I consider early childhood events as most essential to a
man's scientific and philosophical development. I grew up in the large house
and the larger garden of my parents in Altenberg. They were supremely tolerant
of my inordinate love for animals. My nurse, Resi Führinger, was the daughter
of an old patrician peasant family. She possessed a "green thumb" for rearing
animals. When my father brought me, from a walk in the Vienna Woods, a spotted
salamander, with the injunction to liberate it after 5 days, my luck was in:
the salamander gave birth to 44 larvae of which we, that is to say Resi, reared
12 to metamorphosis. This success alone might have sufficed to determine my
further career; however, another important factor came in: Selma Lagerlöf's
Nils Holgersson was read to me - I could not yet read at that time. From then
on, I yearned to become a wild goose and, on realizing that this was impossible,
I desperately wanted to have one and, when this also proved impossible,
I settled for having domestic ducks. In the process of getting some, I discovered
imprinting and was imprinted myself. From a neighbour, I got a one day old duckling
and found, to my intense joy, that it transferred its following response to
my person. At the same time my interest became irreversibly fixated on water
fowl, and I became an expert on their behaviour even as a child.
When I was about ten, I discovered evolution by reading a book by Wilhelm Bölsche
and seeing a picture of Archaeopteryx. Even before that I had struggled with
the problem whether or not an earthworm was in insect. My father had explained
that the word "insect" was derived from the notches, the "incisions" between
the segments. The notches between the worm's metameres clearly were of the same
nature. Was it, therefore, an insect? Evolution gave me the answer: if reptiles,
via the Archaeopteryx, could become birds, annelid worms, so I deduced, could
develop into insects. I then decided to become a paleontologist.
At school, I met one important teacher, Philip Heberdey, and one important friend,
Bernhard Hellmann. Heberdey, a Benedictine monk, freely taught us Darwin's theory
of evolution and natural selection. Freedom of thought was, and to a certain
extent still is, characteristic of Austria. Bernhard and I were first drawn
together by both being aquarists. Fishing for Daphnia and other "live food"
for our fishes, we discovered the richness of all that lives in a pond. We both
were attracted by Crustacea, particularly by Cladocera. We concentrated on this
group during the ontogenetic phase of collecting through which apparently every
true zoologist must pass, repeating the history of his science. Later, studying
the larval development of the brine shrimp, we discovered the ressemblance between
the Euphyllopod larva and adult Cladocera, both in respect to movement and to
structure. We concluded that this group was derived from Euphyllopod ancestors
by becoming neotenic. At the time, this was not yet generally accepted by science.
The most important discovery was made by Bernhard Hellmann while breeding the
aggressive Cichlid Geophagus: a male that had been isolated for some time, would
kill any conspecific at sight, irrespective of sex. However, after Bernhard
had presented the fish with a mirror causing it to fight its image to exhaustion,
the fish would, immediately afterwards, be ready to court a female. In other
words, Bernhard discovered, at 17, that "action specific potentiality" can be
"dammed up" as well as exhausted.
On finishing high school, I was still obsessed with evolution and wanted to
study zoology and paleontology. However, I obeyed my father who wanted me to
study medicine. It proved to be my good luck to do so. The teacher of anatomy,
Ferdinand Hochstetter, was a brilliant comparative anatomist and embryologist.
He also was a dedicated teacher of the comparative method. I was quick to realize
not only that comparative anatomy and embryology offered a better access to
the problems of evolution than paleontology did, but also that the comparative
method was as applicable to behaviour patterns as it was to anatomical structure.
Even before I got my medical doctor's degree, I became first instructor and
later assistant at Hochstetter's department. Also, I had begun to study zoology
at the zoological institute of Prof. Jan Versluys. At the same time I participated
in the psychological seminars of Prof. Karl Bühler who took a lively interest
in my attempt to apply comparative methods to the study of behaviour. He drew
my attention to the fact that my findings contradicted, with equal violence,
the opinions held by the vitalistic or "instinctivistic" school of MacDougall
and those of the mechanistic or behavioristic school of Watson. Bühler
made me read the most important books of both schools, thereby inflicting upon
me a shattering disillusionment: none of these people knew animals, none
of them was an expert. I felt crushed by the amount of work still undone and
obviously devolving on a new branch of science which, I felt, was my responsibility.
Karl Bühler and his assistant Egon Brunswick made me realize that theory
of knowledge was indispensable to the observer of living creatures, if he were
to fulfill his task of scientific objectivation. My interest in the psychology
of perception, which is so closely linked to epistemology, stems from the influence
of these two men.
Working as an assistant at the anatomical institute, I continued keeping birds
and animals in Altenberg. Among them the jackdaws soon became most important.
At the very moment when I got my first jackdaw, Bernhard Hellmann gave me Oskar
Heinroth's book "Die Vögel Mitteleuropas". I realized in a flash that this
man knew everything about animal behaviour that both, MacDougall and Watson,
ignored and that I had believed to be the only one to know. Here, at last, was
a scientist who also was an expert! It is hard to assess the influence which
Heinroth exerted on the development of my ideas. His classical comparative paper
on Anatidae encouraged me to regard the comparative study of behaviour as my
chief task in life. Hochstetter generously considered my ethological work as
being comparative anatomy of sorts and permitted me to work on it while on duty
in his department. Otherwise the papers I produced between 1927 and 1936 would
never have been published.
During that period I came to know Wallace Craig. The American Ornitologist Margaret
Morse Nice knew about his work and mine and energetically put us into contact.
I owe her undying gratitude. Next to Hochstetter and Heinroth, Wallace Craig
became my most influential teacher. He criticized my firmly-held opinion that
instinctive activities were based on chain reflexes. I myself had demonstrated
that long absence of releasing stimuli tends to lower their threshold, even
to the point of the activity's eruption in vacuo. Craig pointed out that in
the same situation the organism began actively to seek for the releasing stimulus
situation. It is obviously nonsense, wrote Craig, to speak of a re-action to
a stimulus not yet received. The reason why in spite of the obvious spontaneity
of instinctive behaviour, I still clung to the reflex theory, lay in my belief,
that any deviation from Sherringtonian reflexology meant a concession to vitalism.
So, in the lecture I gave in February 1936 in the Harnackhaus in Berlin, I still
defended the reflex theory of instinct. It was the last time I did so.
During that lecture, my wife was sitting behind a young man who obviously agreed
with what I said about spontaneity, murmuring all the time: "It all fits in,
it all fits in." When, at the end of my lecture, I said that I regarded instinctive
motor patterns as chain reflexes after all, he hid his face in his hands and
moaned: "Idiot, idiot". That man was Erich von Holst. After the lecture, in
the commons of the Harnackhaus, it took him but a few minutes to convince me
of the untenability of the reflex theory. The lowering thresholds, the eruption
of vacuum activities, the independence of motor patterns of external stimulation,
in short all the phenomena I was struggling with, not only could be explained,
but actually were to be postulated on the assumption that they were based not
on chains of reflexes but on the processes of endogenous generation of stimuli
and of central coordination, which had been discovered and demonstrated by Erich
von Holst. I regard as the most important break-through of all our attempts
to understand animal and human behaviour the recognition of the following fact:
the elemental neural organisation underlying behaviour does not consist of a
receptor, an afferent neuron stimulating a motor cell and of an effector activated
by the latter. Holst's hypothesis which we confidently can make our own, says
that the basic central nervous organisation consists of a cell permanently producing
endogenous stimulation, but prevented from activating its effector by another
cell which, also producing endogenous stimulation, exerts an inhibiting effect.
It is this inhibiting cell which is influenced by the receptor and ceases its
inhibitory activity at the biologically "right" moment. This hypothesis appeared
so promising that the Kaiser-Wilhelmsgesellschaft, now renamed Max-Planck-Gesellschaft,
decided to found an institute for the physiology of behavior for Erich von Holst
and myself. I am convinced that if he were still alive, he would be here in
Stockholm now. At the time, the war interrupted our plans.
When, in autumn 1936, Prof. van der Klaauw convoked a symposium called "Instinctus"
in Leiden in Holland, I read a paper on instinct built up on the theories of
Erich von Holst. At this symposium I met Niko Tinbergen and this was certainly
the event which, in the course of that meeting, brought the most important consequences
to myself. Our views coincided to an amazing degree but I quickly realized that
he was my superior in regard to analytical thought as well as to the faculty
of devising simple and telling experiments. We discussed the relationship between
spatially orienting responses (taxes in the sense of Alfred Kühn) and releasing
mechanism on one hand, and the spontaneous endogenous motor patterns on the
other. In these discussions some conceptualisations took form which later proved
fruitful to ethological research. None of us knows who said what first, but
it is highly probable that the conceptual separation of taxes, innate releasing
mechanisms and fixed motor patterns was Tinbergen's contribution. He certainly
was the driving force in a series of experiments which we conducted on the egg-rolling
response of the Greylag goose when he stayed with us in Altenberg for several
months in the summer of 1937.
The same individual geese on which we conducted these experiments, first aroused
my interest in the process of domestication. They were F1 hybrids
of wild Greylags and domestic geese and they showed surprising deviations from
the normal social and sexual behaviour of the wild birds. I realised that an
overpowering increase in the drives of feeding as well as of copulation and
a waning of more differentiated social instincts is characteristic of very many
domestic animals. I was frightened - as I still am - by the thought that analogous
genetical processes of deterioration may be at work with civilized humanity.
Moved by this fear, I did a very ill-advised thing soon after the Germans had
invaded Austria: I wrote about the dangers of domestication and, in order to
be understood, I couched my writing in the worst of nazi-terminology. I do not
want to extenuate this action. I did, indeed, believe that some good might come
of the new rulers. The precedent narrow-minded catholic regime in Austria induced
better and more intelligent men than I was to cherish this naive hope. Practically
all my friends and teachers did so, including my own father who certainly was
a kindly and humane man. None of us as much as suspected that the word "selection",
when used by these rulers, meant murder. I regret those writings not so much
Autobiography Konrad - on Lorenz bestiality information for the black Konrad - Lorenz Autobiography female models lingerie Konrad - прогрева Трансформатор Autobiography бетона для ТСЗПБ Lorenz полностью акустический - Autobiography подиум деревянный Konrad Lorenz undeniable forced Autobiography dress free Konrad sexy - Lorenz discredit into Autobiography forced Konrad Lorenz - gay sex they reflect on my Lorenz - information bestiality on Konrad Autobiography person as for their effect of
hampering the future recognition of the dangers of domestication.
In 1939 I was appointed to the Chair of Psychology in Köningsberg and this
appointment came about through the unlikely coincidence that Erich von Holst
happened to play the viola in a quartette which met in Göttingen and in
which Eduard Baumgarten played the first violin. Baumgarten had been professor
of philosophy in Madison, Wisconsin. Being a pupil of John Dewey and hence a
representative of the pragmatist school of philosophy, Baumgarten had some doubts
about accepting the chair of philosophy in Köningsberg - Immanuel Kant's
chair - which had just been offered to him. As he knew that the chair of psychology
was also vacant in Köningsberg, he casually asked Erich von Holst whether
he knew a biologically oriented psychologist who was, at the same time, interested
in theory of knowledge. Holst knew that I represented exactly this rather rare
combination of interests and proposed me to Baumgarten who, together with the
biologist Otto Koehler and the botanist Kurt Mothes - now president of the Academia
Leopoldina in Halle - persuaded the philosophical faculty in Köningsberg
of putting me, a zoologist, in the psychological chair. I doubt whether perhaps
the faculty later regretted this choice, I myself, at any rate, gained enormously
by the discussions at the meetings of the Kant-Gesellschaft which regularly
extended late into the night. My most brillant and instructive opponents in
my battle against idealism were the physiologist H. H. Weber, now of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft,
and Otto Koehler's late first wife Annemarie. It is to them that I really owe
my understanding of Kantian philosophy - as far as it goes. The outcome of these
discussions was my paper on Kant's theory of the à priori in the view
of Darwinian biology. Max Planck himself wrote a letter to me in which he stated
that he thoroughly shared my views on the relationship between the phenomenonal
and the real world. Reading that letter gave me the same sort of feeling as
hearing that the Nobel Prize had been awarded to me. Years later that paper
appeared in the Systems Year Book translated into English by my friend Donald
Campbell.
In autumn 1941 I was recruited into the German army as a medical man. I was
lucky to find an appointment in the department of neurology and psychiatry of
the hospital in Posen. Though I had never practised medicine, I knew enough
about the anatomy of the nervous system and about psychiatry to fill my post.
Again I was lucky in meeting with a good teacher, Dr. Herbert Weigel, one of
the few psychiatrists of the time who took psychoanalysis seriously. I had the
opportunity to get some first-hand knowledge about neurosis, particularly hysteria,
and about psychosis, particularly schizophrenia.
In spring 1942 I was sent to the front near Witebsk and two months later taken
prisoner by the Russians. At first I worked in a hospital in Chalturin where
I was put in charge of a department with 600 beds, occupied almost exclusively
by cases of so-called field polyneuritis, a form of general inflammation of
nervous tissues caused by the combined effects of stress, overexertion, cold
and lack of vitamins. Surprisingly, the Russian physicians did not know this
syndrome and believed in the effects of diphteria - an illness which also causes
a failing of all reflexes. When this hospital was broken up I became a camp
doctor, first in Oritschi and later in a number of successive camps in Armenia.
I became tolerably fluent in Russian and got quite friendly with some Russians,
mostly doctors. I had the occasion to observe the striking parallels between
the psychological effects of nazi and of marxist education. It was then that
I began to realize the nature of indoctrination as such.
As a doctor in small camps in Armenia I had some time on my hand and I started
to write a book on epistemology, since that was the only subject for which I
needed no library. The manuscript was mainly written with potassium permanganate
solution on cement sacking cut to pieces and ironed out. The Soviet authorities
encouraged my writing, but, just when it was about finished, transferred me
to a camp in Krasnogorsk near Moscow, with the injunction to type the manuscript
and send a copy to the censor. They promised I should be permitted to take a
copy home on being repatriated. The prospective date for repatriation of Austrians
was approaching and I had cause to fear that I should be kept back because of
my book. One day, however, the commander of the camp had me called to his office,
asked me, on my word of honor, whether my manuscript really contained nothing
but unpolitical science. When I assured him that this was indeed the case, he
shook hands with me and forthwith wrote out a "propusk", an order, which said
that I was allowed to take my manuscript and my tame starling home with me.
By word of mouth he told the convoy officer to tell the next to tell the next
and so on, that I should not be searched. So I arrived in Altenberg with manuscript
and bird intact. I do not think that I ever experienced a comparable example
of a man trusting another man's word. With a few additions and changes the book
written in Russia was published under the title "Die Rückseite des Spiegels".
This title had been suggested by a fellow prisoner of war in Erivan, by name
of Zimmer.
On coming home to Austria in February 1948, I was out of a job and there was
no promise of a chair becoming vacant. However, friends rallied from all sides.
Otto Storch, professor of zoology, did his utmost and had done so for my wife
even before I came back. Otto König and his "Biologische Station Wilhelminenberg",
received me like a longlost brother and Wilhelm Marinelli, the second zoologist,
gave me the opportunity to lecture at his "Institut für Wissenschaft und
Kunst". The Austrian Academy of Sciences financed a small research station in
Altenberg with the money donated for that purpose by the English poet and writer
J. B. Priestley. We had money to support our animals, no salaries but plenty
of enthusiasm and enough to eat, as my wife had given up her medical practice
and was running her farm near Tulln. Some remarkable young people were ready
to join forces with us under these circumstances. The first was Wolfgang Schleidt,
now professor at Garden University 1 near Washington. He built his
first amplifier for supersonic utterances of rodents from radio-receivers found
on refuse dumps and his first terrarium out of an old bedstead of the same provenance.
I remember his carting it home on a wheel-barrow. Next came Ilse and Heinz Prechtl,
now professor in Groningen, then Irenäus and Eleonore Eibl-Eibesfeldt,
both lady doctors of zoology and good scientists in their own right.
Very soon the international contact of ethologists began to get re-established.
In autumn 1948 we had the visit of Professor W. H. Thorpe of Cambridge who had
demonstrated true imprinting in parasitic wasps and was interested in our work.
He predicted, as Tinbergen did at that time, that I should find it impossible
to get an appointment in Austria. He asked me in confidence whether I would
consider taking on a lectureship in England. I said that I preferred, for the
present, to stick in Austria. I changed my mind soon afterwards: Karl von Frisch
who left his chair in Graz, Austria, to go back to Munich, proposed me for his
successor and the faculty of Graz unanimously concurred. When the Austrian Ministry
of Education which was strictly Catholic again at this time, flatly refused
Frisch's and the faculty's proposal, I wrote two letters to Tinbergen and to
Thorpe, that I was now ready to leave home. Within an amazingly short time the
University of Bristol asked me whether I would consider a lectureship there,
with the additional task of doing ethological research on the water-fowl collection
of the Severn Wildfowl Trust at Slimbridge. So my friend Peter Scott also must
have had a hand in this. I replied in the affirmative, but, before anything
was settled, the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft intervened offering me a research station
adjunct to Erich von Holst's department. It was a hard decision to take; finally
I was swayed by the consideration that, with Max Planck, I could take Schleidt,
Prechtl and Eibl with me. Soon afterwards, my research station in Buldern in
Westfalia was officially joined to Erich von Holst's department in a newly-founded
" Max-Planck-Institut für Verhaltensphysiologie". Erich von Holst convoked
the international meeting of ethologists in 1949. With the second of these symposia,
Erich von Holst and I celebrated the coming-true of our dream in Buldern in
autumn 1950.
Returning to my research work, I at first confined myself to pure observation
of waterfowl and of fish in order to get in touch again with real nature from
which I had been separated so long. Gradually, I began to concentrate on the
problems of aggressivity, of its survival function and on the mechanisms counteracting
its dangerous effects. Fighting behaviour in fish and bonding behaviour in wild
geese soon became the main objects of my research. Looking again at these things
with a fresh eye, I realized how much more detailed a knowledge was necessary,
just as my great co-laureate Karl von Frisch found new and interesting phenomena
in his bees after knowing them for several decades, so, I felt, the observation
of my animals should reveal new and interesting facts. I found good co-workers
and we all are still busy with the same never-ending quest.
A major advance in ethological theory was triggered in 1953 by a violent critique
by Daniel D. Lehrmann who impugned the validity of the ethological concept of
the innate. As Tinbergen described it, the community of ethologists was humming
like a disturbed bee-hive. At a discussion arranged by Professor Grassé
in Paris, I said that Lehrmann, in trying to avoid the assumption of innate
knowledge, was inadvertently postulating the existence of an "innate school-marm".
This was meant at a reduction to the absurd and shows my own error: it took
me years to realize that this error was identical with that committed by Lehrmann
and consisted in conceiving of the "innate" and of the "learned" as of disjunctive
contradictory concepts. I came to realize that, of course, the problem why learning
produces adaptive behaviour, rests exclusively with the "innate school-marm",
in other words with the phylogenetically programmed teaching mechanism. Lehrmann
came to realize the same and on this realisation we became friends. In 1961
I published a paper "Phylogenetische Anpassung und adaptive Modifikation des
Verhaltens", which I later expanded into a book called "Evolution and Modification
of Behaviour" (Harvard University Press, 1961).
Until late in my life I was not interested in human behaviour and less in human
culture. It was probably my medical background that aroused my awareness of
the dangers threatening civilized humanity. It is sound strategy for the scientist
not to talk about anything which one does not know with certainty. The medical
man, however, is under the obligation to give warning whenever he sees a danger
even if he only suspects its existence. Surprisingly late, I got involved with
the danger of man's destruction of his natural environment and of the devastating
vicious circle of commercial competition and economical growth. Regarding culture
as a living system and considering its disturbances in the light of illnesses
led me to the opinion that the main threat to humanity's further existence lies
in that which may well be called mass neurosis. One might also say that the
main problems with which humanity is faced, are moral and ethical problems.
Todate I have just retired from my directorship at the Max-Planck-Institut für
Verhaltensphysiologie in Seewiesen, Germany, and am at work building up a department
of animal sociology pertaining to the Institut für Vergleichende Verhaltensforschung
of the Austrian Academy of Science.
1. According to Professor Wolfgang Schleidt, on July 22 1998, there is no Garden University. He was professor at the University of Maryland, College Park Campus from 1965 to 1985.
From Les Prix Nobel en 1973, Editor Wilhelm Odelberg, [Nobel Foundation], Stockholm, 1974
This autobiography/biography was written at the time of the award and later published in the book series Les Prix Nobel/Nobel Lectures. The information is sometimes updated with an addendum submitted by the Laureate. To cite this document, always state the source as shown above.
 
Konrad Lorenz died on February 27, 1989.
|