Jump to content
Avant Labs
RepubCarrier

Can one truly do something they didn't want to do?

Recommended Posts

Is it possible to willingly do something that you do not want to do? Is it possible to do an unselfish deed? You would think the answer to this is an obvious "yes", but upon thinking about it, I have not come up with a single example where this ever happens.

 

False example 1): "I don't like going to work, and I willingly go there, wtf Repub?". My argument here is that you might not like work, but you like it more than the consequences of not going to work, i.e. lack of money, boredom, explaining yourself to others and reconciling this with your life goals when/if you get fired. Hence, you decide every time you get in the car or walk from your residence that going to work is the preferred course of action for that morning.

 

False example 2): "I hate hanging out with Mike, but I am too nice to say no.... even though I hate every minute of it". You might not like this person, but you would rather hangout than bear the thought of being a "bad" person if you are concerned about how they will react to a rejection, or what others will say about a rejection of his friendship; OR, you are using Mike to tell yourself or others that you are a good person. "I

hungout with Mike yesterday... yeah I know, but I'm a nice guy and I feel bad [cue feeling good about yourself]". This action was truly done to avoid bad feelings within yourself, or to gain a 'moral high ground'.

 

I guess I could go on, but these two examples classify most of the things I could think of. Any action CONSCIOUSLY taken (you yourself willed it) is either done to avoid something bad or to attain something good. It does not matter whether, in retrospect, you realize this was not the best course of action in avoiding bad or attaining good, only that at the time the action was taken you thought it was. All actions seem to fall under this, and all help, selfless acts, and charity are truly selfish if this is true.

 

True example: I made this post to see if I can make a lyceum-worthy post, to see if the theory is correct for my own self-satisfaction and intellectual confidence, and because I enjoy writing things, even if nobody else likes reading it. Selfish act, I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to willingly do something that you do not want to do? Is it possible to do an unselfish deed? You would think the answer to this is an obvious "yes", but upon thinking about it, I have not come up with a single example where this ever happens.

 

False example 1): "I don't like going to work, and I willingly go there, wtf Repub?". My argument here is that you might not like work, but you like it more than the consequences of not going to work, i.e. lack of money, boredom, explaining yourself to others and reconciling this with your life goals when/if you get fired. Hence, you decide every time you get in the car or walk from your residence that going to work is the preferred course of action for that morning.

 

False example 2): "I hate hanging out with Mike, but I am too nice to say no.... even though I hate every minute of it". You might not like this person, but you would rather hangout than bear the thought of being a "bad" person if you are concerned about how they will react to a rejection, or what others will say about a rejection of his friendship; OR, you are using Mike to tell yourself or others that you are a good person. "I

hungout with Mike yesterday... yeah I know, but I'm a nice guy and I feel bad [cue feeling good about yourself]". This action was truly done to avoid bad feelings within yourself, or to gain a 'moral high ground'.

 

I guess I could go on, but these two examples classify most of the things I could think of. Any action CONSCIOUSLY taken (you yourself willed it) is either done to avoid something bad or to attain something good. It does not matter whether, in retrospect, you realize this was not the best course of action in avoiding bad or attaining good, only that at the time the action was taken you thought it was. All actions seem to fall under this, and all help, selfless acts, and charity are truly selfish if this is true.

 

True example: I made this post to see if I can make a lyceum-worthy post, to see if the theory is correct for my own self-satisfaction and intellectual confidence, and because I enjoy writing things, even if nobody else likes reading it. Selfish act, I suppose.

 

 

In sociology I believe it's well known that when a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his fellow comrades, the issue comes down to time of reaction. If the soldier did it immediately without thinking, then that's one thing. If he thought about it, rationalized what it meant to be a good and decent person, or how he could live with himself afterwards for not doing so, than that's quite another.

 

"the social animal" Is a book I would recommend for anyone who found such things interesting to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repub there is much wisedom there e.g. some get selfish gratification by being selfish and others get selfish gratification by being nice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In sociology I believe it's well known that when a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his fellow comrades, the issue comes down to time of reaction. If the soldier did it immediately without thinking, then that's one thing. If he thought about it, rationalized what it meant to be a good and decent person, or how he could live with himself afterwards for not doing so, than that's quite another.

 

"the social animal" Is a book I would recommend for anyone who found such things interesting to think about.

 

I had considered this and other related classes of action, and this is why I specified CONSCIOUS actions when proposing the idea. An instinctual reaction should not be classified as a conscious decision because it occurs without any thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repub:

 

That is because of your definition. By your definition, there is no way. Even Jesus's death.

 

At the risk of offending some, I've heard it said that Jesus only "got it' i.e. became enlightened when on the cross. WHo is to say there was no ego in his behavior prior to then.

 

Oh and ya, enlightened people i.e. Bhuddas and perhaps people approaching that state can do such things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of offending some, I've heard it said that Jesus only "got it' i.e. became enlightened when on the cross. WHo is to say there was no ego in his behavior prior to then.

 

Oh and ya, enlightened people i.e. Bhuddas and perhaps people approaching that state can do such things.

All I meant was that by Repub's definition, everything one does is selfish. One always does what one thinks is "best," in one form or another.

 

IMHO, in determining whether someone is selfish, it is more practical to ask, "does one go about achieving 'what is best for oneself' at the expense of others, or does one achieve the same while helping others?"

 

This is an issues in semantics, which, I do not think, is too interesting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had considered this and other related classes of action, and this is why I specified CONSCIOUS actions when proposing the idea. An instinctual reaction should not be classified as a conscious decision because it occurs without any thought.

 

Does thought, at any time, influence what you would consider instinctive behaviour?

 

A while back an incident occured where I was in the service, the top of my game - into physical fitness, into martial arts arts and just a lean green fighting machine. An event out of the blue occured - this before the battered wife syndrome was in the public light. I saw this guy smacking the shit out of this chick. I mean, I'm getting off my cycle and i witness this. I'm stunned and as I take it in, I think I should do something and about that time I witness others just looking on, doing nothing. I stop, as something triggers inside.

 

After the effect, after the situation of what we now call abusive (back then it was not considered that, if anything slapping a chick was borderline acceptable) I reflected on why I did not act instinctively. This one issue was a motivating interest into my world of psychology - you see i was not scared, and i would have thought previous to the event that I would "do the right thing" instinctively. Yet I did not.

 

Some of this behaviour is explained in social conformity.

 

Since I have learned these things, I have acted quite differently and became an ass, for I felt that knowing the right thing was "all" important (lots of self-learning) and acting on the right thing (hard to know what that is, so you do your best) is very important. This does not sit well with being a social animal.

 

So I believe that based on my past and it's later effects, that I have actually changed my "instinctive" responses. Which of course seems to suggest that instinct is not instinct at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steppen,

 

I think you are not talking about instinct (assuming humans have them...check that...female dating behavior argues that we do) but conditioned benavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steppen,

 

I think you are not talking about instinct (assuming humans have them...check that...female dating behavior argues that we do) but conditioned benavior.

 

Help me understand instinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First definition from google:

 

"inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli;"

 

Inborn. Though people often use it to mean things learned from training that is not the proper use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some would say that the death of Jesus was the only fully altruistic act by man.

 

 

And Santa Claus. He gives and gives, and asks for nothing in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First definition from google:

 

"inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli;"

 

Inborn. Though people often use it to mean things learned from training that is not the proper use.

 

ok. This I understood would be a easy find on google (or perhaps if you have oxford at your fingertips in the start menu...lol) . I think i understand learned behaviour too. But I am not real satisfied with the definitions taught in schools. Are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about autonomic functions?

 

If you mean bodily reactions which occur as a result of a conscious thought (i.e. SNS), but are not willed specifically by the conscious thought (e.g. thinking about a girl purposefully, then getting a boner as an unintended consequence; or, thinking about someone you hate ----> adrenaline released), then I would say that this does not apply to what I am saying.

 

It may need to be clarified, or restated, that this 'theory' applies only to conscious actions which you intend to take. If you 'intend' to catch a ball in a game of football, but miss, that was not what you mind had willed, so you did not consciously/purposefully miss the catch. If you purposely are trying to think about a girl, but have not thought about the consequences of that action, those consequences could very well be undesireable vs. another course of action. BUT, this could only happen if, at the time of thinking about the girl, you were not consciously aware of any such (relatively) negative consequences. Suppose you know thinking about a girl will, with 100% certainty, get you a boner. You then will decide, just as the 'theory' dictates, your course of action based on what you want to do given this and all pieces of information consciously being considered, even if your justification is "I just kinda felt like it" at the time.

 

Another interesting thing which you have brought up Ras, is actions where the consequences are probabilities rather than certainties. Say there is a 70% chance that a boner occurs when thinking about a girl, and all other things constant, you still want to think about the girl right now and still would rather do something else than have a boner as a result. Your action here will still be what you want to do...

 

Set of analogy based scenarios, skip if you already know where I'm going with this:

 

All Scenarios: The set of actions (Think_Girl and Get_Boner) is less desireable than (2ndBest_Action and Best_Action_Time2), but (Think_Girl and 2ndBest_Action_Time2) is more desireable than (2ndBest_Action and Best_Action_Time2). In other words, thinking about the girl will only have been a net 'what you wanted to do' if the boner does not occur; if it does, the 2nd set of actions would have been better preferred.

 

Scenario 1: You don't think about the boner, at all. You will think about the girl as a conscious action, and it will be what you wanted to do most at that time; the boner may result without your conscious knowledge, but the theory says nothing about unconscious or unintended actions.

 

Scenario 2: You know about the boner, but mistakenly think it will occur with 100% certainty. You will then do 2ndBest_Action followed by Best_Action_Time2, believing you are doing what pleases you the most (net)... because, AT THE TIME, this is what you wanted to do given the (incorrect) evidence placed before you. If you found out later that p(boner) was 70%, it is inconsequential to the theory, as the only thing I have stated is that conscious actions taken will always be what you want to do at that time. Obviously, with foresight, one could find millions of actions that one would have rather taken, but that is neither possible not what I have said.

 

Scenario 3: You know p(boner) is 70%. Then, simply, based on mathematics, gut feeling, 'winging it' estimates or by whatever method your mind words, you will go with the course of actions that you think is most likely to result in what you wanted to do. If you are wrong, i.e. you think about the girl and the undesireable boner does result, this still does not change that you wanted to take that conscious action based on your assessment of the risk.

 

New Scenario, n>2 case: Suppose you have a conscious choice to throw a ball at one out of one million targets, with a known prize associated with each target if successfully hit. Where you throw the ball depends on, simply, wherever you feel like throwing the ball when you throw it. It could be based on finding a prize you really would like to get, could be based on 'hey, I feel like chucking the ball over there', or whatever motivations come across your mind. You will, however, throw the ball where you want to throw it

 

All of this analogy-based ranting, I suspect, was redundant and unnecessary, so I apologize. The point/summary is, if you think that a SNS reaction to a conscious action occurs, then you might choose your conscious actions with the desireability of that SNS reaction and its probability of occurance in mind. You also might choose to believe that the SNS action will always happen, or won't happen, even if you are wrong... it is only what you think will result that affects what you want to do.

 

I hope that made sense, Ras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking in terms of :

Are instincts things we can stop or resist?

Are they mechanical?

Are they impulses?

Are they or can they change over time or by desire?

Do we have as many or more than other primates?

Is language instinctive? (this is kinda sorta important i think, because thier is reason to believe it so, and if so, there are other arguments which lead to some of the above questions.)

is learning as we do in terms of academics, instinctive? (some have a higher drive for sex, some do not and seem to drive elsewhere - is this elsewhere instinctive like sex?)

 

You know, those sort of things.

 

I'm not cetain I know what instincts are. Involuntary physiological activity such as the beating of the heart, does not seem to fit. But neither, at first, does language. I meant what I said in the beginning, which is:

 

help me understand instincts...if you care to that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking in terms of :

Are instincts things we can stop or resist?

Are they mechanical?

Are they impulses?

Are they or can they change over time or by desire?

Do we have as many or more than other primates?

Is language instinctive? (this is kinda sorta important i think, because thier is reason to believe it so, and if so, there are other arguments which lead to some of the above questions.)

is learning as we do in terms of academics, instinctive? (some have a higher drive for sex, some do not and seem to drive elsewhere - is this elsewhere instinctive like sex?)

 

You know, those sort of things.

 

I'm not cetain I know what instincts are. Involuntary physiological activity such as the beating of the heart, does not seem to fit. But neither, at first, does language. I meant what I said in the beginning, which is:

 

help me understand instincts...if you care to that is.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It doesn't really answer most of questions, however.

The site talks about what what some in the field think, and it does indicate one particular event the triggering of FAP (fixed action pattterns) as being proof of something being an instinct.

 

It also says that, after birth, for the most part, humans do not have instincts.

 

It also states that instincts can change.

 

There is reference that instincts, accroding to this site anyway, cannot be overridden.

..

 

i dunno. I find the explaination fine for highschool or an intro college level class. After that, it lacks that fulfilling, full taste test.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not know what you are looking for e.g.

 

". In humans they are most easily observed in behaviors such as emotions, sexual drive, and other bodily functions, as these are largely biologically determined. Instinct provides a response to external stimuli, which moves an organism to action, unless overridden by intelligence,"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the nub of it.

 

I would say no. By making oneself do something, there would be a reason that to this individual meant that they wouldn't want to not do it. For example, the individual may have an urge to explore and this includes any sensation. Unpleasant sensations are mediated within the brain by pleasure relieving processes. As the exploring urge is excercised, the individual wants to explore an unpleasant circumstance, and this is because a part of themselves feels pleasure in doing this, perhaps because they believe it represents something or otherwise (a learning urge). An important component of decisions like this is that they are motivated within a context of other options which the individual would prefer not to take (i.e. to not 'do it' is less preffered that to do it). This may directly lead to the urge to do something unpleasant, and this is perhaps the key point of consciousness (consciousness of option-outcomes).

 

Going back to the other thread on the mind and the will, where conscious self-determintation, in the way that we could computationally define it, comes into it is that the mind (the will) does seem to possess the ability to control the 'output' of these effects - how something feels, therefore the mind can control its explorational path. This is through tuning out parts of a sensation that are unpleasant and learning how to 'tune up' pleasurable stimuli. The mind can learn various tools that effect the impact of signals and sensations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do a google search for 'homo economicus'.

 

As for the bigger issue, here... the question of intentionality, i.e., intention to do something, is under-written in the notion of doing something according to want/desire. People can certainly do things that they don't want to do, if their notions of what they want are corrupt; the solar winds will always win over intentionality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do a google search for 'homo economicus'.

 

As for the bigger issue, here... the question of intentionality, i.e., intention to do something, is under-written in the notion of doing something according to want/desire. People can certainly do things that they don't want to do, if their notions of what they want are corrupt; the solar winds will always win over intentionality.

 

What is a corrupt notion?

 

I'm well aware of the 'economic man' who makes decisions 'rationally'. My problem with the critics, and even most of those who apply this theory, is that they define rationality for each person in a way that does not suit reality. I just read the wikipedia article re: homo economicus, and if I may quoth several times:

 

Homo economicus bases his choices on a consideration of his own personal "utility function". Economic man is also amoral, ignoring all social values unless adhering to them gives him utility. Some believe such assumptions about humans are not only empirically inaccurate but unethical.

 

-Why assume that adhering to morals has some other purpose than to increase your utility? I don't think it does... when I was a child I followed a moral code for fear of going to hell (my own utility), now, I act according to what makes me feel like a good person (my own utility) or even a lack of morals that nietzche has provided to me as an option, giving me true power (again, my own utility).

 

Economists Thorstein Veblen, John Maynard Keynes, Herbert Simon, and many of the Austrian School criticise Homo economicus as an actor in understanding macroeconomics and economic forecasting. They stress uncertainty and bounded rationality in the making of economic decisions, rather than relying on the rational man who is fully informed of all circumstances impinging on his decisions. They argue that perfect knowledge never exists, which means that all economic activity implies risk.

 

-In retrospect, you can always find a better choice that you could have made to improve utlity. How does that have anything to do with someone making a choice given a set of data in the present? I merely say that we choose actions based on what we want to do at the time.

 

Another weakness is highlighted by sociologists, who argue that Homo economicus ignores an extremely important question, i.e., the origins of tastes and the parameters of the utility function by social influences, training, education, and the like. The exogeneity of tastes (preferences) in this model is the major distinction from Homo sociologicus, in which tastes are taken as partially or even totally determined by the societal environment (see below)

 

-I am not even going to bother with this one. They are railing against those who have used 'the economic man' in a way that I am not.

 

****

 

What I am trying to say may be on such a base level that it is practically useless, but that doesn't stop me from questioning whether it is true or not. To formulate once again what I am saying:

 

At any time, any conscious and purposeful action/thought you undertake is precisely what you wanted to do at that moment in time. It will increase your utility immediately; or, at the time you made the decision, you thought it would increase utility in the long-run. This may allow the action you initially took to be unenjoyable, but since you thought it would 'pay off' the best in the long run, it was still ultimately what you wanted to do to best increase utility. It does not matter if you turn out to be wrong about the long-term, or, if in retrospect you could have increased utility more with a different course of action... I merely state that, based upon what you think at the time you undertake this conscious action, it will be to increase utility in the shortest-of-short terms up to the long-term.

 

I finished writing that last sentence because I enjoyed writing it, and stopping would have been stupid. I stopped briefly after writing that last sentence, and laughed a little bit at my silliness. I am just doing whatever occurs to me at any point in time. Usually (especially when I haven't just woken up) I am thinking with my long-term desires more in my conscious mind, and will undertake short-term actions to achieve those goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to willingly do something that you do not want to do? Is it possible to do an unselfish deed? You would think the answer to this is an obvious "yes", but upon thinking about it, I have not come up with a single example where this ever happens.

 

False example 1): "I don't like going to work, and I willingly go there, wtf Repub?". My argument here is that you might not like work, but you like it more than the consequences of not going to work, i.e. lack of money, boredom, explaining yourself to others and reconciling this with your life goals when/if you get fired. Hence, you decide every time you get in the car or walk from your residence that going to work is the preferred course of action for that morning.

 

False example 2): "I hate hanging out with Mike, but I am too nice to say no.... even though I hate every minute of it". You might not like this person, but you would rather hangout than bear the thought of being a "bad" person if you are concerned about how they will react to a rejection, or what others will say about a rejection of his friendship; OR, you are using Mike to tell yourself or others that you are a good person. "I

hungout with Mike yesterday... yeah I know, but I'm a nice guy and I feel bad [cue feeling good about yourself]". This action was truly done to avoid bad feelings within yourself, or to gain a 'moral high ground'.

 

I guess I could go on, but these two examples classify most of the things I could think of. Any action CONSCIOUSLY taken (you yourself willed it) is either done to avoid something bad or to attain something good. It does not matter whether, in retrospect, you realize this was not the best course of action in avoiding bad or attaining good, only that at the time the action was taken you thought it was. All actions seem to fall under this, and all help, selfless acts, and charity are truly selfish if this is true.

 

True example: I made this post to see if I can make a lyceum-worthy post, to see if the theory is correct for my own self-satisfaction and intellectual confidence, and because I enjoy writing things, even if nobody else likes reading it. Selfish act, I suppose.

 

Go read the Buddha Vacana :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not know what you are looking for e.g.

 

". In humans they are most easily observed in behaviors such as emotions, sexual drive, and other bodily functions, as these are largely biologically determined. Instinct provides a response to external stimuli, which moves an organism to action, unless overridden by intelligence,"

 

Ok, I had to settle some thoughts..perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree, way of base or whatever...

 

Consider that a Gorilla when finding a new fem, runs off the other male and then kills the kids. There are various reasons for this, for purposes here - the fem gorilla goes back to etres and thus able to produce off spring. The results is that gorillas who do not kill the offspring will not produce as many as those that do, if at all. Finally, the Gorilla species will eventually, as it has already, result in said male behaviour.

 

Since instinct must be memory in one way or another, is this gorilla male behaviour something other than instinct?

 

Consider that Chomsky suggests that language is instinct. Language is not something one can have before the age of what..two? and if not developed by age (what 6 or 8) language as we know it, will never be developed in a person.

 

..am i way off base in thinking that behaviour and social behaviour while definitely having components of learned behaviour, may also include some sort of instinct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I had to settle some thoughts..perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree, way of base or whatever...

 

Consider that a Gorilla when finding a new fem, runs off the other male and then kills the kids. There are various reasons for this, for purposes here - the fem gorilla goes back to etres and thus able to produce off spring. The results is that gorillas who do not kill the offspring will not produce as many as those that do, if at all. Finally, the Gorilla species will eventually, as it has already, result in said male behaviour.

 

Since instinct must be memory in one way or another, is this gorilla male behaviour something other than instinct?

 

Consider that Chomsky suggests that language is instinct. Language is not something one can have before the age of what..two? and if not developed by age (what 6 or 8) language as we know it, will never be developed in a person.

 

..am i way off base in thinking that behaviour and social behaviour while definitely having components of learned behaviour, may also include some sort of instinct?

 

Well first, if you don't develop language you can later though it's difficult as the "wild child" cases show. Anyway, gorilla behavior especially relating to killing has been shown to be learned behavior, there was an article on this in Scientific American I believe a few issues back. Basically in one group of them, the females got in charge, and the males stopped killing each other and started grooming each other, and that behavior was passed on. Metrosexual gorillas? Anyway...

 

There is instinct in human behavior, drives to feed, excrete, reproduce, fight, flee, etc. There are also disorders along these lines such as anxiety disorders, OCD, depression etc. All can be overridden by the mind and even altered long-term but certainly play a role in what the mind decides.

 

"The mark of the educated man is suppression of these qualities in favor of better ones. The same is true for society." -Warren Spector

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well first, if you don't develop language you can later though it's difficult as the "wild child" cases show. Anyway, gorilla behavior especially relating to killing has been shown to be learned behavior, there was an article on this in Scientific American I believe a few issues back. Basically in one group of them, the females got in charge, and the males stopped killing each other and started grooming each other, and that behavior was passed on. Metrosexual gorillas? Anyway...

 

There is instinct in human behavior, drives to feed, excrete, reproduce, fight, flee, etc. There are also disorders along these lines such as anxiety disorders, OCD, depression etc. All can be overridden by the mind and even altered long-term but certainly play a role in what the mind decides.

 

"The mark of the educated man is suppression of these qualities in favor of better ones. The same is true for society." -Warren Spector

 

I am familiar with the "wild child" cases which showed that if language was not learned/developed by a certain very young age that vocabulary could be learned but complex grammer and language structure would be limited as to extreme early stages of normal language development. IIRC not much past that which a gorilla can be taught to do...

 

It seems odd that the Gorilla Male is so huge in comparison to the female of the species considering that only learned behaviour (which suggests that the behaviour would not be a constant in all gorillas everywhere) is the reason for the behaviour.

 

How did the gorilla male get females- did they turn into bonobos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am familiar with the "wild child" cases which showed that if language was not learned/developed by a certain very young age that vocabulary could be learned but complex grammer and language structure would be limited as to extreme early stages of normal language development. IIRC not much past that which a gorilla can be taught to do...

 

Wild childs surpass them by vocal communications, but you're right, it's not really complex language. It is so rare a thing though that it's hard to say what the limits are.

 

It seems odd that the Gorilla Male is so huge in comparison to the female of the species considering that only learned behaviour (which suggests that the behaviour would not be a constant in all gorillas everywhere) is the reason for the behaviour.

 

How did the gorilla male get females- did they turn into bonobos?

 

I don't recall. I tend to tune out the non-human biology articles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×