When I was in college, they taught us that people do not have instincts , only animals. To keep up good grades I never argued the point. But, i have always wondered about that. Take children, for example. During my life being around children ,of many different countries I have noticed that they all have at least one thing in common. From birth to a certain point they are smiling and happy to be approached and even picked up by total strangers. However, at a certain age, around 20 -25 months, they become afraid of strangers. They will turn their heads away and go to mama. And even cry. Now if that behavior was confined to only a few children, I probably wouldn't think anything of it. But, it happens to ALL children, of all groups and nationalities, at least in my experience. This is, in my opinion is instinct at its most basic. Have you had the same awareness as me ? Have you also noticed this ?
Especially in the last 40 years or so, it’s been an ongoing argument. One argument points to left brain primal and the other points to past memories dating back eons ago contained within our own DNA. Now, why a newborn who has no idea about falling will hold onto a finger for security or how a newborn knows to suckle is part of that argument for which I have no answers.
"When I was in college, they taught us that people do not have instincts , only animals." People are animals...the human kind. Was the college a religious one?
True. I had heard that fear of falling and loud noises were instinctive. Don’t know. It seems to me that the suckling response in newborn animals, humans included, is instinctive. I don’t recall ever seeing them being taught how to do it.
When I was in high school, they taught us that proof than homosexuality was not natural was that it did not occur in animals. We were taught by nuns. But working on a farm taught me differently. Schools sometimes teach an agenda, not knowlege.
Humans are always trying to point out how they’re different from the beasts. From almost any viewpoint, the differences are ones of degree, quantitative not qualitative. We’re all animals and share much more than our fragile egos care to admit.
No. I went to a state university. I don't recall exactly what they defined as "instinct", , but it was worded in such a way as to preclude instinct in mankind. I suppose it's possible to define anything in such a way to fit what you believe.
I’ve written about it a few times before but it’s suspected that each molecule of DNA contains roughly 3- 4 gigs of memory. A major part of that memory has passed from person to person, generation to generation since the dawn of mankind so what we designated as instinct is actually a reaction to past experiences within our genetic line. Here’s a link to an experiment that was made using mice….. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fearful-memories-passed-down/ I have read other papers on the subject of DNA entanglement but the one in Scientific American is a better read for easier consumption.
I’m surprised that they are skeptical of epigenetic influences on behavior. Methylation of DNA for example can be initiated by many things and we are really just a big walking, talking, ongoing chemical reaction. We know chemistry has dramatic impacts on our behavior because of effects drugs have on us, mentally and physically.
One only need look at some of the results of some parents who took LSD (and other drugs) prior to a pregnancy. The genetic makeup of some of the parents was modified in such a way as to cause severe damage to the throw.
It’s a given that genetic experiments with mice do not necessarily correlate with humans but the experiment I linked to does give us a foundation for questioning most of what is presently called instinct. After the first time I wrote about the experiment and it’s sequential proposition, a lady who used to be on this forum said that it might explain why she knew a lot of details about a city or town she had never been to. A relative of some sort who did live there perhaps? Or, something she merely heard about from people she knew talking about it? It could also explain the regression techniques used by some psychologists. People didn’t really remember a past carnation but rather, they knew of a relative’s experiences via the memories stored in DNA. Who knows?