Aside: I’m surprised you’re suggesting people get validation --> people feel secure? This does not at all seem like the causality to me (though I’m aware most people probably think like this).
Prediction: In the absence of radically improved psychotechnology, a significant fraction of people will always find a way to feel insecure.
Patterns of emotional security/insecurity are constantly updating (in both directions) through life, though some people’s patterns are more resistant (in either direction) than those of others. (This is both my own personal experience and the empirical finding in the literature.) In the insecure → secure direction, positive experiences as an adult can help reconsolidate negative expectations and provide the kinds of experiences that naturally securely attached people already got earlier:
while attachment styles are formed early in people’s lives and for the most part continue to inform how people view and interact with self and others, Bowlby (1969/1982) argued these working models are “always subject to revision and updating in response to subsequent social experiences” (as cited by Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, p. 118). For example, over a 2- year period, one of the earliest studies examining attachment change found 13% (n = 16 of 121) of participants in a female-only sample experienced a change from secure to insecure styles, and 15.7% (n = 19) experienced change from insecure to secure, where change was not affected by life experiences or circumstances (Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997). Another study of couples found that 22% (n = 35 of 157) of couples changed styles from 3 months premarital to 18 months into marriage (Crowell et al., 2002).
Other studies show attachment styles are about both stability and change, with each being needed in various contexts (Waters et al., 2000b, 2000c), as people “constantly construct their experience of attachment” in close relationships (Johnson & Whiffen, 1999, p. 371). Thus, the argument is no longer whether attachment is only stable or only changing but rather when, how, and under what conditions it does change or remain constant (Waters et al, 2000b). [...]
Other ways attachment styles may change are through negative life experiences and circumstances (Waters et al., 2000b), new information and interactions with intimate partners in the present (Johnson, 2004; Johnson & Whiffen, 1999), and undergoing a corrective emotional experience (Johnson, 2004; Johnson & Whiffen, 1999). Theoretically, this means when a partner responds to proximity-seeking behavior in unexpected ways, his/her concept of how secure the relationship is may be revised. [...]
Positive attachment change is more commonly known as earning security and describes people who developed insecure styles in childhood and become more secure at some point in life (Hesse, 2008; Main et al., 2008; Saunders et al., 2011). Scholars have explored two possible explanations of how earning security occurs. The first is the theory that positive change is possible when people have flexible (or less rigid) original cognitive models of self and other (Davila et al., 1997; Johnson & Whiffen, 1999). This idea comes from Bowlby’s notion that insecure attachment styles are only a problem when they are applied in a rigid way to novel situations or relationships in distress (Bowlby, 1969/1982). From this angle, it seems reasonable that therapy, for example (which helps people find new coping and communication skills, ways of interacting, etc.), should be effective for helping people earn security. Several studies examining attachment change as a result of attachment-oriented therapy support this theory (e.g., Burgess Moser et al., 2015).
The second explanation is the idea that alternative support figures are important components of earning security. One recent study by Saunders et al. (2011) found 13% (n = 16 of 121) of new mothers classified as “earned-secure” using the Adult Attachment Interview retrospectively and the stringent classification criteria recommended by Main and Hesse (Hesse, 2008; Main, Goldwyn, & Hesse, 2008). They identified two potential pathways for earning secure attachment: (a) receiving emotional support from an alternative support figure and (b) spending more hours in therapy (earned-secure women spent an average of 22.5 hr in therapy [SD = 46.85]; Saunders et al., 2011). While Saunders et al. asked participants about type of therapy received, they did not report those details in their manuscript. [...]
We recruited participants through purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling to find people first who had experienced positive attachment change. [...] y, 20 people (5 men and 15 women) qualified for and agreed to participate in the study. The following inclusion criteria were used: participants needed to (a) endorse an insecure relationship with primary caregivers in childhood (modified ECR-S sum score >24) and (b) demonstrate a decrease in total modified ECR-S scores of at least 5 points between the childhood to adulthood questionnaires. If these conditions were met, researchers deemed participants as having taken at least some steps toward earning security. [...]
Those qualifying for the study were interviewed in depth using a semi-structured interview guide. [...] Primary questions were as follows: “Tell me about your journey to become more secure...what were your initial steps?” “What helped you open up to others and trust they would still be there for you in your vulnerability?” “Can you tell me about any influential relationships and how they helped you become more secure?” and “Would you describe yourself as stubborn? If so, what role, if any, do you think stubbornness has had in your becoming more secure?” [...]
Having surrogate attachment figures. For participants to learn new ways of approaching relationships and conflict more securely, they had to first observe it, and they frequently did so in the context of surrogate attachment relationships, another major meta-condition of positive attachment change. These figures included adults who acted as parent figures, college mentors, friends, church communities, spouses, and therapists.
Early “parent” figures—For some whose journey toward security began while still minors, these surrogate figures tended to be safe adults who took participants under their wings in various ways. For one participant who turned to an extended family member when her own parents were the sources of insecurity, observing a new way of behaving in relationships made a big difference in her ability to reach out and connect with others: “I think having my aunt and seeing that relationship and her reaching out, you know, it kind of dissolved the fear of it.” [...]
Spouses, mentors, and friends—Married participants cited spouses several times as the primary attachment figure of their adult lives, playing a leading role in helping them grow in security. For example, one participant valued that her husband helped her become more comfortable with less conflict in their relationship by setting boundaries in how they would speak with each other during disagreements. This prompted her to reflect on conflict, saying “The changing force for me was I had somebody who dug his heels in and said, ‘I’m not going anywhere, for better or worse.’” Others described having mentors or friends who were living out a more secure story in their lives. One participant stated, “I knew I wanted to do it differently. So, I sought out people that looked like they were doing well.” Regarding friendship, one participant noted, “I think the bulk of the work was done with friends. Certain key friendships have shown me that certain people can be depended on more than I have known.” Another also cited friendship as a key to their growth in learning to distinguish between safe and unsafe people: “Developing really good friendships that were reciprocal instead of one-sided showed me it wasn’t all people that were [unsafe]. I had the ability to look at both [positive and negative relationships] and say, ‘This one is better.’”. Surrogate attachment relationships modeled what secure attachment could look and feel like. Participants were then able to visualize a more secure life and how relationships could be different.
As one woman said, “If I had never seen [a secure example] and only had bad experiences, I know [change] would have been a lot harder.” While these relationships were invaluable to the process of positive attachment change, there were also changes that had to occur at an intrapsychic level for transformation to continue. For many, therapy, education, or self-help was a bridge to making intrapsychic and interpersonal changes.
That said, it’s true that the stronger someone’s insecure attachment is, the more resistant it is to updating through positive experiences:
Internal working models of adult attachment are far more complex than the IWMs of early attachment prototypes in that they include elements both of early attachment prototypes and core conflictual relationship themes (Luborsky, 1977; Luborsky & Crits-Christoph, 1998; see Chapter 7) accumulated across a lifetime of relationships. Karen (1998) states:
Kobak has found that in marriages people don’t always act the way their Berkeley adult attachment category would predict. As a result he believes that “adult romantic style may be more the product of adult romantic experience than of childhood relationships.” (p. 388)
Adult romantic IWMs are more diverse and flexible than childhood attachment prototypes, at least for those with secure attachment. Those with significant attachment disturbance show less diversity and flexibility and are more likely to manifest a prototype of insecure attachment across a number of adult romantic relationships. For example, after a bad romantic relationship, even the most secure adult is likely to modify internal relational maps in a negative way; after a long-term positive and satisfying romantic involvement, he or she is likely to modify the internal relational maps in a positive way. It is probable that secure adults are more able to update and modify internal relational maps than insecure adults. Feeney (2008) points to the work of Collins and Read (1994), who suggest that adult relational models are complex and hierarchically arranged:
A set of generalized models lies at the top of the hierarchy, with models for particular classes of relationships (e.g., family members, peers) at an intermediate level, and models for particular relationships (e.g., father, spouse) at the lowest level. Models higher in the hierarchy apply to a wider range of others but are less predictive for any specific situation. (p. 463)
Healthy, secure adults, as compared to insecure adults, have more complex internal relational maps that can be flexibly applied and readily updated by ongoing intimate relationship experiences. People with the greatest attachment disturbance show less flexibility and updating and manifest a similar set of deactivating, hyperactivating, or both deactivating and hyperactivating strategies across most adult relationships.
Of course, one consideration is also that people with insecure attachment tend to bring various patterns into their relationships that make the other person more likely to respond negatively, making it harder to get the positive experiences that would update the attachment patterns. An AI with infinite patience and understanding that never got triggered would be different in this regard, so might be able to provide corrective experiences for even some of the people who wouldn’t normally be capable of changing when dealing with just humans.
I would guess/hope that most people’s degree of emotional insecurity would be such that they would be able to find security with AIs (especially if the AIs also doubled as expert therapists). With only the most extremely insecure people (e.g. some of the ones who would qualify for a diagnosis of a personality disorder) needing novel psychotech—but of course I can only speculate at this point.
But wouldn’t roughly half the population always have an above average amount of emotional insecurity?
Sure the difference between the extremes can shrink… but after a few generations, the new normal will be taken as the new baseline and the new condition to be written about by a Kaj Sotala 2 on the LW 2 of that generation… So after many cycles of this it seems the entirety of mankind will be homogeneous.
Aside: I’m surprised you’re suggesting
people get validation --> people feel secure? This does not at all seem like the causality to me (though I’m aware most people probably think like this).Prediction: In the absence of radically improved psychotechnology, a significant fraction of people will always find a way to feel insecure.
Patterns of emotional security/insecurity are constantly updating (in both directions) through life, though some people’s patterns are more resistant (in either direction) than those of others. (This is both my own personal experience and the empirical finding in the literature.) In the insecure → secure direction, positive experiences as an adult can help reconsolidate negative expectations and provide the kinds of experiences that naturally securely attached people already got earlier:
(How can I become more secure?: A grounded theory of earning secure attachment; Olufowote, Fife & Whiting 2019)
That said, it’s true that the stronger someone’s insecure attachment is, the more resistant it is to updating through positive experiences:
(Attachment Disturbances in Adults, p. 99-100)
Of course, one consideration is also that people with insecure attachment tend to bring various patterns into their relationships that make the other person more likely to respond negatively, making it harder to get the positive experiences that would update the attachment patterns. An AI with infinite patience and understanding that never got triggered would be different in this regard, so might be able to provide corrective experiences for even some of the people who wouldn’t normally be capable of changing when dealing with just humans.
I would guess/hope that most people’s degree of emotional insecurity would be such that they would be able to find security with AIs (especially if the AIs also doubled as expert therapists). With only the most extremely insecure people (e.g. some of the ones who would qualify for a diagnosis of a personality disorder) needing novel psychotech—but of course I can only speculate at this point.
But wouldn’t roughly half the population always have an above average amount of emotional insecurity?
Sure the difference between the extremes can shrink… but after a few generations, the new normal will be taken as the new baseline and the new condition to be written about by a Kaj Sotala 2 on the LW 2 of that generation… So after many cycles of this it seems the entirety of mankind will be homogeneous.