|
|
Re: Instinct
J Cook (0002019573@MCIMAIL.COM)
Tue, 30 Jul 1996 07:27:00 EST
-- [ From: Jesse S. Cook III * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --
-------- REPLY, Original message follows --------
Date: Monday, 29-Jul-96 05:01 PM
From: Dwight W. Read \ Internet: (dread@anthro.ucla.edu)
From: Dwight W. Read \ Internet: (dread@anthro.ucla.edu)
To: Multiple recipients of list ANTHRO-L \ Internet:
(anthro-l@ubvm.cc.buffalo.edu)
Subject: Re: Instinct
Cook comments:
>"As someone previously commented, 'instinct' was a term that arose out of a
>nature/nurture dichotomy..."
>
>I doubt it. The *Dictionary of Word Origins* says, in part: "The
>noun...originally meant 'incitement, instigation,' but it eventually moved
>on to 'impulse'...The more specialized 'innate impulse' developed in the mid
>16th century." I doubt that the nature/nurture debate was going on then.
My text was imprecise--I was not referring to the origin of the word, but to a
context where it had considerable usage. Better phrasing would be something
like: "...term more appropriate to a nature/nurture dichotomy."
>"Presumably, instinct...supposedly should refer to behaviors..."
>
>I don't think so. Instict is one thing, behaviors are another; the latter
>might or might not follow from the former.
The phrasing could have been more precise--as Cook notes, obviously instinct <>
behavior. Better wording would have been something like: "instinctive actions
are behaviors..." with this comment used as a segway into the discussion of
behaviors in general.
Cook continues:
>We were not talking about humans. The original instigation of this thread
>was a story about mother bear and her cubs.
Goldilocks and the three bears, perhaps?
D. Read dread@anthro.ucla.edu
-------- REPLY, End of original message --------
I don't think Goldilocks was a mother bear.
Jesse S. Cook III 201-9573@mcimail.com
|