Mousy Cats and Sheepish Coyotes by John Shiva
This is a fascinating book that on reflection, uses a multitude of studies involving many species to assert something that is obvious to any of us who have lived with animals. His opening sentence: his cat is an, “asshole.” I have every reason to believe him. I have shared space with asshole cats. His point of starting with this requires an orientation to how behaviorists who study animals are constrained historically by a scientific method that tries very very hard for scientists to rely on objective data and NOT anthropomorphize the animals they study.
We can’t just assume what we recognize in ourselves in animals as necessarily being what it seems.
For me, his dive into why the historical approach to animal behavior requires a rebooting brings forth a reflection on the “rules” of how we study ourselves, ie human beings. It is science and yet, it is not—it is complex. “Objective” is a tricky word as we discuss our human behaviors. Compounding this, all of us typically filter what we see or hear with our own personal experiences providing bias—unconscious bias. Consider this social/legal/psychological example: “Why didn’t you remember your toddler was still in the back seat when you parked your car and then went in to work?” The answer given is unlikely to reflect on the real, “why,” and once more, you may develop a “reason” ie a hypothesis of “why” based on your experience and orientation to the problem. You may be judgmental. Does that process reflect objective observation or even a scientific process?
Anthropomorphism can be likened to a gateway drug that leads to hocus hocus and pseudo science with strange conclusions. (And there are people who feel that way about the social sciences in general). And yet, calling his cat an asshole seems perfectly reasonable—-to me.
That revolutionary, Charles Darwin, thought animals had emotions (He does not use this belief in his discussion of the evolutionary process). He suggests that the same muscle groups are activated in non-primates when stressed or expressing what appears to be pleasure, so why not infer they are experiencing what we ourselves experience? One reason is we cannot test the hypothesis, we cannot directly interrogate them as we can fellow humans. Example: Radiolab reported out on an unusual occurrence between a whale and a group of divers. The divers were called upon to rescue a whale many miles off the coast of San Francisco. The whale was entangled by multiple layers of nets and crab traps which were weighing it down. The divers came and cut the net away while in the water, next the the whale, using knives that at times cut into the whale. Once released, the whale fled but a short time later, when the divers were still in the water, returned and gently “head bumped” each diver individually before leaving for good. A whale biologist was asked what the head bump signified. His response? “I don’t know; I don’t speak whale.”
The divers knew what it meant as did the audience listening to that podcast. It was a form of “Thank you!” The spirit of hocus pocus is pricking its ears. It feels good.
Victorian science (Darwin’s people) rejected the notion that animals feel shame or guilt or have agency—or a soul, for that matter. Animal studies of behavior were constrained by objective measured behaviors. The authors goes on to explain that if you try to use statistics to explain human behavior, you see obvious limitations: the average male may weigh between 194.5 and 195.5 pounds yet only .009% of the male population actually have a weight in that range. The book moves on to studies that examine the behavior of individuals of different species and then takes a step back to put this into the context of species specific behavior as well as its role in evolution and adaptation for that species.
Case in point: sometime in the last 100,000 years, wild wolves and humans co-mingled and in turn co-evolved. For dogs, this is a success story: there are some six billion dogs in the world and perhaps 100,000 wild wolves, the progenitors of modern dogs. What of their effect on us humans and our behavior—on our survival? In Letters to the Earth by Mark Twain, the character Satan explains that a dog has more behaviors consistent with the message of Jesus than do humans—and points to a dog abused by its drunken owner, who suffered great trauma and deprivation in the hands of its owner—lost an eye to the actions of his owner—but when his owner fell ill and was dying, the animal loyally stayed and guarded him to the end. Love, loyalty, faith…….physical security. Hocus pocus or valid evolutionary principle?
The author, whose specialty is coyote behavior, points out that there are stereotypes and working with animals teaches you about individual variation. Coyotes are shy and avoid humans; commonly when caught, they “give up” and are docile as measurements and tagging occur. But once in a while, one will resist and bite. He moves to wolves: wolves are much feared and are often misrepresented by our stereotyped takes on “wolf behavior.” He points out that just like humans, there are bullies and and there are “love children” in the population of wolves. In fact, reported attacks by wolves (even when there were some in the lower 48 states) were extremely rare. There is also adaptation; we don’t like to think about it given the contrast with the romantic image of wolves that can take down elk above the arctic circle-— but some wolves will figure out that hanging at a human dump will take care of the daily caloric needs, no problem and without all the work and danger involved with hunting…Environments evolve as do behaviors and bodies and the reactions by individuals themselves.
The book examines a wide range of species behaviors: Bluebirds, Elk, bears, crabs, tit birds, salamanders, spiders, among others. The main theme is that when you test for “personality traits” in a collection of animals, you can than mark individuals with particular personalities and follow both their activities and effect on their local fellow species with improved survival and growth an end point.
What?
Those who have been in administrative positions may well recall taking the Meyers Briggs test. This tests for personality traits recognized in humans, specifically the “big 5:” Conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion. One’s “score” is determined through interviews and / or answering questions. My score was compared to fellow workers and I got advice tailor made to our respective personality profiles: When Janice does X your most productive response is Y. These measures have some utility but human behavior is complicated despite agreement on these characteristics. For example, the Meyers Briggs profile of Adolph Hitler can be found in many productive and peaceful members of society today…….
And? Oh, back to animals—one cannot interview them but you can keep them in a safe environment and then expose them to a new environment and measure how long it takes and which of them chooses to explore the new environment—that would be “open to experience.” Or one can measure how aggressive an animal is by how long it takes and if it attacks a stranger in the environment (conscientiousness and extraversion?). It turns out, aggressive individuals of many classes and orders of animals in fact are more likely to find new habitats, kick out competing species—-and the group is better off for that. Why aren’t all the individuals of a species aggressive and open to experience when it confers this benefit? It is exhausting and they may not be much help around the nest, raising off-spring, or even gathering food for the family. Other personality types serve such a function and a balance is struck within groups and species. A changing environment can change the percentage of successful personality types over time. Bottom line, aggressive individuals get our attention but not all creatures of a given species are aggressive and the ability to find a mate and pass one’s genes along don’t always correlate to such a trait.
One can ask if such personality in animals or humans is something passed on genetically. Studies and supporting statistical math has shown that there are genetic components but variables make that a complex question. Consider if there is a genetic tendency to alcoholism; avoiding anecdotal stories, and studying the data, there are multiple relevant genes and yes, there is a genetic component as is a “nurturing” environment variable. Having PTSD and living with people who actively drink can tip the scales in someone who otherwise would not be considered an alcoholic. Or, consider life in a modern fraternity!
An interesting experiment in Russia over decades found that selecting for agreeable and open to experience foxes could, over 4-6 generations give litters 50% of which act and interact with humans much as domesticated puppies do (NOT normal fox puppy behavior). They grow up as docile as dogs. A gene has been identified that is associated with most mammals that have been domesticated.
Yellowstone Park at the turn of the century had a balance between predators, (wolves), and Elk (Wolf food). Wolves were decimated and rendered extinct in this area in the early 1900’s by humans. As a consequence, the “timidity” of elk who up to this point were taking a grave risk when wandering into open pastures were more and more likely to graze……..wherever. As a consequence, tender young trees sprouting in open and semi open terrain were eaten. The landscape of Yellowstone was transformed when wolves were taken out of the equation. Solution? Wolves were returned to Yellowstone——Results pending……….
A bottom line is that the effect of individual animal personalities, body structure, and the environment have a roller coaster relationship that feeds the evolutionary process. This is quite different than the theory as laid down by Darwin. Contemporaries of Darwin thought that animals were soul-less and basically automatons with programed stereotypic behavior. The observations relayed in this book suggest they are anything but stereotypic in behavior and the author I think would conclude, very definitely have “souls.”
While the book focusses on individual behaviors playing a role in evolution—in insects and amphibians as well as humans, he concludes with the role of the evolution of groups. A famous observation was made in England by a social Darwinist, Francis Galton (Wisdom of the Crowds), who felt uneducated people should not vote for lack of the necessary education and common sense. At a country fair, he attempted an experiment where he offered a prize for the person who could correctly guess the weight (after slaughter and dressing) of an Ox on display simply by observing it (alive) in the pen. His focus was one of an individual human with agency. He assumed educated people would give more accurate answers. The interesting conclusion? The actual weight of a dressed and slaughtered ox was 1,198 pounds. The averaged guess of the crowd of participants (787 people) was 1,197 pounds. Groups of creatures with different personalities and different abilities can achieve many unusual things—and that in fact is the story of homo-sapiens.
While we think of our dogs as a cute form of non speaking toddler—-in need of constant supervision and care, we humans had to evolve at a minimum, writing, language, and computers to sort out what a dog can discern with its nose in the wild: species present? Healthy or ill? Male or female? Old or young? Here recently? It makes the opposable thumb look quite ordinary!
My take home: I thought this an interesting point—that smelling the grass tells my dog so many things going on around us— but he did not support this assertion with any studies or facts; how do we know dogs take all this in with discrimination? One more time, the world is really really complex and like the blind men feeling the elephant, we can understand a lot about nature but a comprehensive view of how it all fits remains elusive as we get into the weeds. I started with already believing that animals have personalities based on my experience living with them. The implications for evolutionary processes are interesting both in the natural world examples and in the social sciences where our history echoes with examples of individual behavior making a difference for the group. In the end, I find myself thinking, “Of course subgroups of each species will have predilections for certain behaviors which in turn will make the group more adaptable in the face of challenges.” To identify behavior of subgroup individuals as a form of “personality” is for me, problematic. When I speak of personality, my forebrain and consciousness use the concept with much more to it than simply, “open to new experiences.” The “big five” personality traits in humans have many permutations and in our environment, social and physical, they take on an infinity of meanings not to mention outcomes.
Oh! Hitler’s Meyers - Briggs was INFJ…………
Comments