Innateness and the instinct to learn.
Concepts of innateness were at the heart of Darwin's approach to behavior and central to the ethological theorizing of Lorenz and, at least to start with, of Tinbergen. Then Tinbergen did an about face, and for some twenty years the term 'innate' became highly suspect. He attributed the change to Lehrman's famous 1953 critique in which he asserted that classifying behaviors as innate tells us nothing about how they develop. Although Lehrman made many valid points, I will argue that this exchange also led to profound misunderstandings that were ultimately damaging to progress in research on the development of behavior. The concept of 'instincts to learn', receiving renewed support from current theorizing among geneticists about phenotypic plasticity, provides a potential resolution of some of the controversies that Lehrman created. Bioacoustical studies, particularly on song learning in birds, serve both to confirm some of Lehrman's anxieties about the term 'innate', but also to make a case that he threw out the genetic baby with the bathwater. The breathtaking progress in molecular and developmental genetics has prepared the way for a fuller understanding of the complexities underlying even the simplest notions of innate behavior, necessary before we can begin to comprehend the ontogeny of behavior.
Marler
Peter
P
Animal Communication Laboratory, Department of Neurobiology, Physiology and Behavior, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. prmarler@ucdavis.edu
D000818:Animals; D001717:Birds / Q000235:genetics / Q000502:physiology*; D005010:Ethology / Q000266:history; D005824:Genetics, Behavioral; D049673:History, 20th Century; D049674:History, 21st Century; D007323:Instinct; D010641:Phenotype; D014828:Vocalization, Animal / Q000502:physiology*