sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 How does that "need/want" reflex differ from instinct? Sorry...from my perspective, instinct is action without logical thought. Its typically defined by what I consider as the three base motivators...fight, f#@k, or flee. Your definition for instinct appears to be different...what do you define as instinct? Look it up.
Owl Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Sorry...I was looking for YOUR understanding. If you don't care to discuss...simple enough. What you've said so far hasn't made a lot of sense to me.
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Nopey. A man who sees a car he wants because it looks good (which is why you first approach the car) walks up to it. The right brain only thinker would just buy the damn thing. A balanced person would walk up to the car because it looks good, then they would request a test drive, maybe check Consumer Reports, etc. prior to making their purchase ." Yupey. because again you are describing all left brain thinking, you would never be instinctually attracted to a car because liking cars is "learned" behaviour. Instinct is UNLEARNED behaviour.
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Sorry...I was looking for YOUR understanding. If you don't care to discuss...simple enough. What you've said so far hasn't made a lot of sense to me. Instinct = unlearned behaviour that acts upon stimuli.
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Sexual attraction is instinctual, car shopping is not.
Owl Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Instinct = unlearned behaviour that acts upon stimuli. differs from: instinct is action without logical thought. ...how? You said that I described something other than instinct, but I don't see the difference in our definitions. Unlearned behavior excludes acting with 'logical thought'.
Owl Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Sexual attraction is instinctual, car shopping is not. Wanting something is instinctual. The process you take to GET something (or choosing not to pursue getting it)can either be instinctual, or logical. It applies whether its a potential mate or a new set of golf clubs.
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Smashing a jar of tomato paste against the ground to open it is action without rational thought, is that instinctual action? no. there is no part of our makeup that inherits in us the idea that smashing a can of tamato paste on the ground will open it, it is learned behaviour. Please learn about instinct, with your left brain. LOL
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Wanting something is instinctual. The process you take to GET something (or choosing not to pursue getting it)can either be instinctual, or logical. It applies whether its a potential mate or a new set of golf clubs. It depends on what you want, wanting food is instinctual wanting a new car that fits the criteria you choose for it to make an excellent purchase vs financial commitment, is not an instinctual need it is a learned want. Very different thing.
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Yes it is, because that's how a monkey would probably try to do it. Monkeys don't eat tomato paste so unless a Jane Goodall type sits with it and teaches it work/logic vs reward, that monkey INSTINCTUALLY has 0 interest in smashing a jar of tomato.
Owl Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Smashing a jar of tomato paste against the ground to open it is action without rational thought, is that instinctual action? no. Wrong. I wouldn't have any reason to smash the jar to the ground unless I knew it contained food that I wanted. Ergo...rational thought required to want to smash it to the ground in the first place.
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Bottom line is both men and women know instinctually what they need in this world to survive, if you get caught up in the wants and needs of what the left brain tells you you should get from a relationship or marriage you will only end up in constant confilct with yourself and your partner and untlimately create your own dissapointment. ie. you might just chase away something good.
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Wrong. I wouldn't have any reason to smash the jar to the ground unless I knew it contained food that I wanted. Ergo...rational thought required to want to smash it to the ground in the first place. well then what is it first you say this: instinct is action without logical thought. now you say this: Wrong. Ergo...rational thought required to want to smash it to the ground in the first place. I think you really need to look up what instinct is you obviously are not getting it.
Owl Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 It depends on what you want, wanting food is instinctual wanting a new car that fits the criteria you choose for it to make an excellent purchase vs financial commitment, is not an instinctual need it is a learned want. Very different thing. Here's where we're getting confused. From my perspective...stealing/taking the new car would be instinctive. I saw it (stimuli) so I took it (action) without thinking/caring about consequences (logical thought). It doesn't matter WHY you want something that makes it instinctive or not. Its acting upon that desire for something (anything) without thought about how it impacts myself later or others in general that makes something instinctual. Considering the implications is logical.
Owl Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 I think you're not getting the points that we're trying to make as well. I don't care if you call it instinctual or floppy bunny ears...acting upon desire without conscious, logical thought is undesireable for both self, and species.
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 I think you're not getting the points that we're trying to make as well. I don't care if you call it instinctual or floppy bunny ears...acting upon desire without conscious, logical thought is undesireable for both self, and species. typical, I don't get it so lash out in gobbledygook. seriously look up what instinct is and then we can proceed.
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Here's where we're getting confused. From my perspective...stealing/taking the new car would be instinctive. I saw it (stimuli) so I took it (action) without thinking/caring about consequences (logical thought). It doesn't matter WHY you want something that makes it instinctive or not. Its acting upon that desire for something (anything) without thought about how it impacts myself later or others in general that makes something instinctual. Considering the implications is logical. the desire to steal a car is in no means whatsoever instinctual, it is rationalized desire. And yes it does matter why you want something if you learn to listen to your wants vs your instincts you can actually find peace.
Owl Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 typical, I don't get it so lash out in gobbledygook. seriously look up what instinct is and then we can proceed. Typical how? I've explained my thoughts in pretty good detail. I don't understand your confusion. What about my posts do you not understand? I'll be glad to explain so we can discuss this on an even keel. You claim that "you're obviously not getting it", and then claim I'm lashing out when I'm indicating that you're not getting my viewpoint as well? How am I lashing out? I'm attempting a discussion on behavior, and whether action without applying logical thought is desireable...which appeared to have been what led us down this path in the first place.
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 My right brain or instinct tells me it is time to cut this short, my left brain says get to the bottom of this discussion and carry on. I think instinct wins in this case. nite nite
sarme Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 (edited) It doesn't matter WHY you want something that makes it instinctive or not. Its acting upon that desire for something (anything) without thought about how it impacts myself later or others in general that makes something instinctual. Considering the implications is logical. I missed this, Yes I understand what you are saying but logic doesn't always serve a person right. Logic tells a grown person that wants out of a marriage that if he/she leaves the marriage and starts over there will be infinite complications to restarting a life as a single person that road will be complicated and the stability and security will be on shaky grounds , instict tells a man/woman that no matter what staying in that situation just doesn't feel right and no matter how much they try to live out the choice they made the insntinct will drive them to fail because they are trying to rationalize their instinctual process. Which will he chose? A lot choose logic and spend years on here complaining about how they can't seem to move forward. I guess we did the full circle actions speak louder than words. Edited April 3, 2008 by sarme
Cobra_X30 Posted April 3, 2008 Posted April 3, 2008 Sexual attraction is instinctual, car shopping is not. No, sexual attraction is partly instinctual. You and everyone else needs to understand that WE control attraction. If it was all instincts then media images would have no affect on your taste in men. Yet it does. I think you've hit on one of my biggest pet peeve topics. I'm really tired of hearing people whine and snivel that they are only attracted to users and abusers. Lazy, stupid people are the ones who refuse to take control of their own emotions and behaviors.
GreenEyedLady Posted April 4, 2008 Posted April 4, 2008 No, sexual attraction is partly instinctual. You and everyone else needs to understand that WE control attraction. If it was all instincts then media images would have no affect on your taste in men. Yet it does. I think you've hit on one of my biggest pet peeve topics. I'm really tired of hearing people whine and snivel that they are only attracted to users and abusers. Lazy, stupid people are the ones who refuse to take control of their own emotions and behaviors. I think attraction is mostly instinctual; however someone's taste can change... I think in the case of someone being attracted to users and abusers, those type of people fill some need in their partner...Maybe it's the nurturing or "rescuing" or makes them feel important...But it doesn't mean they'll only be attracted to those types of people just that it's filling a need...Once they identify that need, they can replace the behavior with a different one: here being attracted to a good man...But that's something they have to find in themself... The media has no bearing on what I find is attractive; it's a mixture of things...
Trialbyfire Posted April 4, 2008 Posted April 4, 2008 No, sexual attraction is partly instinctual. You and everyone else needs to understand that WE control attraction. If it was all instincts then media images would have no affect on your taste in men. Yet it does. I think you've hit on one of my biggest pet peeve topics. I'm really tired of hearing people whine and snivel that they are only attracted to users and abusers. Lazy, stupid people are the ones who refuse to take control of their own emotions and behaviors. I couldn't agree with you more. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!! If the media is going to hype infidelity, it's also up to the individuals to say no, you're full of it. Same goes for blaming mass media, for girls being hopped up on diet pills, etc. Grrrrr....
twice_shy Posted April 4, 2008 Posted April 4, 2008 I'm sorry but that is completely unrealistic, people can have "eyes" for others but that doesn't mean they love or crave or desire their partners any less it just means they are normal human beings. Having eyes for "others" implies to me that they want to be with that person. I think there is a difference between "having eyes" for someone and appreciated the looks of others. I find it really strange when people make comments like that, "why can't my guy only look at me" or "why does he have to admire pretty scantly clad women on the big screen" "or why does she have to comment about X actor being good looking" I understand what you are saying with all of that, except for the commenting part. If I see someone and think to myself, "she is pretty", I keep it to myself. What purpose or good comes out of telling my significant other how attractive someone else is? If I went gaga in front of my SO over some other woman, I deserve to sleep on the couch that night. because beauty is form, sexuality is awaken by our senses and part of that comes through the sense of sight. So why would we expect our mates to not have any form of sexual awakening outside of the parameters of what they see when they look at us? It is ludicris... I can appreciate another woman's looks, but when its all said and done, they don't compare to my mate.
Recommended Posts