Talk:Instinct

message: Does anyone know how an instinct is passed on from generation to generation? What is the physiological mechanism for this to occur? 
We know that certain traits are passed on genetically. Are instincts also passed on this way, through the DNA? 
For example, how do babies know to look for and suck on the nipple of their mothers? Obviously no one taught them that. Then how do they know? 
Have humans found this out yet or not? 
Thanks. 202.165.255.18 17:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Genes shape the structure of the nervous system. In humans, the structure of the nervous system predisposes us towards certain patterns of behavior. The key issue is how genes form certain patterns of neuronal networks in the brain. Gerald Edelman wrote a book called "Topobiology" that describes the basic mechanisms by which genes control morphogenesis. --Memenen 23:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So the answer is "no, not yet". Lehasa (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanism

message: * While this image is cool and all I don't think it really belongs on this page. Sure nipple sucking is an instinct but this image has way too much else going on and distracts rather than adds to the information Headlouse 01:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a much calmer image of a breastfeeding baby at breastfeeding.  Joyous | Talk 19:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I bit the bullet and made the changes as suggested above. Alex Grey now has a picture and the breastfeeding image is also on instinct. -- 16:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper Image Choice 

message: My interest in instinct lies not with how academics would prefer to categorize certain human behaviors, such as recoiling from a snake, but rather with the poorly explained behavioral predispositions that many animals possess (including a select few human tendencies, such as a documented, innate fear of falling/heights).  I cannot do much in the way of improvements myself, but I feel this article is SOREly lacking in breadth.
I also deem the first question of this discussion to be most provocative, as I've been trying to find a way to reconcile Darwin and Larmarck, Baldwin for a while now.  I haven't found a comprehensive answer to any of the lingering questions regarding the behavioral tendiencies of an organism that are not learned but seemingly can't possibly have been transferred via genetic material not affected by direct influence of the parent's experience.  The teat-suckling may be  a poor example of this.  A better one may be the rats that become generationally better at solving a maze, a universal fear of predatory species, or certain simians' talents for using tools to obtain food.  Studies of a culture of lactose-intolerant E Coli that quickly adapted so as to tolerate lactose may not be completely germane, but are worth note.
::To get an idea of what instinctive behaviour actually is and how important the genetic component is read this article: ^ Dilger, W.C.; 1962; The behavior of Lovebirds; Scientific American 
The genetic component of the behaviour becomes very clear in the nesting behaviour of hybrids, which is a totally erratic non functional mixture of the parent species behaviours. 
The pathway between DNA and these elaborate behavior patterns is one of the big challenges for science, at least for me it is not easy to conceive such a direct relation with proteins produced in certain braincells and the subsequent subtle changes in behaviour.Viridiflavus (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Subject Needs Elaboration 

message: I'm (instintively!) not really very happy with this sentence...
Instinct provides a response to external stimuli, which moves an organism to action, unless overridden by intelligence, which is creative and more versatile
I just think there's a presupposition that intelligence is superior to instinct, and I'd like to see this statement qualified in some way, because it sounds subjective to me.
My question is, is it possible for instinct to over-ride intelligence; or is intelligence driven subliminally by instincts?
For example: Does a human suppress their urge to act upon the instinct to mate or attack; or are there are spectrum of instincts at play, such as the instinct to form a group and not to compromise the values of the group so as to be ostracised (i.e. as a sex pest, or violent criminal)?
I'm personally trying to find credible sources to put the case that there are several instincts in a hierarchy, but interlinked.
The instinct to survive must be the top one, then you may have sub-instincts such as: competition, territorialism, procreation, QoL-seeking, learning, and group-forming; and they all interact to check each other, essentiall ensuring that the top ones of survival and reproduction are not compromised. It might then make sense to say that behaviour that conflicts with instincts are maladaptive, rather than advanced and overriding.
Regardless of whether I do find credible sources that do support this thought, there needs to be more referenced and qualified material in this piece, so that there isn't the whiff of a-priori supposition.
It takes one to know one 19:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem with the above sentence.  It doesn't suggest intelligence is superior, it merely states intelligence is creative and more versatile, which is the truth; instinct is by definition inflexible.  This is not to say one is superior to the other, as both instinctive and learned behaviour can lead to greater benefit or harm to the organism in certain scenarios. 91.109.185.114 (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence doesn't 'merely state'; it judges, expressing an opinion, that intelligence is more creative and versatile. What is the evidence that intelligence is more versatile? Intelligence is possibly more versatile in conditions where it has sufficient information, but the value of instincts surely is to provide the organism with a course of action when it has insufficient experience or information to know how to act.--174.7.56.10 (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Does the term "habit" ONLY apply to instinctive behavior or can it apply to repeated, learned behavior that is characteristic of on individual, but not another? I am trying to clarify some articles in WP and Wiktionary. DCDuring 02:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the guy said (s)he was trying to clarify the additions of other editors, not writing the whole of wp from scratch. also, please read Wikipedia:Civility before editing. k kisses 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is "Habit" Used Only for Unlearned Behavior?

message: "Innate emotions, which can be expressed in more flexible ways and learned patterns of responses, not instincts, form a basis for majority of responses to external stimuli in evolutionary higher species, while in case of highest evolved species both of them are overridden by actions based on cognitive processes with more or less intelligence and creativity or even trans-intellectual intuition."
1, any discussion about "higher" and "lower" species doesn't really make much sense from an evolutionary standpoint. it implies that evolution moves towards increased complexity as an overarching goal in itself. this is, of course, hogwash. and what is a "trans-intellectual intuition" and how do "innate emotions" differ from instinctual predisposition?
2, is there a good basis to the claim that learned behaviour forms the basis for a majority of responses in complex animals? the little I've read on the issue seems to suggest that the distinction between learned behaviour and instinctual behaviour is blurred at best. 
the part of the article under Definitions deals primarily with one very strict definition of the term, which is good, but any working definition isn't made clear in this sentence. I am removing it until someone can provide sources that justify keeping it. Neebe (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary jargon 

message: I just did some minor copy editing and added some links, but this page needs a lot of work. The entire section on human behavior looks like original research, and is completing lacking in citations. It looks like a lot of the discussion here has centered on definitions and opinions around instinct instead of finding useful sources on instinct. Does anyone have any books or articles on the subject? That would probably go a long way toward clearing up a lot of the issues. --Aaron.t.phillips (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Sources  

message: This argument as used by sociologists is false when it is used to exclude humans from having instincts, because a goose busy with rolling an egg back in the nest will probably fly off if the scientist suddenly runs towards the nest.Viridiflavus (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The overriding argument

message: Here the article is quite inconsistent, because we have moved away from the definition of instinct in the first part of the article, (released fixed action patterns). I would consider it better to name things as aggression during riots or the human courtship rituals with the accompanying fixed action patterns etc. I think "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris gives great examples of that. Especialy when we use a defitition that is a little broader, the innate ability and disposition to imitate language that causes little children in a sensitive period to pick up and imitate the sounds around them are not different from a bird picking up a song.Viridiflavus (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: In humans

message: An innate behabiour is not necesary an instict, and a reflex is definitely not an instict. 
English is not my primary language, can someone check that out? Look for Konrad Lorenz.
--Lmalena (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad definition

message: The picture of the turtle needs a caption. I'd add it myself, but I don't know how. Omc (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption 

message: I was going to rewrite the "Sociobiology" section, because it appears to be slightly misinformed, ignorant of current literature, and completely uncited. However, is a separate section for sociobiology even necessary here? If anything, the biology section could be expanded slightly to encompass whatever relevant information might otherwise be put under sociobiology. Any thoughts?
Ringtail Jack 02:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.3 Sociobiology 

message: Large parts of this article are unreadable. In particular the second paragraph of the “Overview” section looks unsalvageable. Besides the lack of any grammar, there are also no citations and the POV is far from neutral. My instinct (no pun intended) is to delete the entire paragraph, but as I'm new here I don't want to jump in feet first with a potentially controversial edit. So I've tagged the article as “multiple issues” hoping that someone more experienced will share their opinion. JRYon (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: this impossible,has not yet come up with the definition of the word instinct because that has already been proved that instinct does not exist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.190.38.62 (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious clean up needed 

message: I know that this isn't the place to debate the issues or raise questions but it is a place where judicial editing or comment can at least put things in one perspective or another. At present the opinions of some authors (eg Maslow) that instinct cannot be over-ridden or changed seem to be given the status of wide acceptance. Is this the case? Maslow's follow-on conclusion that humans therefore no longer have instincts seems outdated. Humans are animals; if animals have instincts why don't humans (presuming we're all on the science page rather than the faith page)? Instincts are presumably hard-wired responses to the environment that enable the organism to survive at a time before learning has had time to kick in (I know, not all instincts can be explained in this way but it does to be a reasonable case for instincts). It would seem as though Maslow and others are merely trying to reduce the idea to something very close to a reflex. Going away from Maslow, could it not be argued that humans can overcome instinct (this possibility would seem to be a biological advantage) which might bring items like the survival instinct back into play. In other words, our hard-coding is available for early survival but can be abandoned/over-ridden as needed.
Sorry. Probably not a discussion that should happen here.
--174.7.56.10 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This s definitely the place for it. Both views should be mentioned otherwise the article is one sided.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.215.187 (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-ride Maslow? 

message: The last paragraph of the intro needs considerable work.  This is a weird subject that does not really have an answer, but the last paragraph of the intro is a mess.  It starts with elephants and ends up with zoo cats.  I won't touch it because I have no expertise in the field, I was coming for some briefing and saw that paragraph and felt like this needed to be said, that is why it needs to be fixed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.150.48 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a weird article 

message: and instincts are not really there  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.190.38.62 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: article can not be left without a word hypothetical until you find evidence

message: In the "In Psychology" section, Abraham Maslow is quoted as saying two contradictory things:
humans no longer have instincts because we have the ability to override them in certain situations.
and 
an instinct is something which cannot be overridden
How can humans override instincts if an instinct is something which cannot be overridden? Either Maslow has said this and missed the contradiction (which means maybe there should be a contrasting opinion shown) or this article has confused something. 
Maybe it's trying to imply that instincts are present in animals but humans have an extra ability to override them, but that doesn't mean that humans no longer have instincts, it means that we're good at suppressing them sometimes. But it seems this is suggesting that suppressing instincts is a better, more evolved way of being. I guess what I'm trying to say is, this guy's opinion should be shown for what it is because I feel like the discussion of it is missing something. 
It could be that the contradictory quotes are the sign that his whole argument is flawed from the moment he said humans no longer have instincts, but that's just my personal opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhbenn (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham Maslow's argument missing something 

message: I read the article. There is absolutely zero discussion about instincts in humans. Either the redirect should be deleted or information on human instincts should be put in. It's an improper redirect as it is. Xanikk999 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does instincts in humans redirect here 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: - Regarding your revert -   - where exactly in the body of the article is this addressed? BecomeFree (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections In psychology, and In humans give a variety of possibly conflicting views. This is summarised in the lead by the words "has been studied, and is a controversial topic". I think that is a fair summary, but perhaps it can be improved?Chjoaygame (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the sentence ending "and is a controversial topic" needs a citation, and the point needs elaborating in the body of the article. Also, just because there are conflicting views on something it doesn't  necessarily imply controversy. Strategist3000 (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversiality