Unique behavior in highly intelligent species is largely learned, not instinctual
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Unique: exclusive to a particular group.
Behavior: all the ways animals interact with other organisms and the physical environment; a change in the activity of an organism in response to a stimulus, an external or internal cue or combo of cues.
Highly intelligent species: Animals that are widely considered to have human or near-human intelligence, such as corvids, primates, and cetaceans.
Learning (in regards to behavior): The acquisition of knowledge and skills based on observation and experience.
A few other intelligent animals’ maturities and life expectancy (some numbers are based on sexual maturity when I was unable to find a definitive range of when they become independent of their parents):
Species: maturity, life expectancy (oldest age noted in captivity), % of life in childhood
Crows: 3-5, 20-30 (59 in captivity), 25-10% (5% in the case of the captive, but this is the only number here that comes under 10%)
Elephants: 18, 60-70 (89 in captivity), 30-20%
Bottlenose dolphins [Link #2]: 5-13 female, 9-14 male, 40-60 (captive dolphins live equal or fewer years than wild), 35-12%
Chimpanzee [Link #2]: 10-13, 40-50 (79 in captivity) 32.5-12.7%
Humans: 18-25, 79 (122 record), 32-15%
By comparison
Reptiles are largely self-sufficient from hatching, which should be noted, but is hard to gather statistics on
In less intelligent bird species, the percentage drops.
Chicken: 6-12 weeks, 5-10 years (record 14), 2.3-1.6%
Mouse: 6 weeks, 1-3 years (7 years), 11-1% (Mice like all mammals are fairly intelligent, so it makes sense for this number to be moderately high)
Humans learn in school and from their parents and peers. Even fairly basic skills like walking on two legs require models to learn from. Oxana Malaya, a feral child raised by dogs, was unable to walk on two legs when she was found. So clearly it was a learned behavior, not instinct. Parents serve as teachers and models.
All of the intelligent animals above tend to live in communities (in the case of the crow, they are largely solitary, but other corvids such as the pinyon jay live in large permanent social groups), which preserves and aids learning across generations. Humans are once again the prime example. If you would like sources for these claims I can link them in the next round but right now I just want to get the ball rolling.
[Pro] can only prove that learned behavior can overcome instinctual, not that unique behavior is largely learned. Keep in mind that even experts agree that walking is BOTH learned AND instinctual. Pro must prove majority overcoming in order to win this debate.
Learning IS instinctual
If this debate was "the universe's continuation is largely due to the Big Bang", pro would likely win, because even if Big Bang was only a split second compared to 13 billion years, it was still the crucial cause to ALLOW the universe to continue in the first case.
Pro asserts that because we are more complex this learning must be necessary
dropped my contention of Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
con can only prove that learned behavior can overcome instinctual, not that unique behavior is largely learned.
Babies already have developed instinctual grabbing of furniture to stand upright, gradually moving onto the process of walking.
In some animals, walking is instinctive... In humans, walking, like most of our behaviors, is learned
man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children; whilst no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake, or write."
if a battery powers the car, is it "largely" the car that is moving?
As "instinctual behavior" shifts to "learned behavior", we have a "Ship of Theseus" problem where con argues merely because the behavior has seemingly changed, that it is no longer the same instinctual behavior.
Votes Considering Outside ContentThe voter must assess the content of the debate and only the debate, any reasoning based on arguments made or information given outside of the debate rounds is unacceptable.
because the behavior has seemingly changed, that it is no longer the same instinctual behavior.
Argument: Pro's arguments were, hands down, more convincing than Con's, demonstrated by the error Con makes in round two, with regard to the battery vs. engine analogy as metaphors for instinct vs. learned behavior, that the two are a 50-50 split, when, clearly, that is not how automobiles function with regard to those two functions because, while the battery initiates a car's function, once the engine has started, the battery play's virtually only a minor role in any function; the supply of power is due to the alternator, which actually recharges the battery. It is not a 50-50 split. As Pro argued, learned behavior, such as language, while instinctual with regard to a baby's babble, represents only a minor role compared to the learned behavior of language as an adolescent and adult. Pro, therefore, contrary to Con's claim that Pro dropped the argument, fulfilled a proper rebuttal. Points to Pro.
Sourcing: Pro's sourcing went much further in supporting his argument, while even demonstrating Con's sources failing to bolster his arguments. Examples: Both in the battery/engine argument and the Ship of Perseus argument, Pro demonstrated Con's sources supporting Pro's position. Points to Pro
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Con's last round argument that Pro dropped the 50-50 split lost conduct for failure to recognize Pro's rebuttal. point to Pro
Childrearing and socialization
Pro did a very good job here, particularly that we would would on four limbs if raised that way.
Con does decent pointing out the n value of 1, pointing out specifically the texas sharpshooter fallacy... Before shooting himself in the foot, by talking about the unique languages we learn based on where in the world we live.
The debate mainly goes back and forth on this point, with con insisting it's instinct since babies babble, which relates to a car analogy about how much movement comes from the battery (instinct) and how much from the engine (learning).
Instinct lead to unique behaviors
Con does better with arguing that our instincts guided us, even aiding in walking. Pro defends that con's own link indicated that walking for humans is learned.
Ship of Theseus
Con builds on this as a thought experiment, and pro wisely points out that it's not more than that. I think pro goes a little far in treating this as outside content (getting a voter to ponder an idea should be good), but his defense against this leading to any conclusion is solid.
Conclusion:
In pondering this I give credit to con, since without any instinct, we would not be able to learn anything (we would be minerals instead of animals, and I haven't noticed any unique behaviors from rocks). However, it's not the silver bullet he seems to think it is, as I don't see that bridging the gap to our unique behaviors (language, walking, hunting, etc.) not primarily being learned. Specifically when con's own source agreed those things are learned.
Ultimately, I can agree with the premise that to seek to learn is instinctive, but that still leaves the unique expressed behaviors (to the benefit or detriment of the organism) seems to be learned (even more so with learning conceded as overcoming instinct).
Sources
Dolphins being unable to instinctively adapt back to the wild is a really good piece of evidence, which is hard to get out of my head, and I would have liked to see a direct response. The major place pro gets this for, is catching con cherry picking from sources, so flipping con's own KateAnswers one against him. Con does better with a .gov source on curiosity (which supported that instinct plays a role in learning), but it was not enough to bring this back into the default tied range.
You: "I think the sources is barely enough explanation of why Con didn't earn the point too."
My vote: "Examples: Both in the battery/engine argument and the Ship of Perseus argument, Pro demonstrated Con's sources supporting Pro's position."
What more do you want? I specifically showed two examples where Con's sourcing failed by supporting Pro's argument. I notice you did not bother to vote at all.
Wrong interpretation. You have to read my words in their order. I stated: "Con's last round argument that Pro dropped the 50-50 split..." an accusation levied by Con, was followed by, "...lost conduct for failure to recognize Pro's rebuttal," a statement of conclusion of the drop. The problem was, Con offered a last-round defense, as my last comment indicated, which was incoherent, meeting the discipline of conduct points voting. It matters not that I could see what Con was trying to do, but Con didn't know their argument was incoherent. As a voter, that was my assessment; that Con didn't understand, and therefore displayed incoherent conduct.
As you can see in #16, I was specifically asked to review your conduct allotment. Had I not been asked, I never would have looked, so it isn't some inch I cannot scratch regarding you.
As you stated inside your vote that you understood perfectly well that they outright dropped the points, implies that it did not render the debate incoherent to you.
You're going to have to do better than that in calling my vote out because both arguments by Con re: car batteries and babies babbling were effectively rebutted by Pro, and I found Con's final round defense ineffective, and, in fact, incoherent, per the definition of conduct voting. The defense simply did not make sense. That is incoherence, according to my dictionary, the OED. Face it, man, you just have a itch you cannot scratch in my regard.
Your vote assigns conduct for: "Conduct: Con's last round argument that Pro dropped the 50-50 split lost conduct for failure to recognize Pro's rebuttal. point to Pro"
This is outside the time window for point adjustments now, but in future please do a little better on conduct. What it sounds like is you awarded conduct for someone dropping points, which is already handled just fine with the argumentation points. Still, thank you for putting the effort in to cast a vote; but please try to do a little better in future.
From the voting policy: "Misconduct is excessive when it is extremely frequent and/or when it causes the debate to become incoherent or extremely toxic"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
I report fauxlaw's vote for the Conduct point allocation.
I think the sources is barely enough explanation of why Con didn't earn the point too, it only says why Pro did.
I can't physically report the vote as the period is over, so I am tagging you here.
Final bump for votes
I just spent an hour writing an RFD, the karma gods owe me a few votes over here.
bump
Good to know, thx!
Instinctual is a futile word because instinctive already existed and is more grammatically correct considering that 'distinctive' 'destructive' etc are done by 'ive'.
bump
Tagging top of the leaderboard for votes.
bump
Are you interested in voting?
oops I meant I move the floor to pro but whatevs
so this?
https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/2057750902777520227.html
no, I'm just a baka. Remember that seldiora takes debates 9sk disagrees with
"I am not convinced even whiteflame can win con side on this one"
We got one who claims to be better than whiteflame.
actually, I am very curious how you counter the blurring of what is instinct and learned. I'm just gonna leave this here for future me: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/11453#:~:text=And%20yet%20the%20capacity%20to,though%20every%20language%20is%20learned.
I am not convinced even whiteflame can win con side on this one