Drive-reduction theory accepts and glorifies drives as the only possible influencers of human behavior; and the satisfaction of drives as our purpose in life.

An animal will sometimes respond to a threat by doing essentially nothing; grass-picking or some other action that humans call displacement behavior.

Various creatures, confronted with approaching natural disaster, are able to satisfy their basic, innate drive to survive such catastrophes.

Where does drive-reduction theory come in, when animals experience a drive to preserve themselves from burning alive? What happens in a fire?

Displacement behavior is a biobehavioral mechanism that allows an animal to deal with situations that cannot readily be faced, avoided, or thwarted.

If we thought we knew everything about why animals do what they do, including exhibiting displacement behavior, we would be kidding ourselves.

Animals have internal needs and sensory inputs and perceptions, so how do those transmute and translate into behavior?

When animals do displacement behavior and when people do procrastination, it all boils down to the same thing, which is “avoidance behavior.”

Amidst the controversy that arose over the work of ethology’s founders, including Niko Tinbergen, his “Four Questions” have stood the test of time pretty well.

Over the years, many scientists were having trouble with the untrammeled practice of assuming parallels between animal behavior and human behavior.

Tracing the history of the collaboration between Nikolaas Tinbergen and Konrad Lorenz because it encompasses some of the ideas in Dr. Pretlow’s current project.

Our recent posts have focused on Nikolaas Tinbergen because he was one of the scientists who contributed most to the earliest theories about ethology.

Ethology is the study of animal behavior, particularly under natural conditions in the creatures’ natural environment.

The field of ethology is the biological study of animal behaviors, both instinctive and learned, in nature.

The discussion of the effects of C-section births on a child’s development and how breastfeeding affects the baby’s microbiome continues.

We have been talking about the concepts of food addiction and eating addiction, and what a person might contribute to the likelihood of becoming addicted.

Some countries have a fortunate genetic heritage that leaves their feel-good genes unfettered, making them happy countries. Let’s look at the inner workings.

Do certain genes exert influence over a person’s likelihood of developing an addiction to food and/or eating? It does seem likely.

Heredity influences the body and brain to have certain attitudes and behaviors around food and eating. This is significant for many reasons.

What other substances and processes can influence our moods and cravings? And how does displacement behavior resemble addictive behavior?

As it turns out, the topic of genetics and the long-cherished hope of discovering “the” obesity gene might throw some light on this puzzle from another angle.

So, there can be several kinds of people: addicted but not obese; addicted and obese; obese but not addicted; neither obese and nor addicted.

If treating eating addiction according to an addiction model is effective, it seems sensible to do that while still figuring out the big picture.

One part of the multi-faceted conversation says that all or some foods can contain substances that act like hard drugs in the human body.

While there may be little evidence for the presence of addictive substances in natural foods, the food industry has a few tricks up its sleeve.

There’s still no convincing proof that foods or food components should be considered addictive in the same sense as, for instance, cocaine.

Debate continues about whether some foods can be addictive in the same sense as drugs or alcohol. Is the addictiveness inherent in the food or in the person?

One belief is that what is called food addiction is actually a subset of drug addiction, but it’s not a blanket truth.

How much does it matter whether or not the client is invested in the addiction paradigm? For one, a recovering addict has to acknowledge the loss of control.

The longer society continues arguing policy and regulatory points, the longer we can put off needing to really do something.