My theory of animal cognition began many years
ago when my wife and I were studying beaver. I was working my way through grad
school by designing earth dams for the US Government. Beavers build earth dams
so naturally I was interested.
What I discovered was that a beaver dam is very different from a human dam. In
fact a beaver dam is more like a bird's nest. A human dam is a big pile of
carefully selected and compacted dirt. A beaver dam is typically a lattice of
sticks supporting an upstream face of dirt. One advantage of this design is
that it uses a lot less dirt than a human dam does. Another is that it does not wash away when water flows over the top, as human dams tend to do.
Presumably the beaver knows how to build these elaborate structures by
instinct. But what I realized while watching them work is that a great many
decisions have to be made along the way. These decisions involve the specifics
of the local situation, so they cannot be merely instinctive.
For example, knowing how to build a dam does not tell the beaver which stick to
use next. Or which tree to fell and how to cut it up to get that stick. Or where
to get the next armload of mud. Or where and how to put these items into the
structure. These specifics cannot be in the DNA, as it were.
The point is that the beaver must have elaborate sets of concepts in order to
perform these elaborate tasks. So do birds and so do horses. It is easiest to
see this when we know what the critter is doing. Speaking of which it is an
interesting question why beavers typically build many dams in one place, not
just the one their lodge is behind. I think I have a surprising answer to this
question but that will be another posting.
Using the method of concept analysis to explore what horses and other critters know or believe, based on what they do. The first two posts explain my basic theory of animal cognition. Instinct is a way of knowing, not a way of thinking.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Horses communicate a lot with posture and gesture
Unlike crows, horses do relatively little vocal communication. Of course they do sometimes whinny, nicker, snort, etc., but this is not the mainstay of their communication. As herd animals they are naturally in close contact, so they rely on what I call posture and gesture for communication.
For example, they make faces at each other, a lot of different faces, each with its own meaning. They frequently push one another, but without touching, by simply approaching in a certain way. They can threaten to kick by reversing, or mock strike with a front foot, or threaten to bite, etc. They can also groom one another, or play the face biting game, etc. Sometimes simply being close by is a form of friendship.
The point is that there is a huge amount of communication going on among the horses. This is easy to miss because humans tend to equate communication with human communication, which is dominated by verbal exchanges, just as with the crows. So-called body language is recognized to occur, but its role in human communication is relatively minor. With horses it is the primary means of communication, and there is a lot of it.
For example, they make faces at each other, a lot of different faces, each with its own meaning. They frequently push one another, but without touching, by simply approaching in a certain way. They can threaten to kick by reversing, or mock strike with a front foot, or threaten to bite, etc. They can also groom one another, or play the face biting game, etc. Sometimes simply being close by is a form of friendship.
The point is that there is a huge amount of communication going on among the horses. This is easy to miss because humans tend to equate communication with human communication, which is dominated by verbal exchanges, just as with the crows. So-called body language is recognized to occur, but its role in human communication is relatively minor. With horses it is the primary means of communication, and there is a lot of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)