Instincts that rule a person

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

This topic is so controversial and controversial that disputes over it have been going on for over a hundred years. With varying degrees of success: one direction wins, then another. To our great regret, this topic, like everything related to a person, is very politicized. From a purely scientific topic, such topics have long since passed into the "service sector". Serving certain political and ideological trends.

I have already explained this in detail in the article "Man, Woman and Scientists", I will not repeat myself. The article will turn out to be large and not entertaining at all, even boring.

First, let's define the term. What is instinct? In biology, instinct, in short and simplified terms, is understood as a stereotypical motor act that occurs in an animal in response to a specific need or serves a specific purpose. This act, I repeat, is stereotypical. Here are some examples. After the act of defecation, the cat "buries" the feces in the ground with its hind legs, thus masking its presence from enemies. Everyone has seen this. But she makes the same movements in the apartment, when there is simply nothing to "bury" with: there is no earth under her paws. This is a stereotypical behavioral act - it does not change. The set of actions is always fixed. I went to the toilet - I made such movements with my paws. Linoleum under your feet? It doesn't matter, the program of action does not change from this. Such stereotypical acts also include spider weaving, mating dances and bird songs, etc.

In humans (and in primates in general), there are no such rigid motor complexes. Human behavior is much more complex. Therefore, the word "instinct" as applied to a person, we can replace the word "attraction", "innate behavioral program" (mind you, not motor, but behavioral). Name who you like best. I like the word “instinct” because it’s familiar to people’s ears. In addition, I have met him in a huge number of foreign scientific articles.

So, during the mating season, a nightingale sings the same melody to attract a female. It is reproduced by absolutely every nightingale and for thousands of years. This is what biologists call instinct.

Human behavior is not so rigidly determined. Therefore, it is wrong to transfer the behavior of animals to humans. Rather, a person has a certain behavioral outline that arises in response to a need. Again, comparable to animals. The sexual instinct of the black grouse makes it "dance" a certain dance on the current (that is, perform strictly programmed body movements), and then mate in a certain way. Also programmed. Human sexual instinct does not work exactly like that. The instinct sets the owner a specific task that is useful from the point of view of biology. For a man - to mate with as many women as possible in order to spread his genes as widely as possible. How he will do it is not clearly fixed. Will he coerce them by force, take them by deceit, imitate a high rank, bribe ("sex for food") - there are many ways. The instinct for a woman is to conceive from the most viable male within her reach, in order to increase the survival rate of the offspring. Again, the motor program is not fixed. A woman can arrange an "auction" for men to prove who is better. And then he will choose the "winner". Maybe, on the contrary, she herself can find the "alpha" and somehow convince him to mate. In general, there are many options. The instinct defines the ultimate goal, the useful adaptive result, in the language of physiology, but does not rigidly program the methods of achieving it.

In general, there are very different views on these terminological subtleties. For example, Jacob Kantor from the University of Chicago called instinctive behavior what I call instinct, and the term “instinct” was interpreted in the biological sense that I described above [3]. Amanda Spink gives this definition of the term "instinct": "an innate part of behavior that occurs without any training or education in humans." At the same time, she argues that such behaviors as parenting, cooperation, sexual behavior and aesthetic perception are developed psychological mechanisms with an instinctive basis [4]. Who cares, you can crawl by keywords on English-language search engines, there is a lot of discord.

Also, one should not confuse instinct with an unconditioned reflex. Both are innate. But there are fundamental differences. Reflex is not related to motivation. This is a very simple movement act that occurs in response to one simple stimulus. For example, the knee jerk arises in response to a stretching of the quadriceps. We pull our hand away from the hot one due to a reflex act, which is triggered by very strong irritation of the temperature receptors of the skin. The reflex has a very rigid motor characteristic. The knee reflex absolutely always ends with a contraction of the quadriceps, and nothing else.

Instinct is always associated with a certain motivation. Sexual instinct - with sexual motivation, food - with food motivation, etc. Instinct is always a complex and non-rigid behavioral act.

So, we figured out the term. I will use the word "instinct" as explained above. Maybe this is not entirely true from the point of view of biology, but it is justified from the point of view of explaining the essence of the matter. If someone likes another concept that denotes all this - his right.

Next, I will say a few words about the views on the role of instincts in human behavior. There are two radical and equally erroneous approaches to this issue.

The first is biogenetic, or biologization. Proponents of this approach argue that instincts are the only factor that completely and completely determines human behavior. The social superstructure means little or nothing. Common biologizers consider a person an ordinary animal, they call a naked monkey. That is, they bring biologization to primitivism. This approach is incorrect, since a person is not only a biological, but also a social being. He has a personality - a structure that is formed in society, albeit on the basis of a biological foundation, albeit closely interacting with it.

The second approach is sociogenetic, or sociologization. Proponents of this approach argue that the biological basis of a person does not affect anything at all. Everything - from character to sex-role behavior - is determined by the influence of society. A person is born like a clean hard drive, on which society "installs programs." Sociologizers deny not only innate biological needs, drives, behavioral programs, but even such biological data as sex, replacing it with the word “gender”. Initially, sociologization appeared and developed in the Soviet Union, where everything was subordinated to Marxism. And Marxism preached that everything is determined only by the influence of the environment. Now sociologizing is gaining great weight and strength all over the world due to the strengthening of leftist ideology, feminism, globalism and serious funding of this direction in recent decades. It is required to wrap ideology in a "scientific" package, to "prove" its correctness, and huge funds are allocated for this. The result obeys two sayings: "any whim for your money" and "who pays, he calls the tune." Therefore, in the scientific world, sociologizing music is now playing louder and louder. If, of course, the service of ideological interests can be called science. However, if you drive the words “human instincts article” into a search engine, you will get a bunch of scientific articles about the study of human instincts. It is better to drive into an English-language search engine, as it searches better for English-language texts.

I do not exclude the possibility that the pendulum will swing in the other direction. If tomorrow the ruling circles need to "prove" that man is driven exclusively by animal motives, that man is supposedly just a "naked monkey", then they will prove, I guarantee. History shows us that the politicized "science" "proved" and not such nonsense. Money, administrative resources and manipulation of public opinion and not such miracles worked.

The correct approach is, in my opinion, psychogenetic. He argues that human behavior is formed not either biological, OR social, but both biological and social. Textbook "Psychology" edited by Doctor of Psychology, prof. V. N. Druzhinina explains the innate programs of human behavior (what we have agreed to call “instinct”) as follows: “At birth, we have a set of genetically defined programs of interaction with the outside world. Moreover, these programs are of a general nature …”. But, on the other hand, a person's personality is formed in society, under the influence of social factors. So behavior is influenced by temperament (also an innate characteristic of the nervous system), and instincts, and upbringing, and culture, and learning, and experience, and much more. Unfortunately, the psychogenetic approach is not popular - I suppose, due to the fact that there are no political and ideological interests that could find in it "scientific confirmation" of their philosophical, sociological or political ideas.

Now about the ethical interpretation of instincts. On this basis, battles are also waged, but not in the scientific (or "scientific") world, but at the level of journalism. Again, there are two points of view. The first asserts that instincts are natural, therefore, they must be completely obeyed, and they should not be regulated and even less limited. Another argues that instincts are an animal essence, and therefore must be eliminated. As in the last question, these two radical views are fanatical rather than reasonable. Human behavior is conditioned by both biological and social. Therefore, being afraid or trying to "erase", "destroy", "eradicate" instincts is not only harmful (you can bring yourself to neurosis or something worse), but also stupid. The human body is also biological, but no one calls it "animal essence" and does not offer to "get rid" of it. At the same time, you need to understand that we live in a society that, for our own good, security, exists according to certain canons (law, morality), which we will have to follow, controlling our instincts. And this is not at all some kind of violence against oneself - the usual way to streamline interpersonal interaction, minimizing the likelihood of conflicts and other problems.

Therefore, in this article, we completely reject any ethical coloring of human instincts. We see them not as positive or negative phenomena, but as fact - from a neutral point of view.

So instincts. The number of instincts allocated is not the same for different authors. For example, M. V. Korkina et al. Distinguishes food, self-preservation instinct and sexual instinct [1]. The same instincts (with the addition of "et al") are listed by A. V. Datius [2]

I distinguish seven instincts.

1. Food. This is perhaps one of the simplest instincts. Hunger, thirst - we are looking for how to satisfy them.

2. Defensive (self-preservation instinct). It is designed to keep us out of trouble, and if there are any, then make every effort to survive. Derivatives of this instinct are such human properties as caution or its extreme manifestation - cowardice. This is the part of avoiding danger. As for the other part - survival, this is the usual activation of the sympatho-adrenal system during stress. So the defensive instinct gives us the strength to fight if there is a chance to gain the upper hand, or to run away if the chance of victory is low. The pupils dilate (the field of view increases), the bronchi too (more oxygen is needed), the blood supply to the brain (to make quick decisions), muscles (to fight, run, etc.) and the heart (to pump blood faster) increase. In other organs, the blood supply is weakened - not up to them. This is a small digression into physiology.

3. Sexual. I have written a bunch of articles and book chapters about this instinct. More in detail - in the book "Female and Male Manipulations", Chapter 2 ("Rank, primativity …"). I will not retell here.

4. Parental. This is the instinct to take care of the offspring. For some reason, he is often called maternal - as if he was not peculiar to fathers. However, it is not. Often men have a stronger parenting instinct than women.

5. Herd (social). Man is a social being, and without society he does not become a man as such. For example, speech is completely and completely formed in society, and in the early years. People, whose childhood was spent in the wild, could not learn to speak. They tried for years and could not. Also, in society, on a biological foundation, a person's personality is formed (as a psychological concept). Herding (or sociality) is an ancient property of primates, which was also transmitted to humans. Therefore, a person strives to be among other people. Outside of society, alone, people go crazy.

6. Hierarchical (ranked). Rank instinct is one of two rank terms (the second term is rank potential). I also wrote a lot about this, as well as about the essence of the rank instinct itself, in the chapter "Rank and primativeness". You can read it in the same book, "Female and Male Manipulation." Or on the website, right here. A chapter of three parts, I remind you. Here's a link to the first part.

The rank instinct often conflicts with the self-preservation instinct. The rank instinct requires you to challenge the stronger one and take his place in the hierarchy, while the self-preservation instinct "discourages" you from doing so.

7. The instinct of conservation of energy (the instinct of the least cost). If the first four instincts are familiar to absolutely everyone, the next two are familiar to those who have read my works, then this one is almost unknown to anyone. Meanwhile, it has a very great influence on our behavior. The essence of instinct is to choose the easiest way to achieve a goal, or to abandon it altogether if all the paths seem difficult. This instinct has several effects, I will give an example of three.

The first is laziness. If two motivations are fighting in us, approximately equal in importance, strength and method of realization, then we will choose to reject both of them. For example, we postpone a decision if, in any case, the outcome is unpleasant to us. If we feel that the way to realize motivation is difficult, unpleasant, then we give up this venture. The student skips the first class to get some sleep. It is too difficult for him, it is unpleasant for him to get up. It's easier not to walk. It is clear that this only works if the motivation is weak. I have not yet seen a person who would be too lazy to find a toilet when he has to. So, a person is lazy - this means that the motivations are too weak for him, and it is easier for him not to fulfill them in order to save energy.

The second is theft and all its forms (robbery, fraud, etc.). It is too difficult for a person to earn benefits, but to steal, take away, deceive is not so difficult, in his opinion. Thus, he also conserves energy, although in society such behavior is considered criminal and punishable. And not only in society: if one monkey is caught stealing from another, he can get punches. However, stronger individuals (both males and females) take away the food of the weak. They also save energy. In this incarnation, the instinct of conservation of energy comes into conflict with the instinct of self-preservation, because adds danger.

And the third. If the first two manifestations of this instinct were socially disapproving and even criminal (theft, robbery, fraud), then here the opposite is true for the good of society. This is the desire to make your work and life in general easier with the help of all sorts of notions. The first step is invention. The second thing is pioneering. After all, those who discovered new lands wanted to make life easier for themselves, for their children.

Here is an overview of the essence of human instincts. They, interacting with each other, as well as with the social factor (personality), affect human behavior. Someone is stronger, someone is weaker. The degree of influence of instincts on behavior is called primativeness. I also wrote about her many times. Both about its essence (chapter "Rank and primativity", posted on the site), and about the scientific substantiation of this term and its verification using Popper's criterion (chapter "On instincts, upbringing and primativity").

1. Datiy, A. V. Forensic Medicine and Psychiatry: Textbook. - M.: RIOR, 2011.-- 310 p.

2. Psychiatry: Textbook for students. honey. universities / M. V. Korkina, N. D. Lakosina, A. E. Lichko, I. I. Sergeev. - 3rd ed. - M.: MEDpress-inform, 2006.-- 576 p.

3. Kantor, J. R. A Functional Interpretation of Human Instincts. Psychological Review, 27 (1920): 50-72

4. Spink, A. Information behavior. An evolutionary instinct. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010.85 p.