Talk:Attachment in adults

message: I created a new template for close relationships. I am putting it on this article to get feedback from others. I do not plan to put it on any other attachment related articles. If the consensus is to remove it from this article, I'm okay with that, too. The template can be added to pages by typing  at the top of an article. (Kelly 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. That's it. Kelly 13:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Close Relationships template

message: This article is redundant in many sections and should be merged with Attachment Theory. Anthiety (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Attachment Theory]] 

message: The descriptions of attachment styles have been overrun recently by anonymous IPs adding non-encyclopedic content with no or dubious sources. I have taken a crack at fixing it but more help is needed. Universaladdress (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many dubious contributions by unidentified editors 

message: Attachment theory is indeed "introvert-negative", for its premise is that people are biologically driven to form attachments with others. The dismissive avoidant attachment style is basically defined as being a "loner" or introverted person. An attachment theorist therefore may consider such an introvert to be suffering from a delusional complex. Namely, having a view that close relationships are relatively unimportant, as well as denying the need for close relationships... hence introverts are openly contradicting their own clear biological needs and desires.
I won't attack here because I have bigger fish to fry, but the Wikipedia article on this is **bogus**. For example:
>"The descriptions of adult attachment styles offered below are based on the relationship questionnaire devised by Bartholomew and Horowitz [6] and on a review of studies by Pietromonaco and Barrett[7]."
Unfortunately this cannot be the case, as reference 7 is a single study by Pietromonaco and Barrett, and reference 6 is merely a proposal of paradigm- and one that has never been tested or validated or implemented.
Maybe this is a clear case of pseudo-psychology, or maybe it's just about the psychology of you and me, and how we may be such that we respond so submissively to the suggestions contained in the writings of the APA, that we can't see for how much and to whom these were sold.
>"Investigators commonly note the defensive character of this attachment style."
Ironically this represents a legitimate defense mechanism of the narrator. In fact the dismissive avoidant attachment style has no defensive character whatsoever. But pointing out the illusory defensiveness of one's opponent effectively creates the illusion of an argument.
>"The desire for independence often appears as an attempt to avoid attachment altogether."
Yes. A desire for independence is reflected in an attempt to avoid attachment. Kind of like how the promotion of attachment often appears as an attempt to undermine introversion altogether.
66.239.61.216 (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the difference between being a healthy introvert and having an Dismissive Avoidant attachment style? 

message: Hello! I see it has been some time since people have been on this talk page working on editing this article. I recently have spent some time looking over it and I have to say that I love everything that has been done with this article. I think that it was extremely well-written and I think that it has some great information!
There are a few areas where I feel like some updates would be helpful. I think that the sources that have been used are great, but I feel like if we updated some of them to make the information more current it would help this page to be even better and stronger.
Another little change that I think would be helpful would be to add some color to the charts and tables on this page. I think that doing so would make the charts pop and it would help them to look more professional.
Thank you for those who are reading this comment I appreciate it! Again I think that if we chose to make some of these changes this page would look better and better! --Oceanwater31 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are very well-intentioned. Please keep in mind, though, that an encyclopedia isn't a PowerPoint presentation. There is no reason we should be worried about making "charts pop" and "look more professional"; we are a reference work, and if we are appropriately sourced and well-written, we are "professional" enough.  Colors, in particular, are to be deployed very carefully here because of accessibility concerns. Please see MOS:COLOUR. Information is no less valuable or professional because it doesn't "pop"! Thanks. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Updates That I feel Should Be Made

message: I appreciate your positive feedback on the "Attachment Theory" contribution. While it effectively provided valuable information for the general public, it appears to overlap with content found int other sections contributed by past contributors. Additionally, there to be an issue with accessibility to at least one source for the general public. The last update is in 2022, it's acknowledged that the field may have advanced, and new research on the topic is available in 2024. Consider revising the content to address these concerns and incorporate the latest information and research on "Attachment Theory".
Karemblyvilla (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove sources that are not accessible to the public. 

message: — Assignment last updated by Karemblyvilla (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development winter 2024