonds. But sometimes we have to be apart, whether we are humans or other sorts of animals. If we get really scared when we are separated it makes it hard to do things like go out and get food. So that's why it is important to be ok with being apart sometimes.

edit: That's assuming pair bond = life companion

1

captainAwesomePants t1_j6lz57i wrote

"Bonding" is, in most human societies, as a really good thing. We celebrate marriages and friendships all the time. Being dependent on someone else, though, is a bit more troubling, because it implies that you cannot manage on your own, which is bad because it means that you can't end the relationship if it becomes more harmful than beneficial.

But "co-dependency" is a different thing than dependency. The word looks like it should mean "two people who depend on each other," but that's not what it is. A codependent relationship is a relationship that is severely uneven: one party primarily benefits, and one party primarily suffers. Imagine a relationship with a husband who sits at home, drinks, does not clean, does no chores, does not work, does not help with the kid, just sits and watches TV, and a wife who has a job, does all the chores, raises the kids, feeds everyone, etc. That's a codependent relationship, and it's a bad thing (except, of course, for the beneficiary). Some people have what's basically a disorder, in which they will actively look to get themselves into these situations as the caregiver, and they can be described as "codependent" or having a "relationship addiction."

1

Ippus_21 t1_j6nduhi wrote

I think you have a mistaken understanding of "okay."

Bonded animal pairs can also demonstrate co-dependent behavior. In dogs, for example, raising siblings together is generally discouraged because they tend to form bonded pairs, which leads to problems like separation anxiety, one half of the pair being excessively dominant, etc.

It's not necessarily a good thing.

1

Flair_Helper t1_j6nj7c8 wrote

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Questions based on a false premise are not allowed on ELI5. A question based on a false premise is one based on information that may not be true, or may not be the whole truth, and needs that information to stand as a question.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

1

symbiotic_Tao t1_j6ln0b7 wrote

Humans do bond for life (or used to at least, but I digress). Look what happens when an old woman looses her husband or vice versa. They often literally die from grief. It's a very real phenomenon. So yes, human couples absolutely bond for life. It's only recently, with society going the way it has, that things have changed.

−1