August's Book: Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?

Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? by Frans de Waal

Ethology* (2016 - 275 pp.)

In Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, Frans de Waal summarizes the key literature in the study of animal behaviour, including his own, while advancing the point that animals are worthy of study in their natural environments. Additionally, he points out that animals often learn better than humans; humanity is simply another animal in this way. Animals should therefore be discussed on their own terms, not as a comparator to humans, not as a generic "animal" grouping, and certainly not as a subset of beings inferior to humans. De Waal's work centres on primates, so many of the examples are apes, baboons, macaques, capuchins and other primate species. However, substantial portions of his discussion range from corvids to less common animals like canines (wolves and dogs; sadly, there seems to be a dearth of literature on foxes), cetaceans (especially dolphins) and cephalopods (especially octopodes**). Felines*** and equines are notably missing.

Where do humans and animals sit with regard to each other? De Waal notes that in the never-ending battle between reason and emotion, "Traditionally, animals are depicted as slaves of their emotions. It all goes back to the dichotomy of animals as 'wild' and humans as 'civilized'. (222) He also notes that "monkeying around" is seen as being funny, yet there are far funnier animals, like an ostrich or a giraffe. This points to a sort of uncanny valley of similarity between monkeys and people; calling someone a monkey can be considered deeply offensive, whereas calling someone an ostrich is nonsensical, because monkeys so much more resemble us. From Pavlov to Skinner, historical animal cognition researchers have distanced us from all of these species by using a model of instinct, impulse and incentive to portray animals as subhuman robots.

De Waal explains his alternative to this patronizing model:

The methodology sections of scientific papers rarely offer a look in the 'kitchen', but I think it is crucial. My own approach has always been to be firm and friendly. Firm, meaning that we are consistent and don't make capricious demands but also don't let the animals walk all over us, such as when they only want to play around and get free sweets. But we are also friendly, without punishment, anger, or attempts to dominate. (143)

De Waal goes on to discuss the importance of animals being observed in their native habitats, or alternatively, anywhere they can coexist in the absence of observable researchers. In this way, researchers may find that an animal's lack of response to a human command does not signal stupidity, but rather a simple lack of interest in whatever it was the human was doing. (Those reading at home: try telling your cat to get off the couch.) De Waal points to the importance of within-species interaction: "For culture to arise in a species, all that matters is that its members pick up habits from one another."**** (152)

One of the threads that pops up throughout both the scientific and popular assessment of our relationships with animals is anthropomorphism - the tendency to see animals as human-like. The 20th-century turn toward seeing animals as separate from, and inferior to, humans led to a concept de Waal calls anthropodenial - the inability to see any similarities between animals and humans, or to see any differences as examples of human superiority. (25) De Waal spends much of the book combating this concept, whether through demonstrating the independent development of animals' behaviours toward each other or through the ways they interact with humans. Conspecific behaviour is a key term for how animals interact with each other without the interference of human researchers, who may accidentally create endogeneity. (Consider how you might behave differently if, for example, you had to perform an experiment under a bright light, or if you knew you were being watched. Dozens of studies are arguably useless due to factors like these.)

On a more pop cultural level, the anthropomorphism/anthropodenial debate far predates de Waal, you or me. In the first decade of the 20th century, the "nature fakers controversy" arose when literary figures who made animals seem too human were attacked by rival literary figures who believed that animals were not like humans at all. Animals with seemingly human traits range from Beatrix Potter's Peter Rabbit to Jack London's White Fang; London was one of the celebrity authors embroiled in the dispute, which eventually drew in then-President Theodore Roosevelt. (Roosevelt thought London wrote White Fang too much like a human, for what it's worth; London denied this.) In more recent times, Brian Jacques famously created his Redwall series of talking woodland animals in a medieval fantasy setting by watching the animals in his backyard. How to Train Your Dragon presented the adorable black dragon lead character acting pet-like (don't try this with komodo dragons!), and Disney's Zootopia went so far as to have the main fox and rabbit characters be named Nick and Judy while having witty conversations about human topics. Non-fiction creators aren't immune; these adorable YouTube videos of otters doing laundry, which is so cute in part because of how bad they are at it, and a raccoon sweeping a floor, show the more everyday side of people wanting to see our furry friends imitate us. These books, videos and movies all go way farther than de Waal does, but they show an equally obstinate unwillingness to accept animals as only those beings from National Geographic documentaries. (Or Quora posts.)

One of the more humorous aspects of Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? is how mischievous animals are across the animal kingdom. A study on crows' responses to friendly and unfriendly humans by John Marzluff at the University of Washington in Seattle shows that crows will divebomb people who are demonstrated to be unfriendly to them. Marzloff points out that humans are a species crows have to evaluate one by one: "It would be a rare hawk that would be nice to a crow, but with humans you have to classify us as individuals. Clearly, they're able to do that." (72) Other mischief consists of captive animals escaping their habitats. Stoffel the honey badger, who is actually a member of the weasel family (and therefore not a badger), found multiple ways to escape from his enclosure at a South African rehabilitation centre. De Waal called this feat a "Houdini act", and noted discussions of honey badgers as being "the Chuck Norris of the animal kingdom". (88-89) Inky, a giant Pacific octopus who escaped from a New Zealand aquarium in 2016, perhaps acted too late to be included in the book; he made his maneuver within a few days of the book's release date. I wasn't at the book launch, but I hope Inky received a mention and some applause!

Unlike most academic texts, Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? is illustrated. The New Yorker-style single-panel pictures demonstrate various animals performing the tasks de Waal describes on the opposite page or on the part of the page below the picture, such as a monkey blowing air through a tube to retrieve a peanut. Two of these illustrations stood out to me as being like political cartoons: the comic showing a standing rat dressed as the Pied Piper leading the disciples of B.F. Skinner to their dooms (57) and a group of orcas upending an ice floe so a seal would slip off of it to its rather more certain doom as their prey. (190)

One claim I thought was curious was in the elephant section. Although some research has been done on elephant cognition, such as the famous test of whether an animal recognizes itself in a mirror, elephants have been notably absent from traditional testing facilities:

But even if the pachyderm mind may be the next frontier in evolutionary cognition, it is a most challenging one given that the elephant is probably the only land animal never to be seen alive on a university campus or in a conventional lab. (236-237)

Using the classic rule of "never say always or never", my first thought was: is there any other land animal never to be seen alive on a university campus or in a conventional lab? My second thought was: is there any evidence whatsoever that, perhaps, a live elephant has been seen in one of these settings? To non-answer the first question, I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out which land mammal is least likely to have been seen live in either of these settings. To answer the second question, live elephants have been seen on university campuses, but not for research purposes; Texas A&M's elephant walk has at times apparently involved graduating seniors walking with captive elephants. 

The most impressive part of Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, to me, is how thorough the endnotes, glossary, bibliography and index are, yet how quickly the book reads. Each chapter cites numerous studies performed over more than a century. The glossary includes terms that range from evolutionary biology terms like convergent evolution^ to more dolphin-focused terms like signature whistles.^^ The bibliography includes enough sources that if someone read and engaged with them, it could be enough for a master's degree in the subject. The index led me to almost everything I needed. Despite having the citation of an academic monograph, Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? reads like an airport book. I read it in under 24 hours, faster than I read Jeffery Deaver.

Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? is the literary release equivalent of a lifetime achievement award for de Waal. In the front matter, the list of de Waal's book-length publications goes back to 1982, with a book release approximately every 3-4 years from then until 2016. The personal experiences de Waal relates throughout the book are examples of research studies that have changed the way people think about animals, rather than the trite anecdotes one might find in a different book. On the front cover, the quotation appears: "A remarkable book by a remarkable scientist." -Edward O. Wilson Wilson's groundbreaking work on ants^^^ makes him well qualified to make that statement, which overshadows the numerous bestseller lists de Waal where found himself.

Lastly, Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? is a really fun read, as it should be. Some of life's fondest memories involve animal-related fun, whether it's a trip to the zoo or watching Bugs Bunny on TV. De Waal's endless stories of chimps, capuchins, crows, orcas and various other animals had me in stitches. Not everyone's work makes people who read about it smile and laugh. Animal cognition research does just that.

Ease of Reading: 7

Educational Content: 8

*This is the only ethology book I've discussed in the history of this blog. Ethology is essentially a cross between biology and psychology, especially as applied to animals in their natural habitats. The undergraduate course I took on this subject, taught in Wilfrid Laurier University's psychology department, was called "Learning".

**Or whatever the plural of "octopus" is.

***One study de Waal mentions consists of a cat having to rub a latch with its side to open a door. (20)

****What about solitary species like the aforementioned octopodes? Are they incapable of forming culture even though they can solve puzzles, create rock arrangements and play with toys? (249-250)

^From the Glossary: "Convergent evolution: The independent evolution of similar traits or capacities in unrelated species in response to similar environmental pressures." An example de Waal uses is the formation of wings in both bats and birds, two obviously unrelated species which nonetheless both needed to ditch their arms in order to have wings to fly.

^^From the Glossary: "Signature whistles: Dolphin calls modulated so that each individual has a distinct and recognizable 'melody'."

^^^Some puns just have to be made.