*bangs her head against the wall*

[conuly]

How do you get through to people?

Okay, let me try. Male parents are fathers. Female parents are mothers. IF you wish to claim that men have no maternal instincts, ever, but women do, please don't use the argument "they couldn't possibly have the same instincts, because men have paternal instincts, and no I can't explain how they're different, there's a whole letter different, you moron!"

That's just confusing.

And when you finally realize that you're being slow, please, the appropriate response is most emphatically NOT "how many kids did you say you had?"

That. Is. Not. Relevant.

Interestingly, this conversation would never have started if the OP hadn't broken a cardinal rule - never say "I don't mean to be prejudiced" or "No offense" or anything even remotely resembling a disclaimer before saying something prejudiced of offensive. If you feel you need to say the former in order to say the latter, don't say it. If you really must say it, please, you're less likely to seem prejudiced or offensive if you just leave the stupid disclaimer out.

Free advice. Take it.

And yes, I know, I'm IN bed, I'm going to sleep now.

Link posted at request of kinda original poster. Do me a favor, tell me when she started using the word "typical", would you?

Comments

[feathered.livejournal.com]

Yes, I did see the toast quote, and I meant to reply and say thanks for posting it, but I got distracted and forgot. Sorry!

I mostly pretty much agree with you on this issue, actually, and I rather thought that's what you'd say. I asked because, like I said, I'd been reading about it and wanted to hear if what you thought coincided with what I'd read in my book.

Personally, I tend to think that what many people call instincts are either purely conditioned or are present, but only in limited forms and as weak urges that can be overridden. Or something. I think the thing about picking up the crying baby has as much to do with the parent being conditioned than anything instinctual. You've read in your books to pick your baby up when it cries. So you do. Baby stops crying. Unpleasant stimulus is removed, behaviour is reinforced, and is therefore more likely to happen again, thus producing silly people to rant and rave about maternal and paternal instincts on livejournal. I like to call it "Skinnerizing" after good old B.F.

Interestingly, I was just reading about the theory of a neurologist called Tierney who thinks that instincts are just behaviours that are most appropriate in a situation -- biologically learned. As effectual behaviours is more likely to keep an organism alive long enough to reproduce, it's more likely to teach its offspring the same thing, making it into what we call instincts over time. I like the theory because it rather fits with the issue of humans having seemingly less instincts than animals who aren't as long-lived. Because animals that live longer experience so many environmental variations and different situations in their lifetimes, they are less likely to develope these generation-spanning behaviours that eventually become what we call "instincts" than, say, mosquitos or something that only live one year...

Of course, I'm not actually sure that there's any research to back it up, but it's good brain candy. I hope I explained it in a semi-coherent manner -- I'm tired and ill and I've been at work for far too long, so I'm not making any sense to myself. I wish I knew Tierney's first name beyond just her initials (A.J.) because then I could give proper references to her and you could look her up to get the ungarbled version. Oh well. Sorry!

[conuly]

*nods*

I *occasionally* will use "instinct" to mean "natural reaction", but only because it makes sense, and because other people also use it that way.

So, if you're in an airplane, and it depressurizes, I feel it's fair to say that your instinct to help your child first is wrong.

But that's not really an instinct. It's a natural (emotional) reaction that says "omigod! my kid could die! I must save him/her!" An instinct would involve some sort of knowledge.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

"As effectual behaviours is more likely to keep an organism alive long enough to reproduce, it's more likely to teach its offspring the same thing, making it into what we call instincts over time."

As a matter of fact, that is not what we call instinct. Instinct is untaught, unlearned, pre-programmed behavior. Sounds like Tierney may have unwittingly fallen smack into Lamarck's fallacy (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/15817?&print=yes).


"I like the theory because it rather fits with the issue of humans having seemingly less instincts than animals who aren't as long-lived. Because animals that live longer experience so many environmental variations and different situations in their lifetimes, they are less likely to develope these generation-spanning behaviours that eventually become what we call "instincts" than, say, mosquitos or something that only live one year... "

Uh, what about turtles, then? Sea turtles, for instance, which can live at least three or four times as long as humans and, being wide-ranging sea dwellers, may encounter a wide variety of environmental conditions? Turtles are hard-wired - not that they have no capacity for learning, but they are primarily creatures of instinct.