-4. The need for connection [...]

How many of those papers are supported by empirical evidence, as opposed to just being analytical theories? Since you've no doubt at least read the abstract of all of those papers, this should be an easy question to answer. (...)

From your flagship paper:

Forming social bonds – People readily form relationships with others without being paid or forced to do so, and do so even under adverse circumstances. For example, infants and children will form attachments to others even though they have little or no knowledge of their social world and are incapable of calculating benefits or costs to these relationships.

Yes, infants and kids need people/guardians. First of all, they clearly need people because they are incapable of caring for themselves. Emotionally needing people is another thing. Secondly, it doesn't generalise to adults.

Not breaking bonds – People are eager to have close relationships and are reluctant to break them once formed, even when the relationship is marked by distress, conflict, or even abuse. People often avoid permanent separation (breakups, divorce, death), even when the costs of staying in the relationship are greater than leaving.

With any other thing -- food, physical comfort, drugs, sex -- we would call that dysfunctional behaviour. But since it's about the Holy Cow of social interaction, we celebrate how this means that we're such jolly "social animals".

Cognition – When we feel close to others, our thoughts change such that a cognitive “merging” effect occurs; people begin to include aspects of their relationship partner in their own self-concept. The boundaries between individual partners break down in relationships, and people think of their own fate as being intertwined with the fate of others.

So? What does that say about needing others? It might just be an adaptive trait that is useful when you're already in a relationship. But clearly it is not useful to be merging with any random person you meet on the street, even though we're so soooocial.

Emotional highs and lows – No matter how you slice it, relationships carry immense emotional weight. People feel a great deal of positive emotion (e.g., joy, bliss, love), especially during the early stages of relationships. People also feel lots of negative emotions and distress (e.g., anxiety, anger, jealousy) when things aren’t going well.

Is an emotional roller coaster supposed to be a universally good thing? I don't personally like it.

Consequences of deprivation – When people lack meaningful close relationships with others, they suffer. Specifically, married individuals are healthier, less stressed out, and are expected to live longer than single individuals (not to stigmatize singles here). Close relationships boost people’s immune systems.

A confounding factor is how people who are long-time single, or single passed a certain age, are looked down upon and/or being urged to find someone before they become too old to attract a mate and in turn die alone (gasp). Case in point; he even fucking links to an article on how single people are stigmatized.

Partial deprivation – Even within highly satisfying relationships, being separated from a loved one (or having restricted interactions) produces distress and sadness. When couples are separated (through things like work-related distance, military duty, or even prison) they report more loneliness.

Notably, people that have relationships and then are separated from them. Not people that didn't have relationships to begin with.

Innateness, universality, and evolutionary perspectives – People throughout the world are born with the ability and motivation to form close relationships, and this universal tendency is adaptive. Children who form close emotional attachments to their parents are less likely to wander off, get picked off by a predator, or fall victim to some other natural danger. Thus, relationships protect us from harm when we are young and vulnerable.

I've never contested that relationships are useful, and this is all that this section is saying. I've contested that it is some deep-seated need that do-gooders say you will suffer immensely from the lack of.

And there's the basic fact that oxytocin and vasopressin are involved in the bonding process. Having relationships with others has a measurable chemical effect on your brain. There's the fact that close relationships boost our immune systems too. These are objective, physical things.

Oh wow, now you have disarmed me with your rigorous scientific brain chemicals. Wow, a physical effect. You mean just like anything pleasurable, like eating a chocolate bar, has some brain chemistry counterpart effect? Hence I conclude, since chocolate produces dopamine (I guess), everyone needs to eat chocolate in order to have a fulfilling life. Doesn't quite work like that, does it? Yoga probably produces something physical (groan) and positive, high intensity swimming probably produces something which is also beneficial, mastering playing the guitar produces something else, and so on. But the conclusion of that is not that every human being must be a yoga master, guitar player who swims a lot in order to live a good life.