I think this is referring to the (future) women's rights movements and the push for women to be more of a worker, rather than a mother. This is HIGHLY controversial so I will try to choose my words wisely. To me, this article points out that someone (mother or father) needs to be there to love (provide comfort and warmth) to babies. And if a woman wants to be the bread winner, be at work more than at home, and have a partner (man or woman) be at home taking care of the baby, her income needs to be great enough to support the partner at home as well. When both partners work and cannot provide the baby's love needs, the baby could struggle to develop positively. All I am really trying to say here is that we, as Americans, need to find a way that one partner can work and it be enough to provide for our families; for our children's sake. It is very insightful that Harlow noticed this fact in 1958.

These foundational familiarizations are the first paint stokes on the blank slate. Our innate drive is to revert back to the paint strokes we are familiar with until we have reason to become comfortable with new paint strokes.

Depressed!!!!! With so many people being diagnosed with depression recently, perhaps this example explains why. Times where we are not feeling love, or having access to love make us depressed.

Resiliency. Even after growing up without a source of comfort and love, their innate need for it shined through. Could this explain why some people "fall in love" with their therapist?

This love that is present early in life stays with a person and their psyche throughout their entire life. Focusing on this fact, instead of labeling everyone with personality disorders, is essential for treating mental illness.

More proof that some things necessary for positive psychological states are are not learned and physiological but are emotional and innate.

Wow. There is a lot of power in that statement. If we all would act as more than wire husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and friends, imagine how much less psychoanalysis would be taking place!

Wow! Imagine if all mothers were aware of this before they risked becoming pregnant. But again, the earlier mentioned drive to seek orgasm is blindingly strong.

This backs my earlier sentiment that love (warmth and comfort) are just as primary (if not more than) food and water.

The fact that humans take so long to grow and mature could be a hint to the more difficult psychological nature of humans. Has anyone researched why we develop so slowly? Is it because of the higher needs of developing our advanced brains?

This reminds me of Freud's "obsession" with all drives being sexual in nature. I believe there is some truth to this and I believe that the truth can be found by comparing nearly all of life's experiences. In most all situations, we want things to be somewhat what pleasurable at first and build to a climax at the end; just like the experience of sexual intercourse and the pleasuring of erogenous zones. The fact that achieving orgasm is the chief goal of sex, ensures that people will always inhabit the earth and continue humanity's existence. Procreation is primary to life and all experiences thereafter, therefore it is ensured by sex and the seeking of orgasm. Has anyone else considered the link between these two?

Love is primary too; this list of primary drives are mostly all physical and the list is incorrect without love in it. Everyone knows that that are both physical (bodily) needs and emotional (spiritual) needs.

What if we could assign the plethora of psychology and social psychology graduates (who cannot find a good paying job without earning a masters or doctorate first) the task of becoming a life coach to those willing to "work" with one. And by life coach, I mean a mentor who can assist, but also observe and document an individuals entire life and provide tangible research results to be considered as data for the next generations.

Rationalist vs. Empiricist: The rationalist posits that some things are innate, here is proof. However, love is not knowledge so the Empiricist viewpoint is still valid. And as for Descartes "Blank Slate" idea, this foremost bond with mother is the first paint stroke on the canvas.

This shows how powerful and necessary giving and receiving love is. How many times during psychoanalysis are individuals asked about it during their childhood? And how many times have their answers (usually about not getting enough loving support) opened up vast discoveries as to why the individual is being treated with psychoanalysis?

This is an example of why completely separating psychology from philosophy is a bad idea. Because of the nature of love (a feeling, emotion, drive, motivator - something that cannot be measured with any tool) it requires a philosophical explanation that is open to interpretation and, rightfully, is better done by artists and poets. Art and poetry are more of a "soft science" that rely on interpretation whereas modern psychology (also a soft science!) attempts to quantify and measure results (data) that cannot always provide scientific proof. Therefore, major elements of a flourishing life (like love) need to be approached more philosophically and less psychologically.

Here is an anotation.

I want to be able to save this comment along with the actual document so that I can upload it for credit. Is that how I do this or is there another way?