Reading McGee's Mind

• ADHD, Nintendo, and Evolutionary Psychology (1) by Jim Brody, 2/26/97
  • McGee, a Siamese Cat with ADHD; Implications for Barkley by James Brody, 3/8/98
    • Probing Parallels by John Fentress, 3/8/98
      
      

I pulled the following query from the Internet, probably the Applied_Ethology listserve. "Has anyone come in close contact with animal mind-readers? Is anyone familiar with any controlled study of the effects or mechanisms involved? To my mind, this is a frightening and dangerous type of activity, which draws the attention away from scientifically based therapies." I was unfortunately flip and responded, "Certainly. It's called 'psychology.' Welcome to my world!" I later apologized for my poor manners; however, I was only joking to a limited extent.

"Clever Hans" was a calculating horse, famous a few decades ago for his ability to give arithmetic solutions by tapping his hoof. I believe his skill was eventually traced to flared nostrils (or something equally subtle) on his trainer's face. My reflexive comment a few years ago would be that animal mind reading is impossible and that practitioners who read animal minds are frauds or delusional. Bipolar humans often have peculiar belief systems that they are somehow gifted; they also lie. Even reading human minds was discredited and perhaps still is to the extend that cognitive therapists train patients to "stop mind reading and check the facts" as a step in treating depressed people.

However, the mushrooming data from evolutionary psychology is consistent with the notion that facial changes are stereotypical across situations and people; we probably do read each other's facial expressions fairly well much of the time. (However, Rachel Gur observed that female adults can accurately interpret the emotional message of photographs of either males or females; male adults have a consistent inability to recognize female anger in a photograph. Female therapists can be suspicious of this finding; male denial and thoughtlessness become a handicap and not a premeditated act for which we can be blamed and counseled.)

Other creatures? Frans de Waal has an impressive book, "Good Natured: The Origins of Morality in Humans and other Animals." (I've just picked up "When Elephants Weep" and am looking forward to it.) Empathy is shown by several species and appears likely triggered by facial and vocal expression. Friendly to me but still relatively sane, John Fentress, Ph. D. has spend decades trying to decode wolf emotionality and has a keen interest in whether humans can accurately do so.

My speculation is:

Most humans (but not all of us) accurately decode such things as mood shifts, deceit, and sincerity on the basis of vocal and facial/postural cues.

Our ability to "get along" with other species may depend on evolved psychological adaptations for animal husbandry.

We likely have selected our companions for an ability to get along with us.

Such partnerships are more likely to the extent that some adaptations are shared. That is, we bred dogs, cats, and perhaps horses for their ability to respond to our commands and moods. If so, then they can "read" our minds to an extent (or else would not be our companions).

Our being able to exploit their talents also meant choosing companions who telegraphed their own intentions to us.

My craziness is that I think I can read my cat's mind; I don't think she's particularly verbal although her oral inflections (I think!) are revealing.

I agree claims being offered are bogus and that people can be cheated and clients hurt, whether by palm readers or paw readers. For whatever reasons, we respond to our pet's signals to the same extent that we respond to cartoons and movies ... treating a fractional stimulus complex as if it were real. We do the same things with video games. (I'm told that male turkeys will attempt to mate with a female turkey head suspended from a string.) Thus, Hannah will read her cat's mind, talk to it, and value other humans who do comparable things. On one level, we are wired to do these things with people, so we try them with other furry moving objects. Because of possible co-evolved factors, we may be pretty good at it in some regards.

Data ... I have none. A generation of graduate serfs likely would find:

Higher interobserver agreement follows increased phylogenetic proximity to humans (cats and dogs are more confusing than chimps)

Higher rates of trans species communication is associated with phylogenetic proximity as well as with vocal apparatus of the corresponding species (birds and bird song).

Higher rates of accuracy (as validated by observing the animal's face and then predicting its future choices in regard to a possible mate, food, or other reinforcers) might be associated with phylogenetic distance. (Some of us talk to birds but may likely fail this last section)

Meanwhile, all of us have some responsibility to advocate our convictions and educate both our clients and their advocates. People generally respect data (But not always.)

No Replies