To what extent do humans act on instinct?

Great Debates
1

Offshoot of this thread.

I’m still not exactly sure what instinct is. How do we decide when to apply the word instinct to a behaviour? Clearly the key idea is behaviour not directly learned. Obviously simple behaviours don’t count, nor do reflex behaviours. But how complex must an unlearned behaviour be to be called instinct? And must the mode of transmitting this behaviour be genetic? Can distant long forgotten cultural remnamts that are learned through “osmosis” but are untrackable be considered instinct? Must instincts be manifest in every member of an organism to count, or can a tendency to behave a certain way be instinctual even if some individuals or even groups do not behave that way?

But putting my imprecise understanding aside for the moment, to what extent does instinctive behaviour play out in humans? I am most interested in adult behaviour, especially where such behaviour manifests in customs or structures.

What the hell do I mean by that? Perhaps an example: The documentary “March of the Penguins” describes the elaborate mating cycle of the emperor penguin. Yes, the narration is highly anthropomorphic - but nonetheless there are parallels in the penguin behaviour to human behaviour. Yet the word ‘instinct’ is easily attached to what the penguins do.

I can’t help but wonder how much of what I do as an individual and what we do as a society is a rationalization of something instinctive.

2

I don’t know how complex a behavior has to be to count as an instinct, but I’m pretty sure it has to be passed on genetically in order to count as instinct in the scientific snese. It sounds like you’re asking General Questions, though, not posing a debate.

3

Not sure if this is what you’re asking, but there are things that babies do that they could not possibly have learned. For example, a newborn will seek out its mother’s breast, and nurse. Tiny babies are attracted to anything that resembles a human face, girl babies even more than boy babies.

Most humans find anything that appears helpless and infantile to be “cute,” thus the attractiveness of almost any baby mammal and the adults of many breeds of pets that retain that proportionally large-eyed look. Obviously a survival of the species instinct since a person who hated that look would not take good care of their offspring.

4

We also have an instinctive reaction to pain. If you put your hand on a hot stove, you don’t have to think “Okay, that hurts. I should pull my hand back now.” Your body goes on auto-pilot, jerking away, often before you can even say “Ouch!”

5

That’s a reflex, not an instinct.

6

It’s not a very complicated instinct, but all reflexes are instinctual. But you are right in that basic reactions are probably not good fodder for this thread. We all knw we jerk back from pain. It’s not really helpful to the discussion.

7

The thing I’m interested in debating is where the line is drawn in human behaviour. Here’s where I’m coming from: Spiders know instinctively know how to build a web. No spider has ever taken web-building classes and even spiders separated from other spiders (i.e. no opportunity to learn by watching) know how to do it.

The spider must apply some level of intelligence to web building. Each web is built under different circumstances, so it’s not as if the spider is under a trance, blindly following a built in genetic program. There must be a collaboration between a spider’s drive, genetic “instructions” on web-building, and a spider’s ability to solve problems.

Now consider the mating behaviour of the emperor penguin. What these penguins do is predictable to set your calendar. Each year they return to where they were born, find a mate, mother and father alternate care for the egg/chick while treking off to find food. The group instinctively knows how to bundle up against harsh cold, cycling those on the outside of the huddle to the inside with a constant motion. Do the penguins “know” they’re acting on instinct, or does each of them “believe” they’re acting independently, originally, intelligently?

I maintain that we as humans, presumeably having a higher order of sentience, have not shed our instincts but rather have better rationalizations for them. A beaver feels “more comfortable” after having built a dam. Individuals in society feel more comfortable having society structured just so - whether the leader of that society is called king, president, chief, or boss. Cannot our tendency to live as a family composed of a (mostly) monogamous adult pair with children be attributed to instinct? What about the “seven year itch”?

That’s not to say we are slaves to instinct - far from it. In fact, we have fashioned an environment that offers many choices. Would a penguin in captivity, given the choice to leave, not sometimes choose to stay where the food is good?

Perhaps I’m unfairly conflating “drive” with “instinct” as was pointed out in the thread I referenced. I’m not sure what the difference is and would welcome a technical explanation. But for the purposes of my position, by “instinct” I mean “any unlearned impulse to achieve a certain result”

I brought this to GD because I had just assumed my position was true, and was surprised by an apparently strong resistence to it. I wasn’t sure if the objection was my factual inaccuracies or a distaste for the idea that humans have instinct in common with other animals.

8

One possible criteron for drawing the line is that if all human societies do it, it’s likely to be instinctual.

Here’s a pretty interesting list of things we may consider instinctual for humans.

Daniel

9

But if you read the other thread, then you know that humans do not tend to form societies along any predictable pattern, nor to form mostly monogamous adult pairs. Both hierarchical societies and monogamous pair mating are minority conditions in human history, as far as we can tell. If you disagree with those statements, you should go back to that thread and post some evidence to counter what Blake posted there or start another thread in GQ to learn more about how societies tend to be structured. (Maybe another poster will provide the evidence you need.)

I’m certainly not opposed to the idea of human instinct; I think humans are animals like any other. I just don’t think anything you’ve described is even a universal human behavior, much less a universal human behavior that can be explained by instinct.

Daniel’s list is much more interesting. The vast majority of items on the list wouldn’t count as instincts for most purposes (including yours) simply because they aren’t specific behaviors (I don’t see how “beliefs, false” could be described as an instinct ;)), but there are a few possibilities. The most likely, IMO, is language. Many scientists have claimed that language acquisition is instinctive, and I think it clearly is. I’ve read that babies raised together will start to form their own “language” out of baby-talk even before learning their parents’ language. I think it’s pretty well established that infants generally have a surprising level of language skills beyond what they commonly display–that children will learn to think in very complex sentences quite a bit before they learn to use them to communicate in speech. Whether specific patterns of language (such as some of the classification patterns mentioned in the list) are instinctive or cultural is much more controversial, and I lack the knowledge to comment, but I think it can be stated as at least a possibility.

The other item on Daniel’s list that strikes me as plausible is play. I don’t know about specific patterns of play, but I think the simple behavior of play extends beyond humans to most or all mammals, and might be complex enough to count as an instinct. Imitative play as a method of learning and socialization is almost certainly universal among humans and looks to me like something that would count as an instinct.

As for the penguins…I don’t know for sure, but I doubt penguins engage in much of the problem-solving sort of behavior (which some animals clearly do) that would make them think they were behaving intelligently (if they were capable of such self-awareness). I’m pretty sure spiders don’t try to figure out how to build a web given a set of conditions, either–just like we don’t (consciously) solve advanced calculus to plot a ball’s trajectory when we catch it. Beyond that, I doubt we know much about how those things work or how animals think.

10

Humans do not have instincts. Not even the baby to the nipple. I argued the suckle as an instinct but he said no. If you left a baby to lay and didn’t coax and guide them to the nipple they don’t eat. In fact, a cruel study back some time ago (I don’t remember the details) proved that a baby that was never touched by a human dies. I think it was fed through a tube but never held or touched. Someone help me with this one. I’m sure I am not presenting this argument adequately. Most people believe we have instints but these things are learned and others are reflex.

Personally I think it’s instinct going for the beer in the fridge.

11

That reminds me of something I meant to add: I don’t think humans even have a mating instinct! A pretty strong drive, sure, but I can remember a time in my early youth when I was a bit unsure about exactly what was done. In fact I don’t think what’s done is even all that universal–we have a variety of techniques that vary from culture to culture, only some of which, from a procreative perspective, actually work! I’m sure I’d have figured it out even without sex-ed or cable tv, but I don’t think animals ever have to “figure it out”–they just know. (Except maybe Bonoboes; like humans, they seem pretty commited to making sure that all the bases, so to speak, are covered when it comes to copulation.)

12

I’ll split the difference with you–how’s that? :slight_smile: Sure, false beliefs are not an instinct, but I’d argue there are some broad categories that we can pull out of that list that probably point toward instincts.

  • Aesthetic sense.
  • Affection and empathy.
  • Male aggression, dominance, and travel.
  • Baby talk.
  • Marriage (the instinct would be to form long-term sexual bonds, not to have a particular form of bond)
  • Fear of strangers, loud noises, and snakes
  • Music
  • Crying
  • Laughing
  • Dancing
  • Various facial expressions
  • Fear of death
  • Tendency to live in groups as opposed to living alone
  • Tendency to decorate the self
  • Interest in sex
  • Desire for sweetness
  • Use of tools

I think you can make a very strong case that all of these are instinctive. If not, what parsimonious alternative explanation do folks offer for their universality? Keep in mind that if I can apply the same parsimonious explanation to the behavior of (for example) magpies, then I might conclude that the magpie’s desire for shiny objects is not instinctive.

Daniel

13

Well, my understanding from the tread mentioned in the OP is that neither simple drives nor reflexes are considered examples of insticts, which are limited to some arbitrarily complex level of behavior. Interest in sex (or sweet food) is basically a drive, and laughter and other spontaeous signs of emotion strike me as fairly simple–almost reflexive (even if they don’t involve the “reflex arc” in the nervous system). Understanding emotional signals–now that sounds like a good candidate for an instinct. (But then again, adults almost universally–instinctively?–speak to infants with exaggerated facial expressions and tones of voice. Maybe that’s the instinct, while the understanding of those signals is learned normally. Who knows?)

As for dancing–now that’s an interesting one. How do you define it? Is it different than play, which I already gave you? (Not that that’s any easier to define!) Is there actually a common set of behaviors that is identified as “dance,” or are there simply different behaviors, each passed on culturally, that are called “dance” only because of analogy to what we do that’s called dance? If Chompsky’s right about language patterns being innate, maybe it’s the idea of something called “dance” that’s instinctive, and actual dancing is just whatever set of behaviours happen to get lumped into that category!

And male aggression, dominance, and travel–well that’s just another whole can of worms there!

In short, I agree with you that most or all of what you named are universal (or practically so) and probably have some sort of strong dependence on the genetic makeup of humans. I just wasn’t sure about the semantics of calling them all “instincts” based on that. Of the ones that did seem to fit the definition given before, I only mentioned the ones that seemed like the clearest examples, rather than, say, “aesthetic sense”. (I did include baby talk, though! ;))

14

BTW, before anyone spanks me (Is using violence to coerce behavior instinctive? Or just common sense?) I admit to knowing jack shit about Noam Chomsky and his theories of innate languge. Anyone who wishes to enlighten me is more than welcome, though.

15

It may be good for us to define “instinct” before we continue. Here’s one definition:

I’m open to others, but this might be a good starting place.

As such, I’d consider crying when feeling sadness to be an instinct: it’s a pattern of behavior, it’s inborn, it’s characteristic of a species, and it’s often a response to specific environmental stimuli.

I think that a lot of the ones I listed would similarly count, although possibly not all of them.

Daniel

16

Like I said, I was just repeating what I thought I’d learned in the earlier thread. Blake and ultrafilter both said that only complex behaviors count as instincts, but Wikipedia doesn’t agree. I posted to the other thread to see if they could provide a cite.

(I’m still not entirely sure why we have two threads, but oh well.)

17

The GQ thread was seeking merely a working definition of instinct. Atticus Finch asked the bonus question, “What behaviours in humans are instinctive ones?” This is in line with why I was seeking a definition. IRL I’m involved in an ongoing discussion about the difference (along many lines) between animals and humans. My position in that discussion is that there is no special feature of the human animal, that any comparison of any two species could provide as many differences between them whether or not h.sapiens was one of the animals compared.

In that discussion the idea that humans are “special” because, unlike other animals we have no instincts. We got down to brass tacks and realized we had imperfect understanding of exactly what instinct was, hence the GQ thread. Both IRL and in that thread there seems to be a controversy over the role of instinct in human behaviour, hence the GD thread.

I do apologize that I came unarmed to this debate. My position is badly worded and I have not done my homework. Thanks to Daniel for finding a provocative list. I’ve not had much time to read/research since starting this thread. What little I have read is interesting. The term “instinct” fell out of favour amongst in the 1930s (I’ve just glanced at the some of the public debate between Watson & MacDougall) with a recent revival after Richard Dawkins and others (I have yet to read “The Selfish Gene” but it’s on my list…). First I’ve heard of the term “evolutionary psychology.”

At this point in this thread I still maintain that instinct plays a detectable part in human behaviour, individually and in society - or if not then something other than instinct is at play when we see complex behaviour in other animals. Said another way: what we learn of instinct from other animals is directly instructive to understanding our own behaviour.

18

I’ve not had a chance to read it yet, Nature’s Call, but I’ve heard that Stephen Pinker’s The Blank Slate is fascinating; I believe it is likely to address many of your questions.

Daniel

19

Ok, but if you haven’t done enough research to back up your thesis, why present it as a debate? (In fact, why have a thesis at all, if you don’t know what the evidence is?) Why not simply ask in GQ “What do anthropologists and evolutionary biologists believe is the role of instinct in human behavior?” That way you find out all sides of the issue that have scientific support, along with the reasons behind them, rather than asking people to debate a vague and unsuported argument. The first thread would have been a fine place to ask that question, IMO.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t have started this thread the way you did; I’m just not sure I understand it.

20

Actually, I think this is a fine way to do it, and it’s generally how I start threads in GD: there’s an issue about which I know there’s controversy, but I haven’t thought about it enough to make up my mind where I stand on it, so I start a thread in which I invite people to argue different aspects of the controversy to help me make up my mind or at least have an informed opinion. If I already know what I think about someting, I’ve got less energy to start a discussion about it.

Daniel