Pers's Reviews > Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals

This book was terrible. It wasn't terrible because the author ultimately concludes that hypocrisy is human and probably fine to subsist in when it comes to animals but because it is just so poorly researched and presented. He cites multiple studies but pretty consistently misrepresents their findings. If I hadn't Googled him already, I'd have assumed this was written by a person with a very poor understanding of the basics of social science research (ie: the difference between correlation and causation, the dangers of self-selection bias, isolating controlled variables). Since he IS a social scientist, it appears to be just a case of sloppy or perhaps even purposely deceptive analysis. Whatever the case may be, it's irresponsible of an academic of his stature.

The title promises an explanation for our fraught and contradictory relationship with other animals but fails entirely to deliver. Instead, what we have is just a series of examples, made more compelling with personal anecdotes and interviews, of the ways in which Americans are inconsistent in their approach to animals. Very little energy is invested in trying to explain why they are inconsistent or even whether that inconsistency is a problem. The reader comes away from this book knowing *that* people don't think straight about animals but not why or what to do about it.

The writing follows a predictable pattern of presenting a case in a sensationalistic way for pages and pages and then tacking on a paragraph right at the end paying lip service to journalistic objectivity. For example, the section on animals and gender spends most of its time constructing an image of soft, emotional women loving animals and strong, logical men harming them (those who don't fit the paradigm are cringeworthily labeled "Gender Benders") and then tacks on a tiny paragraph at the end about how maybe this isn't always true. The section on vegetarians and mental illness conflates correlation and causation for pages and pages and then admits, in only a few lines, that maybe there might be other explanations for some of the results. It's almost like the attempts to show other possible ways of considering each case were added into the completed manuscript afterward. It is completely acceptable to write a book that advances a particular argument or agenda but it isn't acceptable to do so by misrepresenting the data or pretending at a disingenuous neutrality.

I often see people mentioning this book as pro-vegan/animal rights and have even spotted it for sale at a few vegetarian events. It is not. This part is not the author's fault as he unapologetically speaks of his meat eating and other animal use throughout the book. If anything, this book is arguing the opposite view, that eating and otherwise using animals humanely is possible and inevitable. In the case of scientific experimentation on animals, the author is overwhelmingly in favour of it and presents his arguments in the book. Let me say it again, this is NOT a book supporting animal rights or veganism.

If you're interested in a well-researched look at why people experience so much inconsistency and cognitive dissonance in their relationships with other animals, try social psychologist Melanie Joy's Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism: The Belief System That Enables Us to Eat Some Animals and Not Others It actually succeeds in doing what this book only claims to do.