charles brough

Certainly, the instinct concept would not be used in biology and organic chemestry, but I find it useful in animal behavioral study and social theory as long as we keep in mind that the behavioral differencfes between, let us say, Europeans and Sudanese is ideological/cultural. It is useful because there are hman social behavioral patterns ("instincts") that are common to all the apes, most of all primates, and many other small group social mammals. For example, the females care for the young, the males compete for the responsibility of protecting them, ones that do not return a favor are rebuked, Teenagers are rebellious, the actions of the dominant male are closely watched, the group has a territory ("home," "private property" amd "national borders." There are many more. A century ago, people careless compiled a list of so-called "instincts" such as compassion, altruism, prejudice, religiousness, ambition, etc. As it became realized that their list was riddled with error and inaccuracy, the term came into disrepute and has remained there.

If you and the others really want to consider a new theory, I'll do my best because I have worked on one for decades. It involved amassing an understanding of the data of some 24 social and natural sciences. It involves social evolution. As of now, the social theory consensus, such as it is, has no viable explanation of what civilizations and societies are and both how and why they rise and fall, no theory other than a really hopeless one dealing with "memes." What I theorize, in a nutshell, is that "societies" and their civilizations are a type of organism in that they have a life cycle and a non-genetic way of evolving through natural selection. They compete with each other and ultimately the older (weaker) is natural-selected out. A new one develops based upon a new and advanced (for the times) ideology ("religion"). I can support this vital role of ideology by reminding everyone that we evolved through millions of years of evolution as small-group primates (hunter/gatherers). We are still small group primates and unable to funtion successfully without the use of language and religion (the newer the better) to bind us into larger groups (nations and their "societies"). Any questions?

One factor easily overlooked is that the cost of medical care has been rising at an accelerating rate. It is part of the reason for a general decline in middle class living standards and hence its ability to pay for it. Not being any reason to think the costs are going to stop rising, we have good reason to believe it is going to result in a shorter life span if that has not already begun.

By saying it is not instinct, I think you are inferring that it is not neurological. It seems to me that the word "instinct" refers to a behavior pattern without inferring its basis. You suspect it may be based on a biochemical process. Can you also say it is genetic? I make such a big deal over this because in my experience I find a lot of resistance to the use of the word "instinct"--especially in refernce to we humans. I suspect it has to do with possibly being offensive to the religious. Yet, in social theory at least, the genetic-chemical mechanism of instinct is of no importance. This is a biology forum, but the question did involve social theory.

We do not know the genes involved so we simply use the world "instinct." We humans evolved as small-group primates and like all small social group animals, we have social instincts. There is a large body of observational work on primate behavior, especially the chimp which resembles us in innate behavior in many ways. In this social behavioral pattern, there is no "altruism" instinct. Instead, it works like this: We have an instinct in men to be admired, respected, favored, the so-called male ego. There are those who can best achieve that by becoming the alpha male. He is instinctively motivated to protect the group. Alpha male chimps will go around the group territory looking for group threats. The females and offspring instinctively welcome this and feel secure because of it. That is why the alphas will lead the groups into war just as we do and did after 9/11. But the group is dispensable. If the males are not alpha enough, the females will split from the group. With us, also, the prestige of the group matters. Our badly divided nations and society are losing popular support all over the world. There is no common ideology capable of unifying us and thus able to build world stability and cooperation. Everyone, as a result, feels less secure, more stress, and has less hope for the future.

Hail, I am here! I am a social theory addict who has actually developed the theory of social evolution . . Yes, actually! Incidentally, I believe words should be able to be spelled in different ways. I always do . . .

One type of amoeba will under certain circumstances, form a slime mold slug that will move in colonies that snake around obstacles. The also form into small towering edifices on the weight of each other to form structures that deposit new cells on passerbys to spread to other bodies of water. This has nothing to do with intelligence but instinct. We tend to avoid the word because we cannot trace it to genes yet, but as a concept, it is vital to understanding biology. It is also offensive to the faithful when applied to us, we humans, but I hope that will not deter us here, for we too have social instincts. We are small group primates that have a long list of social-related instincts which have also been amply observed in chimps. We do not learn morals from religion. It is our social nature that develops moral codes for the sake of efficiency and as part of our cultural adaption to changing need.

Sure, but let's elaborate a little. It has been observed that small social group animals such as ourselves (being evolved as hunter-gatherers), split up when they reach a population density that exceeds what is optimal to that species. Now, however you might want me describe what goes on in the animal to cause it to split. Alright, other animals begin dying of stress when their numbers exceed their norm, so, let us say that small group primates, such as we feel increasing stress when our "group" exceeds what is "normal." "But we do not live any longer in hunting-gathering size groups" you might say. That is true, but we most certainly could not have biologially evolved the group/territory nature out of us in a mere 100,000 years or less. It is still there. We have circumvented it only by developing language to create ideology (such as Islam, Marxist East Asia's ism and Christendom) and enable us feel the same sense of community we felt in the group while living in nations and huge nation groups we can call "societies. " However, when the ideological system breaks down into a mass of diverse sects and faiths, its ability to serve its function declines. The result is a growth of stress. I could go on and carry this further, explaining more, but is anyone interested?

Yes, I agree. My experience in posting in other forums is that someone will respond by taking every one of my paragraps in order and insert nit-picking comments between each one. At or near the end, they then make over-all condesending comments about my post and my "intellectual undercapacity." My take on this is that these posters are semi-retired professors who are used to showing off their "amazing genius" to their "lowly students." The practice is expecially bad in the social sciences. Perhaps that is because social theory consists of enough rationalizing that they are sensitive about it enough to deveop this defensive mechanism.

Exactly! We've built a sort of corporate society where everything depends upon profit. As a society, our goals are "the pursuit of happiness," "liberty and freedom." That has proven ideal for the corporate structure to advertise us into becoming "consumers" dedicated to the collecting of "stuff." We are also dedicated to "freedom." That is what the hippys of the 1960s achieved, total freedom! So, it is not just the fault of TV but the parents, and their parents as well. They let all this happen.

My phenomenon is less dramatic but also strange. I love to play FreeCell on the computer. It is easy for me to spend several hours at it. But if I do it in the afternoon, I find that when I watch the TV news, I am subconscioulsy trying to move the speakers features around like cards! Then, at night when I go to sleep, all the cards are there before my eyes and I am trying to move the right ones. Unfortunately, as soon as I move one, it changes on me and I can never succeed! Normally, I have trained my "mind's eye" to carry on a seriel drama when I am lying down to sleep. In it, there is no one I know and there is no sex, nothing that might send the hormones into circulation. The drama goes on each night where I left it and I usually go to sleep before it has progressed more than a very little. I understand that there is a rare condition some individuals (not me), a condition called sub-clinical epilipsy in which they have occasional illusions. The only illusion I have experienced was seeing a boat slowly rise out of the water off in the distance and dissapear slowly in the sky. It was a mirage.