Can animals act outside of instinct?

[Gufkys]

Answer in poll above, post your opinions as you see fit.

This question stems from a discussion I had with my GM last night about whether dogs may do acts out of pure malicious intent.
An example being: Dog A sees Dog B, and Dog A for NO reason whatsoever attacks and kills Dog B.

I personally believe that no matter what, an animal will never act flagrantly, such as to "dislike" or "love" something.
I believe their instinct will lead them to build strong ties to a certain master or protector, but that it is based on extreme repetition of positive
emotions over a period of time.

If you can, post an article or scientific study, as I am eager to see definitive proof of either side.

To clarify: I am referring to animals with no higher thought-processes... including primates, dolphins, birds etc etc

[Rotted]

As far asI know, everything an animal does is instinct / genetic memory,

They dont feel hate towards another animal, they have dominance overthem, this is what can lead to aggressive behaviour and seeminly random attacks on another dog, and its just in their nature, this is why some towns etc say you have to have your dog on a lead and muzzle, this is why we have teh dangerous dogs act,

R

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

yes but it is very difficult.

it is not within their nature, unless it is a matter of survival. A dog can be raised violently and trained to be super aggressive and that will make it more likely to attack.

Most animals aren't pacifists, but they understand the value of not getting in a fight with an equal opponent where they would lose an eye or a limb. In nature if an animal get disfigured like that it significantly lowers their chance for survival and pass on their genes. In short the risk of a fight over something stupid...is stupid. This is the root of most social hierarchies in the animal kingdom.

Dogs were bred from wolves, they were one of the first documented species of animal that was domesticated by humans. Each generation of dog was carefully chosen for their ability to cooperate with humans. The dogs that didn't have those traits were not selected or killed off/released to the wild. Underneath the domestication and social structure of the common dog's psyche is an animal who will act unpredictably if it is pushed to that.

Domestication is different than taming. A wild animal can be tamed. A tiger or wolf or bear can learn to get along with a human. But in the animal's mind they are either alpha or beta. And there is always a strong chance the animal might strike for no reason. Even if he is fed every day on time, even if he knows he couldn't win the animal's mind was made to survive in hostile environments.

With domesticated animals the chance of an attack is lower, and usually because of their size they are not a big threat if they do. A housecat that goes ballistic on your hand or foot will at best take away some skin.

A far as love goes with animals you should check out the thread on Anthropocentrism. Or google it.

[Gufkys]

yes but it is very difficult.

it is not within their nature, unless it is a matter of survival. A dog can be raised violently and trained to be super aggressive and that will make it more likely to attack.

Most animals aren't pacifists, but they understand the value of not getting in a fight with an equal opponent where they would lose an eye or a limb. In nature if an animal get disfigured like that it significantly lowers their chance for survival and pass on their genes. In short the risk of a fight over something stupid...is stupid. This is the root of most social hierarchies in the animal kingdom.

Dogs were bred from wolves, they were one of the first documented species of animal that was domesticated by humans. Each generation of dog was carefully chosen for their ability to cooperate with humans. The dogs that didn't have those traits were not selected or killed off/released to the wild. Underneath the domestication and social structure of the common dog's psyche is an animal who will act unpredictably if it is pushed to that.

Domestication is different than taming. A wild animal can be tamed. A tiger or wolf or bear can learn to get along with a human. But in the animal's mind they are either alpha or beta. And there is always a strong chance the animal might strike for no reason. Even if he is fed every day on time, even if he knows he couldn't win the animal's mind was made to survive in hostile environments.

With domesticated animals the chance of an attack is lower, and usually because of their size they are not a big threat if they do. A housecat that goes ballistic on your hand or foot will at best take away some skin.

A far as love goes with animals you should check out the thread on Anthropocentrism. Or google it.

You make valid points, but you somewhat invalidated them by saying "raised to be aggressive" which means the behavior is based on previous experience and/or training. This just means that an animal will react more easily to certain stimuli, which is I believe almost the exact definition of instinct.

[Grummgug]

Imo, no, because acting outside of instinct requires long-term planning ability. Humans are able to act outside of instinct because we can see the big picture. We can think years or decades in advance. Less intelligent people also struggle with long-term planning, and stick to short-term selfish goals at the cost of long-term goals. Less intelligent people are more instinctual.

Animals don't show the ability to stick to long-term goals. Their emotions are extra-powerful and overwhelm such things.

[evoco]

I'm not sure if I am missing the question you are asking or not, but I"ll answer and you can tell me. I say that animals most definately can act outside of instinct (and as a side note, animals don't do things "for no reason," they always have a reason, but google is still working on the Bark to English translator :P). To me instinct covers the basics: food, shelter, saftey. But (and I am mostly referring to dogs because that is what I know best), they have their preferences, and quirks, and pet peeves (>.> couldn't think of anything better). What I mean is dogs will sometimes have a favorite toy, they get irritated just like you or I get irritated sometimes, stuff like that.

Two things I can note that go outside of instincts: 1) The animals that shouldn't be "friends" with one another. Like the cats that let birds catch a ride on their back, or the dogs that will play with rats. In a natural environmnent I don't see this happening too well, neither provides service for one another to prevent the smaller of the two from becoming dinner or a toy. 2) What of the animals who's owner/master has died and they will not move from their side or continue to repeat behaviors (such as waiting at the street corner for them to come home for the day)? Yes you could look at it as they are referring to the pack leader, but I would have to guess that in the wild when a pack leader dies a new one takes over and they go on, instead of staying with the dead pack leader forever (this is an assumption, I am not well versed in the behavior of wild dogs/wolves/pack behavior).

[Tore]

It's arguable that every action any animal does (even humans) has its roots in instinct even if it seems to be an act of free will. Of course, I suppose the amount of leeway you get with this "free will" depends on that animal's level of sentience and its ability to realize the irrationalities of animal instinct. In the case of humans, our ability is quite high.

[Skelington]

Anything a creature does can be linked back to instinct. Most of the time yes, it is just basic instinct at play, but Skelington thinks that it is not the only thing backing animal behaviour(and there have been deviations from the 'normal' behaviour).

[Grrwaherr]

All animals are different. I don't think that animals do things for no reason. If a dog bites someone, I would assume something went through its head telling him too.

[CJack14dt]

Have you never tried to hold a house cat? You're always either going to get a "couldn't care less" or a "f*** off" based solely on their mood not their instinct.

[strangebreed]

I've had some of my worse arguments about this a with a certain friend... So i'll say yes and leave it at that

[Arcadem]

Have you never tried to hold a house cat? You're always either going to get a "couldn't care less" or a "f*** off" based solely on their mood not their instinct.

Everything is based on instinct. It's something that keeps them alive and that they will always have. Just like a basic instinct of survival for any human being.

[Deleted]

stick your face in a big dogs face at it's eye level and see if it dont bite ya!

[Arcadem]

If it feels threatend it will bite you, Basic instinct, when they feel attacked.

[Vayshan]

When my dog plays with my bird he is very carefull. He even tries to pet the bird by lifting his foot and gently tries to touch the bird. Really funny to watch. Some more revolting behaviour from my dog is when he licks up the birds doodoo's. He knows he gets punished when he shits in the house so he possibly tries to save the bird from the same fate. The bird is not so kind with the dog though... So yh I'm sure animals can act outside their little instinct box.

[Deleted]

I'd say yes and some animals can even do it most of the time (like chimps).

But I've seen my dog do it countless times when faced with a new situation they have no experience with and it doesn't exist in nature. For example opening a door or a drawer or even things like showing me what he wants by bringing me hes good food bowl(hes got many bowls, 1 for generic food, and one for treats) and tossing it around to make sound and get attention. He also reacts differently to strangers I guess based on impression.

[Feranor]

Humans are animals, so... meh.

Aside from that, it depends on the definition of 'instinct'.

[Synaxis]

Depends on the situation.

I think a lot of actions absolutely are instinct-driven. I think that social interactions in particular are instinct-driven. They can be trained by humans to behave in a way contrary to instinct in certain situations, but at their core, it'll be instinct.

[Deleted]

Actually there is no strict definition of "instinct", but in biology there is a distinction between instinct and learned behaviors. Higher animals like dogs not only capable of learned behavior, but base most of their decisions on it. An action like follow command "sit" to get some food is not a instinct, but learned bevaior. Most people here seems to exagerate term "instinct" way beyond its actual meaning.

[Gufkys]

Humans are animals, so... meh.

Aside from that, it depends on the definition of 'instinct'.

I define instinct fairly specifically.
When faced with a set of decisions in a situation, instinct is the decision that your body naturally defers to.

If a human sees another human with a knife approaching, instinct tells us to run away, or prepare to defend.
Humans can override this instinct and do something that is counteractive to survival... such as dancing, sitting down, or singing a song.
Dogs can't do this (imo) because they lack the intelligence and higher thought-process to judge a situation in any other way than in light of survival.