humans are the gifted species, apparently

of all human instincts, how much work does instinct blindness do

transition said:

humans are the gifted species, apparently
of all human instincts, how much work does instinct blindness do

Your questions are getting a bit too short.

> “instinct blindness” to refer to the lack of attention and resulting lack of memory traces from tasks that have become automatic.

Ah, so nothing about instinct at all. Is this that same thing was was referred to recently as the “zombie”? ie. the part of us that does things while our mind is elsewhere. If so, then the question of how much work does it do makes perfect sense, for example in driving a car.

No, the question is of human instinct blindness as might be considered in psychology.

Consider the field of the human social instincts in broad terms. Start with we’re keenly social.

Take a desire for social status (or threats to, potential loss of), territorial aspects of behaviour related too. If you can handle the idea humans have territorial instincts. I think they do, not necessarily of/over physical territory, but that too.

Humans are receptive to culture, norms, expectations etc of our environment.

Consider there’re (necessary) contradictions (paradoxical requirements) about being keenly social and privacy, which likely involves conflict (dissonance if you like), which resolves whichever way.

Getting straight to the point, I put it to you that it’s possible for humans to be highy competent in a vast range of things, ideologically receptive and compliant, but at the same time to have an underdeveloped working concept of privacy.

That the delivery devices of ideology can be internalized (probably already exist, native, are tweaked/amplified) in invisible ways (don’t yield to casual introspection).

transition said:

No, the question is of human instinct blindness as might be considered in psychology.

Consider the field of the human social instincts in broad terms. Start with we’re keenly social.

Take a desire for social status (or threats to, potential loss of), territorial aspects of behaviour related too. If you can handle the idea humans have territorial instincts. I think they do, not necessarily of/over physical territory, but that too.

Humans are receptive to culture, norms, expectations etc of our environment.

Consider there’re (necessary) contradictions (paradoxical requirements) about being keenly social and privacy, which likely involves conflict (dissonance if you like), which resolves whichever way.

Getting straight to the point, I put it to you that it’s possible for humans to be highy competent in a vast range of things, ideologically receptive and compliant, but at the same time to have an underdeveloped working concept of privacy.

That the delivery devices of ideology can be internalized (probably already exist, native, are tweaked/amplified) in invisible ways (don’t yield to casual introspection).

> Start with we’re keenly social.

So it’s really more a sociology question. I’m beginning to note that some animals, humans included, can transition between being social and being antisocial. In locusts it’s been found that the transition is serotonin related, and that may be the case in humans as well. But that doesn’t answer your question.

transition said:

No, the question is of human instinct blindness as might be considered in psychology.

Consider the field of the human social instincts in broad terms. Start with we’re keenly social.

Take a desire for social status (or threats to, potential loss of), territorial aspects of behaviour related too. If you can handle the idea humans have territorial instincts. I think they do, not necessarily of/over physical territory, but that too.

Humans are receptive to culture, norms, expectations etc of our environment.

Consider there’re (necessary) contradictions (paradoxical requirements) about being keenly social and privacy, which likely involves conflict (dissonance if you like), which resolves whichever way.

Getting straight to the point, I put it to you that it’s possible for humans to be highy competent in a vast range of things, ideologically receptive and compliant, but at the same time to have an underdeveloped working concept of privacy.

That the delivery devices of ideology can be internalized (probably already exist, native, are tweaked/amplified) in invisible ways (don’t yield to casual introspection).

> Take a desire for social status (or threats to, potential loss of), territorial aspects of behaviour related too. If you can handle the idea humans have territorial instincts. I think they do, not necessarily of/over physical territory, but that too. Consider there’re (necessary) contradictions (paradoxical requirements) about being keenly social and privacy, which likely involves conflict (dissonance if you like), which resolves whichever way.

That makes perfect sense.

> It’s possible for humans to be highly competent in a vast range of things, ideologically receptive and compliant, but at the same time to have an underdeveloped working concept of privacy. That the delivery devices of ideology can be internalized (probably already exist, native, are tweaked/amplified) in invisible ways (don’t yield to casual introspection).

Why do you say “underdeveloped concept of privacy”? I can think of one person with what I consider to be an overdeveloped sense of privacy. Privacy can have two aspects perhaps. Privacy as territory – such as personal space and need for quiet; and privacy as shame – fear of being found out.

As for “delivery devices of ideology”: One delivery device would be that people catch ideology in the same way that they catch disease, by contact with other people who have that ideology; another delivery device could be polarisation, similar to the way that division of labour is created by the natural splitting a homogeneous group into smaller and smaller factions. Are there others?

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

No, the question is of human instinct blindness as might be considered in psychology.

Consider the field of the human social instincts in broad terms. Start with we’re keenly social.

Take a desire for social status (or threats to, potential loss of), territorial aspects of behaviour related too. If you can handle the idea humans have territorial instincts. I think they do, not necessarily of/over physical territory, but that too.

Humans are receptive to culture, norms, expectations etc of our environment.

Consider there’re (necessary) contradictions (paradoxical requirements) about being keenly social and privacy, which likely involves conflict (dissonance if you like), which resolves whichever way.

Getting straight to the point, I put it to you that it’s possible for humans to be highy competent in a vast range of things, ideologically receptive and compliant, but at the same time to have an underdeveloped working concept of privacy.

That the delivery devices of ideology can be internalized (probably already exist, native, are tweaked/amplified) in invisible ways (don’t yield to casual introspection).

> Take a desire for social status (or threats to, potential loss of), territorial aspects of behaviour related too. If you can handle the idea humans have territorial instincts. I think they do, not necessarily of/over physical territory, but that too. Consider there’re (necessary) contradictions (paradoxical requirements) about being keenly social and privacy, which likely involves conflict (dissonance if you like), which resolves whichever way.

That makes perfect sense.

> It’s possible for humans to be highly competent in a vast range of things, ideologically receptive and compliant, but at the same time to have an underdeveloped working concept of privacy. That the delivery devices of ideology can be internalized (probably already exist, native, are tweaked/amplified) in invisible ways (don’t yield to casual introspection).

Why do you say “underdeveloped concept of privacy”? I can think of one person with what I consider to be an overdeveloped sense of privacy. Privacy can have two aspects perhaps. Privacy as territory – such as personal space and need for quiet; and privacy as shame – fear of being found out.

As for “delivery devices of ideology”: One delivery device would be that people catch ideology in the same way that they catch disease, by contact with other people who have that ideology; another delivery device could be polarisation, similar to the way that division of labour is created by the natural splitting a homogeneous group into smaller and smaller factions. Are there others?

Just out of bed, had me morn coffee, this rectangle’s looking a bit small with all, in it.

We live in a world of entertainment-plenty, much of appeals to wandering intrigues, there’s boredem (blame Dickens), dissatisfactions, and opportunity (excitement of) all around for comparisons (indulgence).

In-great-part the purpose of the working concept of privacy (the related defense mechanisms/the firewall) is to parry against impositions, some that might be somewhat arbitrary (from those with an underdeveloped working concept, even). It’s like an individual’s personal operating space, or individual operating space (think _individuate_/differentiate).

Anyway, how about I simply ask if homeostasis internal of an individual is an environment, and whether it’s a private environment, and we pick things up from there.