Instinctive, intuitive, inherent, ingrained, inborn, integral, indwelling, (and more) mean almost the same thing. One can argue about the subtle differences. However, these words have one thing in common: when applied to behaviour they represent actions beyond cognitive control.
These are not popular words with modern, western humans. This is because these individuals like to believe that are entirely in conscious control of their behaviour, using learning, wisdom and cognitive capabilities to arrive at (what they believe is) satisfyingly correct actions.
There is another quality of these “in” words: all their qualities are impossible to measure. Therefore humans prefer to consider the measurable, “scientific”, the mathematical and the “logical/rational” as the only worthy grounds of discussion. Because of the inability to define the boundaries of the “in” words these are relegated to the unimportant, not worth considering, and secondary to human behaviour.
Is that the case? The foundation of all human behaviour is probably the inherent, and instinctive. Superimposed upon that can be the “rational” But that – in reality – is simply the result of observation, or observation communicated. All science, all rationality and all logic arises, in the final measure, from the empirical. Every mathematical equation and every logical syllogism is based on the observed, the empirical. Where do the mathematical precepts arise? They are inherent – instinctive if one likes. This is readily demonstrated by Idiots Savant who have extraordinary (to most) mathematical capabilities which come out of the depths of their genetic and inherent physiology.
One can look further: the strongest determinate of all human behaviour is sexuality. The multiple components of sexuality are not rational, they are not reasoned, and they are not cognitive. They are inherent. Whether it is the desire of the boy to hold the girl’s hand, the wish to suckle the baby or the self sacrificing protection of infants, this is all instinctive. Maternal imperatives are inherent – whatever quasi rationales are offered by women who try to reason they are not – women (and men) are primarily units for reproduction.
Leading from the denials of the instinctive, are numerous human hazards, not the least of which is the failure of women to protect their sexual vulnerability. The current trend is to blame sexual assertiveness on the male. If it is rape it is the male’s fault. To stop rape it is held that one has to “change the attitudes of men”. Conveniently it is forgotten that those attitudes are inherent, immensely powerful and long recognized to be so powerful that careful protection of women by their parents, relatives, and society as a whole have evolved complex social and other strategies to defend female vulnerability. But now we have young women who believe they can “cock a snoot” at the mechanisms designed by society to protect them. Rape or even sexual advance is now everyone else’s fault, somebody else is to blame, attitudes must be changed, and transgressors must be aggressively punished.
Shifting blame for rape from womankind to mankind is despicable. Women implicitly acknowledge this in their reluctance to report rape by their frequent failure to do so. Why is this? Because they would have to acknowledge that they have failed in an intuitive duty – the duty to protect themselves from an undesirable impregnation – undesirable by their inherent mechanisms of mate selection. Coitus and pregnancy are intuitively held to be synonymous. Likewise the raped woman’s family is “disgraced” because it has failed to protect the generative capacity of their girl-child as demanded by the same instinctive imperatives.