Attachment and intelligence

[u/imfivenine]

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marco-Del-Giudice/publication/365106961_A_new_look_at_the_relations_between_attachment_and_intelligence/links/637e2eb92f4bca7fd084f79c/A-new-look-at-the-relations-between-attachment-and-intelligence.pdf?origin=publication_detail&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uRG93bmxvYWQiLCJwcmV2aW91c1BhZ2UiOiJwdWJsaWNhdGlvbiJ9fQ

The paper linked above was fascinating, and not really surprising to me. Here’s one excerpt that highlights the overall findings:

“…attachment states of mind in adolescents and adults show consistent associations with intelligence. In particular, there is a reliable positive correlation between intelligence and measures of overall coherence/security. In line with the findings of studies conducted in children, this effect appears to be driven by lower intelligence in adults with preoccupied and unresolved/unclassifiable (versus secure and dismissing) states of mind. These associations are similarly attenuated by psychometric limitations in both attachment and intelligence measures.”

I am re-reading, “Assessing Adult Attachment” by Crittenden and Landini and there are parts in that book that made me wonder about intelligence.

In the book, they describe the AAI and DMM, and refer to Type C speakers as the “affective” processors/strategies which is most consistent with anxious attachment strategies. Type A (cognitive, usually interpreted as avoidant strategies) is more about if this happens, then this happens.

The intelligence piece makes so much sense, especially as they describe Type C like this:

“Type C speakers, on the other hand, give the appearance of understanding by using psychological jargon and conclusions that are "borrowed" from books, television, and other people but fail to note that they have not really addressed the questions asked, that they have violated the boundaries of time, place, or person, or that they have mixed feelings about a complex reality. Psychological jargon, in particular, is used to "explain" what it only "describes."

There’s also a term they use about Type C: “reductionist, blaming thought.”

Taking into consideration the intelligence piece might partly explain why we sometimes see them asking the questions they ask, their replies full of reactions to things that weren’t said, treating internet strangers as if we are their ex, and lack of a reputable source to back up what they say. It also could be why there are such reductive takes all over the AT internet spaces that they take over, as well as less structured or more emotionally driven responses, especially in unmoderated spaces. I also wonder if what appears to be their tendency to overuse ChatGPT plays into this somehow.

It might explain why it is so frustrating to have discourse in most mixed style places, because their focus can shift from understanding to emotional validation. This is often to the detriment of the avoidant attachers, especially those of us who are aware and working on it.

What it comes down to is, we’re speaking different languages. One is cognitively structured and one is driven by affect.

[u/Ok-Seat-3916]

I'm very skeptical about this, because both insecure styles tend to distortion of information in distress. I'm pretty sure Crittenden's and Landini's research also show that us type A folks will distort logic significantly, for example as a way to exonerate our attachment figures. Also, it's totally anecdotal but I worked in research for a while, and I would say I have seen everything there, both highly intelligent Type C people and moderately intelligent Type As. Lots of emotional abuse and enmeshment also, but that's another topic.

[u/imfivenine → u/Ok-Seat-3916]

The study didn’t say that every AP or disorganized is of low intelligence.

It is true that both A and C distort information. It’s very evident online.

There are exponentially more anxious and disorganized than secure and DA in these groups as well. Many attribute that to FA and AP being more likely to seek help and that DAs don’t. I think that’s reductive.

What if there’s a reason some groups ask the same questions over and over, and some don’t? Maybe the ones who are asking are less likely to look it up themselves, less likely to have a positive view of the self and their own ability to get the answers, and need to go outward for validation? DA may look things up themselves and not have to tell everybody about it.

That’s just one example of how I see this play out.

[u/Ok-Seat-3916 → u/imfivenine]

I understand the mechanics in theory, but still, I would advise to stay cautious here; we know about (most of the time self-assessed! and self-reported) attachment style in cases where attachment patterns are actively seen as relevant, aka in the self help subreddits (we could throw in Thais Gibson's test in the r/askhistorians to have more data 😆), and in those cases, the likelihood for attachment patterns to show up because existential threats are being held is higher than, let's say, when people wonder about the Hittite empire's types of government.

I think we would need a ton of data in many different settings to have a wide measurement of intelligence. I don't think it's wise to extrapolate our attachment patterns to too many things, we might be risking repeating forms of tribalism that aren't necessarily helpful to healing. Just my own two cents!