From: Party of Citizens (citizens@vcn.bc.ca)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 16:30:31 MDT
Now if only someone would set up experiments for fruit flies to learn T
mazes and then map the genes for maze learning.
POC
<http://www.geocities.com/machine_psychology?
On Sun, 15 Jun 2003, nkotn2000 wrote:
> Dear all, dear piok,
>
> Tnanks for your Re, piok
>
> Of course, we need not absolutely use the word "instinct". Psychology
> of today uses a large number of synonyms for "instinct" (because of
> speciesism, I believe). However it's a bit unscientific to use so
> many words. Moreover it's also unscientific to use different sets of
> words when we explain human and non-human behavior. Many species have
> much larger brains than humans have, and many species have relatively
> (to
> body size)larger brains than our species have. ...
>
> Even though we clock up more unique experiences as we age, evidence
> amassed over the past
> seventy-five years suggests that the "genetic contribution" to mental
> achievement and emotional characteristics increases with age!!!
> Example: The
> (broad) heritability coefficient of IQ is about 0.4 (= 40 %) when
> measured in
> children, about 0.6 (= 60%) in adolescents, and about 0.8 (= 80%) in
> later
> maturity. More learning causes more genetic determinism!?
>
> Even reflexes can learn, so, of course, all instincts are learning
> instincts
> (= instincts can learn). Moreover, instincts are situational. Can we
> quantify
> how well a particular instinct can learn? Yes. This problem was
> solved by
> Mitch Bronston. His solution is to use the (broad) heritability
> coefficient,
> but let the "environmental" part of the coefficient (= of the
> variance)
> quantify how well an instinct can learn. The Bronston heritability
> coefficientdirectly explains the paradoxes above. It tells us that a
> behavioral
> trait's genetically determined specific learning ability/capacity is
> decreasing
> with age. But, fortunately, this coefficient also tells us that the
> other parts
> of the total ability/capacity of a behavioral trait are increasing,
> so that the
> total ability/capacity is pretty constant with age.
>
> Even if environmentalism was only partly correct, the Bronston
> coefficient
> had to decrease with age. Clearly, the increasing Bronston
> coefficient for
> human behavioral traits proves that human behavior is instinctive,
> and is
> not created by chaotic and poverty-stricken environmental factors. But
> remember:
> 1) all instincts are learning instincts, and 2) all instincts are
> situational.
> Obviously, human intelligence(s) and intellect(s) depend on our
> having more
> instincts, not fewer. By the way: The BHC was first published in my
> book: A
> Dictionary of Human Instincts. The theory and application of the BHC
> are also
> published in my book Human Behavior: The New Synthesis. If we do not
> know
> this coefficient then it's absolutely impossible to correctly
> understand human
> and non-human behavior. Example: The personality (= the human
> instincts
> including the intelligence instincts) is genetic, and the personality
> is
> genetically "changing" (but not much) because our instincts are
> learning
> instincts.
>
> But this learning comes from the instincts, not from the environment.
> We behave
> IN an environment not because of an environment. Our instincts are
> adapted to
> survive IN the environment(s).This is how things work.
>
> Best Wishes
> from Nils
> in Tromso, Norway.
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/sk60lB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> cognitivepsychology-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 16:40:13 MDT