|
|
Post by persephone on Nov 5, 2019 8:56:50 GMT
I read that just now and while it does appear that people get more secure as they age, the article says:“Chopik argues that we can largely attribute these changes simply to people staying in serious relationships. As we age, we tend to more deeply invest in the roles of partnership—and that changes our interpersonal behaviors and personalities. The emotional bonds developed by maintaining a family make an individual feel more secure." This essentially means that as we get older while in a relationship, we are more Secure. BUT, Jeb’s “Avoidant” book has a graph (based on limited data) that shows as we get older, we find more single people tend to be Avoidants. It’s simply because unaware Avoidants tend to break up and move on more easily. The other thing that makes me wonder is, if an Avoidant becomes more Secure, do they deactivate less? That's not because there are more avoidants in existence, or that the avoidants have become more avoidant, it's because secures are less and less likely to be single the older they get, so the dating pool of single people contains a higher percentage of avoidants, since in general their relationships tend to be shorter-lived or some don't have serious monogamous relationships at all. I agree with you... I didn’t say there were more Avoidants in existence or Avoidants became more avoidant with age. I’m just saying if you’re single, the older you get, the more likely you are to meet a FA/ DA. I was trying to say it seemed like Chopik, the author of that study, didn’t say “everybody became more secure as they got older”, he said (paraphrasing) “older people stay in longer relationships, which in turn made them more secure.” So if you are with an FA/ DA, then maybe they’ll be more secure with time. But if they dumped you, then that trend doesn’t apply. (Tbh I found it odd he didn’t consider it in a chicken-or-egg way, ie either people became more secure as they got older, which made them better at getting into and staying in relationships). The crucial thing is that he didn’t look into relationship quality. Jeb’s “Avoidant” book points out FAs/ DAs tend to get the least satisfaction in relationships, have higher divorce rates, and also higher second-time divorce rates. Most of the secures are removed from the pool over time. Whereas it would be common for people in general to be single at, say, 20, regardless of their attachment type. Yes, with more security comes less deactivation. Do you think it applies all deactivation, or just the serious kinds of deactivation? Because it deactivation has an entire spectrum from “my gut doesn’t like the feeling after I cuddle” to “I really want to ghost/ cheat on my partner.” |
|
|
|
Post by tnr9 on Nov 5, 2019 12:44:56 GMT
I think this is key...
Chopik argues that we can largely attribute these changes simply to people staying in serious relationships.
I think that people who are in serious relationships over time probably do become more secure...but.....I would like to see the statistics on those who are still single into their 40s and 50s.
What I mean by secure in circumstances is that over time...I think people just are more likely to accept who they are.....and as such....they would self test as secure rather then really seeing that they still have an attachment issue. The key to these tests is that they are subjective to the tester in a moment of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyidiot on Nov 5, 2019 15:59:38 GMT
Do you think it applies all deactivation, or just the serious kinds of deactivation? Because it deactivation has an entire spectrum from “my gut doesn’t like the feeling after I cuddle” to “I really want to ghost/ cheat on my partner.” I’m wondering if I’ve somehow misunderstood your question. Deactivating strategies are the underlying core characteristic of avoidant people. Being secure means being low in avoidance (and low in anxiety of course). Therefore, the more secure a person is, the less they deactivate.That’s what secureness is. Secure people don’t have deactivating strategies. Now, someone can be in a pretty secure relationship and then at some point become less secure and deactivate, if they still have a big chunk of unaddressed avoidance inside them that got triggered. For example a giant life stressor comes along and throws their nervous system out of whack, and it reverts to old survival mechanisms. Or a relationship can seem like it “should” be secure, but the person is really not feeling secure, maybe the relationship feeling calm and permanent is actually a trigger for them itself, so as anne12 puts it their “trauma whirlwind” has more space to act up and invent reasons to be avoidant. It’s not that these people are deactivating in spite of feeling secure, they are not secure. Becoming more secure is not a linear path. And one relatively secure relationship doesn’t permanently cure someone of their avoidance all on its own. And the level to which someone’s deactivating feelings are going to affect their actual behavior is going to vary from person to person. I might have a feeling of panic the first time my partner says “I love you” but my response might just be to let that feeling exist and let it pass, and another person might have that feeling and their response might be to run out of the house. |
|
|
|
Post by happyidiot on Nov 5, 2019 18:21:36 GMT
I think this is key... Chopik argues that we can largely attribute these changes simply to people staying in serious relationships. I think that people who are in serious relationships over time probably do become more secure...but.....I would like to see the statistics on those who are still single into their 40s and 50s. What I mean by secure in circumstances is that over time...I think people just are more likely to accept who they are.....and as such....they would self test as secure rather then really seeing that they still have an attachment issue. The key to these tests is that they are subjective to the tester in a moment of time. I just wrote a long and thoughtful reply to this and then I accidentally closed my browser window. So it will have to wait. |
|
