What's new
  • Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

LEARNED BEHAVIOUR?

T

Teddybrae

There's a discussion at the moment in Deep Stoner Thoughts about how much our relational behaviour is learned and whether relational behaviour is innate.

After observing human relational behaviour for a while I say our behaviour is learned and the following way is the way we learned it!


“He pointed out that everyone who comes into contact with a child is a teacher who incessantly describes the world to him, until the moment when the child is capable of perceiving the world as it is described. According to Don Juan, we have no memory of that portentous moment, simply because none of us could possibly have had any point of reference to compare it to anything else. From that moment on, however, the child is a member. He knows the description of the world; and his membership becomes full-fledged, I suppose, when he is capable of making all the proper perceptual interpretations which, by conforming to that description, validate it.

 For Don Juan, then, the reality of our day-to-day life consists of an endless flow of perceptual interpretations which we, the individuals who share a specific membership have learned to make in common.

 The idea that the perceptual interpretations that make up the world have a flow is congruous with the fact that they run uninterruptedly and are rarely, if ever, open to question. In fact the reality of the world we know is so taken for granted that the basic premise of sorcery, that our reality is merely one of many descriptions, could hardly be taken as a serious proposition.” (pp 8-9)
Excerpts from: Journey to Ixtlan, C. Castaneda, Penguin, 1974

I 'm wondering: what other ideas might there be?
 
mean mr.mustard

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
Innate or not, we certainly can learn new behavior.

Where are we going with this?

Maybe I should get high enough to go read the Deep Stoner Thoughts thread...
 
Shmavis

Shmavis

Being-in-the-world
Do you, as Locke did, claim we come into this world as a tabula rasa?

What of linguistic employment? (See Chomsky’s rebuttal of Skinner’s claims of language being behavioral.)

The fleebs glarfed meecingly on bootels.

I have made a grammatically correct construction with made-up (nonsensical) words. A native English speaker recognizes it as grammatical, yet the majority of whom would not be able to explain why - unless they’ve been taught phrase structure rules and or understand the rules governing the parts of speech.

Take the same set of words and mix them up.

*meecingly the glarfed on bootels fleebs.

Clearly not only nonsensical, but ungrammatical as well. My avatar is Chomsky’s classic example of this. It’s often used to show the distinction between syntax (grammar) and semantics (meaning). But was intended more to illustrate the unexplainable knowledge a native speaker possesses. A knowledge that wasn’t explicitly taught; therefore, not behavioral, rather innate, to a certain degree.

But seriously, a Nature vs. Nurture thread on a stoner forum? :biglaugh: This debate is older than the whole lot of us combined!
 
mean mr.mustard

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
If I were a fleeb and glarfing on bootels, I would certainly like to think that I would not be doing so meecingly.

Preposterous!
 
Elmer Bud

Elmer Bud

Genotype Sex Worker AKA strain whore
Veteran
G `day TB

Carlos Casteneda and Don Juan are not good references .
Don Juan probably didn`t exist . Castenada had his books moved from non fiction / anthropology to fiction by his publishers ... And was discredited by his University .

I enjoyed getting really high and reading his books . Found out later they were a hoax .

So yes prolly learned and instinctive lol .

Thanks for sharin

EB .
 
C

CosmicGiggle

Well-known member
Moderator
Veteran
I knew they were a hoax 'cause I had already dropped acid and knew that 'Don Juan' would have never taken on an apprentice as spiritually 'dumb' as Carlos!;)
 
C

CosmicGiggle

Well-known member
Moderator
Veteran
.... but as for learned behavior, as animals, we're all subject to imprinting, so those learned behaviors prolly can't be changed.

Also, behavior can be learned by seeing someone elses behavior and modeling it or absorbing attitudes from others and acting on them.:tiphat:
 
Gry

Gry

Well-known member
Someone fucked me royally back in 74. Once I became disentangled, a letter was sent me.
I went to the greyhound station and picked up a duffel bag chock full of fresh cut buttons.
Took two days to string them up in the garage.
 
Brother Nature

Brother Nature

Well-known member
I think there is innate abilities in humans that aren't displayed in other species that lead to our ability to learn and relearn our relational behaviors, but that our behaviours themselves are not innate or intrinsic. I think it specifically relates to humans ability to use mimicry in ways other species don't. There was a study a couple years back relating to this comparing the ability of human children to mimic novel actions in comparison to bonobos. I've linked to it below, it's a bit of a read but still enjoyable if you are into this conversation. The original comment in Deep stoner thoughts, I think, was more related to weather not our morals and ethics are intrinsic to us or are learned. But to broach that subject I think we've got to look at how humans learn their behaviors first. Great thread Teddy. I liked Castaneda as a teen too, but was always under the impression his writings were more philosophical fiction. I do like the way he thinks though.



Abstract

Imitation is a key mechanism of human culture and underlies many of the intricacies of human social life, including rituals and social norms. Compared to other animals, humans appear to be special in their readiness to copy novel actions as well as those that are visibly causally irrelevant. This study directly compared the imitative behavior of human children to that of bonobos, our understudied great ape relatives. During an action‐copying task involving visibly causally irrelevant actions, only 3‐ to 5‐year‐old children (N = 77) readily copied, whereas no bonobo from a large sample did (N = 46). These results highlight the distinctive nature of the human cultural capacity and contribute important insights into the development and evolution of human cultural behaviors.
Click to expand...



https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cdev.12857
 
T

Teddybrae

This debate is old for you if you think so. Haven't you found though, that Reasoning Things Away leads to the sense that all is old? Or am I confusing this sensibility with the feeling of being a know all?

Neither is it intended to be Nature/Nurture. I 'm rather focused on Behaviour ... and in regard to Behaviour we certainly seem to follow one another along.

I posit the following hierarchy courtesy Mazlow. I know he's so outdated and yawn yawn should I be bothered? But it seems correct to me that the behaviour of we Humans is motivated by Reptillian and Mammallian traits as well as Human ones.

To support this the Reader will have noticed, perhaps on television, that most advertising involves the Reptillian needs of Food, Shelter and Sex. So the advertising world sees that humans easily respond like Reptiles.

Mammallian traits centre upon having family and the need to belong. Mammals form herds, right? Mammals defend their herd and the herd's individual members. For example there is evidence that dog mammals will save other mammals without being told or trained to do so. So being nice to others, even rescuing others, is likely an innate behaviour ... for Mammals.

Humans have choice. Humans can over-ride their evolutionary behaviours and choose whether to help or hinder.

So I think for Humans things are not so black and white; that Ethical behaviour may be innate and it also may be the result of choices.

(I am not a Linguist but the little I know of Skinner's thinking seems simplistic. I have read a little of Locke but cannot recall his ideas. Sounds like Tabula Rasa might mean a priori knowledge.)

HMMM. just got a phone call warning of wildfire in our area! must go ...


Shmavis said:
Do you, as Locke did, claim we come into this world as a tabula rasa?

What of linguistic employment? (See Chomsky’s rebuttal of Skinner’s claims of language being behavioral.)

The fleebs glarfed meecingly on bootels.

I have made a grammatically correct construction with made-up (nonsensical) words. A native English speaker recognizes it as grammatical, yet the majority of whom would not be able to explain why - unless they’ve been taught phrase structure rules and or understand the rules governing the parts of speech.

Take the same set of words and mix them up.

*meecingly the glarfed on bootels fleebs.

Clearly not only nonsensical, but ungrammatical as well. My avatar is Chomsky’s classic example of this. It’s often used to show the distinction between syntax (grammar) and semantics (meaning). But was intended more to illustrate the unexplainable knowledge a native speaker possesses. A knowledge that wasn’t explicitly taught; therefore, not behavioral, rather innate, to a certain degree.

But seriously, a Nature vs. Nurture thread on a stoner forum? :biglaugh: This debate is older than the whole lot of us combined!
Click to expand...
 
Shmavis

Shmavis

Being-in-the-world
Teddybrae said:
This debate is old for you if you think so. Haven't you found though, that Reasoning Things Away leads to the sense that all is old? Or am I confusing this sensibility with the feeling of being a know all?

Neither is it intended to be Nature/Nurture. I 'm rather focused on Behaviour ... and in regard to Behaviour we certainly seem to follow one another along.

I posit the following hierarchy courtesy Mazlow. I know he's so outdated and yawn yawn should I be bothered? But it seems correct to me that the behaviour of we Humans is motivated by Reptillian and Mammallian traits as well as Human ones.

To support this the Reader will have noticed, perhaps on television, that most advertising involves the Reptillian needs of Food, Shelter and Sex. So the advertising world sees that humans easily respond like Reptiles.

Mammallian traits centre upon having family and the need to belong. Mammals form herds, right? Mammals defend their herd and the herd's individual members. For example there is evidence that dog mammals will save other mammals without being told or trained to do so. So being nice to others, even rescuing others, is likely an innate behaviour ... for Mammals.

Humans have choice. Humans can over-ride their evolutionary behaviours and choose whether to help or hinder.

So I think for Humans things are not so black and white; that Ethical behaviour may be innate and it also may be the result of choices.

(I am not a Linguist but the little I know of Skinner's thinking seems simplistic. I have read a little of Locke but cannot recall his ideas. Sounds like Tabula Rasa might mean a priori knowledge.)

HMMM. just got a phone call warning of wildfire in our area! must go ...
Click to expand...


No, friend. Tabula Rasa, from the Latin, translates loosely to “blank slate”, pert near the opposite of ‘a priori’, even though that ability is, arguably but not necessarily, an innate function of the human condition. In other words, a priori is not synonymous with innate, i.e., nature.

Apologies if what I posted came off as offensive. That wasn’t my intent. But you spoke of behavior as learned. (Citing a fictional work as evidence, I wish to add.) I only meant to point out that behavioral aspects of our existence are not so clearly defined as simply learned. The distinction drawn, is clearly one of Nature vs. Nurture - what other options are there? Outside a convergence of the two?

It was mentioned by Brother Nature, and now by you, that the original discussion focused around ethics. Ethical behavior. I gather now that I don’t have full context - since I didn’t read the other discussion - and shouldn’t have opened my mouth since I was basing my reply off your opening post, which spoke of relational behaviorism. My confusion. And my apologies.

So I take it you’re a cultural relativist. :tiphat:
 
yesum

yesum

Well-known member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Some of both learned and innate?

Castaneda presented fiction as fact and did not talk of how he was using concepts from others in his books. I later saw Huxley and some other mystic types had written about most of his stuff years before.

He just read up on on that and history of shamans and such, put out fiction as fact. Only problem was he was a liar. Had a harem of 'witches' or students, at the end who lived with him and he taught them about his ideas and had sex with all of them I assume. One of them died in the desert looking for something he had promised to be there after he died. Not too magical after all. Another guru who uses people for his own gain.

Good books though talented writer. There are valid ideas in his books.
 
Gry

Gry

Well-known member
yesum said:
Some of both learned and innate?

Castaneda presented fiction as fact and did not talk of how he was using concepts from others in his books. I later saw Huxley and some other mystic types had written about most of his stuff years before.

He just read up on on that and history of shamans and such, put out fiction as fact. Only problem was he was a liar. Had a harem of 'witches' or students, at the end who lived with him and he taught them about his ideas and had sex with all of them I assume. One of them died in the desert looking for something he had promised to be there after he died. Not too magical after all. Another guru who uses people for his own gain.

Good books though talented writer. There are valid ideas in his books.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective. I had generally viewed it as an attempt to add his own brand of 'Tolkien-esk' spin on already rich local lore and legend.
Were I to paint an author with foul intent from the inception, it would be
"L Ron Hubbard" that I would save my large brush for.
What I find most interesting about that period of time is a relationship between the group who had gone down to Mexico seeking information of 'magic mushrooms', and what was later known as the MK project.
The relationship with the Huxley crew and uncle sam is also just plain littered with interesting ties.
 
C

CosmicGiggle

Well-known member
Moderator
Veteran
Gry said:
Interesting perspective. I had generally viewed it as an attempt to add his own brand of 'Tolkien-esk' spin on already rich local lore and legend.
Were I to paint an author with foul intent from the inception, it would be....
Click to expand...

Casteneda's 'foul attempt' was presenting fiction as scientific fact for the purpose of earning his Master's degree, a major fraud though not unheard of in the academic world, lots of stuff from back then seems to be invented BS that no one has ever been able to verify or replicate.:tiphat:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top