More psychobabble

After a couple of beers and a Stargate (SG1, of course) one's thoughts naturally turn to interpersonal relationships. For instance, is it common to have a nearly unbreakable bond with one other human being? Do those that have at least one relationship like this get lonely easier than those who don't? Is it more rewarding to know and be known so thoroughly or to be fiercely independent, oblivious to the possiblity of co-dependency?

I suppose it depends on the circumstances surrounding the bond, right? Developed over months and years as a healthy friendship, like the now non-existant marriages of old, knowing another person so well would probably be thrilling because individual identity is retained. (Oh, I know that from a feminist viewpoint my example can be debated, but assume the marriage I speak of is between two distinguished professors circa 1930.) In this kind of relationship both contribute knowledge and vitality because they're sharing their lives with each other, or so I've heard.

In contrast, a bond formed during trauma or to fill an emotional void is set up so that what little emotional strength either person has is pooled together for mutual benefit. This ideally temporary situation can become permanent if the people involved forget how to handle their lives alone or were too young to know how in the first place.

So if the choice is between an incredible understanding of another person through shared war experience or a peaceful, connectionless life with complete independence, what would most people choose?