Free Archives

Aggressive Behavior—the Making of a Definition

Roger Abrantes
Articles and Blogs, Free
Aggressive Behavior, Critical Reasoning, Dominant Behavior

May 18, 2021June 12, 2014 by Roger Abrantes

Aggressive and dominant (self-confident) behavior (picture from dogsquad).

Aggressive and submissive behavior (not fearful).
This is the behavior a cornered dog shows when pacifying, submission and flight don’t work (picture from doggies).

Aggressive and submissive behavior (ears down, long mouth, smaller eyes) (picture Cesar’sWay).

Growling and snarling are also aggressive behaviors (picture askmen)

Contrary to what you might suppose, aggressive behavior is difficult to define. “Lack of agreement regarding definitions of aggressive behavior has been a significant impediment to the progress of research in this area,” writes Nelson in 2005 in his big book ‘Biology of Aggression.’

Why is a good definition necessary? Because only then do we know what we are discussing.

I have never been quite satisfied with my own definition, and it nags me, worse than a mosquito bite, when I can’t come up with a good definition. I have often returned to it changing a comma or two to see if it improved. Alas, to no avail, updated versions were marginally better, but not resoundingly so.

My original definition, let me remind you, was: “Aggressiveness (or aggressive behavior) is behavior directed toward the elimination of competition. It can range from displays of intent, like growling, roaring and stamping to injuring behavior like biting, staging, kicking.”

Not bad, but could be better. I checked many other definitions to analyze their strengths and shortcomings, hoping to get the necessary inspiration to come up with a really good definition.

A— “Aggressive behavior is behavior that causes physical or emotional harm to others, or threatens to. It can range from verbal abuse to the destruction of a victim’s personal property” (www.healthline.com/health/).

Not bad, but not precise enough to use in the biological sciences.

B— “Aggression is a forceful behavior, action, or attitude that is expressed physically, verbally, or symbolically. It may arise from innate drives or occur as a defense mechanism, often resulting from a threatened ego. It is manifested by either constructive or destructive acts directed toward oneself or against others (Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 8th edition).”

Not bad either, though weakened by the passive voice. It recurs to terms needing strong definitions as well, i.e. drive, defense mechanism. Finally, it is a bit too psychological for the evolutionary biologist—what is a threatened ego?

C— “Aggression is behavior that is angry and destructive and intended to be injurious, physically or emotionally, and aimed at domination of one animal by another. It may be manifested by overt attacking and destructive behavior or by covert attitudes of hostility and obstructionism. The most common behavioral problem seen in dogs.” (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Aggressive+Behaviour).

This one is not good. It is more a list of synonyms (angry, destructive, hostility, obstructionism) than a definition. It mixes concepts together too easily (aggression and domination?). Finally, the most common problem in dogs in our files (over 10,000 of them) is home alone problems, not aggressive (whatever that is) behavior.

D— “Aggressive people often uses anger, aggressive body language […] “(http://changingminds.org/techniques/assertiveness/aggressive_behavior.htm).

This one, we won’t waste any more time with. A definition that uses the definiendum is not a definition.

E— “Aggression is a response to something/someone the animal perceives as a threat. Aggression is used to protect the animal through the use of aggressive displays (growling, barking, tooth displays, etc.) or protect the animal through aggressive acts (biting). Aggressive behavior is most frequently caused by fear.” (somewhere on the Internet).

This one is not good either. Again, it uses the definiendum in the definition. We miss the definition of threat to be able to analyze the sentence conclusively. More seriously, it states that aggression is caused by fear, which from an evolutionary point of view doesn’t make sense. Fear does not elicit aggressive behavior. It would have been a lethal strategy that natural selection would have eradicated swiftly and once and for all. A cornered animal does not show aggressive behavior because it is fearful. It does so because its natural responses to a fear-eliciting stimulus (pacifying, submission, flight) don’t work.

F— “Aggression is defined as behavior which produced or was intended to produce physical injury or pain in another person.” (Nelson, R. .J. 2005. Biology of Aggression. Oxford Univ. Press).

This is a much better definition, but it could be more explanatory.

So, after yet another round of deliberation, here follows my suggestion.

“Aggressive behavior is behavior directed toward the elimination of competition from an opponent, by injuring it, inflicting it pain, or giving it a reliable warning of such impending consequences if it takes no evasive action. It is distinguishable from dominant behavior in as much as the latter does not include harmful behaviors though it may require some degree of forceful measures. Aggressive behavior ranges from reliable warnings of impending damaging behavior such as growling, roaring, and stamping, to injurious behaviors such as biting, staging, and kicking. Predatory behavior is not aggressive behavior.”

This is much better than earlier versions, and it complies with all the requirements for a good definition. Thus:

It defines something concrete and observable.
It states a necessary condition to distinguish it from a related technical term, dominant behavior, even explaining a characteristic of the latter.
It does not include other terms needing a definition.
It includes enough conditions to justify the use of the term, not too few to risk being synonymous with another term, and not too many to risk losing its explanatory value by being too encompassing.
It gives examples of what is and is not aggressive behavior.
It does not presuppose any special knowledge of the reader to understand it.

This is a good definition because it defines the term, including and excluding the necessary conditions. Whether it will be the last word on the matter is another story. I’m sure it won’t. There is always room for improvement. A good definition must also be able to accept reviews imposed by newer discoveries. Until then, I’m happier with this one than with any earlier versions. Aren’t you?

Learn more in our course Agonistic Behavior. Agonistic Behavior is all forms of aggression, threat, fear, pacifying behavior, fight or flight, arising from confrontations between individuals of the same species. This course gives you the scientific definitions and facts.

Agonistic Behavior is a brand-new, for 2019 created course by leading ethologist Roger Abrantes. It is one of our most challenging courses, addressed to the dedicated student of behavioral sciences.

Learn More

Do Dogs See Colors? What Does It Mean for Our Training?

Roger Abrantes
Articles and Blogs, Free
Color Vision, Dog Training, Scent Detection

July 9, 2019June 10, 2014 by Roger Abrantes

Do dogs see colors? Does that affect our dog training in any way?

In the early 1980s, we performed some tests at the Ethology Institute Cambridge to determine whether dogs were colorblind as the popular view says. The conclusion of our experiments was that they could distinguish between some colors and could not discriminate certain other colors. They are not completely color blind (seeing only shades of gray). They were more like some people who see colors though not the full spectrum. However, we could not determine, at the time, whether the color discrimination of the dogs was due to differentiating between real colors or various shades of gray. Meanwhile, more modern research has cast some light on these questions.

Eyes contain light catching cells (cones) that respond to color. Canines have fewer cones than humans, which implies that, in principle, their color vision cannot be as good as ours. To see colors, we need various types of cones, which can detect different wavelengths of light. We have three types of cones, which gives us the possibility to register what we call the whole range of color vision.

Researchers at the University of California at Santa Barbara tested in the late 1980s the color vision of dogs. Their studies confirm that dogs see color, though not as well differentiated as humans do. For us, the rainbow looks violet, blue, blue-green, green, yellow, orange and red. For a dog, we presume it looks dark blue, light blue, gray, light yellow, darker yellow, and very dark gray. They seem to see violet as blue (like many humans).

Studies performed by Russian scientists demonstrated that dogs tend to discriminate real color rather than brightness cues. Dogs have a dichromatic color vision, which means that they have two types of cones in their eyes. They match any color they register with no more than two pure spectral lights. Placental mammals are in general dichromatic. The ability to see long wavelengths necessary to distinguish red from green seems to have disappeared during evolution, probably after the Triassic period. Dichromatic vision is, though, good to distinguish colors in dim light, favoring the most nocturnal animals.

Trichromats, like most humans, have three color-detecting cones (blue, green and red) and can distinguish between 100 different gradations of color. Honeybees are also trichromatic seeing ultraviolet, blue and green instead of blue, green and red.

Human = A and C. Dog = B and D. It is difficult for the dog to discriminate between red and green.

The term color blind is, therefore, somehow misleading. Some animals developed the ability to see some colors and others to see other colors all depending on what mutations appeared and the subsequent costs and benefits each strategy implied for their struggle for survival.

What does this mean for our communication and training of our dogs? Since dogs find it difficult to distinguish between certain reds and greens (like some humans do), we should choose toys and training aids in other colors. For example, light blue or yellow are much easier colors for a dog to detect. On the other side, when training them in any scent detection discipline, we should use colors for the targets that are difficult for them to see so to compel them to use their noses and not their eyes.

References

Kasparson, A. et al. 2013. Colour cues proved to be more informative for dogs than brightness. Proceedings of the Royal Society.

Neitz, J. et al. 1989. Color Vision in the Dog. In Visual Neuroscience, 3, 119-125. Cambridge University Press.

Featured image: Since dogs find it difficult to distinguish between certain reds and greens (like some humans do), we should choose toys and training aids in other colors (photo by Oleghz).

Featured Course of the Week

Animal Training My Way Animal Training My Way teaches you to create reliable bonds with any animal. It combines the best of ethology and behaviorism and develops an innovative, simple, and efficient approach. It is a guide for creating harmonious relationships.

Featured Price: € 168.00 € 98.00

BUY NOW

Learn more in our course Canine Scent Detection, which will enable you to pursue further goals, such as becoming a substance detection team or a SAR unit. You complete the course by passing the double-blind test locating a hidden scent. You take the theory online in the first three lessons. In lesson four, you train yourself and your dog, step by step until reaching your goal. We will assign you a qualified tutor to guide you, one-on-one, either on-site or by video conferencing.

Learn More

Why Do Dogs Eat Poop?—an Evolutionary Approach

Roger Abrantes
Articles and Blogs, Free
Canine Behavior, Coprophagia, Evolution

October 19, 2018June 8, 2014 by Roger Abrantes

Why do dogs eat their own poop? I’ll come back to this question, but allow me an introduction which I think might be relevant for your further studies of behavior. I believe that a little more knowledge about evolution and the processes that bring traits about, including behavior, would reduce drastically the number of erroneous explanations of the behavior of our pets. It would also spell the end of many old wives’ tales

I find on the Internet one horrendous explanation after the other, which the authors could avoid with a 101 course in Evolution. Even scarier is to read some rebuttals of perfectly scientifically valid accounts because of blatant ignorance.

That is why we offer our course ‘Evolution’ free of charge. Our students are doing very well. They have taken the test 753 times since Darwin’s birthday last year (February 12). Students try to take tests several times. We discovered that they took (and take) tests like they play computer games, which is perfectly all right. While playing, they learn. Therefore, the records show an alarming 55% of failed tests (412 tests) because many do attempt to take the test without reading the book. In the end, 86% have passed evolution. That is good (and this figure will be even better, closer to 100%) because those who failed are still attempting to pass—to win the game). 42 students (6%) have even scored 100% correct answers, which is brilliant (and difficult).

So, knowledge to everyone everywhere is working—and congratulations to our students. You are the brave ones creating a new world with the help of knowledge—not the sword.

The following questions are those that our students find more difficult. Here’s some help for you.

Natural selection acts on the _________. Only 48% answer correctly. Yes, natural selection acts upon the phenotype, not the genotype. Recently, epigenetics have uncovered that the environment can act upon the way genes manifest themselves, but this is the exception, not the rule.
A _______ is a taxonomic level, one of the basic units of classifying living organisms. 56% answer species, which is correct. Most of the wrong answers are cell. A cell is a basic unit, but not at taxonomic level. I guess what tricks you here is the word taxonomic. Taxonomy (from Ancient Greek: τάξις taxis, arrangement, and –νομία –nomia, method) is the description, identification, nomenclature, and classification of organisms.
Natural selection is a random process. 57% answer no, which is correct. I think what confuses the others, who answer yes, is that mutations happen at random. However, whether these mutations confer an advantage or not, is not a random process. It’s still under the sharp scrutiny of the survival of the fittest algorithm. Natural selection is not a random process.
Artificial speciation (caused by human intervention) is just one particular case of speciation due to ____________ selection, not an exception. 46% answer natural selection, which is correct. In popular language, we call artificial in nature everything that is human made. However, humans are also part of nature and, therefore, their impact on other organisms is part of the same universal process—it is as natural as the influence of any predator on its prey.

I will give you now two examples of how a bit knowledge of evolutionary biology can help you analyze statements and avoid making claims that don’t make sense or are very unlikely to be true.

Why does my dog eat its own poop? That is a common question that I have been asked many times. Here are some popular answers.

Explanation 1: The dog knows that fewer predators will pay it any attention if there is no evidence of his having been around.

Is this probable? First, adult canines in nature are not particularly predated by any other species. They tend to defecate where that can, sometimes even using it to scent mark their territory, which is anything but concealing it. The only occasion where this occurs is when canine mothers eat their puppies’ feces while they are still in the den. The function of this behavior is to keep the den reasonably clean, free of parasites, and probably also odor free. Evolutionarily, those that didn’t do it suffered more cases of their progeny succumbing to disease. It might also have reduced the scent signature of the den helping it remaining concealed, but again that would only have been an advantage where predators with a reasonable sense of smell would share the same environment. It might have been beneficial for the Canis lupus lupussharing their environment with bears (family Ursidae).

Conclusion: it is unlikely that dogs eat their poop to conceal their whereabouts from predators except for mothers consuming their puppies’ feces.

Explanation 2: He (the dog) knows that removing the evidence means no punishment for inappropriate elimination.

Is this probable? To be true, it requires that the dog associates the feces with the punishment. How probable is it that the dog associates its the act of defecation with the punishment from an owner arriving at the scene maybe 1-8 hours later? Natural selection has favored associations broadly spaced in time, but only for vital functions, like eating poisonous substances. There is evidence that the organism retains a kind of memory of anything that made it sick even occurring many hours later. However, we cannot envisage any situation in which it would be unconditionally and evolutionarily advantageous for an animal to associate defecating with a non-lethal punishment inflicted by some other animal. Natural selection would only favor it if the achieved benefits exceeded its costs grossly. It is true that insecure animals tend to keep a low profile, also restricting their urination and defecation to less-prominent locations, but not by eating it.

Conclusion: it is definitely possible to condition an association between feces and punishment, but I doubt we can teach any dog to eat its feces to avoid punishment. There is no evidence that eating own poop has been evolutionarily advantageous.

When analyzing a behavior, the evolutionary biologist asks: (1) what condition in the environment would favor the development of such a trait, (2) what conditions would favor its propagation into the population, (3) do the benefits of such a trait outweigh its costs both short and long term?

Why do dogs eat their own poop, then? I don’t know. You may need to ask a vet, and now you are in a better situation than earlier to evaluate any answer you may get because you know how to analyze an argument from an evolutionary point of view.

Enjoy your studies.

Featured image: Canine mothers (wolf, African wild dogs and domestic dogs) eat their puppies poop when they are still in the den. The function of this behavior is to keep the den fairly clean, free of parasites, and probably also odor free.

Canine Muzzle Nudge, Muzzle Grasp and Regurgitation Behavior

Roger Abrantes
Articles and Blogs, Free
Canine Behavior, Muzzle Grasp, Muzzle Nudge, Regurgitation Behavior

July 2, 2019June 6, 2014 by Roger Abrantes

The canine muzzle nudge is a pacifying behavior. Pacifying behavior (Latin pacificare, from pax = peace and facere, facio = to make) is all behavior with the function of decreasing or suppressing an opponent’s aggressive or dominant behavior.

Newborn cubs and pups nudge their mother’s tits to find a nipple and suckle the maternal milk, their only nutrition by then. The nudging, achieving the desired result, becomes imprinted in their memories. Later, they will frequently nudge to attempt to obtain something they want or to turn an unpleasant situation into a pleasant one.

The muzzle nudge is a typical canine behavior: one individual nudges the sides of the mouth of another. It may elicit regurgitation when accompanied by licking. That is how infantile canines taste their first fast food.

Regurgitation behavior is shown by adult canines when they vomit recently consumed food right in front of youngsters. It may occur voluntarily, though often it is the muzzle nudge of the youngsters that triggers it. Their mother is the first to regurgitate for them, but other members of the pack may also join in.

The little dog sticks its head in the mouth of the Husky. This is a variation of the original regurgitation eliciting behavior. Later, poking to sides of mouth become a fairly common pacifying behavior.

The muzzle nudge later assumes a ritualized function as a pacifying behavior. Insecure or slightly fearful individuals will muzzle nudge their opponents, showing them their friendly intentions. Our dogs will muzzle nudge us in many situations when they feel unsafe, somewhat pressured, or just in need of being reassured. They may direct their muzzle nudge toward any part of our body, most often though toward our face and hands. They may also attempt to lick us.

The muzzle grasp behavior may have its origins in the muzzle nudge and regurgitation. Adults muzzle-grasp youngsters, which often invite them to perform this ritual. Canine mothers use a version of this behavior to prevent their youngsters from suckling at the time of weaning. Higher-ranking canines in a pack (wild and domestic) use another version of this behavior to make a point as to claiming a resource. In all cases, this behavior causes no harm and injury. The muzzle grasp is not an aggressive behavior. It ranges from pacifying to self-confident and dominant behavior depending on the variation, intensity and the individuals concerned.

Muzzle nudge, muzzle grasp, and regurgitation are connected. They share the common element of originating in the satisfying of a primary need (food acquisition). They all involve some nudging, and they focus on the mouth of the adults.

The pictures on these pages how the Husky yawning (pacifying behavior) and the little dog pawing it (yet a pacifying behavior) while attentive to its mouth. On the second picture, the pup, not only nudges and licks the sides of the mouth of the adult, but it also sticks its head in. This is rare and due to the difference is the size of the dogs. It is not uncommon, though, for the nudging and licking to become so intense that the youngster sticks its nose in the adult’s mouth.

Although not as common as in nature, some of our domestic dogs also show the regurgitation behavior when given the opportunity. They will regurgitate not only toward their puppies but also toward unrelated puppies. This behavior has nothing to do with nervousness, agitation, or illness as erroneously assumed by many dog owners. It is a vestige of behavior our dogs inherited from their ancestors when feeding the pups was a highly crucial trait and favored by natural selection.

The muzzle nudge behavior shows friendliness. A dog displaying an unsolicited muzzle nudge too often may be a dog feeling insecure and in need of comfort.

The muzzle grasp is social behavior. It is one of those behaviors favored by natural selection for its essential functions and effectiveness. It is common in pacifying rituals, often at the invitation of the more vulnerable individual. It is also in the repertoire of an individual to claim a resource (showing its dominant behavior in that situation). Our dogs may welcome us to muzzle-grasp them as a bonding activity. The canine muzzle grasp and our gentle grasping the muzzle of our dog has nothing to do with the brutal grabbing of the dog by the muzzle as some dog owners do when venting their frustration.

Muzzle nudge, muzzle grasp, and regurgitation behavior may assume many variations depending on the individuals involved, context, environment, etc. Behavior if a continuum and except for tropisms and simple reflexes, it is highly individualized. Natural selection favors behaviors that tend to be advantageous in the struggle for survival and reproduction.

Featured image: The husky shows yawning, a common canine pacifying behavior. The little dog shows pawing, also a common pacifying behavior, and the beginning of poking to the sides of the mouth, which has the function of eliciting regurgitation (photos by unknown; if you’re the photographer, please let us know as we would like to give you due credit).

Featured Course of the Week

Featured Price: € 168.00 € 98.00

BUY NOW

Learn more in our course Ethology. Ethology studies the behavior of animals in their natural environment. It is fundamental knowledge for the dedicated student of animal behavior as well as for any competent animal trainer. Roger Abrantes wrote the textbook included in the online course as a beautiful flip page book. Learn ethology from a leading ethologist.

Learn More

Animal Training — I Didn’t Fail, I Discovered 34 Ways That Don’t Work!

Roger Abrantes
Articles and Blogs, Free
Failure, Horse Training, Philosophy, Success

June 25, 2019June 4, 2014 by Roger Abrantes

“I didn’t fail. I discovered 34 ways that don’t work to trailer the horse!” I told them. But allow me to start from the begnning.

Success and failure are relative measures. Success boosts one’s self-confidence and improves subsequent performances. However, failure toughens one up and increases persistence in the face of future mishaps.

To go from one success story to the next feels good, but may give one a false sense of comfort. On the other hand, moving from one failure to the next isn’t any good to one’s morale. So what’s the best? I will tell you a short story.

Once, when I was young and never said no to a new challenge, I accepted a job of trailering a horse. Horse trailering was at one time the number one problem reported by horse owners, much like the home alone problem is for dog owners and inappropriate urination and defecation for cat owners.

Trailering a horse, or not being able to do so, can be a considerable problem. If it happens when you’re at home, it’s annoying you can’t move the horse, but that’s what it is. When you’re out with your horse, 300 miles away, and you can’t take your horse home, then you got a real problem.

These horse owners had the horse 200 miles from home. They went out for some kind of equestrian event, and when it was time to drive back home, the horse refused to get into the trailer. Try as they might, they couldn’t get the horse into the trailer. Finally, they gave up, left the horse in a stall, and drove home. That’s when I came in. They called me offering me all I wanted if I just could get their horse home. After hearing how many horsemen and how they had tried to solve the problem, I should have refused. As I said, I was young and thrived on challenges.

I drove up to the farm where the horse was. We let if free in a small arena, drove a trailer in, and I sat on the fence just watching the animal. It was a beautiful quarter horse mix, a mare, about four years old. The owner told me the story of the horse: no problems except trailering. They succeeded in one of maybe 20 tries, but only after much hassle, and it was getting worse.

I will spare you for all the different methods (if you can call them such) they have used while trying to solve the problem—a long list of force and abuse that have nothing to do with horse training, just reflecting human frustration and thoughtlessness. Don’t get me wrong: the owners were not bad people. They were friendly and educated. They had just been poorly advised.

Some dog people, these days, get their blood pressure up from hearing a faint whine from a dog, and they fight bitterly over which collarsare right and which ones are so totally wrong. Well, visit the horse world from time to time, and I promise you you’d begin focussing on what is essential and would not even give a thought to minor deviations. Except for a few (and marginalized) brave horseman and women attempting to show that there are other equally (or more) efficient ways to handle a horse than sheer force, I’m sorry to have to say it, but horse training is still a long narrative of abuse masked under the names of fancy techniques.

I stepped into the arena bare-handed, not even carrying the horseman’s tool number one, his rope. I liked the mare straight away. It’s with animals like with humans, some you have that feeling of liking instantly—and others, unfortunately not. I think she liked me too, if not right away, then maybe 10 minutes after we both just walked slowly around, each tending own business, pretending not to be bothered at all by the other. The owners left at some point having to run errands downtown, which I think suited us both (horse and me) perfectly well.

After a while, the horse came to me, and we stood for a moment just deeply inhaling and exhaling. This is a horse thing when they meet others. When in Roman, be a Roman. So, when I’m with a horse, I become as horsey as I can. It may look silly for some, but it works for me.

We walked around in the quiet arena for about two hours. We had a great time. The owners came back and asked me if I had had the horse in the trailer.

“No,” I answered shortly.

“Oh, we’re sorry you’ve failed and wasted your time,” they replied as offering their condolences.

“I didn’t waste my time. I didn’t fail. I discovered 34 ways that don’t work to trailer the horse.” I replied.

A few hours later, both the horse and I were in the trailer eating carrots and happily inhaling/exhaling one another. Not at one time did I use a rope or the halter, not once did I touch the horse. The first time we had body contact was when we had been in the trailer for a while and had eaten three-four carrots.

That day, I learned how to trailer a horse, not because I succeeded after four hours, but because I had found 34 ways that didn’t work. I thought I knew it before, but I didn’t. My early success had just lulled me into a false sense of security.

Success and failure are in our minds. It’s all a question of criterion and attitude.

Featured image: Roger Abrantes working with horse—Body language and movements are very important when communicating with any animal. Horses are particularly sensitive to motion and stance (photo from the EI files).

Featured Course of the Week

Featured Price: € 168.00 € 98.00

BUY NOW

Learn more in our course Ethology and Behaviorism. Based on Roger Abrantes’ book “Animal Training My Way—The Merging of Ethology and Behaviorism,” this online course explains and teaches you how to create a stable and balanced relationship with any animal. It analyses the way we interact with our animals, combines the best of ethology and behaviorism and comes up with an innovative, yet simple and efficient approach to animal training. A state-of-the-art online course in four lessons including videos, a beautiful flip-pages book, and quizzes.

Learn More

The Perfect Relationship

Roger Abrantes
Articles and Blogs, Free
Children, Dogs, Life, Philosophy

September 10, 2018June 2, 2014 by Roger Abrantes

Relationship Child Dog (ChildDogPuddle-600x326.png)

I’ve posted this clip before, and I’ll do it again. I can watch it repeatedly and never get tired of it. It’s just beautiful.

This is what we want: the perfect relationship. This is something to aim at, to uncover the secret of these two—child and dog—replicate it and promote it.

It’s so simple that it is shocking.

Please, watch this short clip with an open mind, preferably several times. We see what we think and feel, seldom what we are looking at. Forget all about politics, labels and all the artificial constructs with which our biased, adult human mind enslaves us, ruling us with an iron hand.

Just watch, enjoy, and allow it to inspire you.

Live as If You Were to Die Tomorrow—Learn as If You Were to Live Forever

Roger Abrantes
Articles and Blogs, Free
Learning, Life, Philosophy

October 19, 2018June 1, 2014 by Roger Abrantes

Today, I’d like to dedicate my blog to our students—and to all students all over the world.

“Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever,” as Mahatma Gandhi once said.

Gandhi might not have said it exactly this way, but the idea is the same. Rajmohan Gandhi (in “The good boatman: a portrait of Gandhi” from 1995) explains his grandfather’s view as “[…] a man should live thinking he might die tomorrow but learn as if he would live forever.” Incidentally, Rajmohan Gandhi is a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with whom we have had an excellent student exchange at the beginning of the years 2000.

We find the same idea in “Etymologiae” by Isidore of Seville, who lived much earlier (560 – 436): “Study as if you were to live forever. Live as if you were to die tomorrow.”

A variation of the same message (in “Hadith”) is attributed to Muhammad: “Live for your afterlife as if you will die tomorrow, and live for this life as if you will live forever.”

Some researchers attribute this quote to Desiderius Erasmus (1466 – 1536). “[…] live as if you are to die tomorrow, study as if you were to live forever.”

Our students have been wonderfully diligent. I’m glad to see the number of taken courses increasing daily. It shows that “knowledge to everyone everywhere” is indeed the way to go.

Keep up the good work. Don’t postpone learning, my friends, do it rather today than tomorrow, for even the littlest of matters you learn adds to our collective knowledge. It may seem to you, at times, like no more than a tiny little drop—but then, even the great oceans are made of many tiny little drops, aren’t they?

Featured image: Even the great oceans are made of many tiny little drops (photo by Nick Grabowski).

Waltzing at the Rhythm of Life

Roger Abrantes
Articles and Blogs, Free
Dogs, Fish, Guinea Pigs, Horses, The Rhythm of Life

September 10, 2018May 31, 2014 by Roger Abrantes

The first time I realized it for real was maybe 20 years ago. I was giving a horse workshop in LA, and they had gotten me a Mustang stallion to work with.

I looked at him for a moment as he looked at me. There was no defiance or diffidence in our gazes. We were just two lost creatures thrown in the arena of life. I cannot know what he thought at that moment. Maybe he was dreaming about running in the great plains of the mighty North-American continent where his ancestors once roamed freely. As to me, I found myself longing for home, for the comforting peace of my South-Andaman sea. None of us dared to move. The seminar attendees were absolutely silent, sensing or expecting they were going to get value for their money.

I might have been as reticent about the situation as the horse was. I don’t know who started it—maybe the horse, perhaps me, or both at the same time. As we began walking, suddenly, we were in sync. Slower, quicker, left, right, stop, we were mirroring one another: no words, no big gestures, just motion. We were not adversaries, not in opposition. We were partners at that moment. Our differences did not matter; our similarities did. We were like dancing together. If one of us missed a beat, the other would immediately step forward and follow up.

Many years later, in a completely different environment, I experienced the same again. I was diving in the magnificent South Andaman, so spellbound by the underwater beauty around me that I think I forgot I was just a human out of my natural environment. Without realizing it, at first, I found myself following the movements and the rhythm of a school of snappers swimming in front of me. Before I knew of it, there were another fish all around me, and they didn’t seem to be bothered at all by the presence of this bubble-making, definitely not a fish-like creature. For the first time underwater, I felt I was not a stranger, a visiting tourist.

Life has a rhythm, I learned. Since then, I’ve applied the rhythm factor to all my interactions with animals independently of species. When I train dogs, I always begin by getting acquainted with the dog, walking with the dog rhythmically forth and back. Once we have established contact, all the rest works much smoother, independently of what we’re supposed to do.

Yesterday, I showed it to my Guinea pig camp attendees. We worked on coordinating the movements of the team mates like a school of fish. I think it became clear, yesterday, what I meant days earlier when I emphasized how crucial it was for us to control ourselves, our movements and our emotions. Once they were all synced, the Guinea pigs fell in, and the results did not wait to show up.

Yesterday was the day we “waltzed with the Guinea pigs” at the rhythm of life.

Waltzing with the piggies at the rhythm of life. Victor Ros (Ethology Institute’s Graduate Trainer) working with Guinea pig in Pancalieri, Italy, in 2013. Being a skilled horseman, Victor knows the importance of rhythm (filmed by Roger Abrantes).

Motivation—Where There’s a Will, There’s a Way

Roger Abrantes
Articles and Blogs, Free
Drive, Instinct, Motivation

June 27, 2021May 30, 2014 by Roger Abrantes

Motivation is a term we all use, and we believe everybody understands. We think we know what it means and that others do too—but do we truly understand motivation?

Motivation is a problematic term beginning with its definition. For the present purpose, let me define motivation as what compels an animal to do what it does, as the sum of all factors (internal and external) which cause an organism to behave in a goal-seeking way. At least, now you know what I’m talking about (and what I’m not talking about).

The traditional view of motivation builds upon a single feedback principle. The brain senses a change in the animal’s internal state, which leads to a build-up of drive for the animal to perform the appropriate behavior. The drive gives rise to appetitive and consummatory behavior, including a search for suitable external stimuli. When the animal encounters these, some activity as eating or drinking takes place. That is all too oversimplified and includes terms in themselves difficult to define, e.g., drive—but it will do as a starting point.

There is not one single theory of motivation, but the general tendency is clear. Some researchers have been keen to stress that motivation aims at reducing stimulation to its lowest level. Thus, an organism seeks the behavior most likely to cause a state of no stimulation. However, recent theories of motivation picture animals trying to optimize rather than minimize (or maximize) stimulation. These theories account for exploratory behavior, variety-seeking behavior, and curiosity.

The concept of motivation applies to communication patterns. There is no behavior without motivation, except for strict Pavlovian reflexes, and even this is arguable. Motivation is decisive in the various behaviors animals use as communication means and in learning processes.

The instinct theory states that motivation depends on an organism’s biological make-up. Animals are born with specific, pre-programmed innate knowledge about how to survive and reproduce. Darwin explained the survival of an organism as resulting from the instinct for survival. The first behaviorists also recurred to instincts to explain motivation.

Ethology, including the contributions of Konrad Lorenz, Nikolaas Tinbergen, Karl von Frisch, and Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, defined instincts as unlearned behaviors and responses. The drive reduction theory assumes that animals have needs, which motivate them to behave in specific ways. Drives are internal states of arousal, e.g., hunger and thirst, which the organism attempts at reducing. The organism seeks to reestablish homeostasis. Though no longer entirely satisfactory, the early ethologists’ approach is still helpful to understand behavior at a particular level.

Explaining behavior in terms of instincts proved unsustainable because we could always coin a new instinct to describe an unexplained behavior. Sociobiology attempted to remedy that. Evolving from the instinct theories of ethology, it added a crucial genetic component to motivation.

The theory of physiological regulation explains motivation in terms of some complex processes of the nervous system.

The consensus these days is that though we know more or less what motivation means, we cannot account exhaustively for all the factors determining it. Prudent judgment and open-mindedness seem, therefore, advisable in this matter and at this moment.

References

Breland, K. & Breland, M. (1961) The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist 16: 681–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040090.

Catania, A. C. (1984) Learning, 2d ed.Prentice-Hall. ISBN-10: 0135276977.

Colgan, P.W. (1989) Animal Motivation. Springer Netherlands. DOI:10.1007/978-94-009-0831-4.

Cooper JO (2007) Applied Behavior Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Pearson Education. ISBN: 978-0-13-129327-4.

Dawkins, M. (1990) From an animal’s point of view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13(1), 1-9. DOI:10.1017/S0140525X00077104.

Dawkins, R. (1982) The extended phenotype. W. H. Freeman. ISBN-10: 0716713586.

Freud S (2012). A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. Renaissance Classics. ISBN: 9781484156803.

Hughes, B.O., Duncan, I.J.H. (1988) The notion of ethological ‘need’, models of motivation and animal welfare. Animal Behaviour, Volume 36, Issue 6, 1988, Pages 1696-1707. ISSN: 0003-3472.

Lorenz, K. (1950) The comparative method in studying innate behaviour patterns. Symposium of the Society for Experimental Biology 4: 221–68. http://klha.at/papers/1950-InnateBehavior.pdf.

Lorenz, K. (1981) The Foundations of Ethology. Springer. ISBN: 978-3-211-81623-3.

McFarland, D. J. (1989) Problems of Animal Behaviour. Longman Scientific & Technical. ISBN-10: ‎0582468205.

Salamone JD, Correa M (2012) The mysterious motivational functions of mesolimbic dopamine. Neuron. 76 (3): 470–85. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.021

Tinbergen, Nikolaas (1951). The Study of Instinct. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780198577225.

Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of Ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie. 20 (4): 410–433. DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0310.1963.tb01161.x.

Wilson, E.O. (1975) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Harvard University Press. ISBN: 0-674-00089-7.

Featured image: Motivation—Where there’s a will, there’s a way (photo by unknown).

Featured Course of the Week

Featured Price: € 168.00 € 98.00

BUY NOW

Learn More

Once a While We Should Focus on What Our Animals Can Teach Us

Roger Abrantes
Articles and Blogs, Free
Animal Learning, Behaviorism, Ethology

October 30, 2018May 29, 2014 by Roger Abrantes

One of the most exciting aspects of the Guinea Pig camps, as far as I’m concerned, is how they evolved throughout the times.

Learning is an ongoing process and in spite of having held many GP camps, I still learn new fascinating details for every camp I have the privilege to conduct.

For example, for each camp we held, it became increasingly clear how important it is to build a good and trusting relationship with the little Guinea pig before we even consider teaching it any skills. If the piggy does not trust you, it won’t work. This should be obvious, but in these technocratic times we live, we tend to forget what is it like to be an animal (human animal in our case).

We also learned how efficient we can be when combining ethology with behaviorism, a daunting task many consider virtually impossible—but it is not.

Let me explain. Ethology studies the behavior of animals in their natural environment. Ethologists do not interfere with the animals, and as such there is no training theory to find in ethology. There is, however, much to find about interaction, communication and living together.

Behaviorism studies the behavior of animals in artificial setups. Behaviorists attempt to control the environment best possible to achieve the results they want by manipulating stimuli and consequences. As Pavlov showed, to control the environment is a much more difficult task than researchers first assumed.

Combining ethology with behaviorism means to apply the knowledge we have about the natural behavior of the animals with which we work with the principles of behavior modification that we know will lead us to proven results under controlled conditions.

It is not as easy as it looks because as soon as we leave a proven track, we are on our own. Suddenly, we have no longer a recipe to follow. We need to improvise, to dig deeper in ourselves, to find the empathy that will connect us to the animal we train. The rules, we so painstakingly have memorized, do not seem to work any longer. This is an illusion, though, for the rules work all right—though only after a myriad of tiny, individual adjustments, so that they end up resembling exceptions. In that, Guinea pig camps excel. I’ve seen it time after time in the faces of the camp participants: a mixture of excitement and doubt, comparable to what I see in my diving students the first time they jump into the sea to discover that they can actually breathe under water.

And so here I am ready to start a new Guinea Pig camp, this time at the Wolf Park in Indiana. Wolves and Guinea pigs have nothing in common except that they both have much from which we can learn. We will commute between wolf enclosures and Guinea Pig training areas, listening to their stories and learning.

We tend to focus on what we can teach our animals, but maybe once a while we should turn it around and focus on what they can teach us.

Featured image: Our animals have a lesson to teach us. In these technocratic times we live, we tend to forget what is it like to be an animal (human animal in our case).