4 ms·

I'm on the opposite side of that. I find it amusing when people try to justify certain actions with corollaries found in animals. The amazing thing about being

I'm on the opposite side of that. I find it amusing when people try to justify certain actions with corollaries found in animals. The amazing thing about being human is that we can overcome instinct, and it doesn't even require superhuman effort. Regular old human effort will do.

sliverstorm 15y ago
You've never seen a dog overcome instinct? It's not a uniquely human ability.
- saturn 15y ago
  sliverstorm's point is valuable and it is annoying to see it ignored. Dogs and other pets routinely overcome instinct to win favour by their human masters. And what are humans but pets of society? It pisses me off when people don't concede that they were wrong and promise to do better next time. jordan0day, admit that your simplistic argument was flawed, and vow to re-examine your assumptions. Damn but 99% of arguments need a moderator. Startup opportunity?
  - mannicken 15y ago
    "It pisses me off when people don't concede that they were wrong" In this case, we have saturn exemplifying a pure animalistic instinct of rage. You being pissed off is not an argument that helps the conversation. Humans are not pets of society because humans are a part of society. You're trying to personalize society, in a similar way that religious freaks try to personalize the universe. In reality, society is better understood as an emergence of many tribes working together in an economic model. Let me dumb it down: There is a tribe of programmers. They have their own rituals, their own ceremonies, even their own drugs that they like to take (yay Mountain Dew). They are very good at controlling computers. Then there is a tribe of people who make pizza. They are good at making pizza, really good. Well, better than most programmers anyway. They eat pizza a lot, and their life revolves around making pizza, eating pizza, talking about how different pizzas are awesome or how they suck. Now first tribe is all like "hey, we need pizza" so they go to the second tribe and ask that tribe to make them some pizza in return for herding pizzamen's freaky computers that just get out of control all the time.
    - saturn 15y ago
      Your example, though "dumbed down", makes no sense to me at all. What is a pet? It's a subordinate part of a larger whole. I would submit that the vast majority of men meet this description, where society is the larger group. Society demands a man gets out of bed and goes to work; against his sleeping instinct, man complies. > a pure animalistic instinct of rage I would like to think that my annoyance that good arguments did not seem to be carrying the day is more than dumb animal rage? If you heard a group of people agreeing that 1 + 1 = 3 then surely you'd also be guilty of an instinctive opposition. Something has to be true.
      - mannicken 15y ago
        >Society demands a man gets out of bed and goes to work; against his sleeping instinct, man complies. The only case where society actually does demand a man to get out of bed is jail. Usually, a man gets out of bed not because he is dragged out like a pet but because society offers something in return -- employment, company, money, food, purpose, etc. He can stay in his bed if he really wants to, or he can choose a more flexible schedule and wake up later, or wake up earlier. It's a system of symbiosis; the man is making a fucking choice. Regarding 1+1=3, there are several possibilities here: a) The people are mathematicians, they redefined symbols and are playing around -- it would evoke curiosity in me. b) The people are children and they're getting a rise out of you -- it would evoke amusement in me. c) The people are deluded and insane -- it would evoke sympathy. I don't see how these possibilities require anyone to get aggressive.
        nkassis 15y ago
        I like this example about the man and work. Why does the man find value in what work gives him in return? Because he feels he needs those things, he can still make the choice not to get them but why would have this choice in the first place, why do those things appeal to him? The same as how a dog will choose to jump when you train him to expect treats, he could just ignore it but someone he'll do it because treats taste good. Why they taste good is I believe something that is honed by evolution. (Same as how we like things with Fat in it. Fatty stuff taste good for a reason.)
  - jordan0day 15y ago
    Wait, what? What was I wrong about? Finding something amusing? I really don't think I made a very controversial statement, and I certainly wasn't making an "argument". I never said I disagreed with silverstorm's point -- re-reading it, "I'm on the opposite side of that" could sound that way, but I meant "looking from the other direction". silverstorm's point was w.r.t. people thinking that "can behaviors be inherited" hasn't been settled. I presume that it has been.
- araneae 15y ago
  This very fact means that the two of you are operating on the wrong definition of "instinct." "Instinct" simply means anything that is inborn. There's nothing in the animal manual that says that instincts can't contradict each other in an animal. Hate is instinctive, as is love. It's not that humans defeat their instincts, it's that some of our instincts defeat other instincts.
- jordan0day 15y ago
  I wasn't arguing that it was uniquely human (I don't think I was arguing anything at all, really). That said, what is the cutoff for determining if a behavior is instinctual or not? There's a lot of variables in play. For example, I would imagine my dog's instinct is to just jump up and snatch the treat from my hand. Does she sit, shake, lay down, roll over, high-five, whatever else I tell her to do because she knows it will get her the treat and earn favor? Couldn't this also be explained as instinct? That is, how exactly do we determine what is "overcoming" instinct in a dog, and what is merely more complex expression of what is also instinctual behavior? We could question this equally with humans as well, except we're absolutely confident that humans have the ability of introspection, even if it's not necessarily put to good use all the time. Edit: Let me just state I wasn't trying to be argumentative in my original response above. My "I'm on the opposite side of that" was apparently poorly-worded. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was trying to say something orthogonal to your comment. That is, I felt like my starting assumption was that human behavior could be heritable, while the context of your comment was that some felt that is even up for debate. I'm sorry if I'm not making this very clear, I'm frankly taken aback by the amount of furor over my comment, which I meant not as a direct response or argument to yours, but as an aside.
Shorel 15y ago
We have a massive cortex bigger than the rest of the brain. The human cortex in fact can overrides some functions of the rest of the brain. This is not true for most of other animals. My point is this: overcoming instinct is possible because of the way our brain is organized (this however requires some training, as we actually do in order to survive into adulthood) and because it is a positive trait. The fact that this is not more prevalent indicates that perhaps overcoming instinct is not really that positive (the limbic system with its feelings and hunches probably helps detect cheating in a more straightforward and efficient way than deep thinking about it).

sliverstorm 15y ago

You've never seen a dog overcome instinct? It's not a uniquely human ability.

saturn 15y ago
sliverstorm's point is valuable and it is annoying to see it ignored. Dogs and other pets routinely overcome instinct to win favour by their human masters. And what are humans but pets of society? It pisses me off when people don't concede that they were wrong and promise to do better next time. jordan0day, admit that your simplistic argument was flawed, and vow to re-examine your assumptions. Damn but 99% of arguments need a moderator. Startup opportunity?
- mannicken 15y ago
  "It pisses me off when people don't concede that they were wrong" In this case, we have saturn exemplifying a pure animalistic instinct of rage. You being pissed off is not an argument that helps the conversation. Humans are not pets of society because humans are a part of society. You're trying to personalize society, in a similar way that religious freaks try to personalize the universe. In reality, society is better understood as an emergence of many tribes working together in an economic model. Let me dumb it down: There is a tribe of programmers. They have their own rituals, their own ceremonies, even their own drugs that they like to take (yay Mountain Dew). They are very good at controlling computers. Then there is a tribe of people who make pizza. They are good at making pizza, really good. Well, better than most programmers anyway. They eat pizza a lot, and their life revolves around making pizza, eating pizza, talking about how different pizzas are awesome or how they suck. Now first tribe is all like "hey, we need pizza" so they go to the second tribe and ask that tribe to make them some pizza in return for herding pizzamen's freaky computers that just get out of control all the time.
  - saturn 15y ago
    Your example, though "dumbed down", makes no sense to me at all. What is a pet? It's a subordinate part of a larger whole. I would submit that the vast majority of men meet this description, where society is the larger group. Society demands a man gets out of bed and goes to work; against his sleeping instinct, man complies. > a pure animalistic instinct of rage I would like to think that my annoyance that good arguments did not seem to be carrying the day is more than dumb animal rage? If you heard a group of people agreeing that 1 + 1 = 3 then surely you'd also be guilty of an instinctive opposition. Something has to be true.
    - mannicken 15y ago
      >Society demands a man gets out of bed and goes to work; against his sleeping instinct, man complies. The only case where society actually does demand a man to get out of bed is jail. Usually, a man gets out of bed not because he is dragged out like a pet but because society offers something in return -- employment, company, money, food, purpose, etc. He can stay in his bed if he really wants to, or he can choose a more flexible schedule and wake up later, or wake up earlier. It's a system of symbiosis; the man is making a fucking choice. Regarding 1+1=3, there are several possibilities here: a) The people are mathematicians, they redefined symbols and are playing around -- it would evoke curiosity in me. b) The people are children and they're getting a rise out of you -- it would evoke amusement in me. c) The people are deluded and insane -- it would evoke sympathy. I don't see how these possibilities require anyone to get aggressive.
      - nkassis 15y ago
        I like this example about the man and work. Why does the man find value in what work gives him in return? Because he feels he needs those things, he can still make the choice not to get them but why would have this choice in the first place, why do those things appeal to him? The same as how a dog will choose to jump when you train him to expect treats, he could just ignore it but someone he'll do it because treats taste good. Why they taste good is I believe something that is honed by evolution. (Same as how we like things with Fat in it. Fatty stuff taste good for a reason.)
- jordan0day 15y ago
  Wait, what? What was I wrong about? Finding something amusing? I really don't think I made a very controversial statement, and I certainly wasn't making an "argument". I never said I disagreed with silverstorm's point -- re-reading it, "I'm on the opposite side of that" could sound that way, but I meant "looking from the other direction". silverstorm's point was w.r.t. people thinking that "can behaviors be inherited" hasn't been settled. I presume that it has been.
araneae 15y ago
This very fact means that the two of you are operating on the wrong definition of "instinct." "Instinct" simply means anything that is inborn. There's nothing in the animal manual that says that instincts can't contradict each other in an animal. Hate is instinctive, as is love. It's not that humans defeat their instincts, it's that some of our instincts defeat other instincts.
jordan0day 15y ago
I wasn't arguing that it was uniquely human (I don't think I was arguing anything at all, really). That said, what is the cutoff for determining if a behavior is instinctual or not? There's a lot of variables in play. For example, I would imagine my dog's instinct is to just jump up and snatch the treat from my hand. Does she sit, shake, lay down, roll over, high-five, whatever else I tell her to do because she knows it will get her the treat and earn favor? Couldn't this also be explained as instinct? That is, how exactly do we determine what is "overcoming" instinct in a dog, and what is merely more complex expression of what is also instinctual behavior? We could question this equally with humans as well, except we're absolutely confident that humans have the ability of introspection, even if it's not necessarily put to good use all the time. Edit: Let me just state I wasn't trying to be argumentative in my original response above. My "I'm on the opposite side of that" was apparently poorly-worded. I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was trying to say something orthogonal to your comment. That is, I felt like my starting assumption was that human behavior could be heritable, while the context of your comment was that some felt that is even up for debate. I'm sorry if I'm not making this very clear, I'm frankly taken aback by the amount of furor over my comment, which I meant not as a direct response or argument to yours, but as an aside.

Shorel 15y ago

We have a massive cortex bigger than the rest of the brain. The human cortex in fact can overrides some functions of the rest of the brain. This is not true for most of other animals. My point is this: overcoming instinct is possible because of the way our brain is organized (this however requires some training, as we actually do in order to survive into adulthood) and because it is a positive trait. The fact that this is not more prevalent indicates that perhaps overcoming instinct is not really that positive (the limbic system with its feelings and hunches probably helps detect cheating in a more straightforward and efficient way than deep thinking about it).