Live data from Hacker News

Childhood Friends, Not Moms, Shape Attachment Styles Most

nautil.us

1–10 of 109 posts

Re: Childhood Friends, Not Moms, Shape Attachment Styles Most

#4
> But early friendship bonds played an even bigger part than maternal relationships in the ways people navigated adult friendships and romantic partnerships, accounting for 4 percent of the variance in adults’ romantic partner- and best friend-specific attachment anxiety, and 10 to 11 percent in their partner- and best friend-specific avoidance.

Are those numbers r-squared figures? Seems like there's a lot more variance to be explained?

Re: Childhood Friends, Not Moms, Shape Attachment Styles Most

#5
My first reaction was to refute this, but I think I've convinced myself this may be correct, assuming attachment styles are the right frame.

I've been painted with the Avoidant brush, and logically it makes sense, broken home, removed from mother, moved regularly changing schools once a year for 5 years.

However, my siblings are the opposite. We come from the same house, they didn't change schools as often as I did, which made me wonder how we could be so different.

But when looked through the lens of friendships forming the attachment style, it makes more sense. I changed schools more often than my siblings, and therefore had more friendship changes, and less ability for attachment.

Re: Childhood Friends, Not Moms, Shape Attachment Styles Most

#9
In general your kids' friends are much more important to them in the long run than you are. You are always there, but their friends represent the society they will be sinking or swimming in. They turn away from you and your tastes and opinions for a reason: their survival depends on understanding the tastes and opinions of their peers. You will stick with them (usually). Their peers are free to abandon them. Peer relationships are fragile but important. Parent-child relationships, however important, are much more durable, so they require less attention from the child.
Post reply on HN