"sionnach" wrote in message
...

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote:

At least I posted a reference that may be read by those who have not
read the book, to get som insight into the style and basic concepts
proposed by the writer.

This is also irrelevant, sorry.
a) Suja asked for input from people who have actually READ THE BOOK.
b) "Insight into style and basic concepts" is not the same thing as
knowing what's in the specific section she's referring to.

Again, what we're talking about has got nothing to do with training.


What we're talking about is Temple saying things like "Goldens belong to
the same genetic group as...all the other hunting dogs"; claiming that
all Labradors are destructive chewers and obsessive overeaters and that
they are "genetically programmed" to be that way - based on anecdotal
evidence from ONE friend of hers, about ONE Lab!!; claiming that mixed
breed dogs with light skin are less stable than those with dark skin
(with absolutely no data to back the claim up); and last but very far
from least, claiming that "mutts are physically healthier than purebreds
because the bad traits of purebreds, such as hyp dysplasia, disappear
just one or two generations away from the purebred line".

That last statement is ludicriously far from the truth.

Well, at least that is some specific information. Suja did not say what she
had issues with, but only that she had gotten as far as page 80.

Remember that this book is written by someone who has a rather unique way
of looking at the world, and there is probably much more to be gained by
keeping an open mind, rather than picking at specific items. The things you
criticize are opinions, observations, and what may constitute folklore or
"old wives tales". I've heard many people say that Labs are very "mouthy"
and will practically inhale food, and it was "common knowledge" to me, long
before I got a dog and started posting here, that most mutts tend to be
more stable, healthier, and less "high strung" than most purebreds. Those
concepts must come from somewhere, and there is probably some element of
truth.

I also know not to trust the pack's opinion about what they have read, as
evidenced by the wholesale dismissal of John Grogan's problems with Marley
as being all about irresponsibility. I did read that book, and I probably
will read this one as well.

Paul and Muttley

"Paul E. Schoen" wrote:

That last statement is ludicriously far from the truth.

Well, at least that is some specific information. Suja did not say what
she had issues with, but only that she had gotten as far as page 80.

Yep. Because - again - Suja was specifically looking for input from people
who have READ THE BOOK, and would know what she was talking about. You have
*not* read the book, but posted comments based on guessing (incorrectly)
what you thought she was maybe talking about, in order to once again take
pot-shots at other members of the group.

Remember that this book is written by someone who has a rather unique way
of looking at the world,

Anyone who picks up the book is aware of that, and as a insight into the way
some autistic or Asperger's people percieve the world, it's worth reading.
As science, though.... I hae me doots.
I'll add that if I were going to recommend a book to give insight on what
it's like to be autistic, it would be "The Curious Incident of the Dog In
the Nighttime", by Mark Haddon.

there is probably much more to be gained by keeping an open mind, rather
than picking at specific items.

It's not a matter of "picking at specific items". It's a matter of a
substantial section of the book containing incorrect and off-kilter
information , which causes the reader to wonder how accurate the entire book
is.

The things you criticize are opinions, observations, and what may
constitute folklore or
"old wives tales".

Which is exactly the point. Temple Grandin is an "animal scientist". When a
scientist presents inaccurate folklore as fact, it brings the rest of his or
her work into question. My personal opinion is that she knows a lot more
about livestock than she does about dogs - there's no question that she's
done a lot of good work in the field of livestock management, particularly
in improving conditions in slaughterhouses.

I probably will read this one as well.

By all means, do. Now that I've been reminded I own it, I'm going to finish
reading it myself. Just don't accept what she writes, as carved-in-stone
fact, because it ain't.

"sionnach" wrote in message
...

Well, at least that is some specific information. Suja did not say what
she had issues with, but only that she had gotten as far as page 80.

There is a reason I referred to a page number. Anyone that had read the
book would know that it is the point where she basically switches from
talking about livestock, and dogs. On the basis of what she's seen with a
handful of dogs, it seems. And just so we're all clear, the book so far has
****-all to do with training anything, so let's not get back into irrelevent
rants about dog trainers (of which I'm not one) and tools and being open
minded.

Anyone who picks up the book is aware of that, and as a insight into the
way some autistic or Asperger's people percieve the world, it's worth
reading.

It is a major selling point for the book. Her viewpoint is unique and
underrepresented in literature. Until we got to dogs anyway, it was quite a
different way of seeing how animals and those that are differently able see
the world.

I'll add that if I were going to recommend a book to give insight on what
it's like to be autistic, it would be "The Curious Incident of the Dog In
the Nighttime", by Mark Haddon.

It's an *excellent* read.

It's not a matter of "picking at specific items". It's a matter of a
substantial section of the book containing incorrect and off-kilter
information , which causes the reader to wonder how accurate the entire
book is.

That was it. I mean, how do you draw the conclusion that mutts are less
likely to be destructive chewers than Labs on the basis of one friend that
has had 2 mutts and one Lab? I don't know how she, as a person of science,
can think that any one animal is a representative of the group at large.

Which is exactly the point. Temple Grandin is an "animal scientist". When
a scientist presents inaccurate folklore as fact, it brings the rest of
his or her work into question.

That was a huge part of my problem. If she were a lay person, I would be
more likely to overlook the 'presenting of anecdote as data' issue.

My personal opinion is that she knows a lot more about livestock than she
does about dogs - there's no question that she's done a lot of good work
in the field of livestock management, particularly in improving conditions
in slaughterhouses.

Exactly my feeling as well.

Suja

"Suja" wrote in message
...

"sionnach" wrote in message
...

Well, at least that is some specific information. Suja did not say what
she had issues with, but only that she had gotten as far as page 80.

For the record, *that* comment was made by Paul, not by me.

"sionnach" wrote in message
...

For the record, *that* comment was made by Paul, not by me.

My fault. I snipped his name out inadvertently.

Suja

In article ,
Suja wrote:
My fault. I snipped his name out inadvertently.

It was a "Freudian snip." (Pay no attention and
go back to what you were doing ... )
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

"Suja" wrote;

Her viewpoint is unique and underrepresented in literature. Until we got
to dogs anyway, it was quite a different way of seeing how animals and
those that are differently able see the world.

In terms of getting and idea of the perspective she, and some of the others
on the spectrum**, experience the world from, it's an excellent book. I am
not convinced, by a long shot, that her extrapolation from her perceptions
to that of animals is as accurate as is touted. (Among other things, there
are huge differences between species - *physiological* differences - in
perception and reaction, so it bothers me when she makes blanket statements
about "animals".)
Having said that, she does have a lot of valuable precepts in the appendix
in the back of the book - nothing new or startling to me, and could be
better organized, but anything that gets things through to people is useful!

** Autism and Asperger's aren't tightly defined, and are also tied into
other issues such as dyslexia, OCD, and the like; there is a spectrum of
symptoms which range from utterly unable to interact with the outside world
to people who are undiagnosed, live relatively normal lives, & are simply
seen as a bit odd or eccentric by others. Having any level of the two
disorders is colliquially referred to as being "on the spectrum".


how do you draw the conclusion that mutts are less likely to be
destructive chewers than Labs on the basis of one friend that has had 2
mutts and one Lab? I don't know how she, as a person of science, can
think that any one animal is a representative of the group at large.

Exactly.

If she were a lay person, I would be more likely to overlook the
'presenting of anecdote as data' issue.

You know, on thinking it over, I have a feeling that the fault may lie with
Grandin's co-author, Catherine Johnson. Grandin didn't actually write the
book; rather, she talked to Johnson and Johnson wrote things down & edited
them.
I have a hunch that Johnson - not, apparently, being an animal person
herself - *assumed* Temple was talking from real knowlege, and didn't bother
to check it out. (In the afterword, Johnson says "Temple... knows practially
everything there is to know about animals", which tends to imply she
accepted everything Grandin said uncritically.)

I'm reminded of a book by Bruno Bettelhiem, in which he spends an entire
chapter analyzing a detailed dream one of his young patients told him, going
on and on about how fantastic all the detail is, all the "insights" this
dream give into the child's mind, his deep-rooted issues, etc etc etc....
and this has been taken as gospel by the majority of those who've read the
book.
Only problem is, the kid didn't dream anything of the sort. What he actually
did was to tell Bettlehiem, almost word for word, the plot of a book he'd
read recently - namely, "The 21 Balloons" by Willliam Pene du Bois!!
I remain amazed, to this day, that apparently nobody ever pointed it out to
Bettelhiem or his publishers (or, if they did, that it wasn't addressed
AFAIK), since "The 21 Balloons" is NOT an obscure book - it won the Newbery
the year it was published (1948), and is still in print and on library
shelves.

Point being, that I think Johnson may have fallen into the same trap as
Bettelhiem; taking something at face value rather than checking into it.
Additionally, I'm betting that when Grandin writes scientific articles and
papers, she uses a much higher standard for her data than Johnson did in
writing "Animals In Translation".

"sionnach" wrote;

I'm reminded of a book by Bruno Bettelhiem,

As a side, but related, note:
Bettelheim* was the ass who promoted the notion that autism was caused by
what he called "refrigerator mothers", rather than the organic disorder that
it actually is. He later changed his mind, but not before immense damage
was done to many families.

*Correct spelling; I typo'd it in the first post.

sionnach wrote:
"sionnach" wrote;

I'm reminded of a book by Bruno Bettelhiem,

As a side, but related, note:
Bettelheim* was the ass who promoted the notion that autism was caused by
what he called "refrigerator mothers", rather than the organic disorder that
it actually is. He later changed his mind, but not before immense damage
was done to many families.

*Correct spelling; I typo'd it in the first post.

Funny, I pretty much the same thing. I read his "The Empty
Fortress" when I was in college and thought it was pretty
outrageous that he (like other Freudians) could say so much with
such great authority and so little evidence.

FurPaw

--
Don't believe everything that you think.

To reply, unleash the dog.

"Terri" wrote in message
...
"sionnach" wrote in
:


"sionnach" wrote;

I'm reminded of a book by Bruno Bettelhiem,

As a side, but related, note:
Bettelheim* was the ass who promoted the notion that autism was caused
by
what he called "refrigerator mothers", rather than the organic disorder
that it actually is.

Oh. *That* asshat.
He did an incredible amount of damage and caused untold pain.

Some people also claim that he did a lot of good. Psychiatry is not an
exact science. There was yet much to be learned when he did his work, and
there is still much that is not fully understood.

It is interesting that he died of suicide in Silver Spring, MD on March 13,
1990. I was wondering if he might have been at Riderwood, but they opened
in 2000.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bruno-bettelheim

Paul and Muttley