Inside the Animal Mind : A Groundbreaking Exploration of Animal Intelligence

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful......just excellent
Review: .... I have read this book and I have enjoyed it very much. It is incredibly interesting and captivating! Anyone who enjoys animals as much as I and have made then their career and life like I have...will enjoy this book very much. In fact, just anyone who enjoys animals will enjoy this book. I dare those who did not enjoy this book to write something better!

Rating:
Summary: Animals are smart in their own way and this book proves it.
Review: Bravo! I had finished reading this fascinating book about the same time the PBS special of the same name was airing on TV. I was trying to get through the latter parts of the book before the three parts were broadcasted. Mr. Page does an excellent job of explaining animal minds in lay terminology for the less scientific reader, and gives insight on the history of anthropomorphizing the thoughts and intelligence of all animal species. I was entralled with the history behind such practices throughout civilization. It is also interesting to think that smaller creatures do have remarkable intelligence, like honeybees, birds (especially clever), ants, etc. A very entertaining read, some good observations on chimpanzees by Jane Goodall. This book held my interest. Page demonstrates that animals are capable of learning complex tasks, and learning from memory. Hopefully this book will enlighten more people to think of animals not merely as pets or lower species, but to think of them as smart in their own way. Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Animals are smart in their own way and this book proves it.
Review: Bravo! I had finished reading this fascinating book about the same time the PBS special of the same name was airing on TV. I was trying to get through the latter parts of the book before the three parts were broadcasted. Mr. Page does an excellent job of explaining animal minds in lay terminology for the less scientific reader, and gives insight on the history of anthropomorphizing the thoughts and intelligence of all animal species. I was entralled with the history behind such practices throughout civilization. It is also interesting to think that smaller creatures do have remarkable intelligence, like honeybees, birds (especially clever), ants, etc. A very entertaining read, some good observations on chimpanzees by Jane Goodall. This book held my interest. Page demonstrates that animals are capable of learning complex tasks, and learning from memory. Hopefully this book will enlighten more people to think of animals not merely as pets or lower species, but to think of them as smart in their own way. Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Another sentimental overinterpretation
Review: George Page has taken on an enormous undertaking and has done an outstanding job. I made a point of reading "Inside the Animal Mind" before watching any of the television program, to see if the book would stand on its own. It does. Mr. Page presents an excellent overview of the issues of the animal mind, and presents a good representative selection (though not a comprehensive view) of the research and consciousness. Of the many animals whose minds have been studied, all are expertly described, including not just the well known such as Kanzi the bonobo, Alex the parrot, and the infamous Clever Hans the horse, but also many of the lesser known. The author also skillfully utilizes the work and personal comments of most of the recognized experts in the field. Especially commendable is the author's presentation of opposing viewpoints, which gives the reader enough information to critically assess the information and come to his or her own conclusions.

I did find a number of weaknesses in the book, however.

My main criticism is that the section on emotions is poorly organized and not fully developed. For example, on page 187 a paragraph begins with "Animals get bored and distracted", followed by no evidence or discussion of boredom in animals (for which there is, I might point out, an abundance of evidence). The discussion of the emotions of social bonding and affiliation could be better organized, such that the power (and evolutionary logic) of these emotions is clearer to the reader. There is excellent evidence to show that social bonding is of such selective value that bonds are enforced by both strong negative emotions (feelings of loneliness, isolation, separation anxiety, and grief) and positive emotions (feelings of social companionship, friendship, and possibly love). Moreover, the evidence for the neurochemistry of the emotions of social bonding is limited to a discussion of the role of oxytocin, omitting the important findings regarding the role of endorphins.

Although minor, certain factual inconsistencies detract from an otherwise well-written book. For example, on page 102 is the statement that "chimpanzees...are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, sharing 98.7 percent of our genetic "The bonobo, our closest relative in the animal kingdom, shares 98.7 percent of our human genetic material."

A final criticism is that the author makes the error that many other writers on the subject do, and that is to use the term "instinct" as an equivalent to "mindless" or "thoughtless". This is evident by the repeated dichotomy of whether a certain behavior is conscious OR instinct. This occurs throughout the book (although he does include a brief comment on page 213 that acknowledges that instinct may have a conscious component). This dichotomy of instinct and conscious behavior is not only false, it is an impediment to the advancement of our understanding of the animal mind. The fact is, emotion IS instinct, and not only is there no mutual exclusivity between instinct and conscious behavior, but it is through emotions (instinct) that conscious behavior is motivated. The feeling of fear is instinct, the object of fear is part innate and part learned, and the feeling of fear motivates the individual to consciously opt for a certain course of action. To draw a line between conscious behavior and instinct forces a choice for any specific animal behavior to be on one side or the other, when in fact the evidence is strong for many animal behaviors (like human behaviors) to be BOTH conscious and instinct.

The above-mentioned faults do not outweigh the positive attributes of the book. I recommend it strongly and commend the author on a valuable contribution to the literature on the animal mind.

Frank McMillan, DVM

Rating:
Summary: A valuable book
Review: George Page has taken on an enormous undertaking and has done an outstanding job. I made a point of reading "Inside the Animal Mind" before watching any of the television program, to see if the book would stand on its own. It does. Mr. Page presents an excellent overview of the issues of the animal mind, and presents a good representative selection (though not a comprehensive view) of the research and consciousness. Of the many animals whose minds have been studied, all are expertly described, including not just the well known such as Kanzi the bonobo, Alex the parrot, and the infamous Clever Hans the horse, but also many of the lesser known. The author also skillfully utilizes the work and personal comments of most of the recognized experts in the field. Especially commendable is the author's presentation of opposing viewpoints, which gives the reader enough information to critically assess the information and come to his or her own conclusions.

I did find a number of weaknesses in the book, however.

My main criticism is that the section on emotions is poorly organized and not fully developed. For example, on page 187 a paragraph begins with "Animals get bored and distracted", followed by no evidence or discussion of boredom in animals (for which there is, I might point out, an abundance of evidence). The discussion of the emotions of social bonding and affiliation could be better organized, such that the power (and evolutionary logic) of these emotions is clearer to the reader. There is excellent evidence to show that social bonding is of such selective value that bonds are enforced by both strong negative emotions (feelings of loneliness, isolation, separation anxiety, and grief) and positive emotions (feelings of social companionship, friendship, and possibly love). Moreover, the evidence for the neurochemistry of the emotions of social bonding is limited to a discussion of the role of oxytocin, omitting the important findings regarding the role of endorphins.

Although minor, certain factual inconsistencies detract from an otherwise well-written book. For example, on page 102 is the statement that "chimpanzees...are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, sharing 98.7 percent of our genetic "The bonobo, our closest relative in the animal kingdom, shares 98.7 percent of our human genetic material."

A final criticism is that the author makes the error that many other writers on the subject do, and that is to use the term "instinct" as an equivalent to "mindless" or "thoughtless". This is evident by the repeated dichotomy of whether a certain behavior is conscious OR instinct. This occurs throughout the book (although he does include a brief comment on page 213 that acknowledges that instinct may have a conscious component). This dichotomy of instinct and conscious behavior is not only false, it is an impediment to the advancement of our understanding of the animal mind. The fact is, emotion IS instinct, and not only is there no mutual exclusivity between instinct and conscious behavior, but it is through emotions (instinct) that conscious behavior is motivated. The feeling of fear is instinct, the object of fear is part innate and part learned, and the feeling of fear motivates the individual to consciously opt for a certain course of action. To draw a line between conscious behavior and instinct forces a choice for any specific animal behavior to be on one side or the other, when in fact the evidence is strong for many animal behaviors (like human behaviors) to be BOTH conscious and instinct.

The above-mentioned faults do not outweigh the positive attributes of the book. I recommend it strongly and commend the author on a valuable contribution to the literature on the animal mind.

Frank McMillan, DVM

Rating:
Summary: A valuable book
Review: George Page has taken on an enormous undertaking and has done an outstanding job. I made a point of reading "Inside the Animal Mind" before watching any of the television program, to see if the book would stand on its own. It does. Mr. Page presents an excellent overview of the issues of the animal mind, and presents a good representative selection (though not a comprehensive view) of the research and consciousness. Of the many animals whose minds have been studied, all are expertly described, including not just the well known such as Kanzi the bonobo, Alex the parrot, and the infamous Clever Hans the horse, but also many of the lesser known. The author also skillfully utilizes the work and personal comments of most of the recognized experts in the field. Especially commendable is the author's presentation of opposing viewpoints, which gives the reader enough information to critically assess the information and come to his or her own conclusions.

I did find a number of weaknesses in the book, however.

My main criticism is that the section on emotions is poorly organized and not fully developed. For example, on page 187 a paragraph begins with "Animals get bored and distracted", followed by no evidence or discussion of boredom in animals (for which there is, I might point out, an abundance of evidence). The discussion of the emotions of social bonding and affiliation could be better organized, such that the power (and evolutionary logic) of these emotions is clearer to the reader. There is excellent evidence to show that social bonding is of such selective value that bonds are enforced by both strong negative emotions (feelings of loneliness, isolation, separation anxiety, and grief) and positive emotions (feelings of social companionship, friendship, and possibly love). Moreover, the evidence for the neurochemistry of the emotions of social bonding is limited to a discussion of the role of oxytocin, omitting the important findings regarding the role of endorphins.

Although minor, certain factual inconsistencies detract from an otherwise well-written book. For example, on page 102 is the statement that "chimpanzees...are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, sharing 98.7 percent of our genetic "The bonobo, our closest relative in the animal kingdom, shares 98.7 percent of our human genetic material."

A final criticism is that the author makes the error that many other writers on the subject do, and that is to use the term "instinct" as an equivalent to "mindless" or "thoughtless". This is evident by the repeated dichotomy of whether a certain behavior is conscious OR instinct. This occurs throughout the book (although he does include a brief comment on page 213 that acknowledges that instinct may have a conscious component). This dichotomy of instinct and conscious behavior is not only false, it is an impediment to the advancement of our understanding of the animal mind. The fact is, emotion IS instinct, and not only is there no mutual exclusivity between instinct and conscious behavior, but it is through emotions (instinct) that conscious behavior is motivated. The feeling of fear is instinct, the object of fear is part innate and part learned, and the feeling of fear motivates the individual to consciously opt for a certain course of action. To draw a line between conscious behavior and instinct forces a choice for any specific animal behavior to be on one side or the other, when in fact the evidence is strong for many animal behaviors (like human behaviors) to be BOTH conscious and instinct.

The above-mentioned faults do not outweigh the positive attributes of the book. I recommend it strongly and commend the author on a valuable contribution to the literature on the animal mind.

Frank McMillan, DVM

Rating:
Summary: Outside the Animal Mind: Suppositions of a casual observer
Review: George Page is a journalist, not a researcher. Unfortunately, that does not save him from taking the posture of one who knows better. He dismisses whole fields of discourse with offhand remarks, for example: "Eventually behaviorism melded with the equally notorious sociobiology as formulated by E. O. Wilson." (p. 29) For an accessible yet scholarly exploration of animal cognition, I recommend Marc Hauser's "Wild Minds." Hauser is a scientist, who specializes in primate cognition. His writing is more lucid, and less affected. He addresses the same questions as Page, with an appreciation for subtle variaritions in the possible interpretations of evidence, which is lacking in Page's presentation. One comparison between the books: Page's bibliography is 3 pages long; Hauser's spans 30.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful book
Review: I just finished this book and I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. The writing was smooth, and went quickly and the topic is fascinating. I often wonder what the future will hold for communication between species and Inside the Animal Mind helps to cement my belief that interspecies communication will be possible someday.

The author makes a very good point in suggesting that our means of measuring animal intelligence are limited...after all we can only test them in ways that we understand. How well would most of us do if we were told to climb a tall tree and make a nest of leaves and, oh yes, raise our young in there as the squirrel does? Or given leave to roam the African plains...without a written map to show us where water sources are,as the elephants do. Would we "pass" those tests? I have my doubts.

Besides, beyond intelligence there is the point that he makes at the end of his book, "but can they suffer?" Yes, I think that is clear and for that reason alone they deserve better treatment than many of them have had at human hands over the centuries. Do unto others...the Golden Rule should not be limited to "other people." Or, as Emily Dickinson wrote, "If I can stop one heart from breaking/ I shall not live in vain/ If I can ease one life the aching/Or cool one pain, Or help a fainting robin/Unto his nest again; I shall not live in vain.

Rating:
Summary: Wonderful book
Review: I just finished this book and I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. The writing was smooth, and went quickly and the topic is fascinating. I often wonder what the future will hold for communication between species and Inside the Animal Mind helps to cement my belief that interspecies communication will be possible someday.

The author makes a very good point in suggesting that our means of measuring animal intelligence are limited...after all we can only test them in ways that we understand. How well would most of us do if we were told to climb a tall tree and make a nest of leaves and, oh yes, raise our young in there as the squirrel does? Or given leave to roam the African plains...without a written map to show us where water sources are,as the elephants do. Would we "pass" those tests? I have my doubts.

Besides, beyond intelligence there is the point that he makes at the end of his book, "but can they suffer?" Yes, I think that is clear and for that reason alone they deserve better treatment than many of them have had at human hands over the centuries. Do unto others...the Golden Rule should not be limited to "other people." Or, as Emily Dickinson wrote, "If I can stop one heart from breaking/ I shall not live in vain/ If I can ease one life the aching/Or cool one pain, Or help a fainting robin/Unto his nest again; I shall not live in vain.

Rating:
Summary: The Title Says It All
Review: In one book, George Page has answered just about every conceivable question about the likenesses and differences between us human beings and all the other creatures with whom we share our lives and this planet.

Except one, which has been posed for centuries: Do "animals" have a soul?

Isaiah and Revelation mention bears and lambs and lions and those pale, white, red, and black horses. "The only thing there that's been made by man, are the scars in the hands of Jesus", so for me the answer to THAT question would have to be YES.