All Animals Are Animals – Morality

Posted on April 2, 2010 by Josh

After my recent post on communication (or “training” as its called in certain circles, or “teaching” as its known in still other circles), I was pleasantly surprised to see Bernie DeKoven’s recent post on the DeepFun blog.

Bernie doesn’t say much, rather, he quotes extensively from an article written by Jessica Pierce and Marc Bekoff, titled “Moral in Tooth and Claw.”

Pierce and Bekoff are also the authors of the recently (last year) published book “Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals“

Just wondering if they got approval from that Wolf to use his image on their book cover...

Bekoff and Pierce’s argument is that all animals have “morality,” it just looks different for different species.

I don’t see why not!

I’m still working on this idea, and appreciate your feedback on it, or any sources you may know of, but basically – emotion, morality, “justice,” or any other ABSTRACT name we give something, is a representation of an event.

In animals, that event is, specifically, a physiological event. Every action is an outward expression of something occurring within the animal.

“Morality” is a word (an abstract symbol) that we have created to capture a host of physical attitudes and emotions that we associate with a certain quality (“being moral”). That is, “morality” (the word) is an abstract symbol that stands-for (in language) a variety of physiological happenings that we think are interrelated.

Another "sign" - actually, two signs in one...

The Problem With Symbols

I think this area of learning is called “semiotics” – the study of signs or symbols. I’m not too familiar with it, but will read up on it soon. If you know about it, please add to the discussion.

In the time being, I’ll make some general statements about what I observe as being “the issue” with this type of approach to “animal” behavior.

First, let me say that I think that human beings are animals. Specifically, human beings are mammals. Just like dogs, cats, mice, cows, etc. As mammal, we have things in common with every other mammal that exists on this planet. Granted, there are things that separate us from one another – capabilities, physical attributes, etc. – but we are also very very similar in many ways.

Most folks don’t think in these terms. In fact, if you go to Pierce and Bekoff’s article and look at the comments, the very first comment says:

“Do not compare animal with man.Animal have not developed brain just like man.They are innocent compare to man.Developed brain is more selfish.Just watch child she had also innocent brain compare to adult.”

This is, I think, highly indicative of the problem with language.

Hang ten

Origins and Insertions

First off, we must agree that every animal communicates.

The definition of “communication” is “a process of transferring information from one entity to another.” Though single-cell and multi-cellular organisms may use different forms of communication, it still occurs.

Human beings, thanks to certain evolved structures, developed the capacity to communicate in a different way than other mammals. We probably began communicating the same way that they do – through body language, vocalizations, tonal qualities, etc. But eventually, we figured out that we could make certain things (tones or hand signs) represent other things.

The birth of symbols.

Once that occurred, we probably started to experiment with a variety of symbols to represent different things. Initially, it would make sense if we just used very easy representations – representations of communications we were used to hearing or seeing already. For instance, if we were hungry, we might make a sad face and grab our bellies, as we do when we get TRULY hungry. If we saw a buffalo on our trip, we might make horns on our head with our fingers when we got back to the tribe.

Things became more advanced with more advanced mimicry. We may have begun to use the sounds we associated with certain things – sounds alone. For instance, when the sun warms you, as you lay on a hot flat rock and relax, you make a certain sound with that feeling in your body. “Aaaaaah.” Feels good, right? If you get hurt, that “aaaah” might turn into “AH!” or “OH!”

Further along, the abstraction became more and more complicated.

At some point, something happened where we realized that we could represent certain things with drawings. In the beginning, it may have been exact replicas, precise drawings of the things we had seen.

Cave paintings from Chauvet, France. 32,000 years old.

The Birth of Alphabets

During this period, maybe we figured out that a simple circle could represent the sun. The Chinese ideographs are full of direct-pictorial representations of the physical things they stand for. Their language is not “alphabetic,” but symbolic, purely.

Other languages abstracted those symbols further, into individual symbols representing certain sounds.

Now, remember, those sounds represent certain physiological experiences – certain bodily experiences. At least, they did at first.

Once we could do that, we could begin to make words. But how do you make words? Have you ever thought about it?

One theory, which I agree with, is that the sounds (the physiological experience) come first, and then the letters that represent those sounds (those physiological experiences) are put into order, and a word is made.

Once we have words that we can agree on – in the beginning, likely very simple things, very accessible things, and not too many of them – we can begin to string those words together to form more detailed communications.

Dekooning - Almost Abstract

Distraction by Abstraction

We get to a place where we can reference words (abstractions, or symbols, of physiological occurrences) with other words.

We are referencing symbols with symbols. We are modifying meanings of symbols with the use of other symbols. This is “meta-symbolism.”

But what happens when we do that?

I think things become very confused. Our attention spans are very short, and we tend to focus on one or two things at a time (maximum, whether we try to convince ourselves that we’re “multi-tasking” or not).

Eventually, we forget that those words stand for something physical. We forget that they are representations. We believe that the symbol is real.

But it is not. It’s just a symbol.

At this point, we’ve taken the land, put it on a map, and then moved to outer space.

We begin to modify our words, our symbols, and their meaning, through convenience, through culture, through geography. Which is great, don’t get me wrong!

Get to the Point, Leeger

Alrighty, then.

Here’s the point – the meaning I give to a word (a symbol) may be a completely different meaning from the meaning you give to that word.

Even if we do agree on the meaning of the word, the associations you have with that word may be very different from the associations I have with that word. If you’ve experienced physical abuse firsthand, and I have not, when I say the word “abuse,” a very real and very different physiological event will occur in you than will in me – and it will lead us to different (more or less “emotional”) forms of communication about that word.

But the real point is this – “morality” is a word. It is a symbol that we have created to represent a series of actions, of visible communications, abstracted into words. “Justice,” is a similar word. It represents an “idea,” which represents a physiological experience.

Why does any of this matter? I think that this is one of the keys to expanding human potential. We have to admit that we are animals, first. Then, we have to admit that our modes of communication (our dominant mode – spoken or written language) are actually hiding us from the experience of our animal-ness.

Why does that matter? Take a look around you. Look at the “obesity epidemic,” or “non-communicable diseases,” or “global warming.”

None of those terms, those phrases, has any direct meaning to you (unless you are obese, or have a non-communicable disease). Yet these terms are bandied about as if they are meaningful. They become “hot topics,” and nothing changes.

Why does nothing change? Because we are divorced from the physical experiences that those words represent.

I’m not saying “do away with language.” Instead, I’m saying – understand it better. Learn language more clearly. Feel it in your body.

As my Sensei, Mick Dodge says – “We should quest for the most direct sensory touch that we can endure in order to awaken our animal, our animus, our spirit.”

Find your “morality” in that.

Teaching, Communication, Animal Behavior

Posted on March 29, 2010 by Josh

A few weeks ago I commented on a blog post by my friend JR Atwood. He had posted a brief clip from the Uncommon Schools‘ teacher training methodology. My comment, essentially, was “That looks just like dog training!”

In a private response, he mentioned that it would be interesting to see a comparison of the two – teaching methods for children vs. dog-training methods.

True to my word, I hit the books over the course of the past couple of weeks and read two dog-training texts. One of them, was Lew Burke’s “Dog Training”

Burke's book is about very specific techniques...

Ready for the comparison?

The first rule of dog training is that dogs require clear (matching your training method with your desired outcome from the dog), concise (one word), and consistent (always the same command for the same desired outcome) communication.

Regarding this first video from Uncommon Schools, we can focus on the “clarity” bit. But there’s another point, I’ll share with you after you’ve enjoyed this video:

Reward is a better motivator than punishment. More importantly, it’s crucial to discriminate between normal communication (acknowledgment, above), and praise. This is true for dogs as well. Giving a dog a friendly word is different from giving a dog a treat.

Only give a dog a treat when it has done something to deserve it.

Dog training actually goes a little deeper than that, but you have to earn that lesson…

Strong Voice

It is important to use proper TONE when speaking to your dog.

NLP literature points out that 87% of communication is body language, 10% is the tone of your speech, and only 3% of your communication is conveyed in the actual content of your words. (I’m guesstimating those percentages…too lazy to look up the exact reference right now).

This lesson carries over to dog training as well. Your dog will discern a lot about you from the way you hold yourself. Raise a fist to strike it, and it isn’t going to respond kindly. Act wildly, and it will think you’re unreliable.

Tone is equally important for dog-training. Most people who have ever had a dog have used the old trick of saying a bunch of nasty names or things about their dog in a candy-sweet voice. The dog invariably wags its tail, not connecting the content to the tone.

Few dogs – showdogs, mostly – have the range of vocabulary to really understand that last 3% of human communication anyway…

Now watch this:

Eye contact is used here. In dog training, the books used for this post mention that either direct eye contact, OR removal of attention, can be used equally well to convey your “leadership” status.

For instance, when giving the dog food, you might look directly (and seriously) into its eyes as you give the “sit” command. Again, the dog must earn everything it gets from its leader (you).

Or, you might say “sit” and look away from the dog, removing your attention (a valuable thing to a dog). When it does sit, you can bring your attention back to the dog, lavish it with praise, put the food down, and leave it to eat.

Cold Call

A dog must respond to your command any time you issue it. It cannot be sporadic response.

That being said, once a dog has learned a skill, the best way to reinforce it is through random reinforcement.

More Thoughts

Now, before you go yelling at me, telling me how insensitive I am to suggest that children are just like dogs, think about this for a second. First, I’m not just talking about children here (read my previous post on the difference between “children” and “adults”). Second, and more importantly, I think it’s time we begin looking at how we actually behave, instead of how we’d like things to be.

The use of motivational tactics is nothing new. I’ve seen plenty of parents these days with leashes on their children!

I think what is (relatively) new in our culture is the lack of consistent understanding about how animals (dogs, pigs, cattle, human beings, monkeys, whatever) behave, and how to treat animals if you want something from them.

In older times (here I go, romanticizing the past…) we dealt with animals quite a deal more. We also had very real “survival” demands to take care of (for instance, if we were farmers). Now that we’re removed from those things, we think there is some sort of “distance” (real and figurative) between us human beings and the other animals in the kingdom of animalia.

Do you think so?

I’ll leave you with this, a quote from Nicholas Dodman’s book, “The Well-Adjusted Dog”:

“Think about it. You have removed your pet’s need to hunt by supplying food. You have removed his romantic interests by neutering him. You have removed his social needs by depriving him of pack interests and competition. He can’t even wander and explore his outside territory, let alone try to resolve his own problems – because there aren’t any…So what’s a poor dog to do? Channel his energy in unacceptable ways, that’s what.” pg. 136

Indeed!

Culture – Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You

Posted on September 24, 2009 by Josh

Remember history class? At any point. High school, college, prison…wherever you took a history class. Remember?

Remember what you studied? Yeah, dates, events, blah blah blah. But the important stuff, the stuff that grabbed your attention?

For me, there were two things. The first was the great leaders in history. Usually, they were the “conquerors” – Alexander, Caesar, Genghis Khan, etc.

Then, it was the great cultures. The rise and fall of civilizations – the Babylonians, the Greek, Roman, Aztec, Mayan, Mongol, etc.

The great leaders either represented the pinnacle of the culture they led, or became the representation of that pinnacle – the goal to reach for, for that culture (Jesus is a good example of this latter type).

I’ve been thinking a lot about culture recently. Ever since I read Rene Dubos’ book, “So Human an Animal,” back in the Spring.

An article in “Trends and Updates” laments “The Culture of Getting and Spending.” Which is part of our American (US) culture. The author highlights this culture by quoting from William Wordsworth’s poem ”

There are other aspects of that culture, such as:

Ignorance of one’s own feelings (lack of self-awareness)
Self-denial (“needy” people are looked down upon)
An inability to communicate feelings
Obsessive Compulsive tendencies
Tendencies to Hyperactive/Attentional disorders
Unconscious mythmaking/Idolatry
Sloth and gluttony (lack of self-awareness in relation to one’s surroundings)
Lack of general awareness (of surroundings)
Disdain and/or lack of awareness of nature

There was an article published in the New York Times on September 10th called “Are Your Friends Making You Fat?”

The answer, in short, is YES.

Researchers have found that there is a direct connection between fitness levels/mortality indicators and…friends.

Your culture determines largely what you will engage in or not. Do all of your friends smoke? If yes, than you are likely a smoker as well. Does everyone in your neighborhood play soccer all the time? If yes, then you probably will as well.

Does your culture believe in faith healing? If yes, then most likely, you will as well – and not only that, but you will likely be healed by a faith healing at some point in your life.

Sure, you might also die. But what does that say about you?

The secret here, is to do something. Thinking about what your culture does is fine, to get better at thinking (specifically, to get better at thinking about what your culture does…maybe not better at “thinking in general”).

If you want to get better at doing things, you have to do. You cannot get better at doing things by thinking about them.

If you want to get thin – make friends with thin people. If you want to be more active – surround yourself with people who are active (preferably, who’ve been where you are now, and are now active).

The age of the craftsman has almost entirely vanished. But in that practice, there was the concept of apprenticeship. If you wanted to learn a craft, you went and lived with the master. This used to be true of the martial arts, as well (and still is, for some). You made sacrifices of your personal liberties in order to learn what the teacher had to teach you.