How do people bond?

I was wondering this lately. How do people really bond? I don't mean striking up a conversation when they happen to meet, and saying hi in passing. I mean developing a close friendship that makes you seek each other out on days you wouldn't normally meet. It's not that I haven't experienced this before, but I just wonder about the mechanics behind it. Are there certain ingredients that need to be in place for such a friendship to be able to flourish, or is it simply a "connection" that can't logically be explained?
What, according to your opinion, are the best possible circumstances for this friendship to be able to occur? Is there a point in reading books about how to make friends, or is it something that is just natural, and any interference or premeditated action would just damage the process?

How do women work? Is there a manual?
How can i understand men? Is there a manual?
How do you make love work? Is there a manual?

It differs for each and everyone. My guess it has to do with a feeling of safety.
Even that doesn't say much, since sometimes you go to Person A with one problem and to Person B with another. Friendship is different than a bond. You can read a book about making friends, but a bond requires something different.

I say, it happens when it happens.

There are many types of bonds. I feel affection and trust for another person/animal is the foundation of the bond. And often people are drawn together for various reasons in the formation of those bonds. I think also its a natural connection that opens the way for the bond to form. Often for me, I feel a connection in some way and let that trust and affection strengthen the bond.

You find that person's presence pleasant for one reason or another and become partial to them. The problem is that when you become attached, that person may turn out to be harmful to others, yet you will think highly of them. You could make some statement about condemning actions but still accepting the person, but what happens if that person shows no remorse and consistently behaves in such a manner? What is it you are accepting now? There's nothing special about that person; you're simply two individuals who had incidentally crossed paths. If the feelings you have for them are borne their identity rather than your tether, which trait excuses selfishness or outright malice? It's simply a selfish deserve to dote an arbitrary tie you simply lack the willpower to severe.

So it is my experience that bonds are merely clinging to pleasant memories and denying the effects your in-group have upon outsiders. It doesn't matter if your friends hurt others; you met your friends first, and they are now afforded an asinine dispensation. In actuality, however, those victims may be kind, benevolent people, and their suffering is as real as anybody else's. It would seem happenstance trumps virtue in the hearts and minds of humankind.

So people bond when another makes them feel good in some way, and will happily turn their back upon others. It's selfless to forgive that person close to you, because you can simply arrogate forgiveness on behalf of the outsiders who're actually suffering. It's really rather easy when it happens out of sight, out of mind — and easy to turn a deaf ear on those who don't really have a voice within your group to begin with. Bonding when you're willing to be an enabler, never holding someone accountable simply because shunning them would be inconvenient for you. It's when there is no direct consequence you have to face, so you don't see why it's your problem.

Today we have people who find the very notion of pledging fealty to your country of origin risible because your nation may commit atrocities, thus such loyalties are considered factious on a global scale, dividing peoples and pitting them against one another blindly. If people didn't collectivize in such a way, there wouldn't be world-wide warfare. What is it that warrants your nation trampling upon the weak and downtrodden? People easily see the dilemma here. They easily see the need for dissent, or outright rebellion. But ask them to apply this logic on a smaller scale, with smaller groups — suddenly their indignation has vanished? What's different, besides mere scale? It's quite simple: their emotional investments and potential personal consequences.

That's how I feel about 'bonds', and what they are, what causes them, and what causes they have in the grand scheme of things.

So Dreamscape; you would never bond with anyone? That is never develop a close connection? That seems a rather lonely and isolated life.

I find that bonds simply happen naturally if one is open to them and they can happen on many levels. Bond is simply another term for connecting with someone, and that also includes animals. Connections needn't exclude others, true ones are quite inclusive.

It's all about caring too.

"So it is my experience that bonds are merely clinging to pleasant memories and denying the effects your in-group have upon outsiders. It doesn't matter if your friends hurt others; you met your friends first, and they are now afforded an asinine dispensation."

As i suspected, definitions are causing a mis-communication. To me bonds are not the same as attachments, although they may appear to be the same. To me it feels like a form of respect and/or worth. It's not about what someone can do for me, but what WE can do for each other. BE for each. It is not a mandatory reciprocal relationship either and it's both pleasant and unpleasant feelings.

It feels to me, that the less restrictions are in place, the stronger a bond can become. So basically, the more you are able to be yourself, the stronger a bond can become. It does require both sides for this, but that is not mandatory, but a requirement for it build or develop.
More or less like throwing two dice. It's not mandatory to throw a six with each dice, but to have two sixes, it is required.

Yes, thanks tezorian. Bonds indeed are not attachments, I don't consider the two to be the same at all. Both can coexist in a relationship and some people are quite happy with that.

As i suspected, definitions are causing a mis-communication. To me bonds are not the same as attachments, although they may appear to be the same. To me it feels like a form of respect and/or worth. It's not about what someone can do for me, but what WE can do for each other. BE for each. It is not a mandatory reciprocal relationship either and it's both pleasant and unpleasant feelings.

I don't understand how you could respect any person that would willfully bring harm upon others — if they show no desire to reform, they are utterly incorrigible and deserving of complete denunciation. Being unwilling to rebuke members of your in-group is cowardice. Being forgiving is only a virtue up until the point where it has become clear they're unwilling to even meet you an eighth of the way.

Dreamspace wrote:

As i suspected, definitions are causing a mis-communication. To me bonds are not the same as attachments, although they may appear to be the same. To me it feels like a form of respect and/or worth. It's not about what someone can do for me, but what WE can do for each other. BE for each. It is not a mandatory reciprocal relationship either and it's both pleasant and unpleasant feelings.

I don't understand how you could respect any person that would willfully bring harm upon others — if they show no desire to reform, they are utterly incorrigible and deserving of complete denunciation. Being unwilling to rebuke members of your in-group is cowardice. Being forgiving is only a virtue up until the point where it has become clear they're unwilling to even meet you an eighth of the way.

Who said anything about that? Bonding is an entirely separate issue from that. This issue has more to do with defining what is bad and good and responding accordingly. There is a very good thread on that topic as well.

Bonding and connecting are usually reciprocal but not always. People can bond on different levels within a relationship too, such as someone who greatly admires another but to the other, that person is just someone they know casually. Someone who has a crush has a larger bond than the person with whom they feel it if it isn't mutual. These are just two examples.

If both people attach in such a way as to get both people's needs met in a satifying way, that too can be a workable bond.

Connecting can be without attaching as well, just loving the person for who they are and enjoying time with them, no strings attached.

Connecting can be without attaching as well, just loving the person for who they are and enjoying time with them, no strings attached.

What if who that person is is a monster? How can there be no strings attached if you have a conscience? If you've any relation with such a person, rather than strings you have shackles weighing your mind down unless you simply turn a blind eye to that side of them.

Dreamspace wrote:

Connecting can be without attaching as well, just loving the person for who they are and enjoying time with them, no strings attached.

What if who that person is is a monster? How can there be no strings attached if you have a conscience? If you've any relation with such a person, rather than strings you have shackles weighing your mind down unless you simply turn a blind eye to that side of them.

If I find a person is harmful, I am capable of severing contact. If the connection was deep enough however, it may remain even if I choose to have no further contact with that person. Contact and connection are not the same things. Anyone who knows me knows I am not in the habit of enabling and never have been.

Few I've connected to over a lifetime have been in the habit of harming others. When someone had proven to be so, I tended to fade away.

When I do connect however, I do so openly and from a position of trust and the vast majority of times this has proven to be the correct approach. Most people are kind in my experience.

What if the person is not a monster? Most are not. You assume that just because I connect with some people fully with no strings attached I will with EVERYONE on the same level. I do not choose how deep connections go; they tend to form of their own. I allow them to. People with tendencies to use or harm others also tend not to bond openly and freely without attachments, expectations or barriers. They usually do not connect so deeply and thus will not with me. Connections for me are reciprical.

@ Dreamspace: I understand your concerns, but not all people are evil. I also think that if a friend of mine would do something bad, inconsiderate, deliberately hurting others, that I would talk to this person about it, and not accept the behavior just because they are my friend.

Personally, I think I still get attached when I connect with others. I feel this connection, and then I start to think "what if I lose it? What if this person doesn't want to connect with me? What if it leads nowhere?" and all these worries leave me with a nagging feeling, unable to enjoy the moment. Trying to build relations with others really trigger me in some way, showing that I am lacking trust in myself and others. As long as I can remember, I've had trouble making friends and fitting in, and only recently I seem to be more able to make small-talk, but the connections resulting from it are usually superficial. I know that one side of me wants to connect, and another is terrified of too much intimacy, and I guess that's why I tend to attract people with similar issues, making it impossible to ever connect on a deeper level. I really would like to embrace this fear, and challenge it in some way, instead of letting my wounds fester in the dark rooms of my soul, unseen and unloved.

OK I have read most of the descriptions. Firstly great question Riana!

Here are my two cents worth.
Bonds are not made nor created, they happen. But they can be nourished to grow or poisoned to die.
Feed it some trust, compassion, caring and sense of worthiness and the bond grows exponentially. And the beauty of a bond is that it can withstand disagreements, misunderstandings, time and distance. A true bond cannot be forced nor coerced. In some ways it is an attraction of kinship....( a relationship by nature or character)