Your 1980s psychology professor was an idiot.
The ability to interpret sounds or gestures to have specific abstract meanings is an instinct in humans. As I said earlier, the instincts in humans are the things so “simple” and obvious from the human POV that they are taken for granted.
A human begins to recognize words and even begin using them while infants–this isn’t some intellectual rationalization from basic principles because human infants are dumber than a sack of flour. It is instinct. Teaching a chimp or gorilla rudimentary sign language takes years of work even though adult chimps and gorillas are more intelligent than a human infant because chimps and gorillas lack the human language instinct and do have to think about it and reason it out.
So you presume. Actual scientific research, however, shows otherwise.
Besides, a moments reflection shows that your idea must be wrong. How many human beings can consciously articulate the many grammatical rules required to form a valid sentence in their language? Clearly, parents do not teach language to their children by articulating grammatical rules. Yet all human beings - including quite young children, people who are as dumb as a rock, and people without schooling or literacy - follow the complex grammatical rules of their native tongue almost flawlessly when forming spoken sentences.
That might not so much be an instinct as a physiological response, like a knee jerking when hit.
Out of curiosity, does the milk only flow in response to that specific infant’s crying, or can a nearby stranger infant’s crying also trigger it?
Just to add here - this does not depend on whether you agree with the notion of a fairly specific Chomsky-style universal innate generative grammar. But, however we do it, we have clearly evolved a powerful innate propensity to acquire language (the generalized structural rules of language, not just the words) as very young children, with a paucity of input. And from input that consists entirely of positive examples, something that makes learning general rules particularly challenging.
Yes, I believe “fight or flight” is in human instinct. In contrast to your “fight” story, I’ll add my “flight”.
I was walking down the street, on a sidewalk. There’s a pedestrians railway track crossing at one point. I had my headphones on and was listening to loud music. I was so immeresed in music I haven’t noticed the approaching train or heard it blaring until I stepped on the railway tracks. I saw the train there. If I had thought “shit, train, jump away” it would took me half a second to process it and it would be too late. Before I had the time to process any thoughts I felt the wave of adrenaline so strong that white sparks popped up in my vision and my body jumped backwards. The locomotive scratched my clothes. My instinct saved me.
According to several mothers I’ve known, it doesn’t have to be their own baby.
We are talking about instinct, right? By definition instinct is thoughtless. Language is the essence of thought. These two things cannot be the same.
This has been explained to you before-- it isn’t the individual choice of words to use while framing a sentence that is instinctive, it is the ability to interpret a complex series of sounds or gestures as being symbolic for concepts that is instinctive. Children spontaneously pick up language skills even when no adult is trying to teach them rules of grammar. Because they have the instinct for it. But give a child a pile of twigs or a spool of sticky thread and it will not spontaneously weave it into a nest or a web because–not being a bird or spider–a human child lacks that instinct.
While this may be a nice turn of phrase, I suggest re-reading what Riemann posted more carefully.
If people had to actually “think” through all of the extremely complex pragmatics, syntax, and semantics they employ when talking, they would never have time to speak. This is something that humans start doing automatically, from the youngest age–from the moment the motor-physical skills of their mouths and tongues are capable.
What complete nonsense. Thinking is what a brain does. What do you think controls a squirrel’s instinct to gather acorns? Its furry tail?
When my wife was breastfeeding our daughter, it was any child. It was so instinctual, that it even applied to children crying on TV.
A squirrel does not think. It acts upon instinct. It neither considers its next action nor reflects upon its last action. A squirrel’s tiny brain is no more able to think than its furry tail.
I don’t think the abilities that you describe are “instinct”. I think they are a unique property of our bigger brains. We can converse because we have the ability to hold concepts in our mind that no animal before us has ever been able to do. Thought itself is a new concept in the march of evolution.
But let me retreat just a bit and remind you that I said “language” was not instinctual. I did say that communication (grunting) was instinctual.
Your psychology professor was wrong. There are people who lack instincts that appear in nearly 100% of the population, because they have a brain injury-- children who have Down Syndrome, or had a stroke during birth sometimes lack the sucking instinct. There is a rare condition that usually gets misdiagnosed as autism, called “Specific Language Dysfunction,” where a person lacks the ability to acquire normal language. They usually can use words on a semantic level, but not a syntactic one. They can do other things, though, that demonstrate that they are not mentally retarded or autistic, and usually brain imaging can reveal problems, like lesions or atrophy in the language areas of their brains. The theory is that they had some kind of blood flow disruption to very specific brain areas during fetal development. This is why it’s rare.
Now, as for something occurring 100% of the time-- that doesn’t even happen in non-human animals. Occasionally you get a baby bird that dies because it lacked the gape reflex. Sometimes you get adult animals that lack reflexes or instincts. They usually show up accidentally in lab animals or farm animals; I had a cat once who had been unable to nurse, and had been successfully bottle-fed, but it had been a sort of force-feeding, tipped on her back with a lot of it going down the sides of her face, and she was still skinny, and kind of touch-and-go until she could lap up formula from a bowl (at four weeks), and then eat a little wet food. The person who bottle-fed her was keeping her fingers crossed that the cat would lap normally, given her poor suck. She didn’t have the rooting reflex at all, and didn’t know how to search for her mother’s nipple.
Chimps in sign language programs learn lexical items for food rewards. They don’t find communication through language intrinsically rewarding.
Yup.
Babies learning a signed language (because they, or their parents, are Deaf) can communicate beginning around 9 months, because their hands can form signs long before a baby learning a spoken language can form words. That’s the whole rationale for “baby signs.”
Yes, dammit, there is more than pure instinct in their minds. Crows can learn stuff too.
But language requires an ability to relate abstract concepts to the real world. A child has to understand who they are, who their parents are, and why these concepts persist over time. A baby’s first cries are nothing but instinct, but language is something that grows from that.
Language has grammar, which children learn without having to be taught, and which they learn much faster than they would if they had to reason out grammatical structure from nothing. This is possible because we’re born with a sort of template for language built into our minds. We fit the details of our native languages into this template. That is, our minds are pre-programmed for learning language. That’s why people say language is an instinct. For details, see The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker.
You seemed to be under the misconception that if our thinking is in any way conditioned by nurture (cultural transmission), then it is not instinctual. But this is not an either/or question. Our brains evolved, just as squirrel brains evolved, and they are not blank slates.
Cultural transmission is far more important for humans than for other animals - that’s how we dominate the world. But clearly we evolved from animals that operate instinctually. And it makes little sense to suppose that evolution would somehow have wiped all design from our brains, to turn just human brains into blank slates, into hardware without any software or operating system.
With language, for example, it’s an open question just what our genetic (instinctual) endowment consists of. But nobody seriously questions that there are both genetic (instinctual) and environmental (cultural) contributions to language acquisition.
We still are mostly instinct. We will kill our planet because we are still mostly instinct. We can watch ourselves killing the planet and not do anything about it because we are mostly instinct.