reply to post by NorEaster
In terms of "instinct" and "mind", it could still be argued that this was simply "a rash decision" and "good, reasoned decision", although
I'd still be of the belief that you could improve your "instinct" by improving your "decision making ability" (or "technique") and
"knowledge". For example, to a Formula 1 racing driver, the decisions they make may be classed as "instinct" to many because they are so quick (as
they have to be as they are racing at high speeds). Put an untrained, non-practiced driver in the same situation, at the same speeds and I'd suggest
that could be classed as reckless by the many (i.e. they wouldn't be driving from instinct).
I should state that my knowledge of ants/animals and their behaviors is limited, and I'm unsure where the "Instinct is what links brain-addled
creatures to a group think survival strategy" claim comes from, but from my perspective, continuing with the ant comparison, it could be argued that
the ants provide a better strategy for a safer, more stable environment to operate in. Could they not be very good at making quick, informed decisions
to suit their requirements (food, survival of one and all) as they have practiced this over a longer period of time as a species and it is just the
perception of those quoting the above having come to that (potentially incorrect) conclusion based on the limit of their knowledge?
Humans still have some basic requirements to survive individually (eat and drink) and as a species (reproduce) but not all seem to value the survival
(and potentially the enjoyment) of the many over the values/requirements of the few (or the individual). Is the human behavior not similar to ants,
just with different requirements?
For example, a human requirement maybe to get a job, or to go to the cinema/pictures. These are still determined by some other requirement, such as
requirement for money or to have a good time, determined from some other cause circumstance/requirement (e.g. social trends, peer pressure, friends
and family, previous enjoyment/experience etc.).
If you have an ant colony working from a collective understanding of what needs to be done and making good/light work of it, does it not also suggest
they are a stronger species than humans because they are better at doing what they do for the benefit of others as a whole (i.e. more selfless and
The more that humans create/introduce into the world, the more variations of things there are to "require", and the processes/methods of
meeting/achieving those requirements become rushed/sloppy/ill-informed. If humans took it upon themselves to improve their
understanding/knowledge/education as a focus, I suspect there would be less individuals manipulated by others (intentional or unintentionally), to
their own detriment (knowingly, or unknowingly), but to the strength of the greater collective human species and experience.
If individuals know what they are getting themselves into before they get into it (by doing their research and information gathering), they give
themselves a better chance of avoiding cost to themselves by asking more informed questions of the provider, and being able to step back if the
answers don't meet the requirements.
If somebody tells you that jumping off a cliff is good and you should do it, do you do it? - Usually not, because you have enough awareness of a cliff
and it's dangers, and how others perceive a cliff and it's dangers to give you the reassurance that it's not something you should (and/or want to)
If somebody tells you to buy Product X, that's just been released, would you buy it? - In this case, I'd argue it's a little more unclear on the
decision/conclusion you would come to. There is a smaller collective knowledge and experience of Product X, than a cliff, for example, therefore you
perhaps stand a higher probability of gaining inaccurate information and reviews of said product, and buying a product poorer than
If you take a step back from the flow/crowd/consensus/hype, wait a while for reviews and feedback to come in from sources using the product, you might
possibly avoid a product you could do without (was their really a requirement for you from the outset?), a product you could do better than or a
product you spend money on that doesn't meet your requirements (assuming you had some to begin with).
Marketing is a clever industry that can sell you the idea that you didn't think you had based on personal information about you, or based on social
trends. If you are marketed/sold an idea, it's still worth the effort investigating it is suitable for you rather than accepting/assuming it's right
By informing yourself, you force those trying to use/manipulate you work harder to do so. Would you rather be bullied or stand up to the bully?
Note: The bully could be anyone.