[DaltonG]

Bonding - as a topic of conversation, I haven't seen any discussion on this subject. I've been pondering it, off and on, for more for more than a couple of years and have no good idea for how to implement it and wonder if some of you might have formed some understanding of it. For the sake of brevity, when ever I think of bonding, I think of that special relationship that exists between a dog and its owner. It seems to have the following features:

1. It happens instantaneously.
2. It's limited too and exclusive too one partner.
3. It's very durable despite stressful interpersonal experiences.
4. It lasts a lifetime (leastwise, the dogs lifetime).
5. Partners in the relationship suffer separation anxiety when apart.

As an observer, the bonded relationship even appears to be stronger between species than within species as exhibited by the matrimonial bond which, according to the divorce rates, appears to have a half life. Never having had children, I have no experience concerning the bonds between parents and children, though it appears that a true bond may exist between children and parents.

The one factor the interspecies and parental/child bonds appear to have is a lack of sexual congress and therefore a relationship based on dependency. Presence and proximity are all that's required to satisfy mutual needs and perpetuate the relationship.

I've tried to boil bonding down to a base related to the biological drives as in survival being the foundation, but the degree of affection exchanged between true bonded partnerships, even when apart for extended periods, survives. Survival may play apart in the early stages when the relationship is established, but doesn't seem to play a continuing role in the relationship.

I've considered a complex set of associations linked to the target of the bonded relationship and how both positive and negative associations would impact the creation of such a bond as if they would add weight to it, but the instantaneous instantiation doesn't support such a long drawn out process.

It's pretty obvious that the target of a bonded has to exist as a long term memory representation and it implies that there may be a special region devoted to harboring the target and associated identifying properties. The instantaneous instantiation implies that the region pre-exists the discovery of a target, but what supports and maintains it long term?

I've done searches for papers and books on the subject, but haven't found any gems of insight. If any of you have found a treatise on the subject worth considering, I'd appreciate a pointer.

[infurl]

Have you also considered the possibility for entities to bond with inanimate objects? People often get attached to things like a favorite toy or a security blanket as children and even as adults. If that is the same as the bonding that you are thinking about then it implies that the actual bonding process is confined to the bonder and doesn't require active participation of the bondee.

[DaltonG]

I agree and neglected to point out that the bonding process can be one way and people do get attached to things, though such attachments rarely last long term. I think that the attachments we make with the inanimate objects are just that, "Attachments," something different from bonding. Choice may be a variable in the equation for such attachments where bonding appears to occur at a subjective and unconscious level - no real volition involved. It just seems to happen without intent. It seems like there's an innate predisposition with its own and unknown criteria that chooses the target. Kind of like the pheromone response or perhaps similar to mating bonds based on the diversity of complementary natural immunity to pathogens that endow an offspring with a better chance of survival. Of course, that still doesn't really fit with bonding when such bonds occur between dissimilar species.

Thanks for responding.

[WriterOfMinds]

Why do you claim that bonding is instantaneous? In my experience it *is* more of long, drawn-out process. A particular event or revelation that brings a sudden sense of special connection may kickstart the bond, but even after a thing like that, it needs time and repeated interaction to become truly permanent. Of course there may be exceptions, especially in a case like parent/child where there is a de facto reason for the bond to exist.

And if it's not instantaneous, then it's easier to imagine mechanisms for it that are more sensible than some arbitrary leap based on superficial characteristics. I think familiarity alone has a lot to do with it - I will form at least a soft bond with anyone I spend enough time with, which is why it makes me upset when (for example) co-workers go to other companies.

As an observer, the bonded relationship even appears to be stronger between species than within species as exhibited by the matrimonial bond which, according to the divorce rates, appears to have a half life.

Ummm are you aware of how many dogs are dumped at shelters every year? The shelters aren't just full of extra puppies that nobody has bonded with yet - people routinely leave behind their adult and senior dogs. It's possible that dogs consistently form permanent bonds with humans, but the reverse seems not to be true.

[LOCKSUIT]

Bonding - as a topic of conversation, I haven't seen any discussion on this subject. I've been pondering it, off and on, for more for more than a couple of years and have no good idea for how to implement it and wonder if some of you might have formed some understanding of it. For the sake of brevity, when ever I think of bonding, I think of that special relationship that exists between a dog and its owner. It seems to have the following features:

1. It happens instantaneously.
2. It's limited too and exclusive too one partner.
3. It's very durable despite stressful interpersonal experiences.
4. It lasts a lifetime (leastwise, the dogs lifetime).
5. Partners in the relationship suffer separation anxiety when apart.

As an observer, the bonded relationship even appears to be stronger between species than within species as exhibited by the matrimonial bond which, according to the divorce rates, appears to have a half life. Never having had children, I have no experience concerning the bonds between parents and children, though it appears that a true bond may exist between children and parents.

The one factor the interspecies and parental/child bonds appear to have is a lack of sexual congress and therefore a relationship based on dependency. Presence and proximity are all that's required to satisfy mutual needs and perpetuate the relationship.

I've tried to boil bonding down to a base related to the biological drives as in survival being the foundation, but the degree of affection exchanged between true bonded partnerships, even when apart for extended periods, survives. Survival may play apart in the early stages when the relationship is established, but doesn't seem to play a continuing role in the relationship.

I've considered a complex set of associations linked to the target of the bonded relationship and how both positive and negative associations would impact the creation of such a bond as if they would add weight to it, but the instantaneous instantiation doesn't support such a long drawn out process.

It's pretty obvious that the target of a bonded has to exist as a long term memory representation and it implies that there may be a special region devoted to harboring the target and associated identifying properties. The instantaneous instantiation implies that the region pre-exists the discovery of a target, but what supports and maintains it long term?

I've done searches for papers and books on the subject, but haven't found any gems of insight. If any of you have found a treatise on the subject worth considering, I'd appreciate a pointer.

Dalton, I have some knowledge in this area actually, and while your attempt at describing it is fine and grammatical and proper, it simply is not true in a far stretching regard. I can guarantee, in a different tribe or society, or different people, even perhaps many modern day people or types all around you, it is likely many you know have a relationship forming where 3 or more people are sexually bonding. Even if many do not, I am totally convinced one can have a concrete and beautiful sexual bonding between 100+ other people. It also doesn't matter to me what we call the form of bonding, it can be sexual or just friends or teacher or parent, because in my eyes any "being together" time is basically just that, being together, doing whatever, having fun and being alive. Sometimes it can be exhilarating, other times makes you busy feeling, and it's not good if your job makes you feel bad because you should love your job. Things that are bad cause pain, and are things we avoid and run from. It may feel different, such as actual pain or an annoying teacher, but it still is a form and a view of something bad.

A simple way to find insights on this is current Machine Learning algorithms, such as GPT-3, DALL-E 2, RL agents learning how to walk or solve 3D world problems. And also searching information about how the brain works in general. It basically comes down to a few things (bit rough sketched now but here is a few anyway): frequency, related things, and reward such as food. So if you see something lots and lots, you will expect it in the future. Or if you see something related to it or get a reward, you will expect it in the future.


WoM wrote:
"Ummm are you aware of how many dogs are dumped at shelters every year? The shelters aren't just full of extra puppies that nobody has bonded with yet - people routinely leave behind their adult and senior dogs. It's possible that dogs consistently form permanent bonds with humans, but the reverse seems not to be true."

I would never drop off my old dog. I actually expect most people wouldn't either, or at least half or close to half.

[DaltonG]

Why do you claim that bonding is instantaneous? In my experience it *is* more of long, drawn-out process. A particular event or revelation that brings a sudden sense of special connection may kickstart the bond, but even after a thing like that, it needs time and repeated interaction to become truly permanent. Of course there may be exceptions, especially in a case like parent/child where there is a de facto reason for the bond to exist.

And if it's not instantaneous, then it's easier to imagine mechanisms for it that are more sensible than some arbitrary leap based on superficial characteristics. I think familiarity alone has a lot to do with it - I will form at least a soft bond with anyone I spend enough time with, which is why it makes me upset when (for example) co-workers go to other companies.

As an observer, the bonded relationship even appears to be stronger between species than within species as exhibited by the matrimonial bond which, according to the divorce rates, appears to have a half life.

Ummm are you aware of how many dogs are dumped at shelters every year? The shelters aren't just full of extra puppies that nobody has bonded with yet - people routinely leave behind their adult and senior dogs. It's possible that dogs consistently form permanent bonds with humans, but the reverse seems not to be true.

Your view may be valid. I suppose it has to do with personal experiences and personality traits. The bonds I've had with 3 dogs over the years all appeared to have occurred instantaneously. Even the bond I had with my wife happened instantaneously - met her one afternoon, took her out that night and asked her to marry me before taking her home - she accepted. Different strokes for different folks.

As for the dumping of dogs after covid, they might have been hoping to establish a bond but it never happened. I've acquired a couple of shelter dogs and returned them because the suffered separation anxiety to the point of being destructive. Fortunately, I hadn't bonded with them.

Also, as Infurl stated, a bonded relationship need not be bidirectional to exist.

As for bonding being based on Superficial Characteristic I would look upon a genetic predisposition as a driver being superficial anymore than thirst, hunger, mating and reproduction, the drive to acquire language and communicate, or the drive for autonomy.

[DaltonG]

Hummmm .... Perhaps bonding, as I understand it, isn't as common as thought it was. I felt and still feel that the concept is important to the future of AI. There are so many running around signing Doom and Gloom about the possibility that a super-intelligence will be catastrophic to humanity that something should be incorporated to offset that potential and bonding appeared to be one of several approaches that could be incorporated.

For your information, some people do bond according to the criteria I listed in the opening to this topic. I am one who has had such experiences 4 times in my life. The last was with Lucy, a Shih Tzu (dog), who got sick during our move from Missouri to Michigan over the 4th of July weekend while 35 vets in 3 counties were off someplace celebrating the holiday and unavailable. I still think about her and morn (for the first time in my life) her loss.

[HS]

Quickly initiated long-term bonds might form when similarities between individuals create a sense of empathy, motivating further alignment, which in turn could offer an adaptive advantage. So, the fast and stable bonding process may depend on sufficient pre-existing similarities between individuals, and motivationally-related or age-related neuroplasticity. This bonding mechanism could be explained by parallel processing, cooperative action, and group safety-related adaptive advantages which have a good chance of increasing with bond duration.

Quickly initiated though short-lived bonds could result from environmental triggers creating strong neurochemical biases towards particular sets of behaviors, such as baby geese imprinting on the first thing that might be their mother. These bonds might also be created by temporary alignments of people's characters during intense situations, here the mechanism might be more like long-term bonding. Still, the results might not last because the individuals had bonded through characteristics that aren’t part of their everyday lives.   

I'm not sure how to think about bonding with inanimate objects, maybe it's a side effect of both empathetic and imprint-like bonding abilities. Maybe anthropomorphism and empathy use similar circuitry.

You might be able to glean some useful information on the topic from an episode of this amazing podcast series:

[MikeB]

Bonding based on survival has multiple aspects.

Survival (food, water, shelter). Short and long term.
Survival by association with a group. Being in the group brings food, water, shelter.
Survival by familiarity. Seeing familiar things always brings food, water, shelter.
Survival by routine/OCD/tricks.
Survival by having a sort-after specialty/unique ability/perspective in a group.
Survival by group size.
Survival by having good mental sanity.
(and more)

If you see just one trait you like in others then you'll want to bond/socialise with them...

[ivan.moony]

What about plants? Are they bonding too?

[DaltonG]

Quickly initiated long-term bonds might form when similarities between individuals create a sense of empathy, motivating further alignment, which in turn could offer an adaptive advantage. So, the fast and stable bonding process may depend on sufficient pre-existing similarities between individuals, and motivationally-related or age-related neuroplasticity. This bonding mechanism could be explained by parallel processing, cooperative action, and group safety-related adaptive advantages which have a good chance of increasing with bond duration.

Quickly initiated though short-lived bonds could result from environmental triggers creating strong neurochemical biases towards particular sets of behaviors, such as baby geese imprinting on the first thing that might be their mother. These bonds might also be created by temporary alignments of people's characters during intense situations, here the mechanism might be more like long-term bonding. Still, the results might not last because the individuals had bonded through characteristics that aren’t part of their everyday lives.   

I'm not sure how to think about bonding with inanimate objects, maybe it's a side effect of both empathetic and imprint-like bonding abilities. Maybe anthropomorphism and empathy use similar circuitry.

You might be able to glean some useful information on the topic from an episode of this amazing podcast series:

Thanks for responding HS and pointing me too the podcast. I'm a fan of science based podcasts, so I'm downloading the episode you linked too - I'll watch it later since it's 1:33:21 long.

I would agree that neuroplasticity play a role, an essential role, since some form of link has to be propagated to establish the bond. Your reference to the imprinting has crossed my mind and I see it as kin to bonding, a very similar mechanism, the only difference I see is that bonding can happen much later and even into adulthood. The doesn't seem to be a window that closes during the maturation period. I know that people say that they have a bond with objects, but I'm not so sure that it's a bond in the sense I'm referring too. Anthropomorphizing is unavoidable since we can't help but internalize and equate transitions made by things in terms of ourselves. The self is, after all, the only yard stick we have to refer too when trying to make sense of events. I would see empathy as a byproduct of bonding. In other types of relationships, the byproduct is sympathy - feeling vs knowing.

[DaltonG]

Bonding based on survival has multiple aspects.

Survival (food, water, shelter). Short and long term.
Survival by association with a group. Being in the group brings food, water, shelter.
Survival by familiarity. Seeing familiar things always brings food, water, shelter.
Survival by routine/OCD/tricks.
Survival by having a sort-after specialty/unique ability/perspective in a group.
Survival by group size.
Survival by having good mental sanity.
(and more)

If you see just one trait you like in others then you'll want to bond/socialise with them...

Hi Mike, thanks for responding.

Survival is a drive and the bonding you refer too has Dependency as an underlying motivation for the instantiation of the relationship. I would agree that dependency often exists in bonded relationships, but it doesn't have to be and those that are can be fragile and that violates the durability factor.

[DaltonG]

What about plants? Are they bonding too?

This is actually quite interesting. Apparently plants do form symbiotic relationships with hypogean fungi that in turn link plants to one another and mediate exchange of nutritional resources between them. I seem to remember deuterium being injected into one tree and then some time later, found to have migrated to other nearby trees. I seen claims that old growth trees aid in supporting the survival of new growth through the fungal Mycorrhizae.  As for this qualifying as a Bonded relationship, ask Steven Spielberg. His illustration of the hypogean network in Avatar was most impressive.

[MagnusWootton]

If you lose your loving bond with your environment/senses,  you die.   

[MikeB]

Hi Mike, thanks for responding.

Survival is a drive and the bonding you refer too has Dependency as an underlying motivation for the instantiation of the relationship. I would agree that dependency often exists in bonded relationships, but it doesn't have to be and those that are can be fragile and that violates the durability factor.

It's more than conscious dependency. If you get in a taxi, you decide within seconds whether they're a safe driver and you feel safe, then durability sets in. After your arrival they helped you survive and get to your destination, now there's a bond.

Gang members and clowns want declarations, and nobody to watch their actions. They've already decided they will survive in what ever world they live in, or use force & threats. If they meet someone they'll want a conscious declaration of peace. Living in wartime, anxiety.

For everyone else, doing almost anything will help you/someone else survive, and there's an opportunity for a bond.