Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 In a message dated 1/14/01 9:07:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, dmarcoot@... writes: << Everyone of these has been shown to be wrong, everyone of these was mearly a rationalization to show were are above other species and to justify our treatment of them . to say we have no instincts, is mearly another rationalization for this, but in reverse. read this link, it goes over what is Heritable Behavior and Abilities. http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/chpt13.html >> This is wonderful Marcooty!!! It reminds me of Dennet's description of an experiment in which it could be measured that an arm moved before the cognition happened. Woohoo. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 In a message dated 1/14/01 9:07:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, dmarcoot@... writes: << Everyone of these has been shown to be wrong, everyone of these was mearly a rationalization to show were are above other species and to justify our treatment of them . to say we have no instincts, is mearly another rationalization for this, but in reverse. read this link, it goes over what is Heritable Behavior and Abilities. http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/chpt13.html >> This is wonderful Marcooty!!! It reminds me of Dennet's description of an experiment in which it could be measured that an arm moved before the cognition happened. Woohoo. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 In a message dated 1/14/01 9:07:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, dmarcoot@... writes: << Everyone of these has been shown to be wrong, everyone of these was mearly a rationalization to show were are above other species and to justify our treatment of them . to say we have no instincts, is mearly another rationalization for this, but in reverse. read this link, it goes over what is Heritable Behavior and Abilities. http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/chpt13.html >> This is wonderful Marcooty!!! It reminds me of Dennet's description of an experiment in which it could be measured that an arm moved before the cognition happened. Woohoo. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 another instinct is which is a long the lines of that attraction one i outlined, is " cuteness " of babies and the resulting desire to care for them, across all mammals. the smaller, out of proportion features of babies, puppies kittens and just about any mammal seems to illicit the same response to cuddle and care from not only humans, but other animals as well. why else does a mother dog, cat, or other animal so often as we see on tv news fluff take in another baby animal from a different species to nurse, even when it would be in best interest to conserve her energies and milk for her own young? this instinct is so strong, it goes against what would be seen as logical for a species own survival, but i can argue that it is the very strength of this instinct to care for young and creature with young features, which is what insures species survival. one of these features is larger than proportion eyes, which is what the creature " ET " had designed for the movie or example. how do you make an alien cute to the most people? to people around the world ? the artist knew these fetures would make the puppet more attractive for these very reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 another instinct is which is a long the lines of that attraction one i outlined, is " cuteness " of babies and the resulting desire to care for them, across all mammals. the smaller, out of proportion features of babies, puppies kittens and just about any mammal seems to illicit the same response to cuddle and care from not only humans, but other animals as well. why else does a mother dog, cat, or other animal so often as we see on tv news fluff take in another baby animal from a different species to nurse, even when it would be in best interest to conserve her energies and milk for her own young? this instinct is so strong, it goes against what would be seen as logical for a species own survival, but i can argue that it is the very strength of this instinct to care for young and creature with young features, which is what insures species survival. one of these features is larger than proportion eyes, which is what the creature " ET " had designed for the movie or example. how do you make an alien cute to the most people? to people around the world ? the artist knew these fetures would make the puppet more attractive for these very reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 another instinct is which is a long the lines of that attraction one i outlined, is " cuteness " of babies and the resulting desire to care for them, across all mammals. the smaller, out of proportion features of babies, puppies kittens and just about any mammal seems to illicit the same response to cuddle and care from not only humans, but other animals as well. why else does a mother dog, cat, or other animal so often as we see on tv news fluff take in another baby animal from a different species to nurse, even when it would be in best interest to conserve her energies and milk for her own young? this instinct is so strong, it goes against what would be seen as logical for a species own survival, but i can argue that it is the very strength of this instinct to care for young and creature with young features, which is what insures species survival. one of these features is larger than proportion eyes, which is what the creature " ET " had designed for the movie or example. how do you make an alien cute to the most people? to people around the world ? the artist knew these fetures would make the puppet more attractive for these very reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 In a message dated 1/14/01 5:09:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, pachy2@... writes: << Hi All; Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. So which is correct or is it an open question? Or is it like the man who asked his daughter in college why she dropped her CPA courses? Her reply was There's no taste for accounting. >> Ha. I think DMarcoot's response is most comprehensive. We are long gone from the this vs. that controversies. Etiologies are complex and multivariate. The stance that all behavior is learned was a phenomenon of the 50s that was quickly shot down. Please read the " Heritable Behavior and Abilities " article that Demarcoot sent as a link. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 In a message dated 1/14/01 5:09:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, pachy2@... writes: << Hi All; Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. So which is correct or is it an open question? Or is it like the man who asked his daughter in college why she dropped her CPA courses? Her reply was There's no taste for accounting. >> Ha. I think DMarcoot's response is most comprehensive. We are long gone from the this vs. that controversies. Etiologies are complex and multivariate. The stance that all behavior is learned was a phenomenon of the 50s that was quickly shot down. Please read the " Heritable Behavior and Abilities " article that Demarcoot sent as a link. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2001 Report Share Posted January 14, 2001 In a message dated 1/14/01 5:09:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, pachy2@... writes: << Hi All; Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. So which is correct or is it an open question? Or is it like the man who asked his daughter in college why she dropped her CPA courses? Her reply was There's no taste for accounting. >> Ha. I think DMarcoot's response is most comprehensive. We are long gone from the this vs. that controversies. Etiologies are complex and multivariate. The stance that all behavior is learned was a phenomenon of the 50s that was quickly shot down. Please read the " Heritable Behavior and Abilities " article that Demarcoot sent as a link. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 > Hi All; > > Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. > > I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " > > Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do > not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. This is the PC view. I knpow a guy who had full sex for 18 months before he knew about reproduction. I dont think so. Nowadays there is " evolutionary psychology " that does posit instincts that are merely shaped by upbringing and culture. It strikesme as vastly more plausible. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 > Hi All; > > Perhaps Pete or Bjorn can help me on this. > > I've heard anger described as " An Instinctive Response. " > > Yet in Speech 101 and Psych 101, I was taught that humans do > not have instincts. That all behavior is learned. This is the PC view. I knpow a guy who had full sex for 18 months before he knew about reproduction. I dont think so. Nowadays there is " evolutionary psychology " that does posit instincts that are merely shaped by upbringing and culture. It strikesme as vastly more plausible. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 Hi All Guess Iowa is just behind the times. They're still teaching that humans have no insticts. I went to Psych and Speech in 1992. Soo, if this was shot down in the fifties, it has taken a long time getting here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2001 Report Share Posted January 15, 2001 Hi All Guess Iowa is just behind the times. They're still teaching that humans have no insticts. I went to Psych and Speech in 1992. Soo, if this was shot down in the fifties, it has taken a long time getting here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.