What makes some let their intellect triumph their instincts?

Post Reply New Topic

In the thread "Taken from "Why Do We Shun Those in Despair"" this question came up:

What makes some people to let their intellect rule their tribal instincts (if present), and others to be enslaved by the very same instincts?

These factors came up:
* Upbringing
* Education
* Sufficient resources

And resulted in my conclusion:
It would mean one should strive to operate within environments that require a sufficient high baseline of education to even be there. And it should be a place where resources is no big deal. One could also screen for people that had the right upbringing.

Which also brings up the opposite: close-minded people with simple jobs in poor places.


So what do you think makes the difference between people that let their intellect rule basic instincts and those that go on tribal autopilot (or similar) ?

I think it isn't as cut and dried as all that.


I would disagree that a higher education is a guarantee that one will be free from tribal thinking. Tribal thinking is still observed in the offices of many companies that require university-level education. I've spoken to some people who preferred their own individuality to the ritualised hierarchy found in some of those companies, as well as on government jobs (civil servants).

I resent the notion that education will result in subjugation to tribal thinking, in part because I myself am uneducated, as are many of my relatives and acquaintances. They are most of them free spirits in their thinking, and many also manage to educate themselves on a broad spectrum of topics.
Furthermore, I've worked at 'simple' jobs, where, although I've seen huge, unspeakable ignorance coming from some people there, just as many coworkers were well-versed in topics of substance. A significant number, however, had enjoyed good education in their native countries, but the diplomas are not recognised by the Netherlands. Still, they had settled into their jobs, and in their spare time they went their own way.

I also believe that Moondust mentioned upbringing not as a negative factor but as a positive one in this context: people who had experienced open-minded parenting while living in relative poverty in a society where tribal thinking rules supreme, still managed to find their own way in the example she cited.
I don't think that people can be 'screened' at all with regard to upbringing in that sense. Judging which person had the 'right' upbringing would require a team of impartial, unbiased people. Such a screening process would be problematic in its execution, and dubious in its purpose. It could easily result in the exclusion of people who, by themselves are open-minded non-tribal thinkers, yet are deemed to have had the 'wrong' kind of upbringing. One's personal views on the matter of instinctual tribal thinking vs intellectual control over it, may well be divorced from one's upbringing, having consciiously moved in a direction different from one's parents.

(Edited once because no make-a de sense).

Tribal thinking is good, if controlled. Logic and reason can be quite underwhelming to the human brian. Being able to embrace your animal urges is the only way a person will be productive in life.

The goal is to direct these emotions and instincts in ways optimimum for personal gain.

Alright now I'm really starting to sound like a Stoic.

perhaps knowledge itself and not formal education is a better way of putting it?

No one mentioned our morality or the rule of law.

Morality teaches us to overcome our animal instincts. I watch my cats when I throw them treats, neither of them will give a treat to the other cat, but humans will share, often equally, with each other. (Some pack animals do share, but usually unequally). It teaches right and wrong.

The rule of law is a huge one too. It keeps us from hurting each other.

But our animal instincts aren't all bad. Our drive to survive, the drive to succeed, that feeling you get but can't explain when you're in danger, these can help us live happy productive lives.

A combination of being smart enough and experiences proving that you can't trust your instincts without getting into trouble.

Morality teaches us to subdue or redirect our desires when needed to control our actions, it makes no value statement of how one should feel after the fact.

@Oodain/CyclopsSummers, I also think it's more about Knowledge and open-minded thinking which may be accomplished with parenting our by oneself. Ie it doesn't matter how it's accomplished, just that it is.

Screening was more about avoiding close-minded people which may be a potential problem.

Ah, yes, understood.

I still have my doubts about the 'workability' of striving to find environments that are exclusively or predominantly open-minded (being more of a 'let people do what they do' kind of person- you cannot educate those who don't wish to be educated), but I see no reason in arguing the point today.

I'd argue that thinking on this individual higher level is an inborn talent or in their nature. This is something that begins very early and is independent of nurture. It happens in the worst of circumstances.

Someone talented in anything begins at an early age, such as drawing or playing an instrument, etc. You''ll see that early on.

Some people desire to 'play' and some are top shelf players; but some do not desire to play because there is nothing in there, regardless if their family plays an instrument. It's the same with a higher intellect. Such ones start off early.

Instinct provides only the basic stimulus-response sequences that initiate feeding, fighting, mating and fleeing.

Intellect provides refinement of instinctual causality and provides the abilities of tactical planning, deductive and inductive reasoning, communication of abstract ideas, and invention.

Animals have instinct and, at best, rudimentary intelligence.

Humans have both instinct and intelligence, so that when an opportunity presents itself to mate, fight, feed or flee, the human can use its intelligence to maximize success.

Instinct tells you to run when you're on fire; intelligence tells you to drop and roll on the ground ... or to not let yourself catch fire in the first place.

Pretty much what I think too. It's innate, not learnt.

It's like a TV documentary I saw once. It was about kids and intelligence, and the conclusion in the program was that no matter how smart a kid's adoptive parents were, they couldn't really influence the kid much if the kid was 'dumb'. Nurture couldn't help the kid overcome that which nature hadn't given it.

I think it's the inherent nature of a person. Some people just go on autopilot and are happy with that. Some want more. Some accept things and some people simply never give up. I'm the latter. Always have been, always will.

Exactly.

Some folks are happy with just cruising through life without ever having to make a decision, while others apply themselves and wind up making all of the decisions for everyone else.