Seeing the world through human-tinted glasses.

Anthropomorphizing

What is anthropomorphizing?Applying human characteristics to nonhuman things; In our case, animals.

What are human characteristics?

Emotion- Love, happiness, sadnessReasoning- Wants to run, Feels the need to barkQualities- Loyal, Patient, CaringAnd many, many more

Why is Anthropomorphizing bad?Hard to be objective

Obscures the truth

Hard not to make everything in terms of humans; We are studying animals after all

The Onion actually did a good satire of Anthropomorphizing….“I am not a human. I am a dog. I can't talk. I can't say a full sentence. Not even close. ... I have no idea that my name is Gerald. I can't even write, people, so please stop this anthropomorphizing business this instant.

The amusement you get out of this unoriginal, overused—what shall I call it?—this fetish simply boggles the mind. What is your fascination with having animals speak? I'm a dog, for crying out loud. My brain weighs three-and-a-half ounces. Three-and-a-half ounces. I can barely understand what's going on around me, and what little knowledge I do possess is based primarily on smell. So tell me, why do you keep putting me at poker tables and making me dance and sing the blues? I do not wear hats and I certainly did not receive my doctorate in media criticism from Harvard University. I can assure you, if I were ever given a diploma, I would eat it. So, I beg you, for the last time, stop this right now.

It's silly and trite and it demeans us both.”

http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/stop-anthropomorphizing-me-11459

Why a little humanity isn't always bad

Viewpoints are changing

Possibility the animal might actually be “feeling” something

After all, an emotion is just a series of chemicals

But this is subjective, and thus, can be bad science

How should we use Anthropomorphism?There have been more and more scholars and intellectuals persisting the need to to not dehumanize animals in ethology, but how can we remain unbiased if we apply human characteristics?

One solution: Critical Anthropomorphism

From Gordon Burghardt in the mid 1980’s

It is anthropomorphism, however in the context of the animal. It takes into account the the animal’s biology/anatomy, life history, and what is known about related species.

Important to realize that this is not applying human characters to animals, but rather using human characters as a means to describe animal behavior.

Isn’t that Behaviourism?Not according to Bughart:

1) critical anthropomorphism is not by itself intended to be a description and explanation of behavior, but rather as a heuristic for generating testable hypotheses

2) critical anthropomorphism can and has been used to avoid ill-conceived studies of animal behavior

3) denying our status as animals and that we might share similar experiences of the world with nonhuman species is itself erroneous

4) mentalistic explanations of behavior are not, equal to supernatural ones.

Burghardt, G.M. (2004). "Ground rules for dealing with anthropomorphism". Nature. 430: 15. doi:10.1038/430015b.

That said, How can we use it and make sure we don’t overstep our boundaries?

Don’t look for the answer. Instead look for an answer.

Check yourself. Does the data, anatomy, and life history of the animal back this up?-It's easy to say a bee is happy when it reaches a flower, but if she doesn't have the neurological processes for emotion then can she feel happiness?

Ask a peer.

Sources or goodreadshttp://petslady.com/article/do-animals-mourn-or-do-we-anthropomorphize

http://www.anapsid.org/anthrop2.html

http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/KEY/Key_Burghardt.10.11.15.pdf

https://sites.ualberta.ca/~elegge/Alrg_Docs/Wynne_2007.pdf

Game time!!

Classical or Critical?I want you guys to tell me if something is classical or critical anthropomorphizing and if it is classical reword it to be critical.

First an example...

My dog loves me!

Obvious classical! Stating that your dog loves you is bad anthropomorphizing!

How would you change it?

“Canids contain remarkably similar neurological pathways to humans, and additionally when dogs look at their owner their brain responds in a similar fashion to that of a human staring at their spouse. For that reason, It is plausible that dogs have the capability for love.”

The chimp is happy and smiling at her!

This is classical conditioning and making an incorrect assumption about chimpanzee behavior. Chimps “smiles” may look like humans, however it is actually a fear response, not a joyful one.

Elephants mourn the death of even non-familial individuals, or in some cases across species (e.g. elephant to human).

This is still classical. The sentence structure and the statement provide no context as to why elephants mourn and purely makes assumptions.

Iguanas, and other ectotherms, prefer heat even during periods that may result in serious injury. If conditions are not adequate, often pet iguanas will choose to sit on heat sources to the point that they would burn and blister their stomachs. In this scenario iguanas want to be warm, despite the risk of injury.

This is Critical Anthropomorphizing.Although there are human traits listed - “...prefer heat...will choose to sit...iguanas want to be warm...” - the context of these traits are listed in terms of iguanas, not humans.

Additionally, great care has been taken to address why this scenario would play out.

“Iguanas, and other ectotherms, prefer heat…”“If conditions are not adequate,...”“In this scenario…”