The Wisdom of Animals

Humans are as much animals as dogs and lions are. The title of this essay relates only to non-human animals but common language usage has made technical accuracy and conveying meaning hard to achieve simultaneously in an Orwellian manner. An element of this essay will relate to what humans could stand to learn from animals however for the most part it will paint a picture of the character of animals and how they perceive the world. Animals, even excluding humans, is a rather broad category and my experience is primarily with dogs, then cats and to a much lesser extent other common mammalian pets and farm animals. All animals seem to broadly share character and intellect potentials with those other animals that share genes with them, the greater the overlap the greater the similarities. When put in such terms it seems obvious however it is easy to overlook the fact that most mammals share most of their genetic material and thus many observations of one species with overlap with observations of others.

The holistic approach to knowledge is useful in many ways but ensures you lack credibility in any specific field. It is also one of the hardest challenges faced by people to correctly assess ones own level of proficiency at something. Many people are arrogant and make excuses for their failings and many other people are overly humble and lack the confidence to perform to their potentials. It is a pretty impossible challenge without the use of quantitative comparisons with your peers. For running the 100m sprint you can be fairly assured of where you stand relative to most other people with a rather small margin of error. As things move away from directly relative quantitative measurements such as intelligence or how funny we are or how good at football we might be it all gets a lot more complicated and subjective. The only way to assess if someone really is the best footballer in the world is to see if most people think they are. As you compare yourself to people of a similar level it gets much harder to say who is better and we begin to rely more on the opinions of the masses to make these assessments.

When you don't know where you stand relative to the population on any given thing it is hard to then have much confidence in your opinions or abilities. When you cannot use logic to assess the validity of something you are forced to base your conclusions on how others receive them. There are many opinions on how to treat, train and behave towards animals, much of which has been used to good effect even when approaches differ. This just tells us various approaches work towards various ends. I have always thought I was pretty good with animals however never really had much confidence in my methods or my relative strength compared to others. I have always been around animals such as the pets of friends and family but than is a very closed circle and so any information gleaned from it is relatively meaningless. I might be great compared to my friends and family with animals however still be poor with them overall when compared to the broader society.

I have now been working full time with other peoples pets for over a year and have owned my own cat for over four years. In this time I have got to spend time with dog and cat owners from all demographics and mingled with lots of other professionals who work with animals full time. My suppressed suspicions regarding how good I am with animals has been given sufficient peer support for me to have a great deal of confidence in my opinions and methods. There are now only two topics to which I feel I have any claim to have an expert opinion on. For all my essays on philosophy and economics and so forth I am very much dabbling in the subjects likely way out of my depth to people who have dedicated lifetimes to studying. The first area to which I think my opinion should hold a lot of credibility despite my holistic approach to things is obviously animals, specifically dogs. The second is games but that has little baring on this essay and would require a justification as to why that is at least as long which I shall spare the reader.

I am not very good at expressing why I am good at something. Being autistic makes me less responsive to other peoples beliefs, desires and opinions. Some I don't understand or cannot empathise with, other times I simply miss the signals people frequently use to express something, and at all times I am not that influenced by others. I don't tend to be all that competitive, nor does the opinion of someone I don't know bother me assuming I am not in same way causing them harm. Pride and shame are two emotions I suspect I am less influenced by than the average person. This means I have little use for the skill of making myself seem good in the eyes of others. I always hate trying to do so as well so you will simply have to trust that I am really rather good with animals. Dogs seem to love me and we tend to have pretty good mutual respect and understanding. This I believe qualifies me to give an opinion based essay on my observations of animal qualities that I hope carries some weight just on the basis of my claims.

I suspect my autism is in part responsible for my love of animals in the first place although not exclusively. Being brought up around them is likely an essential ingredient in my development. I have always struggled with language as I demonstrated right at the start of this essay. I need things to be exact and specific for me to grasp them and language is a very imprecise way of conveying meaning. I can talk all day long about the tactics of a game to a total stranger as the parameters are clearly defined and there is an aim. I am however really awkward when it comes to small talk or socialising in large groups. I don't know where the conversation is going or what the point of it is and so frequently some make faux pas when I encounter something I have not before and don't know an appropriate response.

This is where animals come in as the one main defining difference between us and animals is the complexity and reliance on our language that we have developed and used to conquer the world. Animals still communicate however they do not use language or the concept of it in any way. Most think of language as audible sounds that relate to certain meanings (which animals have too) and visual signals that relate to those sounds so that language my be preserved and transferred by other means (which animals also have, although we can preserve our symbols on materials in the form of writing where animals only gesture with their bodies thus are unable to preserve the message through time). The fundamental difference is that we think in words using our language where as animals do not. Some people seem to attribute the actions of animals purely to instinct and reflex so as to remove the uncomfortable concept of thought without words. It is clear that animals pause to consider things and can cognitively reason in much the same way we can, it just very hard for us to imagine the process this occurs by as it is so alien to us due it occurring without words. I appreciate the company of animals as all of the difficult, inaccurate, and stressful exchanges of words are forgone. This allows me to fully relax while gaining many of the advantages of social interaction. Meeting new people is difficult and getting to a point where you can have a relaxed relationship most of the time takes a while where as it can be almost instantaneous with animals.

I mentioned earlier that intelligence was a very hard quality to measure and is the kind of topic interesting enough to warrant an essay of its own at some stage. Very few people would argue that dogs are cleverer than humans and I am not one of those people however I think a lot of people would also put most of that difference in intelligence down to the inability to speak. We are much worse at smelling and hearing than dogs however we don't use this as a measure of intelligence. I would argue that they are along closer lines to the ability to use language than is often given credit to. I am more of the opinion than intelligence is for the most part the level of activity in the mind much like the level of physical fitness is linked to the amount of exercise that is done. Stupidity is much more the result of mental laziness than it is a trait we are born with. Those that enjoy discovery and ask lots of questions are those that grow up the smartest. There are many people who are considered intelligent by our academic standards who seem to achieve those results much like martial arts experts achieve their proficiency – muscle memory. They work hard repetitively on a subject until it requires no real thought to obtain the answer in the same way that a martial arts expert will reflexively respond to an attack. These people do not necessarily have what I would deem as great intellect. They can seem dull or vacant compared to people who have active minds, regardless of their academic aptitude.

Using the measure of mental activity combined with the ability to problem solve as the basis for describing intellect I would say I know of many dogs and a few cats that are brighter than plenty of people I have met. I am more able to engage with them and feel as if my actions are better understood and observed. I have been outwitted by numerous animal while playing with them which is both a humbling and pleasing experience. The inability to use language means that the scope of animal intellect is far narrower than humans but it most certainly does not mean it is absent nor much different to our own.

It is the calm grasp and understanding of reality as understood without words that inspires me so greatly with animals. Even trying to express this in words seems a little futile. Animals only understand things as much as they need to, an example of this is cause and effect which animals use to their advantage however we have taken this further and generated a concept which we have encapsulated in the words past and future. Animal understanding allows them to use cause and effect to satisfy a want they have in the present, our concept of future allows us to have wants based on an idea of the future. An animal responds to biologically evolved desires however we generate our own convoluted desires simply because we have language and they do not. This simplicity is rewarding and fulfilling and has much to do with why animals seem happier than people despite us having a much more luxurious and free life style.

If you managed to watch the Human Planet documentary or have spent time with indigenous hunter gatherer people at some point in your life than you can corroborate my observations that they appear much more content, happy and fulfilled than the average person you see in a suit walking about. They may have language but they do not have the resources or technology to spend time on much beyond seeing to the biological needs their bodies have. This and animal motives being based purely on biological requirements suggest that the secret to happiness is to focus on satisfying the needs your body expresses to you without words such as hunger.

Another thing that a lack of language helps animals with is open mindedness. Animals use association in reasoning much like we do however we use words to denote groups which make them conceptually inseparable which animals do not. If the only man a dog ever met beat it then the next man the dog met it would fear expecting another beating. If however the second man is nothing but nice to the dog they will become separate in the mind of the dog. Future men may be met with cation as a lesson from the first man however once proved to be kind would not be a problem. With people we may grow to dislike men because of something done by one however nothing we can do can change the fact that all new men are linked by this descriptive group term in our language. We are more biased by our experiences than animals and less willing to let go of the grievance than animals are all of which I attribute to language. The word man is a Platonic idea that is unchanging where as actual men have similarities but are clearly all different. If you associate with the word rather than the thing you will find it harder to escape prejudice 

Animals seem to communicate by conveying meaning through actions and expressions. Meaning is a term I have used before and I have a very specific idea in mind when I use it in this context. Both with a desire and with an understanding there is something you have in your mind that is outside of words. When we might come to communicate that or reason about it we will quickly start converting it into words and so lose sight of this wordless concept in our minds. The easiest way to experience what I am on about is to think of a process you understand the complete workings of. Your understanding of that thing is simultaneous in that you are aware of all the interactions involved in the process at once. Many examples of such processes are cyclic and have no discernible beginning or end. It always takes a little longer to unravel this understanding so as to be able to covey it to another using language with an appropriate start and end point. That thing in your mind that understands but has no words, because it is simultaneous and not linear like language, is what animals think in. We have it but are much less aware of it because our conversion to language is so rapid and natural.

Although it may be harder to get an animal to understand you when they do so it is always instant. An understood command or comment is responded to the moment you have started the process of giving it. In fact for animals the verbal bit is largely just a signal that a command is being given, it is all about tone, expression, body language and how your meaning is conveyed in those things that register in the animal. Although a little off topic I have observed behaviours in animals that are hard to explain using current science and other animal owners have experienced similar things. Words like telepathy have a stigma around them as they have been painted in a light that is hard to stomach. I would not like to taint these observations with that word despite it being the closest to what can be observed. A dog will respond to information it seemingly could not have known even accounting for their incredible sense of smell. My parents dog would reliably go and wait at the door 15 minutes before my rather would return from work which could be any time within a seven hour window. He could come from any direction and have his time affected by a ridiculous number of variables. The most logical explanation is that my dad knew when he was about 15 minutes away which would trigger some sort of nearly home feeling which would somehow be picked up on by the dog despite the vast distance (he would be driving home and so 15 minutes could mean he was over 15 miles away). If such telepathy was possible it would only relate to those things that could be thought without words, some understandings, some intentions and some feelings. I could always tell if my parents had had an argument when arriving home from the dog. It is hard to put into words how the dog would act differently so that I would know but I always did and it never failed. The same dog took me two full carriages along a noisy train to free a man trapped inside the toilet there. The dog may have been able to hear the man calling but how did it know they were calls for help compared to any other type of call. To my knowledge the dog had no experience of coming to some ones aid, even just with his presence. To me this implies he had some experience of what it feels like to be trapped and could interpret this understanding from the individual in the toilet and then empathise with it.

The idea of animals being telepathic in some manner (which if it were the case then it would be supported by science, and as we don't yet have suitable science to explain it seems like quite a good place to be conducting scientific investigation) aside it can be said with certainty that animals are very receptive to things that they can grasp and relate to. They are also much quicker on the uptake of such things that people are. If you want to gauge a person or the mood in somewhere the best place to look is at any animals around. From their actions in the context of the situation you can draw some very fast conclusions and from their general character you have a window into the character of the owner. There are three reasons why it is easier to learn from an animal than a person. The first is simply that when you do understand a dog they have not had to explain themselves with words and so the whole process is physically quicker. This may not be exclusive to animals as people we know well or common cultural expressions can instantly convey something to us as well but I certainly find it much more frequent in animals. The second reason is that animals have very little need of Machiavellian politics and are much better served by accurate communication than deceit. Animals are honest and wear their feelings on their sleeve as it were. People are much more self conscious about open expression and often wear metaphorical masks in an attempt to give off a better impression of themselves. This makes it harder to know the true intent and motivation of people compared to animals (this is as well as their being more complexity involved in human actions as we have our own constructions for desires as well as purely biological ones). One of the best tips I can offer for dealing with animals is to be entirely genuine when you do, if one keeps up their public mask while dealing with animals it sends confusing mixed signals and engenders mistrust. Lying is really an artifact of language, in the animal kingdom the comparison would be being sneaky and avoiding detection while stealing a bit of food or something. Words have made lies an art form in human cultures and are used to all manner of ends. Being sneaky is very honest when it is discovered as the intention is clear, where as lies manipulate the way in which we understand and interpret things which leads to a cloudier view on life for us humans who have to account for and filter communications for the lies. 


The third reason that animals are so good at conveying certain kinds of information is that they very much live in the moment. As I have tried to describe earlier, they understand cause and effect but only make use of it for things desired in the present and have no extended concept of past and future. This point is the crux of the essay and is I think the main lesson to be learnt from animals. Describing them as hedonistic seems rather over the top but they do live life as it occurs for them. They don't dwell on the past or stress about the future and appear far more content as a result. Some might put this down as ignorance is bliss but that would be unfair. Animals learn from experience and are capable of using cause and effect to their advantage and so are clearly not ignorant of past and future. My interpretation is that animals without language find any extension of past and future to be irrelevant to their lives and are thus superfluous things not worth worrying about. For those people that find themselves comfortably satisfied in every biological sense yet still discontent with life, I cannot think of a better remedy than to think like an animal. Learn from your experience, plan your actions to the point of their intended effect and think no more of things in your past or your future. 


Much as I would like to end this essay on that last sentence I feel I need to make some apology for the bitty and vague feel of it. The topic of animals is vast and from my experience alone would be worth a book to fully cover. I was trying to pluck one key aspect of the whole interlinked subject and express it without needing to go into the novel length detail. As such I am not sure how convincing my arguments and observations are as they are not fully backed up. I also find it very hard to convey things that are intuitively known to me as they are with animals. If I work something out with logic I can then explain it however this is not the case with interacting with animals for the most part and so my descriptions have been wishy washy and unscientific. Much of my justifications for my beliefs are purely observed and unless you take my word for it then they hold little value. As many of my claims cannot be quantified and thus demonstrated all I can suggest is that you make your own observations and see if they agree with my findings. I hope if nothing else that some readers will view animals in a different light and with more respect. We are more alike than we would like to think and while in technological terms our language has put us at a huge advantage over the other animals in emotional terms I would suggest it holds us back.