Dog Community

The role of empathy and humanising in understanding dogs.

Posted : 1/24/2007 3:51:54 AM

This has come up a number of times over the past few days in the CM section. I'm tired of talking to what seems like recitations of CM philosophy over there, so I'm here to hopefully discuss this matter without being beaten about the head with extreme interpretations and deliberate misunderstandings.

DPU brought up the very interesting point that perhaps by insisting on believing that dogs have no long term impacts from stress or pain because they live strictly in the present (not a topic to discuss on this thread, please), we assign them a lesser 'life value' than we do to humans and possibly limit our ability to understand our dogs in the process of religiously dehumanising them. Hope I quoted you correctly there, DPU. I wasn't sure if that was exactly what you were saying.

This got me to thinking how empathy shapes the way we might work with our dogs and interpret the behaviour we see. As I understood DPU, perhaps it's important to humanise dogs to a certain extent so that we can think of them as more than lesser lives than any human.

So, the topic of this discussion is how far we should humanise our dogs (if at all) in order to better empathise, with the expectation that empathy will lead to enhanced understanding. Does empathy lead to enhanced understanding in the first place?

The way I see this, I can't really know what my dog is thinking or feeling. I'm good at reading her body language, but how much of that have I learnt from being empathetic? It's been argued that I'm not a dog and therefore shouldn't come to a relationship with a dog loaded with all these human emotions, ready to project them onto my dog. But then I think, how can I not do that? Being compassionate and empathetic is surely what sets humans apart from other animals. It's what makes us human, and it's the best thing we have to offer, IMO. I think we bring out the best in ourselves when we nurture compassion and empathy and apply them to other animals. When working with my dog, I use the motto "If I wouldn't like it, then I shouldn't do it to my dog.". Of course, I can't tell if the things I don't like are equally unpleasant for my dog, but what I don't see is why I would risk that they weren't? My dog has made it plain to me that she doesn't like pressure on her lead, tugs on her collar, being shouted at, being growled at, being physically pushed around when she's trying to do something else, and being picked up when she doesn't want to be picked up. I think, well, I don't like any of those things, either. My dog also tends to flat disbelieve me when I try to tell her something that she finds very disturbing or upsetting is nothing to be worried about. Well, I would, too. People tell me all the time that those huntsman spiders are nothing to be afraid of, but my body doesn't believe them no matter how much I trust them. What this comes down to for me is simple. I'm justified in treating my dog in a manner that I would want to be treated, at least as a small child. In that way, I'm guilty of the apparent sin of treating my dog as a little human.

Now, when it comes to feeling pain, frustration, fear, anxiety, or any other basic emotion, I slip back to my "If I wouldn't like it" rule. I don't know how dogs feel these emotions, but I can tell when they are feeling them. I treat them the way I would expect the same things to be treated if I were displaying them. We don't know how other people experience these emotions, either, but does that stop us from offering comfort or trying to understand when they do display them?

So yes, I guess I do humanise my dog, but I think it enhances our relationship rather than diminishing it. I think my dog's trust in me has improved a heap since I developed more sensitivity towards her and a more gentle way of dealing with her. I think I've met my dog's emotional needs a lot better since I started imagining what it might be like to be her. When I started to ask myself if I would like my behaviour if I were my dog, I changed a lot of the things I was doing, and I discovered that she was both more complex, and easier to understand than I originally thought.

There are times when I'm very insistent that I treat my dog like a dog and not a human. She eats raw meat, has a bath maybe once a month if she's lucky, is free to romp and play in the mud and the lake, and is set firm boundaries she is expected to respect at all times. She's like a small child, but she's not a small child. I think the differences should be observed, but the similarities should not be disregarded. And I think empathy is one of the strongest tools we have to understanding our animals. No, they're not human, but we do have similarities, and we're not going to discover what they are if we refuse to put ourselves in our dog's shoes and imagine why our dog feels the way it obviously does about things.

Thoughts? Stories? Arguments?

spiritdogs

Posted : 1/24/2007 7:09:39 AM

Dogs are mammals with brains. Therefore, whether we assume that they have more or less capacity for learning than any other organism, perhaps we can assume that their brains are capable of some learning, and that they feel pain, and have emotion, all of which are functions of a central nervous system in higher animals. So, to me, whether they live in the moment is irrelevant, because in that moment, if the dog feels fear, pain, or joy, he feels it. I do not think that it is fine to inflict pain or fear on my dog even if I thought he would forget it ten minutes later. I don't think that's the case anyway. He may associate things differently, but the learning that takes place tends to last. So, if we were to "booby trap" the kitchen to keep the dog from countersurfing, we would do it so that the dog remembers the scary cans falling from the sky when he went near the counter. BUT, we yank them down with a hidden string, so that the dog will not associate the cans with us, and think that we are scary.
Empathy is necessary when dealing with all species, and it doesn't mean that we are anthropomorphizing, just being cautious not to offend their sensibilities when we are unsure of what long term damage we could cause, and at the same time trying to insure that whatever learning takes place helps them remain safe living in the company of humans.

Stacita

Posted : 1/24/2007 9:19:00 AM

DH is the most empathetic dog and cat person I've ever met. He's pretty bad about setting rules and boundaries, but... He is the person that can coax a starving stray up to him without getting bitten, calm a fearful dog in the veterinarian's office, and all dogs and cats absolutely adore him. We were at the veterinarian's Saturday and a complete stranger's dog went from acting fearful to adoring him.

At that level, it is a rare gift that I wish he'd use more completely. He says he just tries to think like the dog or cat and do what they want. BTW, he's never read a dog book in his life.

brookcove

Posted : 1/24/2007 9:28:34 AM

I have to go in just a little different direction from you on this one, Melissa. I do a lot of things to my dogs I wouldn't want done to myself. I regulate their food, put them in crates, give them shots and nasty tasting meds, and yes, I correct them if they are doing something inappropriate and particularly dangerous. I don't think it's dehumanizing, though - certainly my kids are to some extent treated the same way.

I can't limit my training to what is comfortable for the dog. If I am using the dogs to push sheep away from the feeders while I set out feed (the dog is standing between me and the sheep), what feels best to the dog is to flip around to the other side of the sheep and bring them TO me, because that's what he's bred to do most of the time. The pregnant sheep are desperate to get to feed, there's a 250 pound ram in there with a vendetta against me, and there's another 350 pound ram in there who'd like nothing better than to break lose and smash the dog to a pulp. All this would be so much better on the other side of the sheep. The pressure is drawing my dog like a wire. He's young and insecure in his ability to hold all these sheep . . . .

"CORD!" Cord snaps out of it and continues holding the flock.

If the dogs didn't have a "Don't" button, really bad things will happen in this situation. I don't kid myself what it takes to get the "don't." Cord's head snaps around because he remembers that in the past I came and got in his face if he ignored that sharp tone.

I do agree that there seems to be an odd mixture of "demoting" dogs and dismissing their fear responses, and anthroporphization, rampant currently: "The dog is thinking this or that, the dog is hoping you will do such and such . . ."

mudpuppy

Posted : 1/24/2007 9:41:14 AM

I very firmly DO NOT BELIEVE that dogs "live in the present". They may not think much about the future, but they certainly remember the past. In great detail. And use their memories to decide how to behave now. They remember every cruel thing you did, every confusing thing you did, every pleasant thing you did.

Ok, on to topic of thread: I feel no need to "humanize" dogs. Their emotions and feelings and thought processes are fine as they are. Treating adult dogs like children is rather demeaning, I think.

Firestorm

Posted : 1/24/2007 10:01:23 AM

Dogs are dogs not people. I respect love and care for my dog. He is a family member but he is a dog.

brookcove

Posted : 1/24/2007 10:01:54 AM

I do believe there IS an extent to which dogs "live in the present" and that is that they do not sit around and agonize over things the way we do. They don't seem to have a need to seek explanations like we do. I sometimes tell people this, who are fixated a bit too much on the why of what their dog is doing. It's a useful concept if an insecure trainer is agonizing themselves, that what they have done in the past has messed up their dog's training or "made" the dog do something or whether they got something just right. Yes, you can screw things up but dogs are pretty forgiving overall. Thank goodness for forgiveness, as the Kleenex commercial says. [

]

mudpuppy

Posted : 1/24/2007 10:20:11 AM

They don't seem to have a need to seek explanations like we do.

that's certainly true. Dogs don't go around wondering "why". But I think it has more to do with their lack of ability to connect two events over time than "living in the present". We all know that if you don't reward or punish within seconds of the behavior they don't connect their behavior to what you are doing. So they don't go around wondering "why" because they know why--- if your spouse came home and screamed at you, you'd wonder why, maybe it was something that happened at work, maybe something you did last night. If a dog owner comes home and screams at the dog, the dog KNOWS it's because he ran to the door barking. Next time you come home he probably won't run to the door barking.

brookcove

Posted : 1/24/2007 10:37:25 AM

But I think it has more to do with their lack of ability to connect two events over time than "living in the present".

Which is funny because that's exactly what I mean when I say "living in the present." A little anthropomorphasizing of my own, I guess, since when we say that about a person we don't mean they'll never remember the past, or are incapable of reasoning into the future. We mean they take things at face value, don't take the past to heart too much, and tend not to worry about the future. Sometimes that's good and sometimes not so good, lol.

spiritdogs

Posted : 1/24/2007 11:02:22 AM

I personally like mudpuppy's tone - and the idea that it is good to respect dogs for what they are! They, just as we, are miraculous creatures. Treating a dog like a dog, in my book, does not suggest that we treat them with less respect than we treat humans, only that we don't assume that they are human.

jones

Posted : 1/24/2007 11:02:34 AM

Once again I have to harken to For the Love of a Dog by McConnell. It is such a great book I can't have a conversation about the mental lives of dogs without thinking about it.

In that book McConnell observes that both scientists and pet owners seem to be more comfortable humanizing or anthropomorphizing dogs with negative terms than with positive ones. So, dogs can be described as "competitive," "selfish," "manipulative," etc but not "sympathetic," "apologetic," and so on. I thought that was an interesting point... if there's one thing we all agree on here it's that a dog is a dog. But some may argue that while a dog can be competitive, frustrated, angry, and direspectful, it can't be emotionally fragile, naturally fearful, and sympathetic... is that any less anthropomorphic than the view that urges us to be aware of our dogs' sensitivities?

McConnell suggests that "being anthropomorphic isn't always all bad. How else are we to begin... except with our own experiences? Surely it is reasonable, when animals have similarly organized brains, similar physiologies, and similar behaviors, to speculate that, to some extent, they might be having similar experiences. What's needed is a balanced perspective, in which we avoid imagining animals as mute, hairy versions of people, but continue to do all we can to understand how our experience compares with that of other animals."

brookcove

Posted : 1/24/2007 1:23:39 PM

I really need to get that book! [

]

espencer

Posted : 1/24/2007 1:32:28 PM

ORIGINAL: brookcove

I do believe there IS an extent to which dogs "live in the present" and that is that they do not sit around and agonize over things the way we do. They don't seem to have a need to seek explanations like we do.

Agree, "living in the moment" does not mean "living in the second and please loose your memory" at all

ORIGINAL: corvus

But then I think, how can I not do that? Being compassionate and empathetic is surely what sets humans apart from other animals. It's what makes us human, and it's the best thing we have to offer, IMO. I think we bring out the best in ourselves when we nurture compassion and empathy and apply them to other animals.

And who's not? everybody in this forum loves to give affection to their dogs, giving affection makes us happy and who does not like to be happy? the key is when

And lets not talk about things like: 8:30 am i have to excersice my dog first before petting him in the head.

You can give all the love, compasion, etc that you want but only when you are sure that his needs were fufill first, you have to think about your dog first before and i think that what make us even more special, the gift of giving first to others before us

If you wake up in the morning and give all the love that you have to your dog but you take him out untill 10 pm at night then you are fufilling your needs first than his

Of course i dont think nobody in this forum thinks "you are my dog, my property and you do exactly what i say" that kind of people dont come and talk about their dogs here

Corvus
Now, when it comes to feeling pain, frustration, fear, anxiety, or any other basic emotion, I slip back to my "If I wouldn't like it" rule. I don't know how dogs feel these emotions, but I can tell when they are feeling them. I treat them the way I would expect the same things to be treated if I were displaying them. We don't know how other people experience these emotions, either, but does that stop us from offering comfort or trying to understand when they do display them?

And you know very well that comforting frustration, fear, anxiety will nurture the behavior, you are fufilling your need of comforting first, you actually are doing the opposite of what you are trying to do and thats stopping him to feel that way, a common mistake, applying human psychology to a dog

Of course if the dog has an accident and is in pain you wont ignore him and leave him there, you still are going to help but the feeling you bring with you is what can help him or damage him, if you come, help and you are calm at that moment the dog will feel your calmness and think that maybe is not as bas as it should, now if you come and comfort and you are nervous, the dog feels it and you will make it even more nervous, the dogs "feed" themselves from the attitude you have

I know is hard but thats the way it is and if you really love your dog you will wait to fufill your needs till his needs are satisfy

Stacita

Posted : 1/24/2007 1:39:03 PM

I really need to get that book!

It is a very, very good book.

jones

Posted : 1/24/2007 1:45:52 PM

comforting frustration, fear, anxiety will nurture the behavior, you are fufilling your need of comforting first, you actually are doing the opposite of what you are trying to do and thats stopping him to feel that way, a common mistake, applying human psychology to a dog

Is that really true though? I think what corvus is trying to do here is question that point of view. If nothing else it does the mind good to think these things through, right? So... can we never apply "human psychology" to a dog? Since we aren't telepathic we have to ask the question whether dogs think they way we do. One side says no, they are dogs not humans, therefore they have dog-thoughts not human-thoughts. But let's look at the other side too. As the McConnell quote I posted above points out, there are a lot of observable similarities between dog and human physiology and biology... our brains look and are structured similarly with some differences (smaller and less wrinkled cortex most notably)... so is it a total fallacy to draw similarities between the thoughts & emotions of dogs and the thoughts & emotions of humans?

ETA... Of course it's fine to disagree or state an opposing viewpoint but what I would like to see is some explanation of how you come to that conclusion, and maybe an explanation of why the other doesn't work. "I say A" "You say B" doesn't provide much intellectual interest for me I'm afraid.