Tim's Reviews > Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior

This book was an absolute delight to read. I wholeheartedly recommend it to everyone everywhere but especially to people who have an affinity for animals. You learn a great deal about animals in these pages but by way of contrast and compare you also learn a whole lot about human beings. Using scientific studies of animals, her own experiences as an autistic person, and her experiences working with commercial enterprises to improve the welfare of animals, the author hypothesizes that the way autistic people perceive the world may be similar to the way animals perceive the world.

Quite a few of the statements in this book begin with the phrase 'I think' or something similar so the author does acknowledge she is speculating. However, it is not unfounded speculation. Her method for discovering some unidentified factor in the farm environment that is scaring or harming the animals and then suggesting changes involves seeing things not from the perspective of a human but that of an animal. The reason she is so successful at this is because autistic people (based on her own experience and many other studies) perceive the world differently than most humans do. People see one unified thing: a landscape, a building, a statue. Autistic people see a collection of details. A fence made of weathered cedar posts, a length of rusty chain, a bright yellow rain coat, etc. When it comes to identifying what is spooking an animal, the devil, as they say, is in the details. So who better to note that than someone who sees discrete objects as collections of details? People focus in on the things they want or expect to see and all of the other details fade into the background (the 'Gorillas In Our Midst' psychology experiment is a well known example of this). Autistic people are less prone to doing that. The reason for this, according to the author, is because autistic people think with pictures instead of words (ie. they think in concrete terms and see details whereas people who think with words think in abstract terms and see objects). Mammals and to a lesser degree, autistic people, have a less developed frontal cortex. One of the roles of the frontal cortex is to serve as an associative system. It takes a whole bunch of seemingly unrelated details and associates them into one integrated whole. There is an expression: big picture thinking. The neocortex is responsible for big picture thinking. We invent or discover a sort of overarching structure that binds all of the disparate details of existence into one coherent whole (which of the two we believe we are doing is obviously going to be based to some degree on the subjective epistemology of the individual him/herself and is a debate outside the considerations of the book). In terms of personal history, these overarching structures are known as schemas/schemata, in terms of human history they are called meta-narratives. Basically, your neocortex looks at the details and tells you a story about what life is about. It takes all of those details and turns them into one cohesive thing. This may be a good thing but like all good things, there is a trade-off. The author explains:

'The price human beings pay for having such big, fat frontal lobes is that normal people become oblivious in a way animals and autistic people aren't. Normal people stop seeing the details that make up the big picture and see only the big picture instead. That's what your frontal lobes do for you: they give you the big picture. Animals see all the tiny little details that go into the picture.'

I am going into all of this detail because it sets the stage for the topics covered in this book and compares how a neurotypical human experiences it, how an autistic person experiences it, and how it is believed (based on things like observation and fMRI scans) an animal may be experiencing it. The TLDR: the author is using the autistic perspective to translate the intellect, emotions, and perceptions of animals into terms a non-autistic human can understand. Thus the title 'Animals In Translation.'

There is a lot of fascinating information about animals in this book, divided up into the following chapters:

How Animals Perceive The World
Animal Feelings
Animal Aggression
Pain and Suffering
How Animals Think
Animal Genius: Extreme Talents

This is bookended by a short autobiographical account and a behaviour and training troubleshooting guide.

I am always amazed when I read accounts of animal intelligence. Alex the african gray parrot is one of the more famous examples. He became so adept at spelling he was able to spell out new sounds associated with objects without being trained to spell that particular word; demonstrating he wasn't merely parroting phrases, he had some grasp of the concept of phonics. Alex would also ask questions unprompted (for example, asking what colour he was when catching sight of himself in a mirror.)

Another interesting area is research into the relationship between music and language. As humans, we tend to think of language merely as the content of a word or string of words. If I direct a statement at you, you understand what it is I am saying. While that is true, it is equally true that if I say something to you in a gruff manner, I have communicated something different than I would have if I had made the same statement in a well modulated tone. Likewise if my voice rises at the end of a statement, it turns that statement into a question. How something is said is as much a part of communication as what is being said. Tone matters. There is some research into whether some animals employ a sort of tonal proto-language. There is once again an autism connection here that the author unfolds. The author also considers the experiences of people who never learned any sort of verbal or sign language until they were fully grown adults. That was a fascinating read also. The story of Ildefonso, A Man Without Words, makes it clear that people can understand abstract concepts without the benefit of words.

Tool manufacturing was another topic the author covered; crows bending wires into makeshift hooks was one example among a number the author gives. The current scientific controversy is whether animals are capable of true cognition, defined not as instinctual hard wired behaviour or learning a simple rule of thumb but instead solving a problem under novel conditions. Crows noting that cars stop at red traffic lights and go at green traffic lights, placing nuts in front of the front wheels when the light is red and then swooping down to eat the innards of the now broken nut after the light has turned green, the traffic has moved on, and the coast is clear might be an example of this.

I have read before that it is the animals with the most complex brains that exhibit a greater potential for empathy. This book speculates about another, far less benign similarity between humans and animals with more complex brains:

'.....when I read through the research literature I'm struck by the fact that the animals with the most complex brains are also the ones that engage in some of the nastiest behaviour. I suspect people and animals probably pay a price for having a complex brain. For one thing, in a complex brain there may be more opportunities for wiring mistakes that lead to vicious behavior. Another possibility is that since a more complex brain provides greater flexibility of behavior, animals with complex brains become free to develop new behaviors that will be good, bad, or in between. Human beings are capable of great love and sacrifice, but they are also capable of profound cruelty. Maybe animals are, too.'

It was at this point that my own neocortex did that thing it does and made an association. Something I had read in the book Mere Christianity: that the more intelligent an entity is, the more potential it has for great good when it goes right but the more potential it has for great evil when it goes wrong. Of course, C. S. Lewis was looking upwards to celestial beings, this book is looking downwards to animals.

There was so much intriguing material covered in this book I could go on at length. Suffice it to say, we've come a long way since Rene Descartes arbitrarily assigned animals to the category of automatons with no inner life. The author writes near the end of the book:

'It's time to start thinking of animals as capable and communicative beings. It's also time to stop making assumptions. Animal researchers take a lot for granted: “animals don't have language,” “animals don't have psychological self-awareness” - you find blanket statements like this sprinkled throughout the research literature. But the truth is, we don't know what animals can't do better than we know what they can do. It's hard to prove a negative, and proving negatives shouldn't be the focus.

If we're interested in animals, then we need to study animals for their own sake, and on their own terms, to the extent that it's possible. What are they doing? What are they feeling? What are they thinking? What are they saying?

Who are they?

And: what do we need to do to treat animals fairly, responsibly, and with kindness?

Those are the real questions.'

Sigh. Now I want an african gray parrot so we can, you know, discuss the reality of platonic objects and stuff. But perhaps that is a job for The Philosopher's Dog?