Are humans driven by instincts? What did Soviet psychologists think?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 тра 2024
- The article on instincts by P. Y. Galperin can be downloaded here (in Russian): m. wall-100760657_10643
Watch my TikTok: vm.tiktok.com/ZMNfB2KY1/
Support me on Patreon: / peacelabormay
For a one time donation, you can use Ko Fi: ko-fi.com/peacelabormay
I'm on Fiverr: www.fiverr.com/red_may
I don't know about this work. Was it based on scientific experiments? Because I have a personal feeling that yes, I do have instincts. I control them, most of the time. So I feel I have a sort of duality: what the body wants, and what my Self wants. When I'm distracted, the instincts do kick in. That is why if I don't watch myself I will eat 2 kg of cookies in the cookie jar without thinking. Or when when I'm angry and lose control I tend to bash yell and break things. (Much like what a chimp may probably do when feeling threatened). Many times I feel that my Self simply rationalizes the natural instinct.
I think it's more about the distinction of human and animal instinct. Not that instincts don't exist.
That's the thing - you can choose not to act on the need. Animals don't really have that choice. It is not a mechanistic response on their part, but it is a deeply ingrained one. Humans used to have instincts, but we don't anymore. Galperin did much research since he had been a working psychiatrist and did field work. However, empirical evidence alone cannot prove or disprove his findings; the way Marxist scientists operate is in the realm of dialectical and historical materialism, so they take into account historical development according to dialectical logic and according to the data available to them.
@@PeaceLaborMay In extreme circumstances... can you? What I feel (regarding myself, can't say for other) is that I have a chimera of sorts. My natural instincts and my conscious mind live in a sort of amalgam. But the bigger the body urge, the weakest the conscious mind become. That is why in jurisprudence there are differences between manslaughter and murder.
I have a concrete example from my own experience: I was in a restaurant and a gas leak caused an explosion in the kitchen. People were running through the door. I didn't think. It was pure instinct, I followed them like if we all were part of a stampede. There simply was no decision at that moment.
Another times what I have is the conscious mind justifying the body needs.
Now... science is science. It must deal with facts. It is ok to use historical examples to formulate an hypothesis. But if there is not enough data, this is all that there is to see: a non provable hypothesis.
Historical materialism and dialectics do not just look at isolated examples. Using dialectical tools we look at all of the available data and follow the logic of history to crystalize categories that are true. The truth doesn't change, but it is dialectical, meaning that there is unity in the opposites as substance reaches a node and there becomes a new quality. Humans are a qualitatively different animal, and whatever we have remaining of the old us has undergone such a lengthy process that it may be unrecognisable. That is not to say that we are not of nature, that is to say that we are a certain iteration of the substance that has the potential of self awareness and reason.
Distracted with a dominant sympathetic nervous system. Your consequent behaviours are baked into the human physiology by design.
4:28 - Ah, but a lot of this behaviour/thinking, was imported in to the new system/societal organisation, the Soviet Union. See, Russia and the other nations that would later be part of the Soviet Union (Norway joined the comintern by the way, but left right before the creation of the Soviet Union, to us Norwegians, there was too much control from Moscow - we're a difficult people, we like to do things "our way", hence why we're not part of the new Soyuz, EU) were capitalist before the creation of the Soviet states (yes, I know you know, I have a theme here, that's why I'm mansplaining :P ). Hence, they had this "me me me, my self first, then my neighbour, if it's in my interest"-way of thinking. This type of thinking that is bred in to people under capitalism, which is why crime is so rampant under capitalism, people are taught to be selfish so hard that it becomes an "instinct" (in lack of a better word). It was never attacked in it self when the Soviet states became the Soviet states.
I actually blame Marx a bit for that. Even though he does go in to the thought process of what happens to people under capitalism (like the famous, "merchandise fetischism", which we see a lot of today, "I must have the latest iPhone", etc), I don't get the impression that he really did any deep dive there. Like, why do the rich hoard wealth? He only stated that the rich do, not why.
So why do they do so then? Instinct? No. It's, as you tangented (went on a tangent, sidetrack) a bit on, not an instinct, it's a "learned" behaviour. I disagree with Maslows pyramid. He puts the need for love rather high up. But I think it's one of the primary needs for human beings. Humans prefer to share rather than let someone starve to death. Unless capitalism, of course. But if 12 people are shipwrecked in a small emergency raft, and only have a few days worth of food, they share, they don't kill each other. Unless prior quarrels, unique circumstances, etc. But most humans would rather share than let someone starve in front of them. Out of care, love, for a fellow human being. And that's what capitalism does to people, it takes away that natural "instinct" (again, lack of a better word) to share, to help each other, to be part of and help others be part of.
You really should see the short documentary, "Anthropologist debunks Darwin’s most abused idea - James Suzman" (Big Think), btw. If what they have isn't communism, and a thriving communism at that, then I don't know what communism is.
But back to the rich hoarding wealth, a lot of behaviour under capitalism is "replacement" for this natural need for love. Like status, feeling looked up to by others, is a "replacement" for the need to be loved. Wealth is status. S*x is another thing that is a replacement for love. Being admired (again, status).
Which is why I think love is more of a primal need than Maslow gives it credit for.
Thanks for sharing. I've heard Native Americans had a reverse Maslow pyramid where connection was one of the primary needs. I agree with you and with them: human babies would not survive without care of others, so seeking safe connection must be a primary human need. Capitalism's goals create such an ideology that twists and perverts everything, and the rich are no exception. They become depraved due to extreme loneliness that is created by distrust born by the illusory hierarchy that appears because of the need to believe they "deserve" being above others. And that is just one of their problems.
Ыыы, комрэйдс....