What do you think?
Rate this book
Wild Minds: What Animals Really Think
Do animals think? Can they count? Do they have emotions? Do they feel anger, frustration, hurt, or sorrow? At last, here is a book that provides authoritative answers to these long-standing questions. Most popular science books t to misrepresent animals, presenting them either as furry little humans or as creatures that cannot feel at all. Marc D. Hauser, an acclaimed scientist in the field of animal cognition, uses insights from evolutionary theory and cognitive science to examine animal thought without such biases or preconceptions. Hauser treats animals neither as machines devoid of feeling nor as extensions of humans, but as independent beings driven by their own complex impulses. In prose that is both elegant and edifying, Hauser describes his groundbreaking research in the field, leading his readers on what David Premack, author of The Mind of an Ape, calls "a masterful tour of the animal mind."
336 pages, Paperback
First published March 9, 2000
11 people are currently reading
506 people want to read
About the author
Marc Hauser
19Ìýbooks43ÌýfollowersMy training is the biological sciences, but with broad interests in human nature, including its evolution. My writings, including academic and trade books, as well as over 200 scientific papers, cover the disciplines of animal behavior, evolutionary biology, neurobiology, cognitive neuroscience, biological anthropology, evolutionary psychology, linguistics, economics, cognitive development, and philosophy. From 1992-2010 I was a professor at Harvard University. From 2010 and ongoing, I am working with at-risk youths, harnessing the discoveries of the mind and brain sciences to both bring new tools to this important are of education and human welfare, and to help ameliorate the lives of these children. I continue to work on scientific papers, teach, and write for the general public.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
February 15, 2017
This book is about how animals think and feel. Marc Hauser writes in his prologue that all animals come with a basic tool kit for understanding their world, including human beings. These tool kits can also be called instincts. The tools in the kit were gained from evolution, where animals had to meet certain challenges that their environment posed as a problem for them to solve.
Chapter one discusses the uses and misuses of single observations. To base one’s theory on a single case is bad science, but if one takes these observations and then devises experiments either in the lab or in the field, they can be very useful. Part one (chapters two through four) presents those tools that all animals, including humans, have. Part two (chapters five through seven) presents the ability of animals to have self knowledge. Hauser determines that only humans have true self knowledge. This is that humans are the only animals to be aware of their thoughts. Part three (chapters eight and nine) presents how animals view others and if any animals, beside humans, have a moral instinct. His verdict here is that only humans act morally, but grants that humans should still act morally towards animals. He does not spell out much of how this should be played out. There is a short epilogue where he concludes that we shall never be able to tell what it “feels� like to be another animal.
Here follows some notes and comments I made while I was reading the book:
Hauser remarks in the prologue about those researchers that think animals mindlessly follows instinct, or are led by their emotions, saying that they �. . . incorrectly conclude[s] that there can be no thought without language . . .� (page xv) I definitely agree with his premise here.¹
He claims, still in the prologue, that: “Emotions prepare all organism for action . . .� (page xviii) I would make the claim that this includes freewill, which I view as an emotion.²
He states: “Language is the mind’s messenger.� (page 25) While he does not conclude that we do not think in language, I make the claim that this is languages only internal role. Its external role is to communicate our thoughts to others.³
In chapter five he discusses mirror studies of animals who have had marks put on their heads. Most animals ignore these mark as if they do not know it is them that they are looking at. Only chimpanzees, some other primates, elephants, and dolphins recognize the marks by touching them. This is supposed to show that they have an awareness of themselves. I do not know if these studies are being interpreted correctly or not, but I feel that the animals that fail this test might have other ways of being aware of themselves, especially when it comes to using parts of themselves such as an animal pawing at something. All animals must have some sense of their bodies, whether or not they have a conscious awareness of them.
There is a very cute drawing of a cat at the beginning of chapter six waiting at a mouse hole with a mallet with a hit and miss tally on the wall. The caption reads “Trial and Error.� (page 114)
He mentions a “theory of mind� as a brain function to deal with others� mental states (I add that we do this with our own mind as well) enabling social animals to navigate their social world. (page 163) This is similar to Daniel Dennett’s “intentional stance� as a way of understanding not only others and animals minds, but inanimate things such as computers too. This capability of developing a theory of mind was an evolutionary development in social animals. How is it, that if we are biologically equipped with this function, that the Churchland’s argue against it in their philosophy of mind called eliminative materialism? They and other philosophers like to call a theory of mind “folk psychology�; the Churchland’s in a pejorative way.
He states: “Without a doubt, our thoughts are different, and language has contributed to this difference, though I am not convinced we know exactly how. I am also not claiming that animals lack the machinery to express certain aspects of their feelings and thoughts. Rather, they are severely handicapped, especially when it comes to communicating about details of their social relationships.� (page 209) I agree with the gist of this quote. I have a hunch that the reason he is not sure how language contributes to thought is that we do not actually think in language. Language is a translation of our thoughts in which we communicate with ourselves and others.¹, ³
He writes: “Rational thought depends on the ability to evaluate one’s options, assign emotional weight to each, and then inhibit or reject one or more alternatives in favor of another.� (page 228) He cites Antonio Damasio’s work on the close relationship of our thoughts and feelings in connection with this.
On page 236 and following pages he talks about reciprocal altruism. One thing this theory does not explain is the saving of a life by giving up one’s own life. This is mainly a human phenomenon. By such actions there will be no certainty of reciprocation.
He asks if “other animals have free will?� (page 250) How do we even know that we have free will? We feel that we do. And, I make the claim that we feel it because that is actually what free will is � an emotion.²
In explaining why animals have no moral emotions like humans he states: “The reason underlying my claim is that I don’t believe animals have self-awareness, a sense of self that relies on a richly textured set of beliefs and desires. To experience the moral emotions one must have self-awareness.� Self-awareness, according to him, requires language. I would tend to agree here if by self-awareness it is meant that we are aware of our thoughts.³
I found the book to be okay. While I pretty much liked his theorizing, and while it is necessary to show support for your ideas, I find most animal studies to be on the boring side. Hauser does write clearly and his ideas were easy to digest. I find his general outlook on animal thinking and feeling to be plausible. If animals did not do these things, it would be surprising because their brains, while missing the size and some structures of human brains, are otherwise similar. I also feel that evolutionary explanations have to be handled with care. While seemingly explaining how animal brains function to help animals navigate in their world, it is necessary to know the actual surroundings of the animals, which requires extra explanation. As I said in my comment section I have come to think that language is necessary to be aware of ones thoughts (feelings I am less sure of). It is like language functions as a sensing organ for thought.
I could recommend this book for those people who are interested in taking a look at the thought and feeling domains of animals from a scientific point of view, meaning explanations that are based on experimental work, whether in the field or in the lab. If you are looking for a book that explains animal thinking and feeling by anecdotal evidence alone like some popular animal books you might find yourself being disappointed.
¹ For some of my thoughts on animal thought see my blog “Does Baxter Compute?� at .
² For how I see freewill as an emotion see my blog “Why Are People Afraid of Their Brain?� at .
³ For more on my thoughts on how I think that we do not think in language see my blog “What Do You Mean?� at .
Chapter one discusses the uses and misuses of single observations. To base one’s theory on a single case is bad science, but if one takes these observations and then devises experiments either in the lab or in the field, they can be very useful. Part one (chapters two through four) presents those tools that all animals, including humans, have. Part two (chapters five through seven) presents the ability of animals to have self knowledge. Hauser determines that only humans have true self knowledge. This is that humans are the only animals to be aware of their thoughts. Part three (chapters eight and nine) presents how animals view others and if any animals, beside humans, have a moral instinct. His verdict here is that only humans act morally, but grants that humans should still act morally towards animals. He does not spell out much of how this should be played out. There is a short epilogue where he concludes that we shall never be able to tell what it “feels� like to be another animal.
Here follows some notes and comments I made while I was reading the book:
Hauser remarks in the prologue about those researchers that think animals mindlessly follows instinct, or are led by their emotions, saying that they �. . . incorrectly conclude[s] that there can be no thought without language . . .� (page xv) I definitely agree with his premise here.¹
He claims, still in the prologue, that: “Emotions prepare all organism for action . . .� (page xviii) I would make the claim that this includes freewill, which I view as an emotion.²
He states: “Language is the mind’s messenger.� (page 25) While he does not conclude that we do not think in language, I make the claim that this is languages only internal role. Its external role is to communicate our thoughts to others.³
In chapter five he discusses mirror studies of animals who have had marks put on their heads. Most animals ignore these mark as if they do not know it is them that they are looking at. Only chimpanzees, some other primates, elephants, and dolphins recognize the marks by touching them. This is supposed to show that they have an awareness of themselves. I do not know if these studies are being interpreted correctly or not, but I feel that the animals that fail this test might have other ways of being aware of themselves, especially when it comes to using parts of themselves such as an animal pawing at something. All animals must have some sense of their bodies, whether or not they have a conscious awareness of them.
There is a very cute drawing of a cat at the beginning of chapter six waiting at a mouse hole with a mallet with a hit and miss tally on the wall. The caption reads “Trial and Error.� (page 114)
He mentions a “theory of mind� as a brain function to deal with others� mental states (I add that we do this with our own mind as well) enabling social animals to navigate their social world. (page 163) This is similar to Daniel Dennett’s “intentional stance� as a way of understanding not only others and animals minds, but inanimate things such as computers too. This capability of developing a theory of mind was an evolutionary development in social animals. How is it, that if we are biologically equipped with this function, that the Churchland’s argue against it in their philosophy of mind called eliminative materialism? They and other philosophers like to call a theory of mind “folk psychology�; the Churchland’s in a pejorative way.
He states: “Without a doubt, our thoughts are different, and language has contributed to this difference, though I am not convinced we know exactly how. I am also not claiming that animals lack the machinery to express certain aspects of their feelings and thoughts. Rather, they are severely handicapped, especially when it comes to communicating about details of their social relationships.� (page 209) I agree with the gist of this quote. I have a hunch that the reason he is not sure how language contributes to thought is that we do not actually think in language. Language is a translation of our thoughts in which we communicate with ourselves and others.¹, ³
He writes: “Rational thought depends on the ability to evaluate one’s options, assign emotional weight to each, and then inhibit or reject one or more alternatives in favor of another.� (page 228) He cites Antonio Damasio’s work on the close relationship of our thoughts and feelings in connection with this.
On page 236 and following pages he talks about reciprocal altruism. One thing this theory does not explain is the saving of a life by giving up one’s own life. This is mainly a human phenomenon. By such actions there will be no certainty of reciprocation.
He asks if “other animals have free will?� (page 250) How do we even know that we have free will? We feel that we do. And, I make the claim that we feel it because that is actually what free will is � an emotion.²
In explaining why animals have no moral emotions like humans he states: “The reason underlying my claim is that I don’t believe animals have self-awareness, a sense of self that relies on a richly textured set of beliefs and desires. To experience the moral emotions one must have self-awareness.� Self-awareness, according to him, requires language. I would tend to agree here if by self-awareness it is meant that we are aware of our thoughts.³
I found the book to be okay. While I pretty much liked his theorizing, and while it is necessary to show support for your ideas, I find most animal studies to be on the boring side. Hauser does write clearly and his ideas were easy to digest. I find his general outlook on animal thinking and feeling to be plausible. If animals did not do these things, it would be surprising because their brains, while missing the size and some structures of human brains, are otherwise similar. I also feel that evolutionary explanations have to be handled with care. While seemingly explaining how animal brains function to help animals navigate in their world, it is necessary to know the actual surroundings of the animals, which requires extra explanation. As I said in my comment section I have come to think that language is necessary to be aware of ones thoughts (feelings I am less sure of). It is like language functions as a sensing organ for thought.
I could recommend this book for those people who are interested in taking a look at the thought and feeling domains of animals from a scientific point of view, meaning explanations that are based on experimental work, whether in the field or in the lab. If you are looking for a book that explains animal thinking and feeling by anecdotal evidence alone like some popular animal books you might find yourself being disappointed.
¹ For some of my thoughts on animal thought see my blog “Does Baxter Compute?� at .
² For how I see freewill as an emotion see my blog “Why Are People Afraid of Their Brain?� at .
³ For more on my thoughts on how I think that we do not think in language see my blog “What Do You Mean?� at .
November 27, 2016
Marc Hauser examines cognitive abilities of animals and their moral sense. He claims that some of the tools for thinking are universal, shared by all animals and humans. The universal toolkit provides animals with a basic capacity to recognize objects, count and navigate. According to Hauser, animals are not equipped with language, self awareness, higher emotions or moral instincts. Whereas by and large I find his conclusions sound, I am somewhat disappointed by the narrowness of the interpretation of the results of his experiments.
The book does not answer the question it poses: What Do Animals Really Think? either, or rather answers it with certainty that we will never know�
It does seem to be very difficult to make firm conclusions about what's going on in animal minds, but I think Hauser tries to stay very cautious, too cautious in fact. He is probably guilty more of anthropocentrism than anthropomorphism. Since an animal is not a human, and it does have self awareness and highly developed self reflection ability and moral sense, it cannot experience ‘higher emotions�. Consequently, he denies animals the ability to deceive, feelings of shame, guilt, embarrassment, grief over other deceased members of their group (as observed in elephant herds or monkey mother-child relationships), and empathy for the suffering of others (as in experiments of rats hurting other rats). I find such reasoning suspect since animals most probably have rudimentary precursor emotions of that kind, more or less developed in different species, as nothing comes out of the blue.
Hauser seems to be so hung up on measurable experiment results and so terrified of anthropomorphizing animals that he forgets that we are animals as well, and some of the moral sense (empathy, etc) must be common to both other animals and humans, the more so, the higher they are on the evolutionary ladder.
Anyway, there are scientists who do not entirely agree with him. It was interesting to read about it, but I think I would like to read a more current/ different views on the subject as well.
2.5/5
The book does not answer the question it poses: What Do Animals Really Think? either, or rather answers it with certainty that we will never know�
It does seem to be very difficult to make firm conclusions about what's going on in animal minds, but I think Hauser tries to stay very cautious, too cautious in fact. He is probably guilty more of anthropocentrism than anthropomorphism. Since an animal is not a human, and it does have self awareness and highly developed self reflection ability and moral sense, it cannot experience ‘higher emotions�. Consequently, he denies animals the ability to deceive, feelings of shame, guilt, embarrassment, grief over other deceased members of their group (as observed in elephant herds or monkey mother-child relationships), and empathy for the suffering of others (as in experiments of rats hurting other rats). I find such reasoning suspect since animals most probably have rudimentary precursor emotions of that kind, more or less developed in different species, as nothing comes out of the blue.
Hauser seems to be so hung up on measurable experiment results and so terrified of anthropomorphizing animals that he forgets that we are animals as well, and some of the moral sense (empathy, etc) must be common to both other animals and humans, the more so, the higher they are on the evolutionary ladder.
Anyway, there are scientists who do not entirely agree with him. It was interesting to read about it, but I think I would like to read a more current/ different views on the subject as well.
2.5/5
March 28, 2009
This book embodies everything that I loathe about cognitive science, a field that I would adore if people were smarter and technology were at a point where we could study the brain in a more meaningful way. As it stands, we're torn between the meticulous logic of the observations we can do and grand assumptions about the workings of the whole, with a whole mess of half-assed conjecture and pseudoscience in between. I want to be a cognitive scientist 200 years from now, but in the present the field just makes me want to cry. We live in the dark ages when it comes to understanding of the brain. Admit it. We just think we're civilized because we drive around in cars, but we've only been to the moon once, and thinking we're cool ain't gonna cut it.
Also, I almost forgot to mention the horrible, creepy, completely uninformative drawings found throughout this book. One has a baby, a monkey, a cat, and a pigeon all looking into mirrors with questions marks and the word "WHO?" floating all around them. One has a peacock in sunglasses riding a convertible. They all scare me. Especially the one with a baby driving a car with enormous talking lips on it.
I am never going to finish this book, ever.
Also, I almost forgot to mention the horrible, creepy, completely uninformative drawings found throughout this book. One has a baby, a monkey, a cat, and a pigeon all looking into mirrors with questions marks and the word "WHO?" floating all around them. One has a peacock in sunglasses riding a convertible. They all scare me. Especially the one with a baby driving a car with enormous talking lips on it.
I am never going to finish this book, ever.
February 1, 2025
AN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER A WIDE VARIETY OF COMMON QUESTIONS
Author Mark Hauser wrote in the Prologue to this 2000 book, “We seem to have good intuitions about our own species, but can such intuitions be transferred to other animals? Do out pets really feel anxious, happy, guilty, and sad the way we do, or are their facial and bodily expressions simply good copies of what we do, without the underlying feeling?... When animals communicate, are their minds filled with symbols, or are their grunts, coos, and screams the uncontrollable eruptions of passion? Do animals simply follow rules, or do they know why the rules are created� and why some actions are right and some are wrong? This book answers these questions. But the arguments I will develop are different from those that have been offered to date... Many popular books’� perspective .. neglects the now substantial research on animal cognition, incorrectly concludes that there can be no thought without language, and fails to place the design of animal minds in the context of relevant ecological and social problems.
“Animal minds are wild minds, shaped by a history of environmental pressures. I will show how insights from evolutionary theory and cognitive science have begun to revolutionize our understanding of animal minds. Animals do have thoughts and emotions. To understand WHAT animals think and feel, however, we must look at the environments in which they evolved. All animals are equipped with a set of mental tools for solving ecological and social problems� The universal toolkit provides animals with a basic capacity to recognize objects, count, and navigate. Divergence from the universal toolkit occurs when species confront unique ecological or social problems�.
“The argument I have just developed� represents the main thesis of this book. The only way to understand how and what animals think is to evaluate their behavior in light of both universal and specialized toolkits, mechanisms of the mind designed to solve problems. And the only way to evaluate the validity of this approach is to test our intuitions about animal minds with systematic observations and well-controlled experiments� Sometimes, however, the laboratory provides a better environment for testing out intuitions.� (Pg. xiv-xv)
He outlines, “The following series of questions and answers will inform our discussion. *Do animals THINK? Are animals CONSCIOUS? Are some animals more intelligent than others? I think these are unhelpful questions because they are � relying on general concepts that are often defined on the basis of what humans do� *Do animals have emotions? Yes� But when we step away from the core emotions such as anger and fear that all animals are likely to share, we find other emotions such as guilt, embarrassment, and shame that depend critically on a sense of self and others. I will argue that these emotions are perhaps uniquely human� *Do animals communicate? Yes. But each species communication system has unique design features, specialized for transcending information and manipulating behavior� *Are animals guided by instinct? Yes, and so are we� Many of our instincts are evolutionarily ancient, causing us to share a perceptual and conceptual view of the world with many other animals. *Do animals have rules by which they abide, and sometimes break? Yes, and the rules reflect the conditions under which the games of reproduction and survival are played out.� (Pg. xviii-xix)
He observes, “The differences and similarities between species on [certain] tasks are intriguing, but there are interpretive problems. For those species that fail to show evidence of object permanence on reaching tasks� are such animals similar to human infants who show some understanding of object permanence as revealed by their eyes but not in the action of their arms and hands? Furthermore, though animals may reach out for objects placed out of sight, it is unclear how they represent the object in memory� As in studies of human infants, we need other tests to determine how animals represent objects.� (Pg. 30)
He notes, “Many animals travel by referencing the sky. Depending on the scale of the environment, they also use landmarks during their travels, sometimes to find home, and sometimes to figure out the proper departure path. How are such landmarks represented, stored, and accessed during spatial navigation? � one of the more elegant experiments was conducted � using Clark’s nutcrackers... these nutcrackers form a representation of the geometric relationship among landmarks---something like the middle---and use this to find stored food.� (Pg. 73)
He observes, “Whan a mature bird sings and an adult human speaks, the information and rules that underlie these acoustic signals are generally inaccessible, tucked away in a part of the brain that is difficult to access, no less retrieve and explain to a naïve individual. Both bird and baby therefore travel the journey to communicative competence with little explicit tutoring� both bird and baby are equipped at birth with a general set of principles that cause them to attend to the sounds that are relevant to their species� repertoire.� (Pg. 117)
He states, “The general consensus in the field seems to be that primates lack beliefs, desires, and intentions---they lack a theory of mind. We must be cautious about this conclusion, however, given the relatively thin set of findings, weak methods, and incomplete sampling of species and individuals within a species. Even if we accept this caveat, however, some scientists argue that acquiring a theory of mind, either in development or over the course of evolution, requires language. Adherents to this view would not expect any primate to have a theory of mind. To test this idea, we must determine the similarities and differences between human language and other forms of animal communication; we must also assess whether animals have the mental capacity to learn a human language and if so, how this mental tool might alter their thoughts.� (Pg. 171-172)
He notes, “Our current understanding of animal communication suggests that human words and animal calls are based on quite different mental tools. Animal calls generally indicate things in the here and now. Human words indicate things in the here and now, but also in the distant past and well into the future. When we observe an animal’s behavior, and especially the objects and events it encounters, we can predict with a high degree of certainty which calls it will produce. When we watch a human’s behavior, our ability to predict his or her words is relatively poor� These differences make it difficult for scientists to trace the evolutionary origins of human words back to an animal precursor. Rather, a majority of scientists conclude that words, as we know them today, originally [came from] somewhere along the human branch of the evolutionary tree.� (Pg. 194)
He suggests, “A male duck forces himself sexually on a female in an act that would be considered rape if it occurred between a man and a woman. Yet how can we know how the female duck feels? Does she feel wronged?... Or does she feel that this is just another day in the life of a female duck? When hyenas work as a team to obtain meat� Do they have a sense of fairness? Do they enter the hunt with an understanding that each hyena has a role to play and is responsible for a specific result? To answer these questions, I take an admittedly reductionistic approach�. Instead of asking whether animals are moral, I ask such questions as, Do animals have a sense of fairness? Do they understand the difference between right and wrong?... Do they empathize, feel guilt and shame?... Do they punish those who violate social rules? These questions are not easy to answer. They do, however, force us to focus on significant components of morality� that ultimately guide moral action. This provides a richer understanding of how the moral mind evolved, and the extent to which other animals share in a moral fabric.� (Pg. 212)
He says, “Many animals, including human infants, have difficulty solving problems because they lack the capacity to inhibit powerful response tendencies or biases. Some problems are difficult to solve because along the path to finding a solution one must suppress motivationally powerful drives that derail the problem-solving process� Other problems are difficult because the most obvious or rational response represents an inappropriate solution, whereas an apparently irrational response is correct. Here, the failure lies in an inability to incorporate new empirical evidence into a new theoretical perspective of the world.� (Pg. 231-232)
He asserts, “Even if the capacity to punish has not evolved in animals, there must be a mechanism to cope with the consequences of aggressive interactions. Highly social species must coexist in the face of fights and squabbles. Such coexistence requires a system to reduce tensions and the day-to-day stresses of living with an enemy or rival� making up or reconciling served the function of reducing tensions and allowing animals to get back to the business of life…� (Pg. 247-248)
He concludes, “The only way to understand what animals think and feel is to explore how their minds have been designed to solve specific social and ecological problems. Some problems are common to all animals� All animals can navigate by � us[ing] a set of core principles to recognize objects and enumerate them. Specializations beyond these universal traits arise when unique problems emerge that demand unique solutions� Specializations do not make one species ‘smarter� than the other, but they do make each species wonderfully different from the others. If the notion of intelligence has any role to play in the study of animal minds, it is in terms of how each species solves the problem of making a living. In the struggle to survive, nature is the only arbiter of intelligence� We share the planet with thinking animals� Although the human mind leaves a characteristically different imprint on the planet, we are certainly not alone in this process.� (Pg. 256-257)
This book will be keen interest those studying such questions of animal intelligence, etc.
Author Mark Hauser wrote in the Prologue to this 2000 book, “We seem to have good intuitions about our own species, but can such intuitions be transferred to other animals? Do out pets really feel anxious, happy, guilty, and sad the way we do, or are their facial and bodily expressions simply good copies of what we do, without the underlying feeling?... When animals communicate, are their minds filled with symbols, or are their grunts, coos, and screams the uncontrollable eruptions of passion? Do animals simply follow rules, or do they know why the rules are created� and why some actions are right and some are wrong? This book answers these questions. But the arguments I will develop are different from those that have been offered to date... Many popular books’� perspective .. neglects the now substantial research on animal cognition, incorrectly concludes that there can be no thought without language, and fails to place the design of animal minds in the context of relevant ecological and social problems.
“Animal minds are wild minds, shaped by a history of environmental pressures. I will show how insights from evolutionary theory and cognitive science have begun to revolutionize our understanding of animal minds. Animals do have thoughts and emotions. To understand WHAT animals think and feel, however, we must look at the environments in which they evolved. All animals are equipped with a set of mental tools for solving ecological and social problems� The universal toolkit provides animals with a basic capacity to recognize objects, count, and navigate. Divergence from the universal toolkit occurs when species confront unique ecological or social problems�.
“The argument I have just developed� represents the main thesis of this book. The only way to understand how and what animals think is to evaluate their behavior in light of both universal and specialized toolkits, mechanisms of the mind designed to solve problems. And the only way to evaluate the validity of this approach is to test our intuitions about animal minds with systematic observations and well-controlled experiments� Sometimes, however, the laboratory provides a better environment for testing out intuitions.� (Pg. xiv-xv)
He outlines, “The following series of questions and answers will inform our discussion. *Do animals THINK? Are animals CONSCIOUS? Are some animals more intelligent than others? I think these are unhelpful questions because they are � relying on general concepts that are often defined on the basis of what humans do� *Do animals have emotions? Yes� But when we step away from the core emotions such as anger and fear that all animals are likely to share, we find other emotions such as guilt, embarrassment, and shame that depend critically on a sense of self and others. I will argue that these emotions are perhaps uniquely human� *Do animals communicate? Yes. But each species communication system has unique design features, specialized for transcending information and manipulating behavior� *Are animals guided by instinct? Yes, and so are we� Many of our instincts are evolutionarily ancient, causing us to share a perceptual and conceptual view of the world with many other animals. *Do animals have rules by which they abide, and sometimes break? Yes, and the rules reflect the conditions under which the games of reproduction and survival are played out.� (Pg. xviii-xix)
He observes, “The differences and similarities between species on [certain] tasks are intriguing, but there are interpretive problems. For those species that fail to show evidence of object permanence on reaching tasks� are such animals similar to human infants who show some understanding of object permanence as revealed by their eyes but not in the action of their arms and hands? Furthermore, though animals may reach out for objects placed out of sight, it is unclear how they represent the object in memory� As in studies of human infants, we need other tests to determine how animals represent objects.� (Pg. 30)
He notes, “Many animals travel by referencing the sky. Depending on the scale of the environment, they also use landmarks during their travels, sometimes to find home, and sometimes to figure out the proper departure path. How are such landmarks represented, stored, and accessed during spatial navigation? � one of the more elegant experiments was conducted � using Clark’s nutcrackers... these nutcrackers form a representation of the geometric relationship among landmarks---something like the middle---and use this to find stored food.� (Pg. 73)
He observes, “Whan a mature bird sings and an adult human speaks, the information and rules that underlie these acoustic signals are generally inaccessible, tucked away in a part of the brain that is difficult to access, no less retrieve and explain to a naïve individual. Both bird and baby therefore travel the journey to communicative competence with little explicit tutoring� both bird and baby are equipped at birth with a general set of principles that cause them to attend to the sounds that are relevant to their species� repertoire.� (Pg. 117)
He states, “The general consensus in the field seems to be that primates lack beliefs, desires, and intentions---they lack a theory of mind. We must be cautious about this conclusion, however, given the relatively thin set of findings, weak methods, and incomplete sampling of species and individuals within a species. Even if we accept this caveat, however, some scientists argue that acquiring a theory of mind, either in development or over the course of evolution, requires language. Adherents to this view would not expect any primate to have a theory of mind. To test this idea, we must determine the similarities and differences between human language and other forms of animal communication; we must also assess whether animals have the mental capacity to learn a human language and if so, how this mental tool might alter their thoughts.� (Pg. 171-172)
He notes, “Our current understanding of animal communication suggests that human words and animal calls are based on quite different mental tools. Animal calls generally indicate things in the here and now. Human words indicate things in the here and now, but also in the distant past and well into the future. When we observe an animal’s behavior, and especially the objects and events it encounters, we can predict with a high degree of certainty which calls it will produce. When we watch a human’s behavior, our ability to predict his or her words is relatively poor� These differences make it difficult for scientists to trace the evolutionary origins of human words back to an animal precursor. Rather, a majority of scientists conclude that words, as we know them today, originally [came from] somewhere along the human branch of the evolutionary tree.� (Pg. 194)
He suggests, “A male duck forces himself sexually on a female in an act that would be considered rape if it occurred between a man and a woman. Yet how can we know how the female duck feels? Does she feel wronged?... Or does she feel that this is just another day in the life of a female duck? When hyenas work as a team to obtain meat� Do they have a sense of fairness? Do they enter the hunt with an understanding that each hyena has a role to play and is responsible for a specific result? To answer these questions, I take an admittedly reductionistic approach�. Instead of asking whether animals are moral, I ask such questions as, Do animals have a sense of fairness? Do they understand the difference between right and wrong?... Do they empathize, feel guilt and shame?... Do they punish those who violate social rules? These questions are not easy to answer. They do, however, force us to focus on significant components of morality� that ultimately guide moral action. This provides a richer understanding of how the moral mind evolved, and the extent to which other animals share in a moral fabric.� (Pg. 212)
He says, “Many animals, including human infants, have difficulty solving problems because they lack the capacity to inhibit powerful response tendencies or biases. Some problems are difficult to solve because along the path to finding a solution one must suppress motivationally powerful drives that derail the problem-solving process� Other problems are difficult because the most obvious or rational response represents an inappropriate solution, whereas an apparently irrational response is correct. Here, the failure lies in an inability to incorporate new empirical evidence into a new theoretical perspective of the world.� (Pg. 231-232)
He asserts, “Even if the capacity to punish has not evolved in animals, there must be a mechanism to cope with the consequences of aggressive interactions. Highly social species must coexist in the face of fights and squabbles. Such coexistence requires a system to reduce tensions and the day-to-day stresses of living with an enemy or rival� making up or reconciling served the function of reducing tensions and allowing animals to get back to the business of life…� (Pg. 247-248)
He concludes, “The only way to understand what animals think and feel is to explore how their minds have been designed to solve specific social and ecological problems. Some problems are common to all animals� All animals can navigate by � us[ing] a set of core principles to recognize objects and enumerate them. Specializations beyond these universal traits arise when unique problems emerge that demand unique solutions� Specializations do not make one species ‘smarter� than the other, but they do make each species wonderfully different from the others. If the notion of intelligence has any role to play in the study of animal minds, it is in terms of how each species solves the problem of making a living. In the struggle to survive, nature is the only arbiter of intelligence� We share the planet with thinking animals� Although the human mind leaves a characteristically different imprint on the planet, we are certainly not alone in this process.� (Pg. 256-257)
This book will be keen interest those studying such questions of animal intelligence, etc.
December 9, 2011
Everyone should read this book. The low rating is due to having previously encountered much of the information making it a less engaging read than I would have liked. Also, there were sections that could have been explained in a clearer manner.
Contrary to the title the main focus of the text is looking at what we have learned about animal thought processes over the years and the experimental methodology that was involved in such investigations. Far from assuming we know much about animal minds Hauser makes it very clear that our understanding of cognitive processed of animals is limited in a variety of ways. Key to this is our limited methodologies and experimental design, the latter of which is discussed readily in the text. Hauser also makes a point of criticising those that assume they are able to interpret animal thoughts based on anecdotal evidence despite there being various alternative and equally valid interpretations. Nowhere is this more prevalent than among pet owners and avid animal lovers. Ultimately the book concludes that understanding animal minds needs to be a subjective endeavour and even then we will never truly know what it is like to be that dog, bee, monkey, dolphin, rat, etc.
Contrary to the title the main focus of the text is looking at what we have learned about animal thought processes over the years and the experimental methodology that was involved in such investigations. Far from assuming we know much about animal minds Hauser makes it very clear that our understanding of cognitive processed of animals is limited in a variety of ways. Key to this is our limited methodologies and experimental design, the latter of which is discussed readily in the text. Hauser also makes a point of criticising those that assume they are able to interpret animal thoughts based on anecdotal evidence despite there being various alternative and equally valid interpretations. Nowhere is this more prevalent than among pet owners and avid animal lovers. Ultimately the book concludes that understanding animal minds needs to be a subjective endeavour and even then we will never truly know what it is like to be that dog, bee, monkey, dolphin, rat, etc.
November 6, 2010
Surprise, surprise, this book will not tell you what animals really think. In fact, it won't tell you much of anything except that the author is so arrogant that only he could possible find the right middle line in understanding animal cognition. Mostly, I didn't like this book because I gained nothing from it and it was horribly written. I'm surprised I finished it. He does bring up some experiments, but they are mostly ones I've heard of in other places and I don't feel like he explained them well, and often left out important information. Further, he uses them to explain things that they really don't explain. He is full of questions, but they are not original questions. And mostly, it is very, very, very boring. This is a subject I am interested in, directly related to my field, and I still found it boring. And pretty unorganized. And boring.
BTW, for some shameless self-promotion, if you like reading about animals, check out my blog on wildlife at
BTW, for some shameless self-promotion, if you like reading about animals, check out my blog on wildlife at
November 22, 2010
Hauser (Harvard Biology prof) is trying to determine whether or not various animals have a "theory of mind" and thus can think morally. He suspects they don't and can't, but is open to further experiments by himself and others. He thinks that part of the problem is so-called Kuhnian perserverance (named after a well-know philosopher who has discussed paradigm shifts in science - we will be reading his book in our science group at the end of 2011;-), in which animals, like humans, "have the greatest difficulty solving those problems that require a theoretical shift away from core principles."
November 30, 2024
“This is no pet quackery. There is a growing body of work indicating that many of the behavioral problems that dogs experience can be treated with the same type of pharmacological drugs that work on human psychiatric disorders. In particular, some dogs manifest behavioral symptoms indicative of bipolar disorder, depression, separation anxiety, dominance aggression, rage, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. In some cases, the problems appear to be breed-specific: anxiety-prone Afghans, springer spaniels with rage syndrome.�
May 29, 2019
This book sat on my shelf for a few years, so I don't know what the current scientific stance is on this, or what the most current experiments show. However Hauser makes convincing arguments for the "mental toolkits" that various animals carry, and points out why most observations/experiments are incomplete. Multiple interpretations are possible and we can't assume much about what animals think based on our own anthropocentric viewpoint. Interesting read.
November 15, 2018
Finding it really difficult to get myself past the first few pages. The author is an arrogant man with a point to prove. Lists of people and books he feels the need to call out and dismiss as if they all got better marks in their college class, who's the daddy now eh, Ive got a book! mwahahaha. No need for this at all. Can't keep reading, making me want to gouge my own eyes out.
November 27, 2017
Probably a bit outdated by now. I like the methodology and the reasoning about the methods employed
July 28, 2022
I don’t know if it was just the author or the subject matter but I jsut found this incomprehensible. Cognitive science is such a cluster of contradictions. Species A and species C do one thing but species B does something different and is more closely related to species A. That kind of dynamic goes through the entire book and it’s just difficult to gain any large meaning or lessons. Everything I thought I was going to get from this book I got from Immense World by Ed Young.
June 24, 2013
How disappointing! I couldn't finish this book. This 'scientist' was so biased and one sided about everything animal I doubt he would recognize true emotion in an animal if it stared him in the face. I had worked in close contact with animals for 10 years and also have had the pleasure of living with many four legged companions in my 32 years. I have witnessed many dogs cry from pain, and not the wimpering, but actual tears. I have seen a guinea pig grunt with pure pleasure when a cat played with him. I have seen a toddler fall on the fresh incision site of a dog and the dog restrained himself from biting that toddler. I am not a 'scientist' in the traditional sense, but I was a Veterinary Technician for 10 years and am now a nurse. Science can't explain everything. But what I KNOW is that animals have emotions, they feel gratitude, they have a conscience (some more than others). They are not merely predators or prey, they are beings as individual as you and I.
August 17, 2010
Marc Hauser's acutely delineated breakdown of the tools of perception - as well as his use of dozens of individual experiments and observations, by teams he participated with and those made by others - builds an impressive report on what we know about animal psychology, and also provides at least as many questions for where research needs to go from here. Hauser is a capable writer and does a good job of synthesizing the pure research with the philosophical background and ramifications of it. However, as a writer, he's no Richard Dawkins or E.O. Wilson; his prose is sometimes laborious and he often skimps on details of how experiments he describes were designed, leaving the reader to make up the difference. Even a simple diagram in many of these places would have helped a good deal. There is a lot of great information in this book, but it is not a beautiful read.
January 28, 2014
I love Hauser's scientific take on animal intelligence studies. He doesn't seem to fall either into the trap of anthropomorphism through anecdote or excessive scepticism, instead focussing on what studies have told us about the specific intellectual and emotional capacities of animals. He considers potential alternative explanations of observed data and explores what would be necessary to choose between these. Although I found it a little dry at times, I thought this was a great overview of the current work (as of 2001) on animal intelligence. Would love to see an updated version looking at the work done since.
December 13, 2011
By describing many experiments on animals and children, Marc Hauser takes us on a journey through the animal (and child) mind. The strong point is that the experiments are described briefly and the questions answered and raised by the experiment are described in more detail. One experiment leads to the next getting you more and more involved in the subject.
In the end, it leaves you with more questions than answers. But that's the way I like it.
In the end, it leaves you with more questions than answers. But that's the way I like it.
March 29, 2013
Good and thought-provoking, but possibly not a book for the casual reader. I had to work to recall some of the terminology he uses that I (probably) learned back as an undergrad. More philosophical than I was expecting. His analyses are fairly complete, and he's careful to state what he/the field doesn't yet know and what is based on just a few experiments that haven't been replicated. Glad I read it, but I probably won't read it again.
October 9, 2012
Its pretty interesting but all of the evolution trash talk wasn't necessary. The things people have learned about how animals think are not affected in the least by whether or not they believe those animals developed from other animals. Still, a very interesting book. I enjoyed it.
March 25, 2011
I found this extremely dense reading, but I guess this isn't my field. The author used excellent examples to explain his ideas.
Read
August 2, 2011Interesting read though not nearly as engaging as Moussaieff Masson
May 9, 2012
A good book, covers several topics on animal behaviour and the minds of animals. For example if they have self awareness. Very interesting!
January 31, 2016
Didn't like it, quit.
Want to read
November 28, 2008Need to get
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.