2
$\begingroup$

I've been trying to understand why humans grief. I read a few articles and come to this conclusion (which I want to check with experts):

  • being separated creates bad feelings because, being together makes move evolutionary sense.
    • Parents want reproduction/their genetic material to proliferate (cuz if it doesn’t then that species die/stops existing)
    • Kids want to also pass their genetic material and if they die they can’t pass that on. So they want to stay with their parents.
    • thus, there is a stress mechanism keep the family together when there is a separation (since this is perceived as a threat, higher chance of risk)

So grief is this stress system trying to keep us safe. Does this make sense or am I missing something?

I am mostly interested in understanding grief in terms of evolutionary psychology and in the context of all (or any) of these:

  • death
  • divorce
  • break ups
  • loss
  • separation

Sources/references:

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the Scientific American article says it best -"Grief - in its most basic form - represents an alarm reaction set off by a deficit signal in the behavioural system underlying attachment". People without a grief reaction or do not have a reaction to attachment are probably more likely to leave the tribe and get eaten by predators? $\endgroup$ – Poidah Nov 29 at 5:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I like your explanation, but the one is quotes by Scientific America has to much bombastic words. I literally have no idea what it means. Honestly, I hate what they wrote there. Makes zero sense to me. What you wrote after, I love. Makes 100%. "Go away from the tribe = More likely to get eaten and thus not reproduce". That I can understand. $\endgroup$ – Pinocchio Nov 29 at 5:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Unfortunately when it comes to psychology and research, you would need to look up words and look up meanings in order to understand the concepts... $\endgroup$ – Poidah Nov 29 at 5:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Research papers are not textbooks, nor newspaper articles. Even Scientific American is not really for the general public. The concepts still require some baseline psychology and basic science education to make sense of the interpretation. To demand that expert sources write at a publicly accessible language would be unreasonable, especially with the world limitations. $\endgroup$ – Poidah Nov 29 at 5:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ To help understand the quote from Scientific American, this article may help $\endgroup$ – Chris Rogers Nov 29 at 7:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.