136 replies to this topic

[Raien]

You're telling me "I like to try new things because they remind me of that time I never actually did that thing" is not circular?

That's not what I said! Right, I'm sick of this. I've asked you to stop misrepresenting my argument at least twice now and you still carry on. I've explained why it cannot be instinctive, yet your argument still assumes that position. There's no point in carrying on this farce anymore.

[Nevermind]

What was I misinterpreting? You said yourself that your argument was that people do something new because they enjoyed the time they did something new last time. So they're reminiscing about the idea of having not done something before.

I was saying that people do something new because they like to break the norm and you called it circular.


Also, you have not argued how it cannot be instinctive; you argued as to why YOU don't THINK it is instinctive. To which I replied why I thought it COULD be instinctive.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 12 May 2009 - 11:42 AM.

[Raien]

What was I misinterpreting? You said yourself that your argument was that people do something new because they enjoyed the time they did something new last time. So they're reminiscing about the idea of having not done something before.

Right, but that's not what you said in your previous post. And the reason why it's not circular is because it establishes linear cause and effect.

I was saying that people do something new because they like to break the norm and you called it circular.

Because you don't provide any fundamental explanation for why people like to break the norm, and if there isn't a behavioural cause, then it must be instinct... Except current science says it isn't instinct. So people can't just "do something new because they like breaking the norm". There has to be a more fundamental behavioural reason for it.

Edited by Raien, 12 May 2009 - 11:47 AM.

[Nevermind]

BUT WHYYYYYY??? WHY does there need to be a fundamental and behavioural reason for it? Why does the scorpion sting the frog? It's his nature. It's just what he does.

Who needs a fundamental explanation to justify why they like to do things differently to the next person? These are preferences. Why do people break the norm? Because they don't want to do what everyone else does. They want to be an individual. How's that for behavioural? It's not necessarily because they felt good every time they did something differently. It's because they had the choice to do something differently and they said why the fuck not instead of why and they took a leap.

I could very well slam my head into into the desk right now if I wanted to. Truth be told, I've never actually done it before. There's a high chance it will hurt, so I won't. But by all the power vested in me I can choose for myself whether or not I willingly bring pain upon myself despite not liking it. Unless they enjoy pain people generally don't inflict it upon themselves. If I slam my head into this desk, right in front of me, I'll be breaking the norm. A small norm, but a norm nonetheless. Because I can. Because it is a choice laid out in front of me and I cannot think of any way you could explain such a decision more fundamentally than "if I damn well please".

[Raien]

BUT WHYYYYYY??? WHY does there need to be a fundamental and behavioural reason for it? Why does the scorpion sting the frog? It's his nature. It's just what he does.

The scorpion stings the frog out of instinct. Science says that curiosity is not an instinct.

I repeat.

Science says that curiosity is not an instinct.

One more time.

Science says that curiosity is not an instinct.

When you don't do something out of instinct, then there must be a behavioural cause. It might not be a behavioural cause that you are aware of; if you did decide to bang your head against the desk, the behavioural cause for that action would surely be subconscious. But it is there all the same.

The day science says "We now know curiosity is instinctual", I'll accept your postion wholeheartedly. Until then, you're just contradicting science.

[Nevermind]

Are you like....a computer? Or something?


What possible subconscious reason could I have for choosing to bang my head against a desk? You know, one that is caused by something more than my choice alone. Not a reaction. A thought-out decision.

Also, I'm sorry but can you just link me to these scientific articles that state I can either make an instinctive action or a subconscious one? Yes. Those articles that apparently strip me of my conscious will to choose something different without having a valid, behavioural-based reason to back it up.

I'll check them up against these psychology books I happen to have.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 12 May 2009 - 12:22 PM.

[Raien]

What possible subconscious reason could I have for choosing to bang my head against a desk? You know, one that is caused by something more than my choice alone. Not a reaction. A thought-out decision.

Well, for several posts, you've been referring to the enjoyment of the feeling of deviating from social conventions. So my uneducated guess would be that at some point in your life, you learned to associate deviance with freedom and openness, and thus banging your head would prove to you that you are a free agent.

Also, I'm sorry but can you just link me to these scientific articles that state I can either make an instinctive action or a subconscious one? Yes. Those articles that apparently strip me of my conscious will to choose something different without having a valid, behavioural-based reason to back it up.

Well, there isn't one exactly (I would have provided a link in that circumstance). I was referring to wikipedia, which says that general scientific opinion on the subject of curiosity is that because it doesn't have a "fixed action pattern" (i.e. it's not the same for everybody), it cannot be called an instinct.

Although curiosity is an innate capability of many living beings, it cannot be subsumed under category of instinct because it lacks the quality of fixed action pattern; it is rather one of innate basic emotions because it can be expressed in many flexible ways while instinct is always expressed in a fixed way.

EDIT: With further exploration (I should Google different keywords more often), it appears that curiosity has been considered an instinct in the past. But modern theorists have begun exploring the numerous effects that culture has on the curiosity drive (which is what I presume is a factor in breaking down the "fixed action pattern"). Combining this information with what wikipedia says, it appears that curiosity is an emotion inherent to humanity, but because it is an emotion, not an instinct, it is significantly affected by behavioural factors. The behavioural factors affect what we are interested in discovering, and thus affect the choices we make.

More detailed link about the development of curiosity theory here.

Edited by Raien, 12 May 2009 - 12:50 PM.

[CID Farwin]

Hm, now here I was thinking that curiosity, doing something new for the heck of it, was supposed to have no "pattern." That the entire point was to express individuality, and do something for no other reason than because you want to. Just ask this guy:


Humans are....illogical.

I dislike this appeal to science, because (like most behavioral sciences) it tends to change rather frequently when compared to other things.

It's a funny thing, though. I agree with both of you guys(Raien and Laz).

EDIT: written before Raien's Edit.

Edited by CID Farwin, 12 May 2009 - 12:57 PM.

[Raien]

The only constant in curiosity is that it is an innate emotion, which in a way, suggests that the truth appears to be a mix of my argument and Lazurukeel's argument. It is both innate and behavioural. So when a child first discovers the world around him, his innate emotion kicks in telling him that he enjoys it. At a more developed level, children and adults know that discovering new things will replicate that emotion, but cultural conventions tell them when not to be curious and/or what things to be curious of.

Edited by Raien, 12 May 2009 - 01:01 PM.

[Ransom]

Combining this information with what wikipedia says, it appears that curiosity is an emotion inherent to humanity, but because it is an emotion, not an instinct, it is significantly affected by behavioural factors.

But isn't a lot of emotion effected by biological factors? You cant say every emotion has a behavioural explanation behind it when sometimes its just attributed to certain chemicals being discharged in our bodies at a certain time.

like, basically what i'm saying is like, what if in RL i'm like, totally on my period?




Or... do natural functions and cycles like this fall under "behavioural" patterns?

[Raien]

But isn't a lot of emotion effected by biological factors? You cant say every emotion has a behavioural explanation behind it when sometimes its just attributed to certain chemicals being discharged in our bodies at a certain time.

It's a mixture of biology and behaviour, which have different effects depending on context. In some situations, biology has a larger role to play, and in others, it is mostly behavioural.

Edited by Raien, 12 May 2009 - 02:04 PM.

[Ransom]

But with my example of a female going through her monthly cycle... they will often feel certain emotions during (or after) that time inexplicably, due solely on the biological process that is happening in their bodies.
If it is indeed 100% biological as i am implying (i dont really know the stats, just going by logic here) then doesn't that exception nullify the blanket statement that all emotion can be explained behaviourally?

unless this just happens to be the onnlllyy exception.

[Arturo]

EDIT: Just read your new post, Raien.

Disregard.

Edited by Arturo, 12 May 2009 - 04:38 PM.

[Raien]

But with my example of a female going through her monthly cycle... they will often feel certain emotions during (or after) that time inexplicably, due solely on the biological process that is happening in their bodies.
If it is indeed 100% biological as i am implying (i dont really know the stats, just going by logic here) then doesn't that exception nullify the blanket statement that all emotion can be explained behaviourally?

unless this just happens to be the onnlllyy exception.

It's as I said; context. What applies to one thing does not necessarily apply to something else. In the case of curiosity, it's generally understood that behaviour is a factor.

[Steel Samurai]

Generally understood by wikipedia?

Science is imperfect, especially so when it comes to behavioral/psychological science. The link you provided really does nothing more than theorize, no solid, empirical conclusions are reached.

[Nevermind]

So, Raien, I've been doing some reading on psychological egoism, attitudinal anomie, impulse, humanism, curiosty, social neuroscience, all that fun-times-in-your-head kind of stuff. After revising...yes I agree. People do escape social norms on the basis of curiosity - if not social dissatisfaction (Merton's Strain Theory, particularly Retreatism and Rebellion, in regards to Deviance).

Nowhere, though, have I come across any indication that curiosity - despite being behavioural - is constructed upon past experiences. So, as much as you disagree with it, that very same Wikipedia article that you referenced, as well as sources relating to those similar subjects I mentioned, point to the idea that people like to check things out simply because....they like to check them out. It is an integral part of being human. It is behavioural action based on impulse. Desire. Curiosity alone. Hedonistic, if you will.

Psychology develops theories and concepts such as this that are refined and used universally but they are not definitive conclusions in the way that you seem to treating them. They are merely paradigms to be used in conjuction with individual cases. Because of this, they are constantly being revised and redefined, whether by the original theorist or newcomers.

So even after revision, my statement still stands: I like new things because I like new things. It may seem circular but it is simply another way for saying I like new things because I continuously act upon my curiosity. Being as such, psychology and behavioural science do not dictate that I require past experience and confirmation of new things being enjoyable in order to make that decision.




And with that, I bail. Point made AND justified. Time for me to leave.

Lest I develop a dickhat.

Edited by Lazurukeel, 13 May 2009 - 01:29 AM.

[Raien]

You know, it's funny because after all this researching and debating, you still haven't touched upon my initial question. Why do people find different things curious? Why is it that you can't care about the things I'm curious about and vice versa? Where do deviations in the curiosity impulse develop? Saying "it just happens" only covers the basic emotion, it doesn't explain how it changes from person to person.

You really haven't done anything to disestablish my theory that past experience affects what interests people. You've just pointed out that, at the most basic level, curiosity is an impulse (which, thinking about it, should have been taken for granted considering all babies have their first experience).