<p>I've been trying to understand why humans grief. I read a few articles and come to this conclusion (which I want to check with experts):</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li>being separated creates bad feelings because, being together makes move evolutionary sense.
  
  <ul>
  <li>Parents want reproduction/their genetic material to proliferate (cuz if it doesn’t then that species die/stops existing)</li>
  <li>Kids want to also pass their genetic material and if they die they can’t pass that on. So they want to stay with their parents.</li>
  <li>thus, there is a stress mechanism keep the family together when there is a separation (since this is perceived as a threat, higher chance of risk)</li>
  </ul></li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p>So grief is this stress system trying to keep us safe. Does this make sense or am I missing something?</p>

<p>I am mostly interested in understanding grief in terms of evolutionary psychology and in the context of all (or any) of these:</p>

<ul>
<li>death</li>
<li>divorce</li>
<li>break ups</li>
<li>loss</li>
<li>separation</li>
</ul>

<hr>

<p>Sources/references:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="https://scienceline.org/2015/07/is-there-a-reason-for-grief/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://scienceline.org/2015/07/is-there-a-reason-for-grief/</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.quora.com/From-an-evolutionary-perspective-why-do-humans-grieve?__category__=transactional&amp;__filter__=all&amp;__nsrc__=1&amp;__sncid__=3603336506" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.quora.com/From-an-evolutionary-perspective-why-do-humans-grieve?<strong>category</strong>=transactional&amp;<strong>filter</strong>=all&amp;<strong>nsrc</strong>=1&amp;<strong>sncid</strong>=3603336506</a></li>
<li><a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/culturing-science/the-evolution-of-grief-both-biological-and-cultural-in-the-21st-century/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/culturing-science/the-evolution-of-grief-both-biological-and-cultural-in-the-21st-century/</a></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-29T05:13:09.070Z
I think the Scientific American article says it best -"Grief - in its most basic form - represents an alarm reaction set off by a deficit signal in the behavioural system underlying attachment". People without a grief reaction or do not have a reaction to attachment are probably more likely to leave the tribe and get eaten by predators?
Poidah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-29T05:16:16.940Z
I like your explanation, but the one is quotes by Scientific America has to much bombastic words. I literally have no idea what it means. Honestly, I hate what they wrote there. Makes zero sense to me. What you wrote after, I love. Makes 100%. "Go away from the tribe = More likely to get eaten and thus not reproduce". That I can understand.
Charlie Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-29T05:21:14.253Z
Unfortunately when it comes to psychology and research, you would need to look up words and look up meanings in order to understand the concepts...
Poidah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-29T05:22:17.087Z
I disagree, I bet I could explain my field of expertise (machine learning and computer science) to you or anyone with simple english. Even if its just conceptually, I can communicate the key concepts because I understand my field excellently.
Charlie Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-29T05:25:19.893Z
Research papers are not textbooks, nor newspaper articles. Even Scientific American is not really for the general public. The concepts still require some baseline psychology and basic science education to make sense of the interpretation. To demand that expert sources write at a publicly accessible language would be unreasonable, especially with the world limitations.
Poidah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-29T07:18:00.437Z
I am sorry, but I am with @Poidah on this. Psychology and Neuroscience use words and expressions which are not generally used in the wider world of the Englush language as some concepts are difficult or impossible to put into straightforward English within articles etc. without writing a textbook. Other times it will be for brevity.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-29T07:30:20.693Z
To help understand the quote from Scientific American, [this article](http://goodmedicine.org.uk/stressedtozest/2009/11/behavioural-systems-attachment-care-seeking-care-giving-exploration-sex-power) may help
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-11-29T13:36:33.183Z
Not only humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_grief
Probably
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-01T02:01:46.157Z
Imagine if we didn't? Then this would play havock with our ability to plan and evaluate the future. We would see that there would be no emotional consequence from a close relative or friend dying. This could be one reason. Hence from evolutionary terms, having a bad emotional consequence of a comrade dying is important in our brain planning on making this not happening. This suggests grieving would take place in animals able to plan such as apes and elephants. Remember evolution is not just trying to keep us alive but also our genes which may reside in close relatives.
zooby
<evolutionary-psychology><death>
From an evolutionary perspective, why do humans grieve?
Charlie Parker
# From an evolutionary perspective, why do humans grieve?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-11-29)

I've been trying to understand why humans grief. I read a few articles and come to this conclusion (which I want to check with experts):

> * being separated creates bad feelings because, being together makes move evolutionary sense.
>   + Parents want reproduction/their genetic material to proliferate (cuz if it doesn’t then that species die/stops existing)
>   + Kids want to also pass their genetic material and if they die they can’t pass that on. So they want to stay with their parents.
>   + thus, there is a stress mechanism keep the family together when there is a separation (since this is perceived as a threat, higher chance of risk)

So grief is this stress system trying to keep us safe. Does this make sense or am I missing something?

I am mostly interested in understanding grief in terms of evolutionary psychology and in the context of all (or any) of these:

* death
* divorce
* break ups
* loss
* separation

---

Sources/references:

* <https://scienceline.org/2015/07/is-there-a-reason-for-grief/>
* [https://www.quora.com/From-an-evolutionary-perspective-why-do-humans-grieve?**category**=transactional&**filter**=all&**nsrc**=1&**sncid**=3603336506](https://www.quora.com/From-an-evolutionary-perspective-why-do-humans-grieve?__category__=transactional&__filter__=all&__nsrc__=1&__sncid__=3603336506)
* <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/culturing-science/the-evolution-of-grief-both-biological-and-cultural-in-the-21st-century/>

**Tags:** evolutionary-psychology, death

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think the Scientific American article says it best -"Grief - in its most basic form - represents an alarm reaction set off by a deficit signal in the behavioural system underlying attachment". People without a grief reaction or do not have a reaction to attachment are probably more likely to leave the tribe and get eaten by predators?  
> **username_0**: I like your explanation, but the one is quotes by Scientific America has to much bombastic words. I literally have no idea what it means. Honestly, I hate what they wrote there. Makes zero sense to me. What you wrote after, I love. Makes 100%. "Go away from the tribe = More likely to get eaten and thus not reproduce". That I can understand.  
> **username_1**: Unfortunately when it comes to psychology and research, you would need to look up words and look up meanings in order to understand the concepts...  
> **username_0**: I disagree, I bet I could explain my field of expertise (machine learning and computer science) to you or anyone with simple english. Even if its just conceptually, I can communicate the key concepts because I understand my field excellently.  
> **username_1**: Research papers are not textbooks, nor newspaper articles. Even Scientific American is not really for the general public. The concepts still require some baseline psychology and basic science education to make sense of the interpretation. To demand that expert sources write at a publicly accessible language would be unreasonable, especially with the world limitations.  
> **username_2**: I am sorry, but I am with @username_1 on this. Psychology and Neuroscience use words and expressions which are not generally used in the wider world of the Englush language as some concepts are difficult or impossible to put into straightforward English within articles etc. without writing a textbook. Other times it will be for brevity.  
> **username_2**: To help understand the quote from Scientific American, [this article](http://goodmedicine.org.uk/stressedtozest/2009/11/behavioural-systems-attachment-care-seeking-care-giving-exploration-sex-power) may help  
> **username_3**: Not only humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_grief  
> **username_4**: Imagine if we didn't? Then this would play havock with our ability to plan and evaluate the future. We would see that there would be no emotional consequence from a close relative or friend dying. This could be one reason. Hence from evolutionary terms, having a bad emotional consequence of a comrade dying is important in our brain planning on making this not happening. This suggests grieving would take place in animals able to plan such as apes and elephants. Remember evolution is not just trying to keep us alive but also our genes which may reside in close relatives.  

---

## 0 answers

