Loss of important people and the evolution of greiving
Immortalist
places grief in the province of biology and psychology, rather than
psychiatry and counselling.
Grief is a universal experience in the human species, derived from
simpler forms in the animal world. In its simplest form, the
experience involves two processes: one of active distress, search and
anger and a second one characterised by an inactive, depressed state.
In human grief a complex set of reactions is added, involving a change
in the personal identity of the afflicted.
It has always proved difficult to offer a theory of grief according to
the old Darwinian paradigm of evolution. How could grief be considered
the product of evolution when it seemed so maladaptive for survival
and procreation?
Grief might result from of a ‘trade-off’ between costs and benefits.
Humans establish bonds that have multiple advantages and great
adaptive value, these being the benefits. But what happens if the
person to which we are bound suddenly dies? There is a cost to pay for
the advantages generated by that bond. Grief is ‘the cost of
commitment’.
Intrusive thoughts, hallucinations, distraction, self-blame and other
mental phenomena associated with grief can considered under the light
of recent empirical psychological research [evolutionary psychology].
The intensity of grief reflects the biological importance of the lost
relationship. Psychology needs further investigation of these matters
from an ethological point of view.
The Human Nature Review
http://www.human-nature.com/nibbs/02/archer.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+of+grieving
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/06/30/bregman.celebrity.deaths/index.html
ZerkonXXXX
> If grief is
trivialize by study.
Errol
> If grief is a natural reaction to the loss of a relationship, this
> places grief in the province of biology and psychology, rather than
> psychiatry and counselling.
>
> Grief is a universal experience in the human species, derived from
> simpler forms in the animal world.
Elephants particularly, show grief.
>
> It has always proved difficult to offer a theory of grief according to
> the old Darwinian paradigm of evolution. How could grief be considered
> the product of evolution when it seemed so maladaptive for survival
> and procreation?
Animal grief could be partially explained due to herding instinct. It
is possible that herd members feel that they are more part of a herd
than they are seperate animals.
A young animal for example might regard it's mother as the caregiving,
protecting aspect of itself, rather than a seperate entity.
A dog might regard it's owner in the same way.
just guessing though. don't have much knowledge of this
>
> Grief might result from of a ‘trade-off’ between costs and benefits.
> Humans establish bonds that have multiple advantages and great
> adaptive value, these being the benefits. But what happens if the
> person to which we are bound suddenly dies? There is a cost to pay for
> the advantages generated by that bond. Grief is ‘the cost of
> commitment’.
>
maybe human grieving is more intense than animal grieving because of
better mental faculties and memory as well as our nature to focus on
meaning and death, and our glorification of the spiritual nature of
long term relationships?
Jesus! i need to get another frigging hobby. That sounded like an
extract from a Sally says... advice column:-)
Fuck off with this morbid shit immort!