Hi,

The last definition seems to be the best , in my opinion. Actually the definition could be simpler: An instinct is a combination of traits that dictate the way species of various kinds react to something. The low level species react by instinct, while high level species use their ability to think, not just react.

Dear Antonina,

We can say that both ways of thinking are correct.

As I see it, instiction is a non-learned way of reacting to a given stimulus of any type. In contrast to one's intelligence, instinct, is a pre-wired disposition to act according to fixed behavioral patterns. Ecologist Tinbergen, however, thinks that this traditional conception of instint is not what we judged it to be, because these fixed behavioral patterns are temselves subject to small changes and hence to certain learning experiences.

KInd regards,

Orlando

Both definitions seem adequate, but I would consider innate emotional, or other not clearly responses like preferences. These definitions focus a little more on automatic motor responses (reflexes) than I would like.

Generally, I think we use the term instinct to state that a species "comes with" some innate behavior, but we have not specified any distinct mechanism (or a mechanism is not described in the context of the current discussion). As we learn more about behavior, our understanding of the cause of an instinct are often revised.

For example, the parent following behavior of young precocial birds, such as geese and chickens, was once considered a simple instinct. The birds were thought to instinctively know what their parents looked like, and innately followed them. Konrad Lorenz popularized the concept of imprinting, which suggest that the behavior is partially learned. Instead of innately knowing the parent, the young birds quickly bond to, or imprint on, appropriate objects they are exposed to in early life. The birds follow this object, even if it is not the parent species, a human, or even a cardboard box. The following behavior was said to be instinctive, but the stimulus was learned. Later work by Peterson showed that the following behavior was not actually instinct. To paraphrase Skinner, the instinct is simply that the baby animals desire proximity to the imprinted stimulus. Following is a behavior that naturally emerges from that, but other behaviors can be trained. At each step, we identify new causal mechanisms and are revising our understanding of what we mean by instinct. I think this is likely true for many other instinctive tendencies.

I also agree with Orlando, and would also recommend considering Tinbergen's four questions as four difference mechanisms or causes of instinctive or innate behavior.

Hi, Antonina.

I agree with Avishag Gordon . Simpler definitions are better. However, I think that the definition provided by her might be confounded with the definition of 'reflex'. A solution would be to add the notion that an instinct is a *relatively complex sequence* of actions emitted by an organism according to a given situation, while a reflex is conceived of as a *relatively simple response or cluster of simultaneous responses* evoked by a particular stimulus. Both are considered to be innate behaviors, but see the accurate annotation by Christopher A Varnon .

I hope this helps.

Hi, Avishag! Avishag Gordon

@@Thanks for the answer! But I have a question: what species do you consider as low-level species? And by what criteria they are defined as a species of low level? Antonina.

Orlando M Lourenço

Hi, Orlando!

Thanks for the answer! My question was related to personal observations of pets. What do you think, what stimulus does the chicken react to if, having no experience, it sits down to hatch eggs? Can this be explained by a physiological concept? What is the maternal instinct? Antonina.

Christopher A Varnon

Hello, Christopher!

Thank you for such a detailed answer! It was very helpful. Do you know anything about the stimuli, which are further expressed as maternal instinct in birds and other animals? Antonina.

Ellen Peters

Hi, Ellen!

First of all, thanks for the reply. But I have a new question in connection with your definition. It is believed that instinctive reactions are innate. How is that which is “realized by the body” inherited? What is the mechanism of this?

Rodrigo Sosa

Hi, Rodrigo!

Thanks for clarifying! I have the impression that instinct can be both simple and complex phenomenon. It all depends on what we are considering. For example, in publications we can meet both the "instinct of reproduction" and the "maternal instinct", which is part of the first. Antonina.

Dear Antonina Trukhina

I have described the "higher" innate guidances which occur during the ontogeny of the human (ages 2 - 18+ yr. old). It is basically a neo-Piagetian theory that COMPLETES Piaget's theory in the most major ways needed (well recognized as big holes in his theory by Piaget himself: an account for Equilibration Type 2 (the balance between stages -- to switch or not to switch, to put it crudely), which he accounted for ONLY by saying : the stage shifts occur "with maturation". He knew this 'explanation' to be grossly inadequate (in good part explaining why his last book was on equilibration).

What that-which-yields-stage-switches may be (and likely are) and what they are likely like in their nature (because of what may be effective and very integrated and integrable, YET effective for the development of higher concepts and higher thinking) is periodic timely "perceptual shifts", leading soon to perceptual/attentional shifts (and to the development of our "higher" concepts, etc). As simple as this, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE WORKINGS OF OUR MEMORIES AND THEN IN THE CONTEXT OF WORKING MEMORY (in the appropriate environmental circumstances/aspects), suffices and is FAR more helpful than limiting -- it INCREASES LEARNING, rather than significantly limiting it in any way (one of several stereotypes broken by the perspective -- not to mention the complete elimination of the nature/nurture problem).

There are no known shortcuts in how to come to understand this because, though well-justified and well-based (empirical, AND with directly empirically testable hypotheses about directly observable overt phenomenon/behavior), it involves huge changes in usual/typical ways of thinking (a full-fledged, true paradigm shift). Here are the readings necessary to come to know this perspective and approach (more truly empirical than any system/theory presently existing):

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

AND

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

Hi Antonina,

I don't have a simple answer for your follow-up question, but if you want to look more into it here are some things to get you started. Konrad Lorenz's was the first to popularize the concept of imprinted, though there was some work before him. I really like Eckard Hess's later expansions of imprinting. There was quite a lot of research on this topic until the late 80s. You will see the term filial imprinting used to refer to a hatchling bird imprinting on a parent (or other stimulus), and you will see the term sexual imprinting used to discuss how early life experiences shape later social and sexual preferences in birds. Most of the work is with precocial birds (chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese and other birds that are mobile on hatching), but imprinting also occurs, but is expressed differently, in altricial birds that require significant parental care (song birds, parrots, pigeons, etc). I think the same functional processes occur in mammals, but here you will see the word attachment used. I have not seen much work outside of birds and mammals, but I think much of the imprinting/attachment work has comparative value for any species with parental care.

Best

Each offers a different perspective, which varies as a function of whether one is a structuralist or a functionalist. I would defer to Tinbergen's stickleback fish mating ritual. But check out the mating ritual of a bird of paradise.

If you are a structuralist, instinct is the cause of the behavior, rather than the description of a set of species specific respondents elicited by very specific sensory stimuli devoid of prior exposure to such stimuli - as a functionalist would pose. These responses likely emerged epigenetically,. Check out BF Skinner's paper Selection by Consequences published in SCIENCE in 1981 or 82.

Hi, Antonina Trukhina

Sorry for my late reply. You put forward that an instinct could be both simple and complex, and bring as examples the "maternal instinct" and the "instinct of reproduction", respectively. I think that those examples represent a specificity-generality continuum, rather than a simple-complex continuum. The term "instinct of reproduction" may imply territoriality, courtship, copulating, nest building, maternal care, etc. Indeed, "instinct of reproduction" might be considered an ill-posed term in the first place, taken into account that it is too vague and does not specifies which stimulus triggers which responses as required by most of the definitions given by our colleages. "Instinct of reproduction" can refer to any of the examples above, which involve pretty different behavioral systems (stimuli and responses). So I would prefer to stick with the terms in which an identifiable (at some degree) specific stimulus source and response output can be found to speak of "instinct." Anyways, I could be wrong.

Regards.

Dear Antonina Trukhina

The second one. Also, that which is instinctual may or may not appear in the entire lifetime of a member of a species. Also, innate action patterns (species-typical behavior patterns, species-specific behavior patterns) MAY EMERGE during ONTOGENY (during child to adult development). [ Look up the terms I just mentioned; find some good ethology book (e.g. Ethology, The Biology of Behavior by I. Eibl-Ebesfeldt); then read MY WORK -- much of it here on RG (100s of pages, all relevant to your interest, with respect to the human). ]

The first definition you cite, strangely uses the word "aspirations" -- this would have to be understood in the context of development and experience (and innate action patterns would certainly be only part of the "story"). Also in the sentence, " ... complex hereditary behavioral acts characteristic of individuals of a given species ... ", the word hereditary is unnecessary, given the rest of the sentence -- it is likely there just to be "loaded" with false implications. (They could have just said behavioral acts characteristic of individuals of a given species.) AND (also basically contrary to definition #1): That which is innate, may not be complex (e.g. sneezing)(AND there are other specific and more interesting examples HERE, including basic emotions). Some of the most significant instinctual behavior patterns (ALWAYS GOOD TO INCLUDE THE WORD "PATTERNS") may kind of start VERY simple [(when not viewed in the total CONTEXT (prominently including consideration and knowledge of the Memories (formal specific capacities, with species-typical content (some which may be considered qualitative))]; AND, "simple beginning behavior [PATTERNS]" MAY _TYPICALLY_ or always result [ in a species ] in very complex behavior patterns, even when not starting with a ANY COMPLEX pre-formed pattern ALL OF ITS OWN . NOR are innate action patterns just characteristic of necessarily just one species (e.g. all apes are very similar in terms of innate action patterns).

So: I see "complex automatic behavior" as a quite inaccurate characterization (both the word "complex" and "automatic", and especially when 'defined' with no further contexts indicated; also "behavior" without the word "PATTERNS" following it is SUSPECT (especially in the context of the definition of instinct, aka innate action PATTERN)). As indicated in several ways/places, above, they are not automatic (the fact that some may not even show themselves is telling, here; but I noted other factors also showing this first definition as simple-minded); while what is due in PART to innate guidance (instinctive behavior patterns) may typically or always DEVELOP into something complex, they (at least in a sense) do not necessarily start that way (i.e. complex: not in the way this definition implies (implied, at least through/by their serious fundamental omissions)) and A DEVELOPMENT into something complex may be more than typical -- all one needs is some decent appreciation for ontogeny. SO:

The first definition reflects both ignorance and stupidity and plays "into the hands" of those with historical (i.e. long running) BIASES which have crippled and continue to cripple behavioral science. The nature/nurture "junk" and false dichotomy, IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM (both for science, and culturally). I won't "soft pedal" this.

My apologies for a whole hour of editing my last Answer; sometimes (not infrequently) I get additional motivation and inspiration to say more only AFTER I POST an Answer.