>humans don't have any instincts, psychologists have proven
>there is no maternal instinct
What it is? I often hear this from normies, but as a rule they do not give any explanation, but simply refer to "science". It looks like part of some big trend in psychology. What should I read to find out more?
Science and Sanity
Civilization and Its Discontents
It's complete bullshit. Everything people are is biologically cardinal.
You must sound smart to stupid people. You're obviously an idiot, but you probably get reasonably far on... Twitter? Not in real life or in a rigorous intellectual environment, of course, but there are no doubt places where you can grift.
It's just a shitpost, calm down anon. But I would like to know what in that oversimplified post made you assume I was *that* dumb, rather than just your typical IQfy stupid.
Kek, not the anon you’re responding to, but imagine seething this hard at a one sentence post that isn’t even claiming anything controversial or really even substantive. Lmao, absolutely spastic troony
big mad
Oof i'd have cherished a post that tried to disprove the consensually accepted primacy of the lymbic system in metazoae's drives yet i will crawl in the gutter of the lower stages of mediocrity
Op is a Dunning Kruger.
>reee it's all relative and a social construct reee
Guarantee you they're a communist atheist.
humans have no instincts?
can you explain the biology of a premonition?
>psychologists
>proven
hahahahhaha yea sure thing, bud
I hate you can never save 'cute girls' from gayChan as they are probably trannies.
sex with this
you can tell it's a girl from the small heart tattoo and the pelvic bones
This nibba really has a folder full of cute fully clothed girls on his pc
it's healthier to fap to clothed girls, you have to use your imagination
>psychologists have proven
Never trust in a field that suffer form the lack of reproducibility.
I mean this in the nicest possible way to normalgays: Normalgays don't know anything.
Because the reigning ideas of our times are strangely idiosyncratic on questions like this. Hyper-materialist social analysis is combined with a weirdly spiritual concept of personhood. For instance you would think that "we are all just animals bro love is a chemical bro" would lead people to a radical reification of the concept of man-as-animal, but this couldn't be further from the truth. What we get is constant attempts to liberate man from his status as an animal by attempting to explain any apparently innate feature of his psychology as a function of material sociocultural forces. The reasons this is done for should be obvious enough (if instincts exist man cannot be fully free, and if instincts exist man's life cannot be fully rationally controlled by bureaucrats) but to me it's always seemed silly. You can't combine these two things
>People are just monkeys with more grey matter
>People are unlike every other animal in having no innate qualities or behaviors, you are a blank slate at birth
All of this is a consequence of existential dread, brought about by the degradation of the West's theistic backbone. Once you are able to quantify the nature of man, through science, the light of existence begins to wane, and a sort of reconciliation occurs, thus giving way to the "moralistic materialism" that we see so commonly today. I wouldn't say it's a zeitgeist ideal for social health, mainly because it seems so disorganized and inconsistent, but a combination has occurred, nonetheless.
I do like the "man-as-animal" concept - very Nietzschean - but for such a "reification" to happen would probably require the relinquishment of both morality and materialism, which likely will not happen without turning the world as we know it on it's head.
"Reconciliation" may be the wrong word, here, but I'm sure you get what I mean, regardless.
>I do like the "man-as-animal" concept - very Nietzschean
Let's be honest, you're a weak pussy would instantly get eaten. Please have the decency to not pretend you would like it mr edgelord.
Man as animal doesn't mean "man as predator animal" though I don't think although yes that is the pathos generally behind attempts to "animalize man". To me though it seems that animalized man should be the inevitable result of a "scientific worldview" because we can't really be anything else without appealing to theistic or spiritual concepts. I think the historical materialist view is just a weird feint meant to de-animalize man because many don't want that "red in tooth and claw" predator morality for ethical reasons, but that morality is just one interpretation of the meaning of animal man
Hiw you go from existential dread to celebratingbtrannies and ugliness?
I fear my death and I love nature and beauty.
I would like to be immortal not a trannie with a frankenvegana.
"Materialism" is not actually what you think materialism is (which is closer to Darwinism). The pseudo-philosophers and social analysts who refer to their theories as "materialist" are only using this word because it is basically a carte blanche for establishing a blank slate from which any sort of intellectual charlatanism can be constructed. Just think of the original, intellectually fleshed out idea of matter, Aristotle's hyle. It has nothing to do with being an animal, or being constructed from simple atoms, or anything mechanistic or Darwinian like that; it simply means "without form", "formless", or "receptive of form without containing form." And form, morphe, is what is really substantial, it is what decides the concrete substance of a thing or conception. The charlatan's conception of "materialism" is reducing all reality to Aristotelian hyle, ie reality becomes formless (and therefore receptive of any form), which clearly just means it is both nothing and therefore whatever one wants it to be; it is a conscious, or maybe unconscious, attempt to violate the law of non-contradiction without explicitly violating it. In other words, they assert that anything and everything can be real, but that by conjuring up baseless theories relying upon equally baseless evidence (whether empirical or otherwise) these can be given a privileged status (usually not by any intellectual rigour, but simply by social, cultural and academic clout).
With the materialist social analysis I meant the assumption that only material and efficient causes exist which is the dominant modern view. To me it seems like if you took that sort of analysis and applied it to men it would mean that only brute facts of biology could be recognizable, therefore everything men did would by necessity be a function of an instinct somewhere down the line. They can't go down this route though because it would put a cap on the possibility of progress and human freedom. Not sure if I'm in error somewhere here or if there's some weird Darwinian infusion I'm not picking up on
>we are animals.... duuuuddee
Ah okey so jealousy and love rivalry are just natural parts of human nature.
>wut no man, we should frick constantly in weird and strange ways like no animal in nature does.
Wut but you just said....
Are you moronic? That's the opposite of what normies say.
There seems to be some confusions as of late where radical leftist bots on twitter and reddit are somehow being conflated with "normies".
Psychologists is a nascent pseudo science. Blind leading the blind. A lot like the book Blindness. One out of a thousand can see the way.
>no maternal instinct
White women just want another made up excuse to act like evil degenerate prostitutes - as if they weren’t allowed to do that already.
>What should I read to find out more?
Science and Sanity
>humans don't have any instincts, psychologists have proven
You made this one up, nobody claims this
There really are such people, only their whole problem is that they cannot define the word instinct.
Name ten.
you're full of shit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_swimming
i want vegana in my face
Man those are some nice vegana bones.
The problem of psychology is that every new development is tied to some previous theory that is relatively subjective so you end up with less and less reliability the further you extrapolate from the original theory. The fact that we've been working off Freud for like a century means that a lot of psychology built on his theories is just plain incorrect at this point.
that's a man.
there are, one of which is that the baby will instinctively crawl up towards the mother's breasts after being born. hospitals changed protocols in the past decade to allow this
Imagine that long digit massaging your prostate from inside your anus as she grinds on top of you, her cervix right up against your frenulum, bathing it in her wetness, and you both cum simultaneously, shooting a massive load up into her dicky and you feel the tension release from her body, she’s laughing and catching her breath and there’s a bit of sweat on her upper lip as she lowers her face to yours, not so much kissing you, really just pressing her lips to yours, her hot breath blasting you in syncopated fits of joy coming from deep inside her soul, her firm little nipples hanging gently down, grazing against your own torso, and your wiener is still throbbing inside her, almost to a point where it tickles now, but not quite. It still feels good to be inside her and the poo finger trails behind her, resting lightly on the mattress to the side of your naked hip bone.
These are honestly the only times I see motherfrickers activating their imagination to conjure up and post original writing here
i coomed
well said, well said!
What does she do with the poo finger? I'm a little concerned.
>humans don't have any instincts, psychologists have proven
Nobody says this, unless you think that people actively learn how to breathe and eat.
If a man and a woman had never heard of sex growing up and we're out in a room together, would they know how to have sex instinctually?
Yes. The man would take initiative, start groping and dry humping, but the woman would know where to actually put it.
humans can be moronic though. Marie Theresa of Austria has a series of letters to her son telling him to tell her daughter and husband how to have sex because they literally didn't know how to.
I think that is probably social convention / puritanism turning back against instincts. At the same time there is sufficient social memory (ie in this case her mother) of the procreative act to allow for them to not die off through social intervention when needed. Ie if Marie Theresa was not raised Christian and in a highly polite and restricted environment, she probably would've been able to figure sex out because there would be no hangups in etiquette. This is especially the case if there is no natural chemistry between her and her husband, or the husband is impotent.
Animals are able to have sex instinctually, so yes.
I recently got a dog, and around the time of her first heat, she started humping her stuffed animals: is this a learned behavior?
It's the reification of pathological problems arising in modern society, for example, most women today for one reason or another are mentally ill which prevents their natural functions from emerging, therefore "there is no maternal instinct." Similar things apply in the case of men but with different topics.
>psychologists have proven
Not reading any of the replies, I'll just run down the basics. I clicked on this because of the skinny girl. I don't care.
The concept of "instinct" is just a black box and deploying it in ethology is lazy and promises exactly no explanatory power. It's useless and totally inert as a concept. Any time someone tells you that xyz behavior is just instinct, whether it's describing humans or nonhumans, is admitting they don't understand why it happens or anything behind it.
"Why, and how, do babies know how to swin upon birth?"
"Uh, well, it's instinct!"
Bonus round:
>Evolutionary psychology is a pseudoscience
>Psychology more generally is a pseudoscience
>Psychoanalysis is superior in all ways to psychology but neither is a science
Woah this girl follows me on IG
I wish she'd follow you into an oven
Woah bro you're so cool that it's getting to the point where I just wanna suck your cute little wiener while getting rock hard thinking about how a girl you don't know and will never meet follows you on instagram. Whip it out right this second cowboy
>What it is?
Lies
>It looks like part of some big trend in psychology.
We are entering a post-truth culture
>What should I read to find out more?
Nothing. It's garbage
yeah science whatever source on this b***h?
she's a psychologist who proves, you should know her
Karina Egamedieva
>What should I read to find out more?
Civilization and Its Discontents
Chick looks like a terrible person. Can we just deport these b***hes to some East African jungle nation?
She’s not in your shit-pen county, maggot.
She’s just a young musician who uses lots of makeup
Okay, can they deport her then? There's gotta be some kinda recourse when young women end up being such nasty little people.
That is what they want you to believe in in order to make you domesticated egotist. Egotism, “self-love”, and other humanist degenerate shit is largely promoted in modernity. Human mind is entirely a product of their surroundings. Humanity is not superior to nature but in fact is a cancer on the natural environment. Humans just like any other animal creature are driven by instincts and this is how it is supposed to be. Following your instincts is living according to natural order. One of the problems with modernity is that in modern post-enlightenment anti-natural society humans became disconnected from their primal instincts and stopped being barbarian and started thinking of them as something above nature and hence became degenerate and weak.
Rewild yourself, live by your instincts, unite with nature and follow natural order is the solution
Is everyone on IQfy a pretentious moron? Holy moronic walls of text
Ofc there is a maternal instinct, its simple evolution. If u dont understand that then ure moronic. Science is economically and ideologically corrupt. Liberals are fricked in the head, the use evolution to disprove religion. Then they deny evolution to prove science. They suffer major brain damage and are disgusting people.