of all the topics in Psychology,the one that appears to be contrived
and artificial is the subject of learning.It appears that learning
has more to do with domestication than fitting with the natural
order of behavior.As a matter of fact,I am amazed at how little
learning takes place in the natural world.
Animals in their natural habitat operate more on the basis of
instinct or fixed action patterns.
One question that could be posed is whether learning and
its so called underlying conditoning processes really exist
in the natural world of animals and the primitive world.
There are some simple forms that are quasi-learning such
as tropisms, habituation,one trial aversions, but these appear to be more
physiological.
Learning as a "domestication" variable can be attested by the
fact that human beings- the quintessential domesticated animal-
depend primarily on learning processes because we have lost
natural instinctual drives throughout our evolutionary history.
Ironically,the proliferation of Survival shows and episodes
do not bank on learning explanations,but on instinctual manipulative
drives.
Another interesting phenomenon are the negative correlations between
learning and sociality and between learning and forms of degeneracy.
As learning and cognitive liberalism rises the more downfall in
human interactive basic social interactions. This may indicate
that putting natural emotive factors on the back burner and
sublimating learning and cognitive enterprises may not be in our best
social survival.
More interesting is the fact that domestication allows for degenerative
types of sexual behaviors and other processes that are of no
significant survival import.
Again just because something is unnatural does not have to mean
that it is of no personal or social significance,but it may
not be in natures best interest.
Comments invited.
Michael Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Florida
"Earthquakes do not kill people,buildings do."
