julesluvscavs Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I humanise. Often! And it does them absolutely no harm. They are my kids, my babies. I often refer to Bubby as my first born. I pay attention to their likes, dislikes, fears, delight. I pay attention when they ask me for something or indicate a preference. I oblige them and give into certain requests which I deem are reasonable. I have a wonderful relationship with my dogs and would say that my humanising has created a better bond between us. Same here Bub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Incidentally, have you ever actually "asked" what your dog wants for dinner? Some of them have preferences! I think that is so damn cool. IMO "humanising" an animal is as simple and common as saying your dog is happy. Or your dog loves X, Y and Z. Or your dog growls when he feels his personal space is being invaded. The thing is, it's hard to explain or even describe dog behaviour without humanising. I dont ask what they want for dinner - they eat what I give them. If i had little kids they'd eat what I dished up as well. As for not saying your dog is happy - c'mon now corvus. Havent you ever watched your dog doing zoomies and thought to yourself, gee he looks happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minxy Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I'm quite okay with admitting I humanise my pets in some way. No, I don't dress them up when they go out in public or anything like that. But I'm quite happy calling them "the kids" - though I only say this to my OH or to my mum, as I always tease her about that up until just a week ago, her only grandkids were my three ferals. And it's mostly because OH and I cringe at the thought of actual kids anytime soon as having pets is challenging enough. I do talk to them too which sometimes might be a bit ridiculous, but again, I'd never do this in public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
persephone Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Incidentally, have you ever actually "asked" what your dog wants for dinner? Some of them have preferences! Well yes, of COURSE animals have preferences! Dogs have taste ability..and can feel texture/temperature, so naturally, given a choice, they will choose that which they prefer.No choices here though .. That's a given. Parrots and goannas,and sheep ...they all have preferences , too .. it's just a lot of the time, what they eat is out of their control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I believe the moment an animal leave it's wilderness behind and becomes a domestic animal it has been "humanised" to some extent. To what extend we gloss this over with depends on the individual and to a great extent and on the "fashion" of the time. To say we allow our dogs to be dogs still depends on our personal views on what we consider acceptable behaviour and the level of interaction we have with them in our environment. Clearly some people go OTT. This may be due to a number of reasons. Some people are emotionally fragile and for a variety of reasons have an emotional tranferrance to their pets. Sometimes this becomes excessive and unhealthy. As with all relationships in our lives we should try to find that "healthy" balance that works for us. so...do I wuv my wittle snoomuks wookums...OR do I simply respect and care about my animals? Hopefully somewhere in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Incidentally, have you ever actually "asked" what your dog wants for dinner? Some of them have preferences! Well yes, of COURSE animals have preferences! Dogs have taste ability..and can feel texture/temperature, so naturally, given a choice, they will choose that which they prefer.No choices here though .. That's a given. Parrots and goannas,and sheep ...they all have preferences , too .. it's just a lot of the time, what they eat is out of their control. I remember reading in a dog book that the reason an animal becomes a fussy eater is because it is given too many choices and should be limited in the variety of choices at mealtimes. My logic has been more along the lines of too much variety can have an unsettling effect on a dog/cats/horses tummy...you can't keep changing an animals feed on a daily basis or even suddenly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Incidentally, have you ever actually "asked" what your dog wants for dinner? Some of them have preferences! I think that is so damn cool. IMO "humanising" an animal is as simple and common as saying your dog is happy. Or your dog loves X, Y and Z. Or your dog growls when he feels his personal space is being invaded. The thing is, it's hard to explain or even describe dog behaviour without humanising. I dont ask what they want for dinner - they eat what I give them. If i had little kids they'd eat what I dished up as well. As for not saying your dog is happy - c'mon now corvus. Havent you ever watched your dog doing zoomies and thought to yourself, gee he looks happy. Same. I'm not sure if it's "Happy' or not but it sure comes under the heading of FUN! I believe animals definitely have a sence of FUN. Not an exclusive human emotion there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 </ends> means no further response. I simply cannot be bothered with the drama and instant offence to a simple question. </ends again> So ..... don't respond, Sheridan. And yet you do and are bothered. What connection was your question to the humanising dogs topic? I'm interested to know, because I otherwise don't understand the point of your question. Nor why you thought throwing me a "rolled eyes" was warranted. In terms of "humanising" IMO it's not so much what we do around and with our dogs, it's what we expect, think and believe they feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Same. I'm not sure if it's "Happy' or not but it sure comes under the heading of FUN!I believe animals definitely have a sence of FUN. Not an exclusive human emotion there. Yep. They do zoomies, makes me happy and I laugh, they do even faster zoomies. I certainly do think they have a sense of fun, otherwise we wouldnt buy them toys, sandpits, clam shells, frisbees. If imposing my idea of different human emotions on them is humanising them, then so be it. Last night my pug was barking for the sheer hell of it. My OH told the little bitch off so she sulked. Now I dont know if she was thinking - well he's a rotten bastard for spoiling my fun - but she certainly had her nose out of joint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W Sibs Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Yep, I do in some degree We do it because it can't be helped. I enjoy my dogs because they are dogs, but both of them have strong personalities that I can't help humanising it. Eg, when I accidently step on Emmy's toe and she is screaming the house down, and then jumps in my arms for a cuddle. Reminds me of a toodler throwing a tantrum and then wants a cuddle. Or when Charlie is not impress with me when I throw him a piece of cheese and forget that he can't catch, and it hits his head. He really does give me the 'WTF' look... it's the same kind of look my teenage cousin gives me when she's not impress with me. I find it hilarious!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I think you can read a dog without converting everything you see to human characteristics. Yes, you can, but you have to be more careful with your words than anyone on this forum is. I didn't say dogs could not experience or express emotions; I said we don't know if what they experience when we think they look happy is the same as what we experience when we say we are happy. Therefore, to say a dog is happy is to give it human characteristics, because "happy" is a word that describes a HUMAN feeling. There is no way to ask a dog if it feels the same as what we feel, so therefore, it is humanising. That's why scientists don't write things like "the rats were happier in the enriched environment than in the unenriched environment", but "thus the rats' behaviour indicated a positive affective state when in the enriched environment" instead. It is a scientific standard. Panksepp made a lot of people very upset when he claimed his rats were laughing. No one denied that the vocalisations were an indication of a positive affective state, but "laugh" describes a human response that is closely tied to a human emotion, and not many people were comfortable attributing it to rats regardless of the fact that Panksepp had shown that the same brain pathways light up in rats when they "laugh" as the ones that light up in humans when they laugh. I think it's enough evidence to say they are the same thing, but others don't. As for "happiness", I don't know of any studies that consider it in animals because it is too imprecise. We use "positive affective state" instead. Incidentally, "fun" is also a word we don't use to describe animal emotions. See how hard it is to have a conversation with a normal person about your animals without humanising them?? Even scientists in the field don't drop it entirely when talking to one another, but it's important to drop it eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Incidentally, "fun" is also a word we don't use to describe animal emotions. See how hard it is to have a conversation with a normal person about your animals without humanising them?? Even scientists in the field don't drop it entirely when talking to one another, but it's important to drop it eventually. Is it really such a big deal if I say my dogs are happy, like having fun, sulk when they're told off, pine when I go on holidays? I'm not a scientist, Corvus, so I dont have to be careful what words I use to describe my dogs. I'm talking on a forum, not writing a thesis. It's hardly the end of the world, is it? If I dress my dogs up like a baby, push them around in a pram and convince myself they ARE a baby, well that's another issue and I've probably got more to worry about than using the word happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yap Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) I humanise. Often! And it does them absolutely no harm. They are my kids, my babies. I often refer to Bubby as my first born. I pay attention to their likes, dislikes, fears, delight. I pay attention when they ask me for something or indicate a preference. I oblige them and give into certain requests which I deem are reasonable. I have a wonderful relationship with my dogs and would say that my humanising has created a better bond between us. Same here Bub Same Same here Bub, you hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD FOR ME!!! The best ever relationship Edited January 30, 2011 by yap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I dont ask what they want for dinner - they eat what I give them. If i had little kids they'd eat what I dished up as well. As for not saying your dog is happy - c'mon now corvus. Havent you ever watched your dog doing zoomies and thought to yourself, gee he looks happy. One evening I had roo shanks and chicken thawed for the dog's dinner for the next two nights. I offered them both to him and let him choose. It was so cool I did it a few times to work out his choice preferences. What a fun experiment, and useful when you're picking rewards! It's got crap all to do with humanising. Don't shoot the messenger. When I'm writing papers or sections for my thesis I sure as hell don't ever write "happy". I write "rewarding" or "positive affective state" because that is what is accepted. "Pleasure" is sometimes used. I don't set the standards, but I follow them. If I wrote "happy" I would be accused of humanising and I would have to have some evidence to back myself up for it to be swallowed at all, and it wouldn't be swallowed by everyone all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Don't shoot the messenger. When I'm writing papers or sections for my thesis I sure as hell don't ever write "happy". I write "rewarding" or "positive affective state" because that is what is accepted. "Pleasure" is sometimes used. I don't set the standards, but I follow them. If I wrote "happy" I would be accused of humanising and I would have to have some evidence to back myself up for it to be swallowed at all, and it wouldn't be swallowed by everyone all the same. I'm not shooting the messenger, I'm asking you if it's the end of the world if I describe my dogs as happy. It's not like I'm encouraging bad pack behaviour by using an everyday word on a dog forum for everyday owners. This is a dog forum, not university where someone is marking your thesis. I'm just not getting you - you think it's cool to offer your dog a choice for dinner but you dont think it's cool that someone describes their dogs emotions using plain english rather than scientific terminology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Incidentally, "fun" is also a word we don't use to describe animal emotions. See how hard it is to have a conversation with a normal person about your animals without humanising them?? Even scientists in the field don't drop it entirely when talking to one another, but it's important to drop it eventually. Is it really such a big deal if I say my dogs are happy, like having fun, sulk when they're told off, pine when I go on holidays? NO! And that's my point. It is NOT a big deal. It's only a big deal if you're a scientist in the field. I am, and you don't see me using the accepted terminology on this forum. My whole point is that it is impractical NOT to humanise your dog because otherwise communication about their behaviour becomes difficult unless you're talking to someone who knows all the terminology. I humanise my dogs all the time and I am cool with this. Before I make any decisions that regard them I do a reality check and drop the humanising. Once again, I would rather accept that I do it so I can do my reality checks than pretend I don't do it. Everyone does it. Including those who think they don't. The important thing is knowing that you're doing it so you know when to drop it. I leave it at the door any time I do training with my dogs or try to interpret their behaviour, but it comes back again the moment I want to talk about either to anyone that isn't an animal behaviour scientist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 ahh rightyo. I think I see where you're coming from now. Ta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monah Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I already mentioned this in my first post, but anthropomorphic behaviour has been occurring since human beginnings. IMO it is so ingrained in us that we dont even recognise it. We all do it, there is nothing wrong with it, it's how we relate to the world. Stone age cultures do it too. The more studies done, the more scientists understand that maybe humans are not the be all and end all of emotions etc. Re. the video footage of the lions and buffalo in Africa recently. Thought and 'emotion' were happening in some form there, ditto elephant behaviour and I'm sure much other animal behaviour. anthropomorphic is to give an animal 'human' emotions. Corvus, darwin was anthropomorphic, I think many scientists are, and it's a good thing. Like anything it can be taken to the extreme, as long as an animal is well treated and the family is happy etc. it should not matter how the individual sees that pet/animal. Some people, elderly, disabled, lonely, do see their pet as a major companion and relate to it in a human way. Whatever rocks your boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) I bought a really cute pink coat with fluffy white collar for one of my dogs. I like it and bought it for me, not that I thought my dog would feel pretty wearing it. She needs coats in winter and I sort of think that if I have to look at the coat, put it on her, wash it when it's grubby then I can indulge myself with what type of coat I buy. If I say to her when I put it on - ohh my you look like Zsa Zsa Gabor, is that humanising my dog? I know she doesnt look like Zsa Zsa Gabor - she's a dog, but is that a bad thing? Edited January 30, 2011 by raz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
julesluvscavs Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Our Renae loves getting dressed up on special occasions, I do draw the line at her using my make up tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now