Age differences in motivation related to Maslow's need hierarchy. Goebel, Barbara L.; Brown, Delores R.; Developmental Psychology, Vol 17(6), Nov 1981. pp. 809-815.

Effect of relative magnitude of reward and type of need on satisfaction. Yinon, Yoel; Bizman, Aharon; Goldberg, Martha; Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 61(3), Jun 1976. pp. 325-328.


etc

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I'm always very doubtful when someone pretends he has found "the" difference between humans and animals. In this case, you are definitely wrong: it is a well known fact that most intelligent animals are not "guided totally by instinct". Recently, a cultural revolution has been observed amongst whales: they all very quickly (a matter of months) adopted a new way to "sing" which proved to be more efficient. Similarly, chimpanzees show different methods for hunting, and different tools, between populations; and they transmit these through teaching. All these new elements show clearly that some animals' behavior depend heavily on education (as opposed to instinct): the methods and attitudes of the group are adopted. This is what we call education; and what is transmitted is what we'd call a culture, if not a civilization.

Obviously, animals don't seem to have cultures as complex as ours. But they do have cultures, and they are definitely not "totally guided" by instinct. This observed fact and evolutionary theory show that no group of men was, at any point, in a state of nature: since species much less intelligent than humans have been able to develop a culture, it is clear that culture precedes humanity. Every group of homo erectus already had a culture, if only a basic one.


Source for the whales' "cultural revolution": News in Science - Whales sing a new song - 30/11/2000

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

What is your motivation for telling him that "In this case, you are definitely wrong" ?

You then inform him that "it is a well known fact that most intelligent animals are not "guided totally by instinct"."

You don't explain what constitutes an "intelligent animal", and I HOPE you're going to move into explaining to us how and why this IS a "well known fact" ?

First, you demonstrate that animals can learn. Yes, even mice and rats can learn. You'd like us to beleive that this is analogous to what we humans call education ? Then. you REALLY bend our imagination by claiming that; "and what is transmitted is what we'd call a culture, if not a civilization."

You have yet to explain to us how, exactly, it is a "well known fact" that most "intelligent" animals are not "guided totally by instinct".

Yes, again with "animals have "culture"".

That what you're doing is claiming your views and opinions as fact, cloaked in sophistry and rhetoric, you'd like us to completely miss.

I thought I'd do those that might have missed that a favor and expose it for what it really IS.

Your own opinion and views. That's all.

The amish do not live anywhere close to a 'state of nature'. The amish simply live a life frozen in time a few centuries ago. You would have to go to the amazon or africa to really find people living in a state of nature.

The only thing we need to do to create a better society is to make sure we have a more vibrant and diverse state of nature from one year to the next. We don't necessarily have to live 'in the wild' to achieve this. (better if we don't most likely) Right now as every year goes by the state of the ecosystem weakens increasingly due to our own demands for more objects and more wealth. This will eventually result in our own demise. We will eventually consume ourselves.

We need to start giving nature space to grow, and if that means less human and less wealth we better start planning right now so we can power-down a bit with the least amount of suffering possible.

Human need not live in a state of nature, red in tooth and claw, we just need to allow for nature to live unimpeded by human greed and excess.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

They live in a state that they feel is right and/or decent. What exactly a "state of nature" IS, is something that would be disputed by almost everyone for various reasons I think.

Exactly.

I have a feeling that if we don't control ourselves, ourselves, nature WILL. Eventually.

I think that your statement; "we just need to allow for nature to live unimpeded by human greed and excess." could only be modified very slightly into: "we just need to learn to allow for nature to live unimpeded by human greed and excess."

I think this gigantic ecosystem that we inhabit will control us if we don't control ourselves. I have a feeling it won't be pleasant either. I also have a feeling that we're going to be too stubborn to learn what I'm talking about withOUT a harsh "whack" or two by nature. It'll "sink in" eventually though.

This ultimately means that our perception that we don't live in a state of nature already is mistaken. We have the illusion of mastery and dominion over nature, but our fate will always be dependent on and determined by the 'state of nature'.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Exactly.

We have the illusion of mastery and dominion over nature, but our fate will always be dependent on and determined by the 'state of nature'.

And until we "evolve" into "gods" or "robots" this is not going to change.

Thanks for that info.

My statement says that I consider a creature is living in a total state of nature when that creature is controlled by its nature and its instincts. Humans have an ego which stands in the way of instinctive behavior for humans. Animals other than humans do not have an ego. The more effect the ego has on human behavior the more civilized we become and the further removed from nature.

Instincts are the emotions that an animal is born with. Animals are hardwired with certain automatic control reactions. These emotions, i.e. these instincts cause the deer to run and the lion to fight.

Ego says, HOLD IT, TIME OUT!

The ego is our command center; it is the “internal gyroscope” and creator of time for the human. It controls the individual; especially it controls individual’s response to the external environment. It keeps the individual independent from the environment by giving the individual time to think before acting. It is the device that other animal do not have and thus they instinctively respond immediately to the world.

The id is our animal self. It is the human without the ego control center. The id is reactive life and the ego changes that reactive life into delayed thoughtful life. The ego is also the timer that provides us with a sense of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. By doing so it makes us into philosophical beings conscious of our self as being separate from the ‘other’ and placed in a river of time with a terminal point—death. This time creation allows us to become creatures responding to symbolic reality that we alone create.

As a result of the id there is a “me” to which everything has a focus of being. The most important job the ego has is to control anxiety that paradoxically the ego has created. With a sense of time there comes a sense of termination and with this sense of death comes anxiety that the ego embraces and gives the “me” time to consider how not to have to encounter anxiety.

Evidence indicates that there is an “intrinsic symbolic process” is some primates. Such animals may be able to create in memory other events that are not presently going on. “But intrinsic symbolization is not enough. In order to become a social act, the symbol must be joined to some extrinsic mode; there must exist an external graphic mode to convey what the individual has to express…but it also shows how separate are the worlds we live in, unless we join our inner apprehensions to those of others by means of socially agreed symbols.”

“What they needed for a true ego was a symbolic rallying point, a personal and social symbol—an “I”, in order to thoroughly unjumble himself from his world the animal must have a precise designation of himself. The “I”, in a word, has to take shape linguistically…the self (or ego) is largely a verbal edifice…The ego thus builds up a world in which it can act with equanimity, largely by naming names.” The primate may have a brain large enough for “me” but it must go a step further that requires linguistic ability that permits an “I” that can develop controlled symbols with “which to put some distance between him and immediate internal and external experience.”

I conclude from this that many primates have the brain that is large enough to be human but in the process of evolution the biological apparatus that makes speech possible was the catalyst that led to the modern human species. The ability to emit more sophisticated sounds was the stepping stone to the evolution of wo/man. This ability to control the vocal sounds promoted the development of the human brain.

Ideas and quotes from “Birth and Death of Meaning”—Ernest Becker

The ego looks a lot like an ad hoc addition to psychology to get humans to be essentially different and superior compared to animals (regardless of what freud thought about his role in the acceptance of man as an accident in nature).

There is no reason to claim that animals don't have an ego. There is also little reason to claim that men have such a thing. I mean, the concepts of a united "ego", a united "superself", etc... don't seem to respond correctly to the actuality of how I act. However, if I just consider hardwired(?) emotions (anger, greed, sexual urges...) on one hand, and learned(?) moral values (generosity, truth, honour...) on the other hand, with reason as a potential medium between these two groups, things make much more sense. I don't think there is any essential difference between moral needs and instinctive needs. And I don't see why animals wouldn't have a similar structure of mind.

I'm not a psychologist, so I can't talk about these issues as a specialist; all I say is mere speculation... a speculation which is enough proof, if all you have to oppose to it is another man's speculation. From what I know about them the distinctions between these entities inside us (ego etc.) made by psychanalists seem to be very arbitrary. To be completely honest, I've always thought that it looks a lot like scientologic bullshit. But I'd be the first to enjoy seeing myself proven wrong... will you try? So far you've made a lot of statements, but you have proved nothing, and I haven't found your statements to be very convincing.

This has been debated earlier, and if I remember well you agreed that language isn't necessary at all.
Oh, come on. That's what Descartes thought. DESCARTES. This conception of animal behavior is outdated since decades if not centuries. I have demonstrated it already in the previous posts, and I'm not going to demonstrate it again unless you come with something relevant, other than your mere affirmation that animals are automatons.

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

Coberst, it's clear that you've never actually had any formal education in psychology. Your pop impressions of improvable (and unlikely) theory like Freud's are embarrassing. Perhaps you should get yourself some schoolin' before you embarrass yourself even more.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Not only have you clearly never lived near/among the Amish, you also seem ignorant of the fact that the state of nature never existed.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

What are you referring to here?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

The idea that man existed, in his present evolutionary form, without any form of organized society.

Ludicrous.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

prior to European invason Aboriginal Australians had a far healthier life than the average European, and a longer life on avergae.

Their diet was more varied, and they worked less (average 3 hours per day).

They were nomadic and lived as close to nature as you can get - although the evidence is that they had altered their environment.

The San people of the Kalahari are far worse off in townships than they were in the bush.


yes.