Basic instincts is an other way of saying that we are "naturally" inclined to do certain things in certain situations.
I understand that reading natural as a "fixed equilibrim" might mean that to you, but for me, and also others it doesn't mean that. So would be good to better explain that in the article.
My interpretation of "fixed equilibrium" comes from the context of the "naturally lazy" claim, which is alleged to be touted as a universal truth by the gurus. A claim of an external, universal truth is that applies to all instincts. So then I take "not naturally anything" to mean "humans are extremely variable and contextual".
I have to admit that my interpretation is biased by reading some post-phenomenological philosophy as part of my design master - I remember one paper that claimed that there is no "natural" endpoint because humans are always reacting to a dynamic context, one that is then changing in response to human interaction, meaning we're more like a chaotic pendulum swinging back and forth over ever-changing equilibrium points.
And yeah, I do agree that the article is a bit ambiguous here and could be clearer.
Yeah although that claim by gurus "naturally lazy" can also be read less absolute, as "many people are inclined to be lazy in a and b kind of circumstances". Which is not far from the truth.
I understand that reading natural as a "fixed equilibrim" might mean that to you, but for me, and also others it doesn't mean that. So would be good to better explain that in the article.