Vegetarian Discussion: Know Your Enemies Beforehand -to Notice Not

Know Your Enemies Beforehand -to Notice Not
Posts: 29

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Immortalist
2006-02-02 13:43:08 EST
Dutch zoologist Tinbergen used a flock of newly hatched baby turkeys,
not more than a few days old. They were contained in a circular pen,
about 20 feet in diameter, with the walls not more than a foot in
height. At the center of this circular pen, was a vertical pole 3
meters in height, with a horizontal arm extending out from the top of
the central pole so that the arm could sweep horizontally over the pen
in a rotary motion. Then a wooden cross was attached to the end of the
arm.

1. The little chicks were peacefully feeding in the pen. When the arm
with the cross would slowly move in one_direction, the little chicks
would run for cover.

2. When the same_cross would move in the opposite direction, the birds
would ignore it.

If the cross moved in the direction of its longer arm, the little
chicks, completely undisturbed, would go on pecking at their food. If
the cross would move in the direction of it's shorter arm, they would
immediately scream with fright and run for cover in a hutch in the
center of the pen.

Therefore Tinbergen (1951) showed that;

1. When young turkeys see a silhouette model pulled in the direction
that makes it look like a hawk, they were terrified and ran for cover.
2. However, when it was pulled in the other direction, which makes it
look like a goose, they were nonchalant (i.e., didn't react).

Inborn in those little chicks' brain was the instinctive recognition of
the hawk as its natural enemy, instinctive fear and instinctive
reaction to flee and take cover. Without any training, without any
conscious thought processes, a few days old chicks were able to
recognize a clear and present danger - the hawk - even though it was
only a silhouette model of their enemy passing over their heads.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/hvd_sexdrive_1.htm

http://www.google.com/searchq=tinbergen+hawk+goose+direction+of+movement


Immortalist
2006-02-02 13:48:49 EST
...Nowhere do people have an equal desire for all members of the
opposite sex. Everywhere some potential mates are preferred, others
shunned. Our sexual desires have come into being in the same way as
have other kinds of desires.

Consider the survival
problem of what
food to eat.

Humans are faced with a bewildering array of potential objects to
ingest-berries, fruit, nuts, meat, dirt, gravel, poisonous plants,
twigs, and trees. If we had no taste preferences and ingested objects
from our environment at random, some people, by chance alone, would
consume ripe fruit, fresh nuts, and other objects that provide caloric
and nutritive sustenance. Others, also by chance alone, would eat
rancid meat, rotten fruit, and toxins. Earlier humans who preferred
nutritious objects survived.

Our actual food preferences bear out this evolutionary process. We show
great fondness for substances rich in fat, sugar, protein, and salt and
an aversion to substances that are bitter, sour, and toxic. These food
preferences solve a basic problem of survival. We carry them with us
today precisely because they solved critical adaptive problems for our
ancestors.

Our desires in a mate serve analogous adaptive purposes...

...Although ancestral selection pressures are responsible for creating
the mating strategies we use today, our current conditions differ from
the historical conditions under which those strategies evolved.

Ancestral people got their vegetables from gathering and their meat
from hunting, whereas modern people get their food from supermarkets
and restaurants.

Similarly, modern urban people today deploy their mating strategies in
singles bars, at parties, through computer networks, and by means of
dating services rather than on the savanna, in protected caves, or
around primitive campfires.

Whereas modern conditions of mating differ from ancestral conditions,
the same sexual strategies operate with unbridled force. Our evolved
psychology of mating remains. It is the only mating psychology we have;
it just gets played out in a modern environment.

To illustrate, look at the foods consumed in massive quantities at fast
food chains. We have not evolved any genes for McDonalds, but the foods
we eat there reveal the ancestral strategies for survival we carry with
us today. We consume in vast quantities fat, sugar, protein, and salt
in the form of burgers, shakes, french fries, and pizzas. Fast food
chains are popular precisely because they serve these elements in
concentrated quantities. They reveal the food preferences that evolved
in a past environment of scarcity. Today, however, we overconsume these
elements because of their evolutionarily unprecedented abundance, and
the old survival strategies now hurt our health. We are stuck with the
taste preferences that evolved under different conditions, because
evolution works on a time scale too slow to keep up with the radical
changes of the past several hundred years. Although we cannot go back
in time and observe directly what those ancestral conditions were, our
current taste preferences, like our fear of snakes and our fondness for
children, provide a window for viewing what those conditions must have
been. We carry with us equipment that was designed for an ancient
world.

Our evolved mating strategies, just like our survival strategies, may
be currently maladaptive in the currencies of survival and
reproduction. The advent of AIDS, for example, renders casual sex far
more dangerous to survival than it ever was under ancestral
conditions...

The Evolution of Desire:
Strategies of Human Mating
by David M. Buss
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465021433/


D*@.
2006-02-02 14:37:34 EST
On 2 Feb 2006 10:43:08 -0800, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dutch zoologist Tinbergen used a flock of newly hatched baby turkeys,
>not more than a few days old.

[...]
>Inborn in those little chicks' brain was the instinctive recognition of
>the hawk as its natural enemy, instinctive fear and instinctive
>reaction to flee and take cover. Without any training, without any
>conscious thought processes, a few days old chicks were able to
>recognize a clear and present danger - the hawk - even though it was
>only a silhouette model of their enemy passing over their heads.

I used to get a great reaction out of mother hens with a plastic
owl. Those birds never saw an owl to learn to be afraid of it, but
when I put a plastic owl down in front of them they would freak
out.

Leif Erikson
2006-02-02 14:55:57 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> On 2 Feb 2006 10:43:08 -0800, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Dutch zoologist Tinbergen used a flock of newly hatched baby turkeys,
> >not more than a few days old.
>
> [...]
> >Inborn in those little chicks' brain was the instinctive recognition of
> >the hawk as its natural enemy, instinctive fear and instinctive
> >reaction to flee and take cover. Without any training, without any
> >conscious thought processes, a few days old chicks were able to
> >recognize a clear and present danger - the hawk - even though it was
> >only a silhouette model of their enemy passing over their heads.
>
> I used to get a great reaction out of mother hens with a plastic
> owl. Those birds never saw an owl to learn to be afraid of it, but
> when I put a plastic owl down in front of them they would freak
> out.

They were freaking out over you having sex with the plastic owl,
Fuckwit.


Ron
2006-02-02 19:09:44 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> > On 2 Feb 2006 10:43:08 -0800, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Dutch zoologist Tinbergen used a flock of newly hatched baby turkeys,
> > >not more than a few days old.
> >
> > [...]
> > >Inborn in those little chicks' brain was the instinctive recognition of
> > >the hawk as its natural enemy, instinctive fear and instinctive
> > >reaction to flee and take cover. Without any training, without any
> > >conscious thought processes, a few days old chicks were able to
> > >recognize a clear and present danger - the hawk - even though it was
> > >only a silhouette model of their enemy passing over their heads.
> >
> > I used to get a great reaction out of mother hens with a plastic
> > owl. Those birds never saw an owl to learn to be afraid of it, but
> > when I put a plastic owl down in front of them they would freak
> > out.
>
> They were freaking out over you having sex with the plastic owl,
> Fuckwit.



If you want them to drop dead of fright, place a stark naked Goober in
front of them.


Immortalist
2006-02-03 14:57:40 EST

<*h@.> wrote in message news:brn4u15jnpg8vbbhfqgv9q1eo1sudhcsko@4ax.com...
> On 2 Feb 2006 10:43:08 -0800, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Dutch zoologist Tinbergen used a flock of newly hatched baby turkeys,
>>not more than a few days old.
>
> [...]
>>Inborn in those little chicks' brain was the instinctive recognition of
>>the hawk as its natural enemy, instinctive fear and instinctive
>>reaction to flee and take cover. Without any training, without any
>>conscious thought processes, a few days old chicks were able to
>>recognize a clear and present danger - the hawk - even though it was
>>only a silhouette model of their enemy passing over their heads.
>
> I used to get a great reaction out of mother hens with a plastic
> owl. Those birds never saw an owl to learn to be afraid of it, but
> when I put a plastic owl down in front of them they would freak
> out.

Is it possible that activities of free will are a neurological instinct
who's assembly is directed by the genes?



D*@.
2006-02-05 11:28:30 EST
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:57:40 -0800, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:brn4u15jnpg8vbbhfqgv9q1eo1sudhcsko@4ax.com...
>> On 2 Feb 2006 10:43:08 -0800, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dutch zoologist Tinbergen used a flock of newly hatched baby turkeys,
>>>not more than a few days old.
>>
>> [...]
>>>Inborn in those little chicks' brain was the instinctive recognition of
>>>the hawk as its natural enemy, instinctive fear and instinctive
>>>reaction to flee and take cover. Without any training, without any
>>>conscious thought processes, a few days old chicks were able to
>>>recognize a clear and present danger - the hawk - even though it was
>>>only a silhouette model of their enemy passing over their heads.
>>
>> I used to get a great reaction out of mother hens with a plastic
>> owl. Those birds never saw an owl to learn to be afraid of it, but
>> when I put a plastic owl down in front of them they would freak
>> out.
>
>Is it possible that activities of free will are a neurological instinct
>who's assembly is directed by the genes?

It seems like it would have to be that way. So how did the genes
come to direct things as they do? How far back? No doubt back to the
Jungle Fowl, which game chickens are closely related to. It might be
interesting to see if different breeds of chickens respond significantly
differently, as they are bred away from the Jungle Fowl from which
chickens were originated.

Leif Erikson
2006-02-05 13:03:11 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:

> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:57:40 -0800, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
>>
>>>On 2 Feb 2006 10:43:08 -0800, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch zoologist Tinbergen used a flock of newly hatched baby turkeys,
>>>>not more than a few days old.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>Inborn in those little chicks' brain was the instinctive recognition of
>>>>the hawk as its natural enemy, instinctive fear and instinctive
>>>>reaction to flee and take cover. Without any training, without any
>>>>conscious thought processes, a few days old chicks were able to
>>>>recognize a clear and present danger - the hawk - even though it was
>>>>only a silhouette model of their enemy passing over their heads.
>>>
>>> I used to get a great reaction out of mother hens with a plastic
>>>owl. Those birds never saw an owl to learn to be afraid of it, but
>>>when I put a plastic owl down in front of them they would freak
>>>out.
>>
>>Is it possible that activities of free will are a neurological instinct
>>who's assembly is directed by the genes?
>
>
> It seems like it would have to be that way.

You don't even understand what he asked, Fuckwit.

Ron
2006-02-05 15:48:01 EST

Leif Erikson wrote:
> Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:57:40 -0800, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
> >>
> >>>On 2 Feb 2006 10:43:08 -0800, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dutch zoologist Tinbergen used a flock of newly hatched baby turkeys,
> >>>>not more than a few days old.
> >>>
> >>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>>Inborn in those little chicks' brain was the instinctive recognition of
> >>>>the hawk as its natural enemy, instinctive fear and instinctive
> >>>>reaction to flee and take cover. Without any training, without any
> >>>>conscious thought processes, a few days old chicks were able to
> >>>>recognize a clear and present danger - the hawk - even though it was
> >>>>only a silhouette model of their enemy passing over their heads.
> >>>
> >>> I used to get a great reaction out of mother hens with a plastic
> >>>owl. Those birds never saw an owl to learn to be afraid of it, but
> >>>when I put a plastic owl down in front of them they would freak
> >>>out.
> >>
> >>Is it possible that activities of free will are a neurological instinct
> >>who's assembly is directed by the genes?
> >
> >
> > It seems like it would have to be that way.
>
> You don't even understand what he asked, Fuckwit.


and you do?


Leif Erikson
2006-02-05 15:49:52 EST
ignorant pantywaist fudgepacking homo ronnie hamilton,
convicted felon, whined:

> Leif Erikson wrote:
>
>>Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 11:57:40 -0800, "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Fuckwit David Harrison, cracker, lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 2 Feb 2006 10:43:08 -0800, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dutch zoologist Tinbergen used a flock of newly hatched baby turkeys,
>>>>>>not more than a few days old.
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Inborn in those little chicks' brain was the instinctive recognition of
>>>>>>the hawk as its natural enemy, instinctive fear and instinctive
>>>>>>reaction to flee and take cover. Without any training, without any
>>>>>>conscious thought processes, a few days old chicks were able to
>>>>>>recognize a clear and present danger - the hawk - even though it was
>>>>>>only a silhouette model of their enemy passing over their heads.
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to get a great reaction out of mother hens with a plastic
>>>>>owl. Those birds never saw an owl to learn to be afraid of it, but
>>>>>when I put a plastic owl down in front of them they would freak
>>>>>out.
>>>>
>>>>Is it possible that activities of free will are a neurological instinct
>>>>who's assembly is directed by the genes?
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems like it would have to be that way.
>>
>>You don't even understand what he asked, Fuckwit.
>
>
>
> and you do?

Yes, ronnie, you no-fight pantywaist.
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron