Does Your Pet Seem Almost Human? It May Be A Clever Response To Loneliness

New research at the University of Chicago finds evidence for a clever way that people manage to alleviate the pain of loneliness: They create people in their surroundings to keep them company.

"Biological reproduction is not a very efficient way to alleviate one's loneliness, but you can make up people when you're motivated to do so," said Nicholas Epley, Assistant Professor of Behavioral Science at the University of Chicago's Graduate School of Business. "When people lack a sense of connection with other people, they are more likely to see their pets, gadgets or gods as human-like."

Social scientists call this tendency "anthropomorphism." As a research topic, the phenomenon carries important therapeutic and societal implications, Epley said.

The behaviors they describe in the paper* are not limited to the lonely. Nevertheless, they are well-known to casual observers, from the stereotype of the woman who lives alone surrounded by her menagerie of cats, to the movie portrayal of a tropical island castaway.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080118125835.htm

I only have TWO fur children..That means I am only a slightly NEUROTIC cat woman....:D

(Yes, this paper is valid..I am a bit of a loner these days and my cats are better company than some family, er people I know)

I think what I like most about them is that they AREN'T human. They are much nicer than that.

:)

...from the Department of Obvious Studies at Selfevident U. Next they'll be telling us that beer gets us drunk and that electricity tastes bad.

Cats are real. Not imaginary. I have real cats, not imaginary people living with me. And my aunt is real too. She's been conversing with me all day long about checking the mail (on Sunday because I didn't on Saturday) and other "Honey, do" list things she wants me to do. I'm not crazy. See? :crazy:

Everyone knows that pets are people, too!

Obviously written by someone who never had a pet.

I think most people are dogs, for example.

I know people who have five or six dogs, but because I have three cats, I've been called a "crazy cat woman". I just don't get it.

the only "crazy cat people" are those six bastids who collect so many animals they are unable to properly care for them

or just typical bubble-headed braindead witlessness that can't admit that their pet is not human, and thus insists on seeing "human behavior" at all possibilities, as though "human behavior" was somehow superior or more intelligent, and that animal behavior is less intelligent.

These same jackasses will also refuse to see how much of human behavior is like animal behavior.

Pisses me off.

Of course some animal behavior is "human like" - some behaviors are distinctly mammalian, and thus fairly universal across mammals.

The worst, of course, are the jackasses who then dress their poor caged/imprisoned pets in stupid fucking cute clothing.

with every word you say right here :hi:

if you look it another way some people could respect animals because they see humans as animals too.. ya see?

I just looked at your journal and it helps me understand all you said to me,
thanks for what you've taught me here :hi:

PERSONAL reminder, of MY gracious enlightening.

oh so the writer thinks gadgets and animals are equal as individuals. That'd explain them arguing that people loving their animals have problems.

I AM crazy this way now, I have more respect for animals than for humans, but the most people-people I know also have pets who they treat as conscious beings.. but that's coo-coo I guess :crazy: :eyes:

No, it does mean that the writer thinks gadgets and animals are equal as individuals - that's a leap of logic that leaves me :wow:

What it means is that lonely people - or human-obsessed people - are more likely to insist that gadgets, animals, or gods are like them.

he stated them together, so calling them alike.
I didn't know this was the fightin' room now :p I guess I shouldn't have quoted from the original article, I am sorry.

No, the writer is not calling them alike. Yes, you quoted - and yes, as I said in the first post, your conclusion from the sentence you quoted defies logic.

The writer is saying that lonely people can see them alike.

Please read what is there; not what you wish were there.

If I say "Rush Limbaugh thinks commies, liberal, democrats, and child molesters are all the same" that doesn't mean that I think they're all the same - it means that Rush Limbaugh thinks they're all the same.

the thread was about animals (.. ) I wouldn't have quoted the article if I'd thought it'd get this kinda talk from someone. (There's a bunch of other people talking about it up there^ too!)


(also- the point you tried to make with the sentence about Rush was a sentence talking about someone else, *I repeated exactly what the person who wrote the article said.

I have been impressed since I came to DU by how insulting people can turn talking to me about animals, it's taught me a lot!)

It is talking about people who will equate their animals, gadgets, and gods.

I don't know understand why you draw the conclusion that the writes of the article believes animals, gadgets, and gods to be the same thing. It is - to me, anyway - abundantly clear that the writer is talking about other people doing that, by quoting the doctor who is talking about other people doing that.

IF i'm misreading, please let me know, because it appears painfully obvious to me that neither the writer nor the doctor being quote by the writer is saying that animals and gadgets are equal things, EXCEPT that in the minds of some people they are.

THE THREAD .. was about animals.

I QUOTED .. The sentence I QUOTED WAS putting them all together, maybe just in some looneys' minds, but there they were.
No one here has talked about people attributing souls to their gadgets.
I did not mean to offend you somehow with my short statement in the beginning.

Argue with me a lot more, it's so important that you settle this and I am learning from you!

Not worth the effort.

getting to understanding with fellow Democrats really isn't worth the effort, if there's one thing I've learned since coming here it's that putting each other down is worth the effort.

that short post I made that started all this had nothing to do with Finnfan, btw.

oh but you won't see this will you ;)

When the other party isn't, then the conversation is not worth continuing. Hence, I bailed.

He shrugged and made a blasphemous gesture involving his tail, his sacroiliac, and his right paw that I won't give the dignity of repeating here.

:hi:

:hi:

It's sorely needed :hi:

:evilgrin:

Any takers?

:evilgrin:

but earlier today, while I was watching something on my computer I thought to myself "It sure would be nice to have a warm cat on my lap" and with that, my cat's head popped up and he came over and jumped on my lap and went back to sleep.

It was nice. Women are still better.

Flowers, animals, the elements...

When eating an orange, Buddhists teach that one should first hold it in the hand, sensing the color, the weight, the texture, the shape, the aroma...and visualize the orange on the tree. Then visualize the tree AND the orange on the tree. Then to be aware simultaneously of all aspects of the orange, the orange on the tree, the tree itself, the tree in the ground, the air moving around the tree and the tree's intake/output; the water in the air and ground, the sunlight feeding the tree and the sunlight and the sun itself; the animals and insects who make it their home, and all aspects of the insects and animals; the farmer who removes the orange, the act of removing the orange, the process of packaging the orange and moving it to the market; the people who do so, and what they do and how they live; the orange in the market, your going there and seeing it and selecting it, bringing it home and placing it where you will later come and get it when you wish to eat it.

The taste as the liquid spreads from your teeth over your tongue and gums, into your throat. The texture of the pulp. And to be aware of everything above and more as you know the entire experience of the orange, continuously, while eating it. All the way through.

Only then, it is said, can you eat an orange. And I'm simplifying. I haven't touched upon the gratitude one should feel for all of the things involved, which you should also cultivate as you eat.

Now imagine being aware of an animal, much less one of the higher mammals. Now, a person.

This is the difference between being part of things and experiencing joy...and all other experiences.

http://www.amazon.com/Path-Emancipation-21-Day-Mindfulness-Retreat/dp/1888375159/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200876165&sr=8-1

:thumbsup:

I never do that. and here, an hour later, you post this :)

:cry:

it's the psychotic upstairs who needs help.

it is sad. It seems part of why people can't see how a mass extinction on a living breathing planet can effect all the rest of the life, including the Mighty Mighty Humans ;)

thanks.

Does this mean my cat is lonely?

:D

But he's the most wonderful kitty in the whole world. Possibly the universe.

:loveya:

there is a link to an article titled "Rx for a better life? Get a pet and do it now."
My pets have always been family, even when there were other humans living with me. Loving my animals has made me a better person. If people think that makes me a "cat lady" or strange, oh well. :shrug:

people and animals are not the same.

I'd say more, but I need to scratch my ear with my foot for a bit....

I'm still trying to figure out what gadget a person could anthropomorphise.