Hi Selma and Harry, I am hugely glad, Selma, that you are showing a bit more sense than Harry in allowing for the possibility of instincts within human behaviour -- particularly as Harry, like yourself, has had children and ought to have been able to observe genetic effects from within hours of birth (as I did, having had three children, and no doubt you did, too).
Harry doesn't believe that animals can be rational either. This is also surprising in that (as he mentions below) he has had family pets. Almost every day I see instances where my dog, Lottie, shows evidence of theory-making, rationality and what I call "curiosity beyond the normal needs of survival" (my suggested third assumption to add to Harry's two). (The pretentious name of "Lottie" was given to her by the Dog Rescue Home from which I obtained her, so don't blame me -- or her.) Here's an example from one of yesterday's dogwalks when I was also accompanied by my better-half. Compared with other instances of dog rationality this was a comparitively trivial incident, but here goes. We were returning along a track along the top of the hill behind us. Alongside us was a stone wall beyond which lay the steep back gardens of houses which are invisible unless you peer right over the wall. Lottie was in front of us, sniffing away as usual for the scents of squirrels, foxes and suchlike. My better-half, Jan, being an inquisitive sort, drifted away from me and stood looking over the wall at the back gardens (and also, as per usual, trying to see through the windows of the houses to see what furniture they had!). I sauntered on. Lottie, as is her wont, looked back to me to ensure that I was still there. Then she noticed that Jan had detached herself from me and was looking over the wall. So Lottie immmediately walked back to us, and then over to Jan, and stood there, looking intently at her, ears raised, tail wagging at the slightly faster rate that signifies "M'mm, there might be something interesting here". Lottie was looking at the direction of Jan's gaze, then to the top of the wall, then back to Jan. This went on for quite some time. Well, if Lottie wasn't thinking "I wonder what Jan is looking at?" I should be very surprised. More than likely, she was also theorising as to what Jan was actually observing -- it had to be something interesting -- was it a squirrel, or a cat, or a fox, or what? It was also a glimpse of empathy and assming the consciousness of others. This went on for quite some time until Jan turned away. On almost every dogwalk I see a little something that gives a clue that my dog is thinking and theorising in a way that we would normally describe as exclusively human. (I don't see these sorts of incidents in the house -- where almost everything she does is habitual -- but only on dogwalks where some circumstances are unique each time.) Animal scientists make fun of pet owners as being all too ready to anthropomorphise the behaviour of their animals. I think this is often the case. But pet owners frequently see aspects of animal behaviour which scientists seldom see in their experimental set-ups. Here's another example. Many years ago I had a large garden pond and I'd built a dovecote at its edge. One day a new clutch of fantails took off on their first flight and fluttered down to the path around the pond. One fell in the pond and then, to my surprise, struck out for the other side in panic! It was an ungainly example of swimming (and, in fact, I had to rescue her when she couldn't get out), but her brothers and sisters, obviously thinking this was fun, also jumped in and started swimming! Until a few minutes before, they'd never flown before (an instinctive act, I'll allow!), never mind trying to swim! When I mentioned this to an animal researcher a little later he laughed at me. "Oh, you're imagining things! Animals don't show imitative behaviour!" This was about 30 years ago. Some years later I read several papers about imitative behaviour in animals! There we are. You've written another posting about Maslow which is somewhere in my mailbox. If I find it, I'll reply to it when I've made a second pot of tea. Keith At 09:19 22/03/02 -0500, you wrote: (SS) >I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that I think biology is irrelevant in >human behavior; I do not. > >Partly as a result of raising five children and partly as a result of the >increasing evidence of the importance of genetics in human behavior (twin >studies, e.g., and ongoing biological research in genetics), I am convinced >that biology is an important factor and that we must always allow for that. >As we learn more about it we will be able to know better how much it does or >does not account for. > >As you will see from my previous post, I do not align myself with those who >hold the 'neutral' view of human behavior, that we are born a 'blank slate' >and are completely formed by our environment. I believe we are born with >'tendencies' that are given more or less of a chance to develop, depending >on our environment and how strong or weak those tendencies and >predispositions are. > >Selma > __________________________________________________________ “Writers used to write because they had something to say; now they write in order to discover if they have something to say.” John D. Barrow _________________________________________________ Keith Hudson, Bath, England; e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________
