The Pet Behavior Clinic
Helping Pets and People Grow Together.

Since the 17th Century, people have fromally studied how humans differ from other animals.  When our goal is to put the "simplest" animal at one end of a continuum and humans at the other, we place every species somewhere along that continuum. We may be limiting our discoveries by asking the wrong question. We know we are different from other animals and so do the animals. 

So what is the question? We want to know if other animals think. Do you have to think to survive? If so, what is the difference between thinking and feeling? Do other animals feel? Are any of them self aware? Which ones? Do they understand mortality? Are they capable of sharing thoughts among themselves? Can they share thoughts and feelings with us?

Research projects range from measuring problem solving skills in pigeons to teaching children raised without human interaction to communicate. The results are difficult to interpret.

Isolated children have been found over the centuries either as orphans or as victims of extreme mistreatment. These children have a limited ability to speak and have difficulty sharing their thoughts with us even after years of extensive instruction. Does this indicate a lack of ability or do these children not identify with other humans? Do we define humanity by the ability to communicate something greater than immediate needs for food and comfort? How can we deny that these children are human? Do we deny that they can think and feel just because they do not learn to communicate?

Children raised in a family learn to associate important events such as the sight of a briefcase with mother's impending departure. A baby may cry communicating his need to be with his mother. This communication gives baby a better chance of surviving. Only after survival needs are met and a trusting relationship develops does the child manipulate the tools in his environment--including language--to communicate so much more than immediate needs.

Children manipulate sounds or signals in order to get responses from caretakers before they reach one year of age. They imitate words they hear or signs they see even before they know the meanings, especially those associated with food or desirable toys. At first, toddlers generalize words, perhaps labeling all four legged creatures as "dog". They even use the word "no" as both a positive and negative response to a question. Babysitters are accustomed to hearing "no" when a baby actually means "yes". During the time that baby uses "no" incorrectly, no one doubts that he is discovering language. No one believes the baby is just repeating sounds to get a treat. 

Most parrots mimic the sound "hello" when family members enter the house and "goodbye" when someone leaves. Every pet dog recognizes the sound of the jingling car keys. Is this simply response to a stimulus, or does the pet understand concepts of arrival and departure? Where do we draw the line between what is learned to get what we want and what is communication of thoughts or feelings?

Research projects with non human primates send the same mixed message. Monkeys react to a mirror as if they don't understand it is their own reflection. So do adult people that have never seen a mirror before. Some of these people continue to be frightened of the mirror or of a photograph even after it's purpose is explained to them. Some anaimals learn to ignore their reflection in the mirror after being exposed to one. Non human primates even learn to use the mirror as humans do--to check their reflection. 

After extensive training, primates do learn some intricate human communications. In one experiment, chimps were taught by human caretakers to use tools to open containers of food.  They were also taught to use symbols to "name" the foods as well as the tools. After training, the chimps were separated by a window. On their respective sides of the window, one chimp had the tools and the other had the containers of food. The chimps used their symbols to request tools from each other appropriate for reaching food. They also shared the food when it was successfully retrieved. Was this an elaborate circus trick to get a treat or was it something more? Would the chimps have learned to use the tools if they were never taught? We know that human babies have trouble using tools, including language, if not shown the advantage. 

The answer, for those who believe animals communicate among themselves and, like humans, learn to communicate with other species, seems to be that animals do have their own language and can learn other languages. For those who believe that animals are only capable of responding to a stimulus for a tangible reward, the answer is that these experiments are nothing more than elaborate survival skills. The real question is how are the elaborate tasks that humans learn and teach different from tasks that animals use to survive?

Check out the following web sites for more information....

Copyright 1999 Pet Behavior Clinic, Inc.