Yawning is a good example for humans.

Dr Bowers

Thanks for your answer.

I do not get your idea of considering this sequence as a fixed action pattern. we can stop this sequence once its start.

Dear Wafa El Matoni

Humans, like other higher mammals and like animals in general, have fixed action patterns OR at least specie-specific action patterns or species-typical action patterns. All this is biologically LIKELY, philosophers NOT WITHSTANDING.

The notion that the "more advanced the organism, the less innate guidance" is simply an unproven assertion (AND BIOLOGICALLY UNLIKELY). Nothing like that is proven and it is more likely the opposite is true; innate guidance factors are bound to be true in at least in some major ways, like that which guides the inception of the qualitatively different stages of cognitive development, in ontogeny. The reason the innate patterning in our major behavior patterns have not been discovered is because we have not looked for them well; plus, to be fair, they are hard to look for. (Still, In fact, the situation IN PSYCHOLOGY (generally) is so pathetic that many do not even imagine or hypothesize these, much less speak IN TERMS OF BEHAVIOR __PATTERNS__ -- which is much akin to denying we are biological !!) Part of the problem is the "West" and Western philosophers: there is a LOT of dualism (related to things, not discovered, but "defined"); then there is the groundless, unwise desire to experiment as soon as possible; and models are made up in theorists' minds when, in fact, if one was to be like a scientist (that is, a REAL EMPIRICIST) then models (and ALL noteworthy hypothetico-deductive thinking) would ONLY FOLLOW CLEAR RELIABLE, AGREED-UPON, direct observations * of key behavior [patterns]. THEN some models may be temporarily useful.

It is really quite preposterous that given the setting and time and space limitations of the lab that people think they can MAKE UP experiments there _AND_ "test" them there, "in the lab". This hasn't worked for 100 years and will not work for another 100, if you keep it up. (I am not saying there will NEVER be important experiments and even ones that can be done in "the lab", though -- so don't get me wrong.)

I am going to help you A LOT on all this, if you will listen. My major papers describe the nature of innately guided "perceptual shifts" that occur at the inception of each of the qualitatively different cognitive behavior patterns (this innate guidance is literally "in" (not separate from) new behavior patterning, no nature/nurture dualism, which we have known has been wrong (e.g. unworkable) for over 40 years).

In addition to the main treatise (still important -- and must be read), I MUCH more recently explicated and justified my view and approach in a large number of essays in the last 2 years, AND THESE ESSAYS INCLUDE specific hypotheses that are completely verifiable/testable and in the most empirical terms possible (hypothesizing: the ability to directly observe key overt, though subtle, behavior patterns at the inception of each new (more "abstract") way of thinking -- the subtle overt behavior patterns are "perceptual shifts" and will require OBSERVATION and the new eye-tracking technology, etc. ).

ANYWAY, HERE IS THE WAY TO NEW KNOWLEDGE and to real knowledge, CORRECTLY FOUND, AND RIGHTFULLY to be EXPANDED ON, as appropriate. (If you do not look into this, you really logically have abdicated your 'right' to ask questions based on alternative false beliefs (pesudo-assumptions).) IT SEEMS, AGAIN, YOU WANT TO KNOW (so let me try to direct you again for the countless time):

Article A Human Ethogram: Its Scientific Acceptability and Importanc...

then definitely read :

Book "Essentially, all Recent Essays on Ethogram Theory" (2015-2019)

You might want to start all this reading and new learning with

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Human-Ethology-and-Development-Ethogram-Theory

* FOOTNOTE: Check the other established, real sciences to see that this is true.

Dear Jesness

Thank you for your comprehensive answer and willingness to share your research and ideas.

In addition to yawning, like most mammals, human babies have a suckling response when presented with a nipple or even a finger.

There might be no examples that strictly satisfy all the criteria, depending on which criteria are stressed. Yawning, for instance, is generally considered a reflex, and so contrasts with FAPs. Suckling has some characteristics of FAPs, but is more like a reflex, at least in the beginning. There are sexual behaviours (in humans and other animals) that come closer, but even these don’t strictly abide all the criteria.

Yes, i seen many people behave in fix pattern based on situation they faced

Hello all; Like yawning, sneezing is an entirely "unconsious" behavior. It is also stereotypic and so seems to fit your definition. Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

Brad Jeness have your Human Ethology and Development (Ethogram Theory) : A Full-Fledged Paradigm for PSYCHOLOGY been peer reviewed ?

It looks interesting although very lengthy.

Your credentials were rather well concealed for a reputable academic paper.!

Could human anger reaction, and the sequence of behaviors manifested by human when loosing temper, be considered as fixed action pattern?