Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

[Brainaddict]

1) I am afraid you will find that proposition seriously objected to, from many a social scientist and philosopher, psychologist etc.

Really? In my opinion its quite the extreme end of the spectrum to say that we are a blank slate in terms of behaviour - and I hadn't got the impression many scientists would argue that.

I can't be bothered to do proper research but wikipedia talks about human instinct here as though it is very uncontroversial to say it exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

 

[gorski]

Who said we are tabula rasa?

Instincts are what we are talking about but unless we define them - what are we talking about?

 

[Brainaddict]

Well if you're not suggesting a behavioural blank slate then the behaviours you are born with are instinctual - so not sure why you're suggesting humans don't have instincts

See that wikipedia link for a definition of instinct.

 

[Jonti]

Yes, the innate fear of snakes in the higher primates (for example) is not at all controversial, as this pdf, PSY200, for an undergraduate "Evolutionary Psychology, Emotions, & Language Development" course makes clear. As with the innate fear ("caution") around heights displayed by human infants, it is easily demonstrated.

I know I'm wading into unfamiliar and deep waters here, so I am grateful that for the courtesy and concern for clarity that people are showing.

 

[Jonti]

Imagine, if you can, having to learn social rules (such things as body language, vocal inflection, and sense of humor) like one would learn algebra - not instinctually, but intellectually. And imagine being mystified by ideas like romantic love and the beauty of music.

I find this fairly easy to do, but I accept others may be mystified. We mostly learn these things instictually, somehow unaware that we are walking on water over an abyss of incomprehension. Others don't have to *imagine* having to learn these things with their heads, slowly and painfully finding how to apply their knowledge in social interactions, for that is exactly what they've had to do.

Foremost among these is a lucid autistic by the name of Temple Grandin. Her story is to be found in the book "An Anthropologist on Mars" (it's the title piece) by the splendid Oliver Sacks.

 

[samk]

Might the high levels of alcoholism in native americans and australian aborigines be an example? (and I say might as the way the indigenous population has been screwed over of course has a lot to do with it)

In civilizations that have been able to brew alcohol for a long time genes for susceptibility to alcoholism may have been selected out.

 

[Jonti]

That's more likely to be social and cultural phenomena I'd've thought

Did you know there is more genetic diversity among black Africans than in the rest of the world put together? This is because a relatively small band of people left Africa about 85,000 years ago, and went on to populate the rest of the planet.

 

[gorski]

Not quite, Jonti but close to it: allegedly there are about 100 "ethnic" groups [the genetic markers they are looking for are in relation to possible compatibility for organ donours etc., due to 'inbreeding', through which various "typical characteristics" came aboout] in Africa, as opposed to about 80 in Europe and about 60 in Asia, interestingly enough. It would, apparently coincide with our alleged origins and spreading from South Africa throughout the world [but there are other theories]. The whole of America [in terms of the second generation natives, i.e. "Indians"] apparently developed from just a single tribe/group crossing over from Asia [but there are other theories].

Guys, what is an instinct? We are talking about something which we do not know what it is - and since misunderstanding is easy to come by, as you can see...

Tabula rasa does not automatically mean there's absolutely nothing in us...

Experiences on its own - no go either... Fairly easy to dismiss, both of them.

But there are other possibilities.

So: an instinct?

 

[Crispy]

There is a gene that helps metabolise alcohol, which the native australians do not have. A large number of japanese and pacific rim people are also missing this gene.

IIRC
sorry , can't be bothered to do research right now. I'm eating

 

[Crispy]

I see where you're going, gorski.
It's tricky with humans, because we do so much of our brain development out of the womb. A lamb, for instance, is up on its feet and gamboling around pretty much immediately after being born. A human baby is utterly helpless for a long period of time. Is this period 'nature' or 'nurture' ?

 

[gorski]

Indeed, that's the problem. We learn more or less anything, minus the reflexes and drives, some of which kick in later etc. - but all "higher species" have them. But without our potential, our capacity to learn, to create the connections - well... not much would stick, would it?

There was this scientist couple who raised a chimp [or was it a gorilla?] baby together with their own. The initial speed of the ape baby was soon overtaken for good by a human baby... Same experiences, same input but...

Moreover, if it isn't triggered early enough and substantially enough or if the brain is somehow handicapped/deficient - forget about learning and eventual self-sufficiency and all that defines a Human Being...

So, what do we mean by "instinct"?

 

[gorski]

Imagine, if you can, having to learn social rules (such things as body language, vocal inflection, and sense of humor) like one would learn algebra - not instinctually, but intellectually. And imagine being mystified by ideas like romantic love and the beauty of music.

We are talking about re-socialisation, for a Human who suddenly found him/herself outside of his/her "native" society, into which one socialised initially. I had to do it when I came to Britain and decided to stay, so I [for one] don't have to imagine it, as I lived through it [the culture shock]... But the ones I "grew into", the ones I 'took in' with my mother's milk, as it were, had to be taught and I had to learn, i.e. they were not given to me in my genetic make-up, i.e. I was not born with them.

One has to do it when one goes to live in France or Spain or Italy, for instance - unless one is an American or an Englishman... Then, of course, they create their enclaves and at least try to teach us all how to behave their way, as they always know better than any of us... And don't they do it well, by not learning a language and culture etc. of a country they come to - of course, not in every single case but in huge percentages... That will not, nevertheless, stop them from moaning when minorities in Britain occasionally don't do it... So, they keep telling us what to do and when, what not to do and how exactly and so forth... Put any group of people together and Americans and especially the English would dearly love to lodge themselves into the "leading" institutions, organs and define the procedures and so forth... But that's another thread, I think...

Be that as it may, one may even speak a language of a country one lives in/moved to really well - and still miss a joke, as one isn't aware of the context of, say, current affairs or customary behaviour in the country, a set of prevailing values, largely held prejudices etc. etc. Hegel, for instance, values humour as one of the highest expressions of Spirit...

I find this fairly easy to do, but I accept others may be mystified. We mostly learn these things instictually, somehow unaware that we are walking on water over an abyss of incomprehension. Others don't have to *imagine* having to learn these things with their heads, slowly and painfully finding how to apply their knowledge in social interactions, for that is exactly what they've had to do.

As I pointed out above, one learns it all via the so called socialisation processes. The fact that some stuff kids learn without actually [critically and in depth] comprehending what they learned, the fact they can learn on an unconscious level, i.e. emotionally, as opposed to when we move to another country as adults, for instance, when we have to learn those "rules" differently - is another issue.

You will find extreme cases in which it is impossible, for a variety of reasons, for people to learn those "rules" and/or "language". But they are exactly that - extreme cases. Most individuals with "unremarkable" brains are capable of processing all that and "socialising" into a community. Take them out of it and they will have to re-learn all that or parts of it. Unless one is English, as I mentioned earlier...

So, back to the question: what exactly is an "instinct"? Only then can we begin untangling a question "Do we have them or not" and more...

 

[gorski]

Jonti, m8, I can't open the pdf file, sorry...

As for Wiki's "definition" of "instincts" - there is none that would contradict the statements and questions I posed earlier but there is a lot in there where they contradict themselves, I'm afraid...

Instinct, the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior

Inherent! Not learnt! Genetically given, so there from birth, should follow, non?

Also:

Instincts are generally inherited patterns of responses or reactions to certain kinds of stimuli.

Right. "Generally" - but not always? Or...???

OK, so, which one?

Examples can more frequently be observed in the behavior of animals (most in the less intelligent species[citation needed]), which perform various activities (sometimes complex) that are not based upon prior experience, such as reproduction, and feeding among insects. Other examples include animal fighting, animal courtship behavior, internal escape functions, and building of nests.

No thinking allowed in this article, it seems. Notice the "sliding" from "observing it in animals" [NOT humans!] to "sliding" back towards far-reaching conclusions [and consequences] for Humans...

It is debatable whether or not living beings are bound absolutely by instinct. Though instinct is what seems to come naturally or perhaps with heredity, general conditioning and environment surrounding a living being play a major role.

Absolutely? We haven't even established ANY, to begin with, which are corresponding to the definition: sometimes even complex inherited patterns of behaviour. Give us at least some simple ones which are "natural" and not learnt, please... But oh no...

So, they go on towards "emotions" and "drives", trying to give some more "weight" to their "argument"...

Let's see, for "emotions" it doesn't tell us anything about how those are genetically inherited but that they are "rather complex and not conscious"... Not very helpful or precise, is it? But Wiki sometimes, sadly, is like that...

Drives like a sexual one? Well, see if you can get anything from that link in Wiki, that in any way actually clarifies anything, which helps the claim that any part of it is "genetically inherited", not learnt and "natural"... I seriously doubt you will.

Sexual behaviour directed by those drives as "instincts" is a complete nonsense, as I mentioned earlier. If only they listened to themselves here:

Human sexuality comprises a broad range of behavior and processes, including the physiological, psychological, social, cultural, political, philosophical, ethical, moral, theological, legal and spiritual or religious aspects of sex and human sexual behavior.

Sexuality varies greatly by culture, region, and historical period...

Well, not "greatly" but essentially! Human "courtship" today and 2000 years ago in Rome, for instance or 1000 years ago in feudal Turkey etc. have nothing in common, when it comes to "how one chooses a mate" [if one can choose at all, i.e. if it isn't all determined for one by others, customs and so on] and so on... Or how frequently one does it or whom with, which positions one assumes etc. etc. Ancient Greeks anyone? Victorian England? "Modern" Japan? Kama Sutra's India and today's India? And so forth...

And the absolute hoot is this:

natural principles

And what are those in this context, pllllleaaasseeee?!?!?!?!?!? I imagine those should not change with one's religious beliefs, one's age, one's gender, one's sexuality, Era, social status, region and so on?!? Well.... dream on, one could easily say...

But I am not surprised, as most people here, I suppose, grew on Attenborough using moral categories [in his TV shows on 'Natural World'] to describe and allegedly "explain" animal behaviour and now, apparently, we are all in awe by just how "similar we are to animals"... Honestly... Haven't we had enough of those myths used to "teach the masses how to behave properly"?!?

 

[Jonti]

There is a gene that helps metabolise alcohol, which the native australians do not have. A large number of japanese and pacific rim people are also missing this gene...

This may be overstating things, judging by Asian party-goers strive to get rid of that 'glow'

 

[Jonti]

To be clear on terminology, humans are animals!

Yes, it is difficult to formulate a definition of instinct which can be theoretically defended against all possible criticisms; indeed it is difficult to come up with scientific theories which are similarly invulnerable. This is not such a problem as may at first appear, for science is a practical art, so we can, arguably must, form judgments about our definitions and theories on pragmatic grounds.

This may seem unsatisfactory to those approaching questions about the human animal from the direction of the humanities or political theory. But, if the resultant science works well enough, the difficulty lies more in understanding why the science is successful, not with the science as such.

There's a fairly full discussion of the meaning of instinct and the difficulties in precisely pinning it down at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Instinct

 

[Jonti]

To put the difficulty in a nutshell:
Instinctive behaviour depends on how the nervous system has been built through heredity; but Individual experience is needed for the innate capacity to be realised.

ETA: littlebabyjesus made much the same point in #26 above.

 

[Brainaddict]

Sexual behaviour directed by those drives as "instincts" is a complete nonsense, as I mentioned earlier. If only they listened to themselves here:
[...]
Well, not "greatly" but essentially!

For me there's no argument that there is instinctive behaviour - only an argument over what is instinctive and what is not. Which is an argument that could (and will) go on forever, but I think you're really exaggerating the 'essential' differences between cultures here. Sure there are a lot of differences, but consider for instance someone paying more attention (in conversation or whatever) to someone they are sexually attracted to than someone they find ugly. I'm willing to bet this happens in every culture that has ever existed or ever will exist. Sure, you might be required to hide it better in some cultures than others, but I'm willing to bet the instinct would be there.

 

[Jonti]

Here's something, not directly about evolution, but that seems to me at least tangentially interesting to the discussion. It's a flash video map that shows how a small group of our ancestors came out of Arrica, and went on to people the world ...

The Bradshaw Foundation, in association with Stephen Oppenheimer, presents a virtual global journey of modern man over the last 160,000 years. The map will show for the first time the interaction of migration and climate over this period. We are the descendants of a few small groups of tropical Africans who united in the face of adversity, not only to the point of survival but to the development of a sophisticated social interaction and culture expressed through many forms. Based on a synthesis of the mtDNA and Y chromosome evidence with archaeology, climatology and fossil study, Stephen Oppenheimer has tracked the routes and timing of migration, placing it in context with ancient rock art around the world.

gorski, you seem to be saying the black African gene stock is "inbred" compared to the rest of the world?? The reverse is the case.

 

[gorski]

1) To be clear on terminology, humans are animals!

2) Yes, it is difficult to formulate a definition of instinct which can be theoretically defended against all possible criticisms; indeed it is difficult to come up with scientific theories which are similarly invulnerable.

3) This is not such a problem as may at first appear, for science is a practical art, so we can, arguably must, form judgments about our definitions and theories on pragmatic grounds.

4) This may seem unsatisfactory to those approaching questions about the human animal from the direction of the humanities or political theory.

5) But, if the resultant science works well enough, the difficulty lies more in understanding why the science is successful, not with the science as such.

6) There's a fairly full discussion of the meaning of instinct and the difficulties in precisely pinning it down at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Instinct

Yo, J.!

1) Nope, the fact we are living beings does not automatically make us animals, I think. Especially with the possibility of far reaching conclusions and consequences stemming from those, especially in terms of our societies, as to how we organise them... Dangerous ground, so we better be careful, I think...

2) Noone said/asked for that: but these "definitions/theories" are extremely badly thought through and potentially extremely important, therefore dangerous, too. Maybe the problem is right there: it being a "scientific theory", by self-definition but it actually is a philosophy. And a really bad one, if you ask me...

3) That is but a possibility, a theoretical position. Not at all the only one and most certainly not the best we have come up with so far.

Also, to state that science is a "practical art" is somewhat too unambitious for science itself, many would argue...

4) Zoon politikon [Aristotle] translated "least badly/clumsily" means "Being of Community". Zoon is not meant as "animal" in a biological sense.

Thankfully, we [social scientists/philosophers] still have a lot of awkward questions and "theories" which are slightly better thought through, when it comes to that which we study for so many more centuries than "science"....

I would argue that science, as we know it today, when it comes to those questions, has a long way to go yet, if you don't get it wrongly... Especially as it aims to be so influential in so many directions: legally, politically, economically and so on...

We better question it carefully and stringently! Otherwise we might find ourselves burning our own chances once too many - see, for instance, DDT and similar fiascos of uncritical approach to science and technology. Their "practical activity" or "experimenting" on us ended up disastrously for huge numbers of people. When one has such power/influence one better be questioned most seriously and critically approached from all sides!

5) By the time something actually "works" many might have suffered irrevocably and we may have damaged the environment, our own society and far too many lives and other species might become impossible as a viable option. And that is, in "our case", if they become [fully] human at all... I think such attitudes towards science are extremely generous, uncritical and optimistic and a brief look back at scientific and technical potential and actual "slight mishaps" in our History might teach us a very different lesson...

6) Thanx! Will have a good look! As you can see I am really interested in the "area" and eventually - who knows - I might even write a study on "Human Nature" or words to that effect...

 

[gorski]

gorski, you seem to be saying the black African gene stock is "inbred" compared to the rest of the world?? The reverse is the case.

Slow down, J. I said that various prevalent characteristics in a given group are down to inbreeding [not my observation by any means]. A slight difference. Besides, not at all controversial.

 

[gorski]

For me there's no argument that there is instinctive behaviour - only an argument over what is instinctive and what is not. Which is an argument that could (and will) go on forever, but I think you're really exaggerating the 'essential' differences between cultures here. Sure there are a lot of differences, but consider for instance someone paying more attention (in conversation or whatever) to someone they are sexually attracted to than someone they find ugly. I'm willing to bet this happens in every culture that has ever existed or ever will exist. Sure, you might be required to hide it better in some cultures than others, but I'm willing to bet the instinct would be there.

So, how is this "natural behaviour" "natural" if women [or even men, as potential sexual partners, for that matter] can't choose for themselves for who knows how many thousands of years - and then, we change it drastically? What happened to "natural behaviour" up until then? How can we be so presumptuous to claim that this behaviour we now established is an absolutely "natural" one, i.e. in accordance with [no less than] the "laws of nature" and hence "normative" and then we start building legal, political, societal structures [customs and even "feelings" according to such "values/attitudes/principles"]... Should we not be really careful there?

Our 'observations', as seen above, are marred [frequently utterly uncritically] by our time and space, our experiences, education, our societal structures etc. "Objective" suddenly seems very temporary and heavily time/space dependent. We better answer those Q's before we jump to such far-reaching conclusions, with many potential consequences with regards to how we see ourselves, our very "nature" and then organise our societies in accordance with the "latest scientific 'insights'"...

We are still debating but we do not know what, I must note.

Imagine me coming up with a proposal "Let's debate!" What would be the first Q anyone would be entitled to ask? "What about?", of course. And then me saying "Never mind, let's debate anyway..." Would that do? Especially if one is a scientist: how can one do anything unless one defines a subject and methodology of one's research and if one is any good - shows us where one's notions are coming from?!?

It's all very jolly for a light hearted debate over a meal and a drink but not really ambitious or serious, to my mind. The lightest touch of a philosophical feather and it all starts falling apart...

 

[gorski]

There's a fairly full discussion of the meaning of instinct and the difficulties in precisely pinning it down at http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Instinct

That's a bit better, a tad more serious and fulfilling,as it were... Thanx again!

 

[Jonti]

Slow down, J. I said that various prevalent characteristics in a given group are down to inbreeding [not my observation by any means]. A slight difference. Besides, not at all controversial.

Isolated populations are of course possible almost anywhere on the globe. But your remark was made in response to my comment about human genetic diversity being greatest in Africa ...

Gorski, do you have your doubts about the scientific consensus on human evolution? That would seem to be inescapable if you deny that Homo Sapiens is a species of animal; and more exactly a mammalian species.

 

[kyser_soze]

OOO, good thread, will come back to it this evening I think.

 

[Brainaddict]

Should we not be really careful there?

Sure. Of course we should. Doesn't mean there aren't human instincts

 

[Fruitloop]

Should be Pan Sapiens genetically speaking anyway I think. The terminology was kept because changing it would meant changing the names of related species like Australopithecus etc.

 

[Jonti]

I'm happy to be thought of as a primate, and a pongid, But the unique human foot*, considered along with the hypertrophy of the brain, mammary glands and genitalia, incline me to think that it's OK to think of our line as a distinct Genus. Anyway, we're stuck with Homo Sapiens, and I'm a conventional sort of guy.

* certainly among the Apes, and maybe the Primates as a whole (not sure about the Primates)

 

[gorski]

Isolated populations are of course possible almost anywhere on the globe. But your remark was made in response to my comment about human genetic diversity being greatest in Africa ...

Gorski, do you have your doubts about the scientific consensus on human evolution? That would seem to be inescapable if you deny that Homo Sapiens is a species of animal; and more exactly a mammalian species.

Nope, another jump to conclusions, I'm happy to note, m8...

I.e. happy as I am not claiming that at all: I confirmed what I read about it, as being fairly in line with your sources, first of all. Let's not lose sight of that. Then, some biologists and geneticists have claimed - and it looks perfectly plausible - that as we have settled and not moved a great deal [no planes, cars, trains etc. a while back] and during that time certain characteristics have prevailed more in some groups, due to inbreeding, that's all, if that was the question. Not controversial at all. I have no idea how you got to the Q you posed to me, quite honestly...

Darwin's paradigm is the least crappy one we have, m8. Doesn't mean we should take it uncritically or mythologise it or make it into another religion. He tried and succeeded, with our thanx, to depose religious dogmas by his and Wallace's effort. Not to be forgotten. However, as it frequently happens, not so great an effort comes after a great pioneer and then the "establishing" of those "authorities" comes first and never mind the pushing of the boudaries and actually trying to think for ourselves, so we frequently end up with another dogma instead of the previous dogma it deposed. Much easier that way...

Hence, it is prudent not to fall for it and question and try our, new way of thinking critically about everything: the merciless critique of anything merely existing...

We, most probably, evolved from the animal kingdom. We are living beings. Does that make us into animals? I don't think so. This is the essential debate on "human nature" now, you know... "Knowledge is the knowledge of differences", as we have it from a long, long ago...

Better not forget that there are always other possibilities, not just the predominant ones we hear from all the time... Things are never black or white in all things Human!

BA, I would rather know what I am agreeing with, if you don't mind. So, what is it that you are claiming we get with our genes and don't have to learn? Which part of all of that, as you posted a link to Wiki, is it that we come to this world with, not mentioning reflexes and urges, in relation to the animal kingdom, where that, indeed, might happen all the time? Which part of us didn't change essentially/drastically - in relation to the never changing "natural principles/laws" or words to that effect, please? Continually and almost mechanically claiming "we do have them" means nothing in my book. Can you find some evidence, reasons, as I already questioned your assertions but you're evading them like a plague...

 

[gorski]

gorski, you seem to be saying the black African gene stock is "inbred" compared to the rest of the world?? The reverse is the case.

Just to clarify: I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I meant that this [genetic/ethnic groups due to "inbreeding"] was valid just for Africa. I don't know why you'd think I said that but here it is: these principles are thought of universally. It's a principle, hence it must be universalisable. Otherwise, science as such has serious problems...

I am perferctly sane, Jonti, don't worry... Moreover, I really hate Eysenck and co. of racist bullies in "science"!

I'm just really exercising my little grey cells and thinking as far as thinking can get me, that's all...

 

[kyser_soze]

First off, no one should ever try to draw moral conclusions from evolution - it's a process of adapatation to survive, and as such above moral considerations of right/wrong or good/bad - there are only effective/inefffective strategies. Those who attempt to draw moral lessons from observing evolutionary processes are talking bollocks.

Second, I refer to the 'natural' and 'human' worlds - by this I don't mean they exist independently of each other, but simply that while humans exist in both, and both interact, one is external to us, and independent of our existance and the other wouldn't exist without humans.

What are humans? A lifeform. What do all lifeforms have in common? The basic drive to feed and to breed (I'll ignore the bizzyness with choosing not to have kids in humans for the time being). So at the base level, human 'instinct' is to satisfy those twin needs - the continuance of life.

Everything else comes from this. The biological side is interesting, but I think the really cool stuff is in this 'culture' thing...

'Culture', 'Society' - these are non-physical environments that humans create, define and control. So while biological evolution might take 00s or 000s of years, social or cultural evolution, while still working to the rule of success of the most adaptable, is an environment where the social equivalent of the asteroid/mantle plumes/insert natural disaster can and does happen regularly every few hundred years - usually as a result of lots of small events happening over a period of time.

Let's take the shift in Western European thinking from pre-modern to modern. Society had been in equilibrium for a few hundred years - yes there had been crusades, wars, discovery of Americas and a collection of regicides but the basics of society hadn't changed a great deal. Then over a period of 200 years, a new social environment was created (to an extent - the meta structure of mass societies hasn't changed globally since Babylon, a combination of minority rule and a variably enforced and rigid hierarchy).

Or take the ongoing battles of ideas - the disputes arising from religion, science etc. Partly thanks to threads like this on Urban, I tend to look at the capitalism/communism argument as more a competition between radically different forms of survival strategy for the species. (IMO one is more animalistic and one more human but those are value judgements on my part)

Think about survival applied to capitalism. Society is an environment that humans create, and because of that it's an environment that we can exert far, far more control over than the physical world. Those who seek control in a capitalist society, and those who seek to extend control, are attempting to exert survival control by creating the safest, most secure environment for themselves at the expense of everyone else. It's a logical strategy to an extent - but it's also very short term, since even within the greater flexibilty of the cultural environment ultimately it's too big, with too many actors and interactions (with each other and the natural world) to actually have any kind of control - it's an illusion, and the pursuit of it could arguably be a similar response mechanism to those in extreme survival conditions having lots of babies, a manifestation of the need for security.

So I think the reason that cultural evolution happens a lot faster than biological is simply that it's not limited by physical or biological boundaries - it's easier to change an idea than it is to alter DNA!

I'm not going to start on how the two interact, just finish my ramble with the thought that we're a species borne of evolution and it permeates every aspect of us, as it does every other species - survive by adpating to the local environment long enough to continue...