14 Animals
Goode 2006 Playing with my Dog Katie - An Ethnomethodological Study of Dog-Human Interaction
http://www.thepress.purdue.edu/titles/playing-my-dog-katie-ethno-methodological-study-caninehuman-interaction
Clever Hans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
Sumpter 2006 The principles of collective animal behaviour
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626537/
S. Strum et B. Latour, « The Meanings of Social : from Baboons to Humans » [1987]
http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/30-STRUM-LATOUR-SOCIAL-GB.pdf
Walker 1998 animal-communication
Memo of 'Animal Communication', Walker, S.F. (1998)
RispondiEliminaDefinition of Animal Communication: any method by which one animal (or cell) demonstrably influences the behaviour of another.
The explanatory principle for animal behaviour is linked to the theory of Evolution: “Behaviours under genetic control persist only if they optimise transmission of the individual's genes to the next generation”. According to this theory they both require some kind of individual and group recognition:
-of species, that, in some case is built in to sensory systems, in other cases this process needs of interaction (this process is called imprinting). Social interaction involved also mate selection for reproduction. The recognition occurs in different way, by visual modality, by sound, by fly or by smell for example.
Also the aggression and the threat are communicative form in the specialized sense, in this case communication may include tactile sensation.
Other communicative forms are useful in order to raise an alarm or to communicate a dangerous situation :“vocal or chemical signals elicited by fear or pain may function as warning messages, but as a special case, infant distress signals clearly function to elicit parental assistance.” Specific function of animal communication involve also the co-ordination of group behaviours. All of this communication acts have different channel of transmission: usually taste, smell (that involve for example the use of pheromones), touch (like the mutual grooming that is often interpreted as a ritualized form of conciliation or social bonding), vision and hearing.
These different modalities of animals communication are linked to Several theoretical ideas about the evolution of communicative mechanisms that go back to Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). The first principle to which they are connected is "serviceable associated habits" which may be construed as the notion that actions which initially evolved for other reasons may come to be selected for more specialized communicative purposes.
Another important aspect that the author underline regards the variations in modalities used, and in mapping relationships between signals produced and responses elicited by them, explicable in terms of the details of the environmental circumstances a given species is adapted to.
The conclusion is that innate capacities underlying human language must have evolved by Darwinian processes (Pinker and Bloom 1990), and accepting this implies that there may be points of commonality between the evolutionary biology of human language and animal communication systems, even though there are striking differences in the nature of the end-products.
- a nice and short video that well sum up the content of this article, regarding the forms and the purposes of the animal communication
Eliminahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsMbn3b1Bis
Walkers: Communication of animals
RispondiEliminaInvestigation on animal communication has been discussed from number of angles in the past century. However, Walkers aim was to first discuss different scenarios were animal communicate, functions of animal communication, channels of communication and finally ended with a theoretical brief insight into animal communication in comparison to human communication.
On general notes, there were number of interesting observation. For instance, it was interesting when he mentioned that the world is sustained when animals fed on each other, which obviously leave no space or very tight space where different species establish communication paths. And the reflection on theory of evolution in which it expresses individual advantage as well as genes to describe general set of behaviors as “self-sacrifice” in contrast with ken selection and “selfishness” in contrast with “reciprocal altruism” in terms of how where they will only interact if they see a benefit. Also it’s interesting to know that the function of innate mechanism allows animals to recognize the identity of unique individual and species.
Animal communication is generally considered as a genetic process in number of scenarios and functions. Therefore, Walkers expressed numerous obvious animal communication functions that starts with “recognition” which is a process either sensory defined or imprinted. Whereas animals use their senses to identify and recognize members other members or in the other case when it’s imprinted as for example birds can learn by interacting with their parents. The functions of communication also covered very essential functions such as; “courtship and mate selection” and how opposite genders produce different messages to find each other and start sexual reproduction. Other functions also covered communication development for “aggression and thread” and “alarm and distress” situations. In such situations methods of communication vary from species, but the reflection on how animals choose to alarm their groups from approaching dangerous using high pitch voices or in some cases even sacrifice themselves in comparison to “selfishness” point of view were they retrieve quietly was interesting.
Other functions of communication, included practical scope such signaling related to feeding, while some other aspects that entertaining and appealing to human such as socialization, group migration, co-operation hunting, and jovial playing. All the above mention functions, where established using channels that are unique for animals in contrast to humans such as; chemical channel; where animals tend to use odor or vibration to communicate a need or a message. Another channel was “tactile” which is physical gestures, actions and movement as we know it (kissing hugging, kicking, etc). But the most interesting with some open questions were visual and acoustic channels. In the visual channel it was interesting to know that a lot of animals are colorblind so they don’t depend on colors to communicate, and there use for visual communication is best in short distance for identification, display and for some cases such as fireflies is an essential tool for finding mates. As for the acoustic channel, Walker discussed birds to use acoustic channels for other than their basic communication needs they tend to use more than any other channel.
Finally, Walker finalized with reflecting on Darwin theory on “the expression of the emotions in man and animal 1872”. Using three principles; 1) Serviceable associated habits 2) reutilizations 3) antitheses. The last principle discusses the approach of discrete and graded signals, where signal can have number of information depending on how it was demonstrated. Other than these theories, Walker noted that there haven’t been any direct coalition between human evolution of communication and animals as huge part of human communication is dependent on cultural context and foundation.
Memo of "Clever Hans"
RispondiEliminaClever Hans was a horse in Germany in the early 1900s that was believed to be
capable of mathematics and other intelligent tasks. Clever Hans became famous during a time with Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was gaining attention.
According to Darwin’s theory a certain intelligent is the common characteristics of „higher life forms” and humans. In response the owner of clever Hans (a math teacher called Wilhelm von Osten) and some experts began to test this claim and were certain that Clever Hans was a counterexample of this idea. The owner and the audience believed that the horse had the ability to perform intelligent tasks like a human could.
Because Hans was becoming so popular, the German Board of Education hired a commission to investigate the horse case. The commissions aim was to find out if there is a trickery or these results are groundbreaking in animal research. The commission turned the investigation over to psychologist Oskar Pfungst. He proved that rather than performing the tasks, Clever Hans was responding to the reactions of his owner and the audience. Pfungst studied the questioner’s behavior, and found that the questioner became tense (as evidenced by facial expression) when Hans’ taps approached the right answer. The psychologist was concluded that Hans was using a cue to know when to stop tapping, although the questioner had no idea that he was provided such cues.
As we saw with Clever Hans, behavior can be determined by external cues. A more broad and common definition of behavior can work as response to a simulus. As humans, we use our sense of sight, hearing, smell, touch, and taste among others. Once the signal is detected, we are responding to the signal consciuocly or unconsciously. An example for unconscious respond for instance scalding ourselfes with boiling water. The case with clever Hans draws attention on the amazing characteristic of horses (animals in general), how they are able to recognize even the tiniest body responses and flutters.
Playing with my dog Katie – David Goode
RispondiEliminaSeveral studies have considered the interactions between companion dog - man in play. This study analyses the relationship between dog-human of playing together through an ethno- methodological research. In fact the author David Goode try to report and analyze an observable everyday social order: the play with his dog Katie. The act of play with Katie imply for language that there is a sharing of intentions and mental states associated between the dog and the man and this language implies different types of sharing.
The essay does not show an inclusive definition about the nature of animal-human play. However it offers some characteristics that allow us to describe the event: on the bases of the functionality of play there are presented three different characteristics of it. In the first case play is defined as "autotelic" and that means that it has no end outside of its own enactment, in other words it is just "fun". An example of an indicator of autothelic game is repetition. How do we know when we are in an autothelic game situation? Through the use of "an intentionalistic framework ", in which the actors can pursue the aims that are distinct from the normal actions of everyday. (The author explains that most of his experience with his dog can be interpreted in autotelici terms).The second point is that the game has no purpose and no means. Finally “play is activity whose real end is different from its apparent end”. (pag. 3)
So examining the data collected during his research, he elaborates some useful information for understanding the interaction between dog and man. First he finds that people read the actions of dogs in play indexically. These indexical communications can be generally known (the dog shows a stick) or particular to relationships. Also he notices that understandings between dogs and human players are practical, just as they are between human players. About language Goode explains that the most part of dogs understand a few of human words, and words dogs do comprehend can enter into play. Moreover he shows that the guardian’s cultural understandings of play with dogs are based upon the language and culture he or she has learned. The study also shows a production of anthropomorphic characterizations of animal behavior. In conclusion it's important to note that all languages are relative and in this case the author reflects the human ideas, practices and values.
Animal Communication - SF Walker
RispondiEliminaSF Walker through his article "Animal Communication" points out some specific features of the animals' social interaction. And, as he argues "the first function for communication is therefore recognition of species".
What I found interesting though is the way he attempts to explain the specific types and patterns of recognition among animals.
• recognition by sight in daylight
• recognition (contact calls in birds or flashing of fireflies - discrete and graded signals)
• individual and group recognition
• recognition of members in terms of size, age and gender (mammals)
• recognition in mate selection (in sequential "handshaking")
• visual recognition or recognition via visual modality
• recognition by smell (in terrestrial mammals)
As Walker highlights, animal communicative behaviors can be genetically determined. Nevertheless, in some specific categories, like in higher vertebrates, this type of communication behavior can be learned through imprinting.
Notes on
RispondiEliminaStrum, S.S. & Latvour, B. (1987). Redefining the social link: from baboons to humans. Social Science Information, 26(4) 783-802.
The authors play with the concept of social and consequently society to redefine it in a more general way, implying that not only humans, but also animals are constructing and negotiating a society through processes similar to that of humans. For this, they plea for a revision of the - in these days relevant - epistemological and ontological stances of the social sciences.
The traditional (ostensive) definition of the social link imply that social scientists are outside the society studying the society and its characteristics and what it holds together. It is not questioning what can be studied, only the methods to do so, while the performative definition of the social link questions whether it is possible to study the characteristics of society and yet it shows it is possible with the methods that are available. According to the performative definition, scientists are part the society they study and they are performing actors as well, meaning that they shape society just like any other actor.
The key element into the performative perception of society is a constant dynamic of negotiation between its members. The inconsistencies in how baboons were acting according to animal scientists were raising the question whether or not the behaviour of baboons was biological (genetically construed) or not. Consequently the authors base themselves on many reports to conclude that baboons negotiate their positions within the group and create a society as some sort of a by-product of this negotiating of positions. This may seem a more valid explanation to the variety reported by the baboon-specialists, as not every negotiation ends in the same way and so the society is not only the result of genes and physical characteristics. Baboon society, they state, is the result of many of such characteristics influencing the result of the continues negotiations.
Whether or not human society is similarly constructed, the answer is a bit more nuanced than just 'no'. The authors argue that the difference between human and baboon society is due to the availability of technology. Where baboons only have themselves, their bodies and whatever they can produce with this, humans are technologically more advanced and the different result is the stability technology produces. With technology, the dynamics are slowed down, creating a more stable society.
Concluding, the authors claim that baboons and people can be studied in a similar way and that both societies are equal in the basics. However, what baboons do and what humans do differ through the availability of technology, decreasing the complexity, the dynamics but raising the ability to control large amounts of society members. The result of the analysis is that the concepts of society and politics needs reconsideration and the authors suggest that every species that has developed some degree of dynamics in the positions they occupy within their 'societies' could now be ought to have some sort of a politics as long as these cohabiting species shape their society by performing.
Thoughts on Walker, S.F. (1998) 'Animal Communication'
RispondiEliminaThe article talks about animal communication such as animal cries, distress call, and release of chemicals. Understanding animal communication hopes to provide insight on how humans communicate.
From the theory of evolution, animals are thought to be selfish in order preserve their species. However, communication requires effort to transmit and receive message hence, it is contradictory to the idea of selfishness. It was explained though that communication is done in order to preserve the kin (kin selection), in a way it is a selfish act. (Or maybe the world and all species are by nature collaborative, not really competitive as the evolution theorists claimed).
Kin selection was explained to include parental care and self-sacrifice to save many of their relatives. Also, communicating and cooperating with other species can increases an individual’s benefits.
Functions of animal communication were discussed by Walker. The first function is recognition. Recognition is important, especially the capacity of an animal to recognize other animals of the same species, thus increase security. Infant birds learn recognition through the process of imprinting. Another instance, social insects recognize species membership in their caste system.
Another function of animal communication is for sexual reproduction. Animals give a lot fs signals related to selecting mate and courtship. Examples of this are the different frequencies of calls of crickets, bird songs and the patterns of flashing light of the fireflies (the male delay its own signal of flash to disciminate females).
The communication also varies with the animals’ degree of social interaction. It can be one-act or a more sustained interaction. Some animals pair throughout their life, some only through the breeding season, etc. There are also signals for shared activities- turn-taking in incubation.
A third function is aggression and threat. Animals communicate because of dispute over food, territory, and females. Examples of this are the bird song, or gestural display of males. Other examples are the gestures of submission of wolves, territorial scent marking of dogs and the chest beating of gorilla to display dominance.
To send alarm and distress is another function of animal communication. Deers, monkeys and other species signal when they sight the presence of predators. The article explained that giving signals can be beneficial both to the sender and to the receiver. Stotting gazelles for example is a signal not just to tell other gazelles of the danger but also to show off to the predator their alertness to flee. Infant distress signal to call their parents also falls under this function.
Animals also give signals related to feeding. Bees convey to others that a food source has already been used by others. Some primates give out a kind of low grunting when they find delicious food.
Some of the other points mentioned by the author include the difference between graded and discrete signals. Animals both use this kind of signals.
It was also stated that the ecology or environmental context of an animal influences its communication. Forest animals that communicate in shorter distances have more repertoire calls than those animals that communicate in farther distances. It’s because the latter can confuse their own species’ signal with other animal sounds.
Communication of animals is also learned. An example of this is the vocal learning of birds.
Finally, it can be said that some aspects of human language serve the same functions as that of the animal communication. People communicate to select mate, show aggression, show submission, and greet and recognize other human species.