Did you ever read something that struck you as so profound that you immediately made it part of your personal philosophy, even though you never even realized you had a personal philosophy until that moment? That’s what happened to me many years ago when I read Norman Cousin’s remarks about differing world views in Celebration of Life: A Dialogue on Immortality and Infinity (Harper and Row:1974). Cousins wrote that, when we believe that the world is flat, the farther two people go, the greater the distance between them. But once we realize that the world is round, the farther apart they move, the closer they become. At the time I was struck by the fact that the same also holds true for ideas, and most certainly ideas related to animal health, behavior, and the human-animal bond.
Within the realm of animal health, some people view traditional, holistic and conventional, allopathic, problem-oriented forms of healthcare as residing at opposite ends of a linear spectrum. Those deeply entrenched in their respective beliefs may hurl epithets and attack the other orientation whenever the opportunity arises. Disciples of traditional approaches may view allopathic, problem-oriented practitioners as charlatans at the same time rigidly conventional practitioners maintain equally uncomplimentary views about those who prefer more traditional orientations.
While those who consider themselves the standard-bearers protect their particular healthcare orientation from attack or contamination by others a world apart from them, more and more individuals within the general population move easily between the two. At best, animal owners are fortunate enough to find open-minded and knowledgeable practitioners in both orientations who communicate freely for the good of all. At worst, owners must not acknowledge their forays into the “enemy” camp, lest they earn the wrath of one or both practitioners. The most difficult and saddest part of dealing with Flat-Earth Proponents (FEPs) is that both may claim, often passionately, that they maintain their limited views for the benefit of both animal and owner when, in reality, they do it for themselves.
Three flat-earth spectrums occur in animal training and behavior. One set of opposites consists of those who train using punishment (choke, prong, or shock collars, blasts of citronella, etc.) to stop bad behaviors, and those who use food treats and other “positives” to reward good behavior. Although those inhabiting these two territories also routinely criticize those advocating the other approach, in reality both represent different sides of the same coin put into animal-training circulation years ago by Pavlov and B.F. Skinner.
A second set of opposites pits those who see the training methods of Pavlov, Skinner, and their followers as the ideal against those who believe that humans should adopt methods that mimic those used by animals when they teach their own kind. Whereas the former arises from human behavioral science roots and focuses on the best ways for people to train animals to do what humans want, the latter rises from the biological sciences and focuses on how animals learn themselves and teach each other.
A third set of opposites puts veterinarians at one end of a spectrum and everyone else who works with problem animal behavior at the other. Theoretically, the distinguishing difference between the two groups is the veterinarian’s ability to prescribe drugs to treat behavioral problems after ensuring that underlying medical problems aren’t causing or contributing to any behavioral ones. However, the FEPs at either end claim they represent the only ones capable of treating animal behavioral problems and the other group consists of charlatans and other undesirables.
Here again, while those professionals at either end of these flat-earth orientations see their views as mutually exclusive, there are veterinarians and non-veterinarians with an interest in behavior who realize that the world is round and they work together for the good of their clients and patients. If such cooperation doesn’t exist in their particular area, owners desiring the best for themselves and their animals still may move between the opposing groups unhampered by these internal squabbles.
In general, FEPs who promote the positive effects of the human-animal bond gain so much media attention that this orientation appears to overpower the opposite extreme. However, closer scrutiny reveals that once again multiple spectrums occur and their extremes aren’t that far apart. In one set we see all those warm fuzzy portrayals of service and therapy dogs against those free-roaming destructive canine packs or dangerous fighting dogs who snarl at us from the television news or the front page of the local paper.
A second, far more intimate pair of opposites pits beloved family pets against those animals who destroy our homes or bite the kids. It’s in this particular realm that maintaining an either/or flat-earth view proves exceptionally difficult for most thinking people to maintain. What honest pet owner hasn’t experienced negative interactions with his/her pet that instantly reveal the hair’s breadth separating these opposite views? And when such happens, how can we accept we must adopt one or the other orientation when the right answer for us and our pets is that all relationships normally may contain elements of both?
Once our intimate relationship with our pets leads us to realize that, by golly, the world really is round and we won’t fall off the edge if we consider other views, similarly limited approaches to other aspects of human-animal companionship immediately become suspect. Once that happens, a whole new world of possibilities opens up for our exploration and enjoyment.
Would that 2004 becomes the year in which zealots in all areas of human thought discover that the world is round. Would that it becomes the year in which the majority choose to recognize that the extremes are far more alike than different, and that the correct answer may not be “either/or” but rather “and.”
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.
Did you ever read something that struck you as so profound that you immediately made it part of your personal philosophy, even though you never even realized you had a personal philosophy until that moment? That’s what happened to me many years ago when I read Norman Cousin’s remarks about differing world views in Celebration of Life: A Dialogue on Immortality and Infinity (Harper and Row:1974). Cousins wrote that, when we believe that the world is flat, the farther two people go, the greater the distance between them. But once we realize that the world is round, the farther apart they move, the closer they become. At the time I was struck by the fact that the same also holds true for ideas, and most certainly ideas related to animal health, behavior, and the human-animal bond.
Within the realm of animal health, some people view traditional, holistic and conventional, allopathic, problem-oriented forms of healthcare as residing at opposite ends of a linear spectrum. Those deeply entrenched in their respective beliefs may hurl epithets and attack the other orientation whenever the opportunity arises. Disciples of traditional approaches may view allopathic, problem-oriented practitioners as charlatans at the same time rigidly conventional practitioners maintain equally uncomplimentary views about those who prefer more traditional orientations.
While those who consider themselves the standard-bearers protect their particular healthcare orientation from attack or contamination by others a world apart from them, more and more individuals within the general population move easily between the two. At best, animal owners are fortunate enough to find open-minded and knowledgeable practitioners in both orientations who communicate freely for the good of all. At worst, owners must not acknowledge their forays into the “enemy” camp, lest they earn the wrath of one or both practitioners. The most difficult and saddest part of dealing with Flat-Earth Proponents (FEPs) is that both may claim, often passionately, that they maintain their limited views for the benefit of both animal and owner when, in reality, they do it for themselves.
Three flat-earth spectrums occur in animal training and behavior. One set of opposites consists of those who train using punishment (choke, prong, or shock collars, blasts of citronella, etc.) to stop bad behaviors, and those who use food treats and other “positives” to reward good behavior. Although those inhabiting these two territories also routinely criticize those advocating the other approach, in reality both represent different sides of the same coin put into animal-training circulation years ago by Pavlov and B.F. Skinner.
A second set of opposites pits those who see the training methods of Pavlov, Skinner, and their followers as the ideal against those who believe that humans should adopt methods that mimic those used by animals when they teach their own kind. Whereas the former arises from human behavioral science roots and focuses on the best ways for people to train animals to do what humans want, the latter rises from the biological sciences and focuses on how animals learn themselves and teach each other.
A third set of opposites puts veterinarians at one end of a spectrum and everyone else who works with problem animal behavior at the other. Theoretically, the distinguishing difference between the two groups is the veterinarian’s ability to prescribe drugs to treat behavioral problems after ensuring that underlying medical problems aren’t causing or contributing to any behavioral ones. However, the FEPs at either end claim they represent the only ones capable of treating animal behavioral problems and the other group consists of charlatans and other undesirables.
Here again, while those professionals at either end of these flat-earth orientations see their views as mutually exclusive, there are veterinarians and non-veterinarians with an interest in behavior who realize that the world is round and they work together for the good of their clients and patients. If such cooperation doesn’t exist in their particular area, owners desiring the best for themselves and their animals still may move between the opposing groups unhampered by these internal squabbles.
In general, FEPs who promote the positive effects of the human-animal bond gain so much media attention that this orientation appears to overpower the opposite extreme. However, closer scrutiny reveals that once again multiple spectrums occur and their extremes aren’t that far apart. In one set we see all those warm fuzzy portrayals of service and therapy dogs against those free-roaming destructive canine packs or dangerous fighting dogs who snarl at us from the television news or the front page of the local paper.
A second, far more intimate pair of opposites pits beloved family pets against those animals who destroy our homes or bite the kids. It’s in this particular realm that maintaining an either/or flat-earth view proves exceptionally difficult for most thinking people to maintain. What honest pet owner hasn’t experienced negative interactions with his/her pet that instantly reveal the hair’s breadth separating these opposite views? And when such happens, how can we accept we must adopt one or the other orientation when the right answer for us and our pets is that all relationships normally may contain elements of both?
Once our intimate relationship with our pets leads us to realize that, by golly, the world really is round and we won’t fall off the edge if we consider other views, similarly limited approaches to other aspects of human-animal companionship immediately become suspect. Once that happens, a whole new world of possibilities opens up for our exploration and enjoyment.
Would that 2004 becomes the year in which zealots in all areas of human thought discover that the world is round. Would that it becomes the year in which the majority choose to recognize that the extremes are far more alike than different, and that the correct answer may not be “either/or” but rather “and.”
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.