Watch out. I'm mulling again.
Re-reading some of Clothier's on-line articles. I like her level of
anthropomorphism. I don't see how one can educate a dog without empathy;
how can you have empathy without a fellow feeling? ("I feel your pain,"
somebody or other said.
Then, you encounter a point where you go over the edge. How do you
think one can reach the place where anthropomorphism (I _hate spelling
that word) is helpful, not harmful?






















http://community.webtv.net/k9apple/Howloweenies

(Chris Williams) wrote in message ...
Watch out. I'm mulling again.
Re-reading some of Clothier's on-line articles. I like her level of
anthropomorphism. I don't see how one can educate a dog without empathy;
how can you have empathy without a fellow feeling? ("I feel your pain,"
somebody or other said.
Then, you encounter a point where you go over the edge. How do you
think one can reach the place where anthropomorphism (I _hate spelling
that word) is helpful, not harmful?

You're confusing 2 very different things. Empathy certainly helps us
understand where a dog is coming from, but you've got to recognize
that we humans are incapable of true empathy for a lot of canine
feelings - we don't have the same instincts and drives. The empathy
we might have for the few things we actually can empathize with dogs
on doesn't have anything at all to do with the ability to educate
them. Understanding the source of their actions and reactions is
critical, but doesn't require empathy.

Anthropomorphism is *always* an impediment to both communicating with
dogs and teaching them anything at all. By definition, it means
misinterpreting their actions and reactions. By ascribing human
behaviors you are always wrong, and miss the information needed to
connect with them as canines. Anthropomorphism stops you dead in your
tracks in the beginning of working with any dog. You can't progress
at all with a basically wrong understanding of the dog's mind, so it
ia always harmful, not helpful.


Lynn K.

(Chris Williams) wrote in message ...
Watch out. I'm mulling again.
Re-reading some of Clothier's on-line articles. I like her level of
anthropomorphism. I don't see how one can educate a dog without empathy;
how can you have empathy without a fellow feeling? ("I feel your pain,"
somebody or other said.
Then, you encounter a point where you go over the edge. How do you
think one can reach the place where anthropomorphism (I _hate spelling
that word) is helpful, not harmful?

You're confusing 2 very different things. Empathy certainly helps us
understand where a dog is coming from, but you've got to recognize
that we humans are incapable of true empathy for a lot of canine
feelings - we don't have the same instincts and drives. The empathy
we might have for the few things we actually can empathize with dogs
on doesn't have anything at all to do with the ability to educate
them. Understanding the source of their actions and reactions is
critical, but doesn't require empathy.

Anthropomorphism is *always* an impediment to both communicating with
dogs and teaching them anything at all. By definition, it means
misinterpreting their actions and reactions. By ascribing human
behaviors you are always wrong, and miss the information needed to
connect with them as canines. Anthropomorphism stops you dead in your
tracks in the beginning of working with any dog. You can't progress
at all with a basically wrong understanding of the dog's mind, so it
ia always harmful, not helpful.


Lynn K.

(Chris Williams) wrote in message ...
Watch out. I'm mulling again.
Re-reading some of Clothier's on-line articles. I like her level of
anthropomorphism. I don't see how one can educate a dog without empathy;
how can you have empathy without a fellow feeling? ("I feel your pain,"
somebody or other said.
Then, you encounter a point where you go over the edge. How do you
think one can reach the place where anthropomorphism (I _hate spelling
that word) is helpful, not harmful?

You're confusing 2 very different things. Empathy certainly helps us
understand where a dog is coming from, but you've got to recognize
that we humans are incapable of true empathy for a lot of canine
feelings - we don't have the same instincts and drives. The empathy
we might have for the few things we actually can empathize with dogs
on doesn't have anything at all to do with the ability to educate
them. Understanding the source of their actions and reactions is
critical, but doesn't require empathy.

Anthropomorphism is *always* an impediment to both communicating with
dogs and teaching them anything at all. By definition, it means
misinterpreting their actions and reactions. By ascribing human
behaviors you are always wrong, and miss the information needed to
connect with them as canines. Anthropomorphism stops you dead in your
tracks in the beginning of working with any dog. You can't progress
at all with a basically wrong understanding of the dog's mind, so it
ia always harmful, not helpful.


Lynn K.

(Chris Williams) wrote in message ...
Watch out. I'm mulling again.
Re-reading some of Clothier's on-line articles. I like her level of
anthropomorphism. I don't see how one can educate a dog without empathy;
how can you have empathy without a fellow feeling? ("I feel your pain,"
somebody or other said.
Then, you encounter a point where you go over the edge. How do you
think one can reach the place where anthropomorphism (I _hate spelling
that word) is helpful, not harmful?

You're confusing 2 very different things. Empathy certainly helps us
understand where a dog is coming from, but you've got to recognize
that we humans are incapable of true empathy for a lot of canine
feelings - we don't have the same instincts and drives. The empathy
we might have for the few things we actually can empathize with dogs
on doesn't have anything at all to do with the ability to educate
them. Understanding the source of their actions and reactions is
critical, but doesn't require empathy.

Anthropomorphism is *always* an impediment to both communicating with
dogs and teaching them anything at all. By definition, it means
misinterpreting their actions and reactions. By ascribing human
behaviors you are always wrong, and miss the information needed to
connect with them as canines. Anthropomorphism stops you dead in your
tracks in the beginning of working with any dog. You can't progress
at all with a basically wrong understanding of the dog's mind, so it
ia always harmful, not helpful.


Lynn K.

Empathy certainly helps us understand
where a dog is coming from, but you've
got to recognize that we humans are
incapable of true empathy for a lot of
canine feelings - we don't have the
same instincts and drives.
Don't the similarities outweigh the differences? Doesn't both species
being social animals provide common ground? To recruit people to wolf
protection, one only needs to show them a film of wolves' family life:
"Why their family's just like mine .... only better." is a usual
reaction.
The empathy we might have for the few
things we actually can empathize with
dogs on doesn't have anything at all to
do with the ability to educate them.
Now, that's similar to the _tone of 'Culture Clash' which I can't
connect with. Donaldson _implies that humans operate by a different (and
in her case, more lofty) system. Where are drives and instincts so
different? Humans and canines are both social, predatory and seek to
control resources. The differences are .....??
By ascribing human behaviors you are
always wrong, and miss the information
needed to connect with them as
canines.
Without anthropomorphism, and the empathy thus engendered, I don't
think I would _care to connect with them. Why bother?

Empathy certainly helps us understand
where a dog is coming from, but you've
got to recognize that we humans are
incapable of true empathy for a lot of
canine feelings - we don't have the
same instincts and drives.
Don't the similarities outweigh the differences? Doesn't both species
being social animals provide common ground? To recruit people to wolf
protection, one only needs to show them a film of wolves' family life:
"Why their family's just like mine .... only better." is a usual
reaction.
The empathy we might have for the few
things we actually can empathize with
dogs on doesn't have anything at all to
do with the ability to educate them.
Now, that's similar to the _tone of 'Culture Clash' which I can't
connect with. Donaldson _implies that humans operate by a different (and
in her case, more lofty) system. Where are drives and instincts so
different? Humans and canines are both social, predatory and seek to
control resources. The differences are .....??
By ascribing human behaviors you are
always wrong, and miss the information
needed to connect with them as
canines.
Without anthropomorphism, and the empathy thus engendered, I don't
think I would _care to connect with them. Why bother?

Empathy certainly helps us understand
where a dog is coming from, but you've
got to recognize that we humans are
incapable of true empathy for a lot of
canine feelings - we don't have the
same instincts and drives.
Don't the similarities outweigh the differences? Doesn't both species
being social animals provide common ground? To recruit people to wolf
protection, one only needs to show them a film of wolves' family life:
"Why their family's just like mine .... only better." is a usual
reaction.
The empathy we might have for the few
things we actually can empathize with
dogs on doesn't have anything at all to
do with the ability to educate them.
Now, that's similar to the _tone of 'Culture Clash' which I can't
connect with. Donaldson _implies that humans operate by a different (and
in her case, more lofty) system. Where are drives and instincts so
different? Humans and canines are both social, predatory and seek to
control resources. The differences are .....??
By ascribing human behaviors you are
always wrong, and miss the information
needed to connect with them as
canines.
Without anthropomorphism, and the empathy thus engendered, I don't
think I would _care to connect with them. Why bother?

Empathy certainly helps us understand
where a dog is coming from, but you've
got to recognize that we humans are
incapable of true empathy for a lot of
canine feelings - we don't have the
same instincts and drives.
Don't the similarities outweigh the differences? Doesn't both species
being social animals provide common ground? To recruit people to wolf
protection, one only needs to show them a film of wolves' family life:
"Why their family's just like mine .... only better." is a usual
reaction.
The empathy we might have for the few
things we actually can empathize with
dogs on doesn't have anything at all to
do with the ability to educate them.
Now, that's similar to the _tone of 'Culture Clash' which I can't
connect with. Donaldson _implies that humans operate by a different (and
in her case, more lofty) system. Where are drives and instincts so
different? Humans and canines are both social, predatory and seek to
control resources. The differences are .....??
By ascribing human behaviors you are
always wrong, and miss the information
needed to connect with them as
canines.
Without anthropomorphism, and the empathy thus engendered, I don't
think I would _care to connect with them. Why bother?

Without anthropomorphism, and the empathy thus engendered, I don't
think I would _care to connect with them. Why bother?


I agree.