Innate or learned behaviors

I think there are certain inate or hardwired characteristics which are not easily subject to manipulation in the short term.

However, in any study or hypothisis, all of the variables and possible outcomes should be considered, no matter how obscure.

There are areas of domestication and human manipulation which are very short term possibilities, and then there are genetic mutations and long term adaptive evolution which we are unable to study within our life time, which must also be considered.

Once a living being progresses to a certain point on the evolutionary scale, is there any kind of "going back" ability to where an animal's core make-up can be reversed and rewritten?

It's a mystery.

JMO and musings.

Caution, I will use a definition from the 1970's. I think there is innate behavior and it is survival of the fittest. Some behavior becomes fixed in a species because they have survived with that behavior. I do not view it as radially adaptive, which would be evolution to suit a purpose. A case in point of survival of the fittest winning over the inability to radially adapt. There were two types of early canids. One was completely carnivore, the other omnivore. The carnivore hunted slow ruminants. When faster ruminants came along, the carnivore couldn't adapt fast enough and followed its slow prey into extinction.
 
Innate behavior can be any number of things, such as learning to lick momma's mouth for food. Breeders have sought to accentuate one part of a trait for their benefit. Example, herding is part of pack hunting behavior. Tracking scent is also part of hunting, as well as running at top speed. Any of these behaviors can be exhibited by all members of a species, but maybe only valued in a certain breed.

The problem with so-called innate behaviours is that it's quite difficult to be sure that they are completely inborn and not affected even remotely by environmental factors. I always thought hares and rabbits ran mostly on instinct, but I soon learnt that my baby hare grew up isolated from rabbits and hares and thus had no idea how to interract with one. You'd think he'd know what to do with a female in heat, but he really doesn't. Similarly, the problems with breeding captive animals. Pandas can be quite stubborn about refusing to realise that they're a panda and not a person and should be interested in other pandas, not people. I'm frequently surprised by how much of animal behaviour is readily influenced by upbringing and the environment. You never really know until you get surprised.

[linkhttp://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/ETHEXPT.HTM#FAP]http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/ETHEXPT.HTM#FAP[/link]
 
There's a link, written in regular english explaining Lorenz's theory. The criticisms of his theory as listed there are picayune and trivial and do not, IMO, detract from the innate behavior, or FAP, fixed action pattern. Because a behavior becomes modifed through experience does not negate the behavior. That is the criticisms seem to fill only a rhetorical need to "win" a debate. There are videos to show FAP, such as the smile and eybrow raise in humans.

Could it be that whatever hardwiring we come with is designed to be alterable by learning and environment?  Perhaps, that's the greatest accomplishment of living organisms - and also their worst fault, hence the "wrong path" leading to extinction.
Recent reports that all mammals suffer extinction within a period of about 250 million years leads me to think there is even a grander plan afoot that makes us much "smaller" than we imagine ourselves in the scope of the universe...
All this research may be unnecessary in the sense that our destiny is pre-programmed anyway and probably not reversible.  We humans hate to think of it that way - most of us are such complete control freaks.     

Here's an interesting link on behavior modification, specifically, fear extinction.
 
[linkhttp://www.apa.org/journals/releases/xan294323.pdf]http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/xan294323.pdf[/link]
 
The best results were flooding CS's, followed by spaced CS's. If you start out with spaced CS's the animal has time to fear and become immobile. If you mass the CS's, they don't have time to fear and must simply follow your lead until they've developed a new reponse.
 
I still think there are innate behaviors that can be modified or even channeled, though the behaviors are still there. Humans have the ability to do something in spite of an innate behavior, such as a fireman running into a burning building when everything in common sense says to do the exact opposite.
 
And as for innate behaviors, these can also be a training tool, i.e., working with the behaviors evident in the animal to achieve a desired effect.

oh boy, neuropsych and dogs....does it get any better[]
 
There are specific areas of the brain that are engaged in certain behaviors.  That is shown up in species after species.  There are windows of opportunity within which it is easier to establish new behaviors (socialization with dogs, language acquisition with people as examples)
 
Some behaviors are hardwired,  attention to sensory stimulation, it is not possible to prevent the brain from registering stimuli (if the system is intact).
 
If you watch a border collie approach sheep quickly, (and they come from strong herding lines) there is a good probability they will run wide; same is true for many kelpies.  Belgians however, are likely to move straight up the middle.  You can alter the way both dogs work, but the default (inate) behaviors will still be evident.
 
I absolutely believe we are hard wired.  I used to believe it was nuture alone, not so any more.  It is a very complex and delicate balance between what is in the system and what occurs outside the system.

I always thought hares and rabbits ran mostly on instinct, but I soon learnt that my baby hare grew up isolated from rabbits and hares and thus had no idea how to interract with one. You'd think he'd know what to do with a female in heat, but he really doesn't. Similarly, the problems with breeding captive animals. Pandas can be quite stubborn about refusing to realise that they're a panda and not a person and should be interested in other pandas, not people.

 
This would be "imprinting". The ability to imprint is an Innate behavior, but how an animal is imprinted is reliant on it's environment. Lorenz proved this with his Graylag Geese. Nature vs. Nuture.
 
I don't think our "hardwiring" is reliant on learning or environment. Certain behaviors must be constant or the species would not survive. Fixed Action Patterns are dependable "behaviors" that are species specific to ensure survival. Take kittens for instance, when they are hungry, the behaviors they exhibit when searching for food are "hardwired" and ALL kittens (even large felids) display it. They crawl in a forward direction until they reach a vertical surface. Once the hit that vertical surface, they move along it until the "feel" a texture change (smoothness), then they search for a "bump" (which would indicate a nipple), then they open their mouths (rooting) to latch on. Once the nipple has been found, a different FAP takes place for nursing.
This is NOT learned OR affected by the environment. It HAS to be hardwired for survival.
 
 

I like this thread!
 
Also related is the point that although the development of FAP aren't reliant on the environment, I think they have to be triggered by an internal or external event/stimulus.
 
Does the internal environment, e.g. physical state. count as environment?

While I don't think internal stimuli would "count" as environment, I do feel that internal stimuli "trigger" FAP. Hunger for instance [] would trigger a FAP to find food. Of course, the FAP, would vary depending on the species. Nest building would be triggered by internal AND external stimuli (ie:release of reproductive hormones (internal) and circadian rythums (external).


I too, love this topic because it really gets down to the "roots" of behavior. I have taken animal behavior in the quest for my degree and found it to be one of the most interesting subjects I've taken.

Ron, while I agree that the criticisms of the FAP don't detract from the value of Lorenz's reserach, I believe they are fairly important criticisms. The thing about behaviour is that it can be interpreted in a large variety of ways, so being super specific about definitions is really important just to make sure everyone is talking about the same thing.

I agree with Vinia that the development of FAPs may be triggered by the environment. To me, it's the development of the FAP that's really interesting. Often animals are born knowing the basics of what being a member of their species is all about, but have to refine their skills before they can be competetive in the mating game. For example, birds are usually born knowing how to sing the way the rest of their species does, but if you've ever heard a young bird attempting to replicate an adult of it's species it's pretty hilarious. They need lots of practice before they sound good. I think there have been studies where they raised birds in isolation and discovered that the birds did know instinctively what they should sound like, but needed to hear adult songs to refine their technique. To me, that's an excellent example of what people here are talking about. It's pretty clear cut how it comes about and what the influences are.

kennel_keeper, even imprinting isn't that clearcut. Cuckoos are raised in other bird's nests, but still know they're a cuckoo when they fledge. I also know that rock wallabies fostered to tammar wallaby mothers have no doubt that they're rock wallabies and should therefore be climbing trees despite their mother's distress when they hop up into places a tammar wallaby can't go. And yet, other animals imprint blindly to whoever feeds them as a baby. It can be unpredictable, and unpredictable observations are a real pain in the neck for any behavioural ecologist. They're meaningless until you can find a pattern.

Talking about stimuli, I'm reminded of the fact that baby lambs are born with one stomach. They only develop the other three when they start nibbling on grass or other vegetation. If you raised a lamb in a lab and only ever fed it milk, it would never become a ruminant. It's not behaviour as such, but it's interesting in that behaviour can stimulate physiological development as well.

ORIGINAL: corvus

I agree with Vinia that the development of FAPs may be triggered by the environment...

 
lol- actually I was trying to say the opposite, and make the point that the occurrence of a FAP is dependent on an environmental cue. Though now that I think about it, perhaps the predisposition to exhibit or learn a behaviour (FAP) can also be considered innate? 
 
I'm getting all confuddled thinking about what I'm trying to say [&:]

*giggles* Now I'm getting confused!

I see what you're saying. You're talking about an environmental cue causing the behaviour we see, which just happens to be an FAP, right?

I was thinking in more general terms, along the lines of what makes an individual refine an FAP from the original tendency to the kind of perfected behaviour we see in experienced adults.

Are we both right? []

I agree that there are certain actions that are hard-wired into an animals behavior.  The best one that i can think of is what I call "the coyote pounce."  I didn't teach Xerxes to do this, and he was doing the pounce without instruction.  (The pounce is when the dog goes up on his back legs, and jumps up, landing with front paws and nose down in an attempt to catch his prey.)  I also wonder if the sighthound eye reactivity is innate as well.

In reponse to Anne...yes I think that innate or hard wired behaviors can be modified by environmental stimuli.  That is the hallmark of a successful species.  Unfortunately if the enviromental niche filled by that species either narrows or becomes too specialized then that hard-wired behavior may doom the species as well...especially if there are physical limitations as well.