The Label Behavior (Part 2)

The Anthropomorphic Standpoint.

Get ready to - Why is that bunny holding a  ... what is that?!

Ever heard of a guy named Gordon Burghardt? 

Me neither.

But I have heard of the concept of anthropomorphism, as illustrated by the oh-so-adorable bunny above.

All of my experience, readings, and conversations with professionals have led me to one conclusion: Under no circumstances is anthropomorphism appropriate when dealing with dog behavior.

In fact, too many of the animal professionals I know distance themselves from the possible emotional standpoint of the dog to such a degree that they are sometimes accused of thinking of dogs as robots.

Uhm. Anyone notice that the adorable robot puppy is uh... missing a limb...?

Anyway, I recently revisited a study on Critical and Non Critical Anthropomorphism, and I'm reconsidering my standpoint on anthropomorphism never being helpful and never being appropriate.

Ever heard of these two terms?

Non Critical Anthropomorphism is the sort that you always hear. "My dog ate my shoes because he was mad that I left him in his crate for five minutes longer than I should have last Tuesday." (Yes, a client honestly said this to me once. I just blinked, unsure that I'd heard her correctly.)

Non Critical is also another way of saying "it's not scientific enough for us smart people, so it doesn't really matter."

...which bring us to our next term

Critical Anthropomorphism. 

Now, since non critical is not sceincey enough for us nerdy people, does that make critical just the opposite?

To a certain extent, why yes it does!

....Even though it still seems to me that putting "anthropomorphism" with critical - meaning it is scientific and carefully evaluated - just seems oxymoronic.

In this type of anthropomorphism, you put yourself in the dog's shoes - er, paws - and try to deduce, induce, reduce (whatever kind of logic you use) the why of what he's doing. 

If you yell at a dog and he slinks away, non critical anthropomorphism might suggest that he feels guilty.

This is applying what YOU might feel if someone yelled at you, and doesn't take into account that dogs are a separate species that see the world differently than we do.

Critical Anthropomorphism would turn the equation upside down and rethink the whole situation. What would YOU do if you were a social animal who had just been threatened or confronted by a member of your social group? Remember, your programming dictates that you are much less interested in a fight than you are in maintaining the peace, because fights lead to injury lead to death, and you're all about survival.

(Sorry. Had to add this one.)

So, what do you do when another member of your group threatens you?

You try to placate that member. In doggie speak, you lower yourself and show that you are not returning the threat.

So, what do you think?

Is all anthropomorphism absolutely useless? 

And what do you think about Gordon Burghardt's Critical and Non Critical Anthropomorphism?

Beware of the Dog Blogger

Beware of Bloggers. Especially ones that talk about dog behavior.

And welcome to the (somewhat) Revised Edition.

Disclaimer!  I am not referring to Jana (@DawgBlogger on twitter) when I say "Beware of the Dog Blogger."

 Why? Because though I am talking about dog people who blog, she is more than exempt from what we'll talk about below. Check out DawgBusiness. It's a site about dog health, training, and more.

Unfortunately for me, I can't change how the world thinks about dogs, how the world thinks about dog-related information, or how the world thinks about information in general. (Yet again, 5 points to you if you caught the OCD compulsion.)

Because of this, I have a fairly simple question for you, dear reader:

Are you a skeptic?

If not, you may consider becoming one.

Think that's one heck of a strange statement?

Consider this: Just because an author I respect makes a conclusion that she finds to be factual doesn't mean that I accept it as such. I'm always thinking

• are there any alternative explanations? And if so, does the author state them - or at least state that there are, in fact, alternatives?
• is the author using the Principle of Parsimony? (Meaning is she using the simplest explanation available and not over-complicating things with something like anthropomorphism?)
• does she site sources from her colleagues or other reputable sources?

If the answer to any of those questions is "No," I may consider filing the presented information under, "It's a little fishy..."

Just as an example, a few dog trainers, behaviorists, and published - and widely popular - authors I know use a term called calming or cut-off signals and go on to say that these are part of a dog's agonistic language. 

Here's the trick: If we go by the scientific definition of communication, the exchange has to involve two parties: one party sending the message and another to receive it.

Yawning, according to these authors, would be classified as a cut-off signal - a way of telling another dog, "I am not a threat." However, if your dog - nervous and uncomfortable - yawns when she is alone can it honestly be classified as a communication? Remember, cut-off signals are communications that tell another being that the dog sending the message is not a threat.

I must make a note that in this article, I'm making light of a well-researched hypothesis that has a lot more merit than I am giving credit to. Turid Rugaas basically led the frontier in this research. By the way, check her out. Make a decision for yourself.
[And thank Hilary of FangShuiCanines for pointing out that I didn't give enough credit to the research behind the subject of calming signals.]

Just a thought.

...And that thought doesn't mean that they're wrong or that I'm wrong - it simply means that there's too much that we don't know.

So don't fall victim to that ever-annoying nominal fallacy - just because you name it doesn't mean you've explained it, and it certainly doesn't mean that you're right.

We do this all the time with labels.

Apply a label to a situation and you've got it covered - the whole mess is explained, we can all take a deep breath and go home knowing that...

...Absolutely nothing has been accomplished.

So, with that, beware of dog bloggers and dog professionals who claim to have the answers.

When it comes to the doggy-dog world, there's more that we don't know than that we do know.

And it's okay to say these next few words, 

"I DON'T KNOW."

Do you know why some dogs urine mark?

Do you know why some dogs walk in circles before lying down?

If you answered "Why YES, in fact, I do!" I would beg that you re-read this blog and reconsider your answer. Most of the "answers" to the above-mentioned questions are based on misinformation.

And, on top of that, no matter what information is out there, doesn't it always depend on the individual dog?

So, in conclusion:

• Take it with a grain of salt. No one will blame you.
• We know less about dogs than we give ourselves credit for knowing.
• Not knowing all of the answers is okay

And, most importantly,

• Don't put too much faith in the behavioral information you read online - or in books.