Is there such thing as natural instinct?

[paste]

in·stinct - 2.A natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking: "rely on your instincts".


Is there such thing as natural instinct or are the thing's we consider "natural instinct's" just conditions and taboos we learned since we were little kids? Obviously we have natural instincts such as pulling your hand away when you touch a hot stove etc. , etc. but what about our mental instincts? (i.e. not cannibalizing another human being). Robert Heinlein in Stranger in a Strange Land discusses how some taboos are so strong we think of them as "natural instincts" such as not cannibalizing another human. Our ancestors would disagree. If you go back far enough, every culture has practiced cannibalism in one form or another. Our ancestors didn't seem to think cannibalism was a "natural instinct" that was wrong. And one can argue that they did it for food but most cultures did it out of respect for the dead, after they have died of natural causes, accidents, etc. so that point is moot.

So that got me thinking, is there truly a natural mental instinct within us, or is it all conditioning we have received from our surroundings? Cannibalism is a good example because it is so repulsive and so taboo to most people, that they DO think it's a natural instinct not to do it.

[Phalex]

I've seen my dog eat poop, but I find the idea repulsive. I'd call that a difference in instinct. It might taste like pumpkin pie, but I'll neve find out.

[paste]

Originally Posted by Phalex

I've seen my dog eat poop, but I find the idea repulsive. I'd call that a difference in instinct. It might taste like pumpkin pie, but I'll neve find out.

Well this fits in the category of "pulling your hand away from a hot stove" instinct since dog poop smells like crap and most people will not naturally eat things that smell like crap.

[Ziltoid]

According to Marcuse the advanced capitalist way of life has become instinctive as it's satisfying even if it imposes and unified and totalitarian way of life, or something.

[Phalex]

Why? Because instinctually you know you could get sick and die? I think revulsion is a prime example of instinct. It's how it manifests itself. Fear of spiders, or snakes? They may very well make you get sick and or die.

There are things that we are hard wired to hate. The difference between eating a dead animal as opposed to a rotten dead animal? Instinct. Also gag reflex, but I would submit that that is instinctual to keep you from making yourself sick, and maybe dying.

[St Drogo]

Instinct i think is only geared towards survival, and honed with the millennia. So an aversion to cannibalism could be instinct in an area where other food is plentiful, and diseases thrive in human corpses and are therefore dangerous to eat. In more arctic areas, where food is scarce and certain diseases are less likely to occur in corpses, there may be no such aversion, as that instinct would serve no purpose. It's all about survival and sex, i think.

Btw, the example was made up to clarify, I have no idea if there are more cannibals in arctic areas.

Edit: Actually, come to think of it, I disagree with myself
I'd say the cannibalism thing isn't instinct, but culture. There is the idea that certain religious foodrestrictions (like eating kosher or halal) come from a disease that made swine dangerous to eat, that occured in the area judaism and islam originated. That sounds plausible to me. If it suddenly is dangerous to eat something that was alright to eat for centuries before, your instincts couldn't have catched up yet, and you'd need a cultural based aversion.

Plus, you should be alright, physically speaking, eating human flesh, as long as you don't eat the brain. Disgusting and reprehensible perhaps, but no less nutritious than pork i'd guess.

Hmmm, Man-ham.

[paste]

Originally Posted by Phalex

Why? Because instinctually you know you could get sick and die? I think revulsion is a prime example of instinct. It's how it manifests itself. Fear of spiders, or snakes? They may very well make you get sick and or die.

There are things that we are hard wired to hate. The difference between eating a dead animal as opposed to a rotten dead animal? Instinct. Also gag reflex, but I would submit that that is instinctual to keep you from making yourself sick, and maybe dying.

"Because instinctually you know you could get sick and die? I think revulsion is a prime example of instinct."

Instinctually? Are you sure? There are people in the Amazon still practicing cannibalism to this day and they still seem to be doing fine - except for the fact that modern civilization and governments are encroaching on them. It's not like they are gobbling up the whole body but just pieces of it - out of respect for the dead of course. About the revulsion - that's my point. Where does the revulsion for cannibalism come from? Come's from conditioning and taboo set in our society.

[bluesblaster]

instinct = self preservation

its what drives life

[tastybasslines]

Originally Posted by Phalex

I've seen my dog eat poop, but I find the idea repulsive. I'd call that a difference in instinct. It might taste like pumpkin pie, but I'll neve find out.

And to add to that, most men naturally would lick their balls and more if they could, while dogs and their instinct already do. That proves to me that humans have the natural instinct, just not the ability.

[St Drogo]

In 'the selfish gene', richard dawkins explores what is in fact the higher form of life, us or our genes (he also expands outward, to cultural ideas and that's where the word 'meme' comes from). The idea is that we became what we are, because we are the most efficient at keeping our genes alive and reproducing (and thus prolonging the lifespan of our genes). Like spaceships to protect and transport our genes. All our instincts (like actual, pull your hand away from a hot stove instincts) act in accordance with that idea; avoid danger to protect the body, find nourishment to sustain the body and have sex to reproduce the body.

Perhaps our instincts are like a genetic directive. Actually, not perhaps, definitely.

Which would mean everything that doesn't benefit the genes directly, isn't instinct.

Besides, I'm not sure, but I think our instincts haven't changed since we walked with mammoths. A lot of taboo things are a lot younger than that.

[giorob815]

You keep using that example. Are you trying to justify something you've done/plan on doing?

If you actually research the subject, I think you'll find some quite damning information on the practice from a scientific perspective w/ it's relation to the practitioner's body. Sometimes a culture makes things taboo because, quite frankly, people are stupid and need to be told not to do stupid things. (This is not an example of ALL taboos.) For instance, it is our instinct to fight and kill each other until we as a species no longer exist. In most societies, this is publicly frowned upon. It private, however, well...

And btw- natural instincts is redundant. Look at your own definition. There's no such thing as UN-natural instincts. It's like saying hot water heater.

Rob

[Ziltoid]

The Hannibal season premiere on NBS was Thursday, cannibalism can be quite cool.

[paste]

Originally Posted by giorob815

You keep using that example. Are you trying to justify something you've done/plan on doing?

If you actually research the subject, I think you'll find some quite damning information on the practice from a scientific perspective w/ it's relation to the practitioner's body. Sometimes a culture makes things taboo because, quite frankly, people are stupid and need to be told not to do stupid things. (This is not an example of ALL taboos.) For instance, it is our instinct to fight and kill each other until we as a species no longer exist. In most societies, this is publicly frowned upon. It private, however, well...

And btw- natural instincts is redundant. Look at your own definition. There's no such thing as UN-natural instincts. It's like saying hot water heater.

Rob

I'm actually quite aware of the physiological effects of humans cannibalising other humans. And you do realize, like the first humans, not realizing you cant eat certain parts of certain animals, died off leaving there comrades enlightened on this fact and the dumb ones who kept eating the no good parts perished. Just like this, im sure, the cannibalists realized certain parts of the human body were no good (i.e. the brain which contains high amounts of Prion causing Prion disease, which ultimately leads to death). And let's not be exclusive hear - you can certainly get this from spoiled animals too So as time progressed, im sure the cannibalists realized spoiled human is no bueno as well as to stay away from the brain, just like our ancestors realized spoiled animal meat is no good.

"Natural instincts" is kind of redundant huh

[Munjibunga]

We are animals, so we have basal instincts mostly surrounding procreation and survival. But as we developed intellectually, we tended to subvert our natural instincts as cultural mores evolved.

[two fingers]

I would argue that we humans are even losing some of our "natural instincts". (And, yes, I get that it is redundant.) Have you ever seen a story on the news where a grown man was mauled by a dog? How can this be? We are more intelligent, physically stronger everywhere except perhaps the jaws, and have just as many weapons naturally, and plenty more un-naturally than a dog does. I can bite. I can grab a dog by the throat. I can push my fingers into his eyes. I can shove a key, or a pen into his brain/lung/heart. A hard punch to the nose would render most dogs helpless. I can kick a dog hard enough to break pretty much any bone in his body. I can simply grab onto his leg and probably tear it from his body. And I am not extra strong or large. There is no reason whatsoever that a dog should ever seriously injure a grown man. Even the most noted species of scary dogs shouldn't be much of a threat to a grown healthy man. And yet most of us would run away from a dog if confronted. (Yes, I get that running is a flight instinct. But my point is that we don't have to and yet we do anyway.) We have lost some of our survival instincts. In fact, I would argue that the OP's point is backwards. We find violence against certain animals to be so repulsive (or perhaps the use of bare hands in committing such acts of violence) that we will allow said animals to seriously injure, or even kill us, when we clearly have the upper hand if we were to honestly "keep score" in a fight between a human and a dog. They have teeth, jaws, and speed. That's it. That's all they bring to the fight. However, they manage to inflict serious injury and death quite often these days. (Please don't bring up lions tigers and bears.... oh my...... because we all know they have massive strength advantages.)

By the way, I love dogs. I only use them as an example, much like cannibalism in the OP.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by two fingers

I would argue that we humans are even losing some of our "natural instincts". (And, yes, I get that it is redundant.) Have you ever seen a story on the news where a grown man was mauled by a dog? How can this be? We are more intelligent, physically stronger everywhere except perhaps the jaws, and have just as many weapons naturally, and plenty more un-naturally than a dog does. I can bite. I can grab a dog by the throat. I can push my fingers into his eyes. I can shove a key, or a pen into his brain/lung/heart. A hard punch to the nose would render most dogs helpless. I can kick a dog hard enough to break pretty much any bone in his body. I can simply grab onto his leg and probably tear it from his body. And I am not extra strong or large. There is no reason whatsoever that a dog should ever seriously injure a grown man. Even the most noted species of scary dogs shouldn't be much of a threat to a grown healthy man. And yet most of us would run away from a dog if confronted. (Yes, I get that running is a flight instinct. But my point is that we don't have to and yet we do anyway.) We have lost some of our survival instincts. In fact, I would argue that the OP's point is backwards. We find violence against certain animals to be so repulsive (or perhaps the use of bare hands in committing such acts of violence) that we will allow said animals to seriously injure, or even kill us, when we clearly have the upper hand if we were to honestly "keep score" in a fight between a human and a dog. They have teeth, jaws, and speed. That's it. That's all they bring to the fight. However, they manage to inflict serious injury and death quite often these days. (Please don't bring up lions tigers and bears.... oh my...... because we all know they have massive strength advantages.)

By the way, I love dogs. I only use them as an example, much like cannibalism in the OP.

Good point. In a fight between a chimp and a dog, the smart money would be on the chimp. Goodbye dog lips and dangly bits.

[carlthegroover]

Originally Posted by paste

in·stinct - 2.A natural or intuitive way of acting or thinking: "rely on your instincts".


Is there such thing as natural instinct or are the thing's we consider "natural instinct's" just conditions and taboos we learned since we were little kids? Obviously we have natural instincts such as pulling your hand away when you touch a hot stove etc. , etc. but what about our mental instincts? (i.e. not cannibalizing another human being). Robert Heinlein in Stranger in a Strange Land discusses how some taboos are so strong we think of them as "natural instincts" such as not cannibalizing another human. Our ancestors would disagree. If you go back far enough, every culture has practiced cannibalism in one form or another. Our ancestors didn't seem to think cannibalism was a "natural instinct" that was wrong. And one can argue that they did it for food but most cultures did it out of respect for the dead, after they have died of natural causes, accidents, etc. so that point is moot.

So that got me thinking, is there truly a natural mental instinct within us, or is it all conditioning we have received from our surroundings? Cannibalism is a good example because it is so repulsive and so taboo to most people, that they DO think it's a natural instinct not to do it.

To make a potentially long answer short:

I don't think cannibalism is a good example, just for the reason it has all sorts of social and political connotations, all which are pretty much learned in an overly complex (and therefore not very "naturalisic") environment.

Natural sounds more like a pure reaction to something else, something primal, something immediate. Something like flinching when experiencing pain, or secreting adrenaline when facing danger (like, a true threat against your life kind of danger).

Maybe you do have a point. Maybe even those primal reactions are pretty much learned. Bur maybe the point is moot if we learn these actions so early in life and so easily we cannot tell if they were "ingrained" in our brains to start with.

Just a thought.

[bassybill]

An ethologist would answer this in terms of "behaviours" - things that animals can be observed to do. These can be analysed using a stimulus/response type of model. You can then classify these behaviours into many different categpries.

One of the most basic subdivisions is based on how the central nervous system (brain and spinal chord) processes a stimulus signal in order to respond to it. For some fairly simple behaviours, the brain is hardly involved at all. Withdrawing your hand from a hot object would be an example. These are called reflex actions. I suppose you could also call them instinctive.

The remaining behaviours - those where the brain is involved - are generally more complex and interesting. These can be further categorised as being innate or learned or acquired. Some of the innate behaviours can be very complex, such as artefact building. Beavers build dams, spiders build webs, weaver birds and potter wasps build complex nests, but nore of them learn how to do this. They are born with these abilities. I guess you could call these instincts as well.

So, the answer to the question "is there such a thing as instinct" is "yes, there is". If you want to find out about the extent to which very complex behaviours in our own species are innate or acquired, I'd suggest doing some reading on anthropology as a starting point.

[carlos840]

Originally Posted by paste

Well this fits in the category of "pulling your hand away from a hot stove" instinct since dog poop smells like crap and most people will not naturally eat things that smell like crap.

Some culture eat durian fruit, or rotten shark or fish (Hákarl, surstromming) they smell worst than poop!

I don't think there is an instinct to neat eat things that smell bad, i think it is something we learn depending on what we eat from a young age.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by two fingers

I would argue that we humans are even losing some of our "natural instincts". (And, yes, I get that it is redundant.) Have you ever seen a story on the news where a grown man was mauled by a dog? How can this be? We are more intelligent, physically stronger everywhere except perhaps the jaws, and have just as many weapons naturally, and plenty more un-naturally than a dog does. I can bite. I can grab a dog by the throat. I can push my fingers into his eyes. I can shove a key, or a pen into his brain/lung/heart. A hard punch to the nose would render most dogs helpless. I can kick a dog hard enough to break pretty much any bone in his body. I can simply grab onto his leg and probably tear it from his body. And I am not extra strong or large. There is no reason whatsoever that a dog should ever seriously injure a grown man. Even the most noted species of scary dogs shouldn't be much of a threat to a grown healthy man. And yet most of us would run away from a dog if confronted. (Yes, I get that running is a flight instinct. But my point is that we don't have to and yet we do anyway.) We have lost some of our survival instincts. In fact, I would argue that the OP's point is backwards. We find violence against certain animals to be so repulsive (or perhaps the use of bare hands in committing such acts of violence) that we will allow said animals to seriously injure, or even kill us, when we clearly have the upper hand if we were to honestly "keep score" in a fight between a human and a dog. They have teeth, jaws, and speed. That's it. That's all they bring to the fight. However, they manage to inflict serious injury and death quite often these days. (Please don't bring up lions tigers and bears.... oh my...... because we all know they have massive strength advantages.)

By the way, I love dogs. I only use them as an example, much like cannibalism in the OP.

This whole thing comes down to being part of the argument of the gene vs the meme. In many cases, yes, we are side tracking evolution and survival of the fittest. For example, as a society we support and help people who are weaker or ill and would have died off without the support of a larger society, yet their genes are able to pass on.

In the case of dog attacks, very few are on healthy grown men, it's quite often children or the elderly. While you're right that in the game of top trumps, a grown man should be able to kill a dog, I'd also say that there are some traits in favour of the dog, they can be faster and more aggressive (it isn't all about strength when it doesn't take much to kill a man) not to mention they can probably go about it with a lot less thinking in the way. Not to mention dogs will instinctively go for the neck. In the wild wolves are pretty successful predators, just like humans and I'm fairly sure more than a couple of our ancestors would have been snuffed out by wolves.

Taking flight is also a fairly successful defense mechanism and certainly one which won't have developed in only the past few thousand years.

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

Good point. In a fight between a chimp and a dog, the smart money would be on the chimp. Goodbye dog lips and dangly bits.

True, though in a fight between a chimp and a human (sans weapons) the money would be on the chimp too! Chimps are badass like mofos.