Speaker 1: You're listening to Why we do what we do. Welcome
Speaker 1: to Why we do what we do Mini. I am
Speaker 1: your host, Abraham, I'm your oh, Shane. We are a
Speaker 1: psychology podcast. We talk about the things that humans and
Speaker 1: non human animals do, and sometimes we do both, which
Speaker 1: is what we're taking on today. But this is a
Speaker 1: mini which means that it's short, and we put these
Speaker 1: out on Mondays. Our full length episodes come out on Wednesdays.
Speaker 1: If you are joining us for the first time, then
Speaker 1: welcome Thank you for being here. If you're a returning person,
Speaker 1: then welcome back. We appreciate you hanging around with us.
Speaker 1: Neither way. If you'd like to support us so you
Speaker 1: can join us on Patreon, leave us a rating and
Speaker 1: a review like subscribe, tell a friend. I'll talk more
Speaker 1: about those at the end of this discussion. But we
Speaker 1: kind of have a lot of content, so I want
Speaker 1: to jump in here fairly quickly. But is there anything
Speaker 1: that I missed or you would like to add as
Speaker 1: part of our preamble before we get started, Shane, No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so okay. In the explosion of awareness
Speaker 1: around autism and like neurodiversity more generally, into the zeitgeist.
Speaker 1: Over the last couple of decades or so, discussions abound
Speaker 1: about specify, in this case autism, what it is, why
Speaker 1: it is, how it is, where it is a veritable
Speaker 1: cornucopia of wh questions, and along with that comes wildly
Speaker 1: over the top misconceptions and conspiracies. And sure, cool, glad
Speaker 1: that that happened.
Speaker 2: I guess yeah, you know, it's that wonderful phenomenon where
Speaker 2: people over generalize. Right now, So today we are going
Speaker 2: to explore the extent to which animals can have autism,
Speaker 2: what this would mean, and how we would know. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so we are simply going to apply that lens and
Speaker 2: say what does it look like for autism in animals,
Speaker 2: non human animals specifically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the whole idea this has become so widely
Speaker 1: known that now we're thinking, well, maybe animals of autism
Speaker 1: and humans have a long history of superimposing our experiences
Speaker 1: of the world onto animate and even inanimate objects throughout history.
Speaker 1: It's understandable in a sense that as we only have
Speaker 1: our experiences to draw from, we don't necessarily consider that
Speaker 1: these might not be universal across all living things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we tend to assume that whatever is going
Speaker 2: on for all other things in the universe, it must
Speaker 2: be analogous to our own behaviors and emotions in some
Speaker 2: fundamental way. So this seems like a pretty audacious and
Speaker 2: arrogant position to take, but it seems fairly common. We
Speaker 2: are the center of the universe of course, as humans,
Speaker 2: So why wouldn't that experience apply to everything in everyone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like, I know what it's like to have
Speaker 1: the experiences I have. I am a human, and I
Speaker 1: don't I'm not creative enough to think that yours might
Speaker 1: be different. So yours must be similar to mine in
Speaker 1: some particular way, and I'm just going to assume that
Speaker 1: it is. Yeah, And among humans, I think we have
Speaker 1: thinking about this awareness we have around things like neurodiversity.
Speaker 1: We've gotten increasingly better at identifying and providing supports to
Speaker 1: those of us who struggle with things that maybe feel
Speaker 1: natural or normal to others of us, where sometimes language
Speaker 1: develops a little bit different rate or in a different way,
Speaker 1: or we don't necessarily find the same reinforcers in social
Speaker 1: engagements and like the same motivation and desire to have
Speaker 1: those And we have elected to call the way that
Speaker 1: people show up differently in the world neuro divergent, which
Speaker 1: of course implies that there is some normal from which
Speaker 1: neurology can diverge. But anyway, that is a thing that
Speaker 1: we've done, and it does help, like, it does help
Speaker 1: provide supports that may be needed to people who might
Speaker 1: need them. So for now, I think it's pragmatic to
Speaker 1: identify that there is maybe a thing called neurodivergence because
Speaker 1: there are some people who need more supports than others
Speaker 1: in certain areas. But that's about as much as I'm
Speaker 1: willing to give that, I think.
Speaker 2: Okay, Now, there has been an increased effort in both
Speaker 2: research and in culture to further cement our anthropomorphizing of
Speaker 2: animals by mapping the labels we have assigned to arbitrary
Speaker 2: taxonomies of behavior onto animal behaviors. So for some reason,
Speaker 2: we want animals to have the same things that we do.
Speaker 2: And that is what we're saying is professional and lay
Speaker 2: people are trying to make the interpretation of human behavior
Speaker 2: officially the same interpretation of animal behavior, Like they're finding
Speaker 2: things like diagnoses. Officially, yeah, officially, they are trying to
Speaker 2: superimpose the experience of humans onto animals, and it doesn't
Speaker 2: quite work like.
Speaker 1: That, as we'll see, And I want to clarify my
Speaker 1: point in saying that, Like, how the point I'm trying
Speaker 1: to make, I think with saying this thing about like
Speaker 1: the pragmatism involved in using a label of their divergence,
Speaker 1: the issue I have is saying that, Like, I don't
Speaker 1: think there's such thing as normal, And I think that
Speaker 1: when we treat something as neurodivergent, we're saying it is
Speaker 1: pathological and inherently flawed. And I don't think that that's
Speaker 1: always the case. I'm really trying to make the case
Speaker 1: that just humans are different, some of us need some
Speaker 1: more supports sometimes in certain areas than others, and if
Speaker 1: the label helps you get those supports, then okay, I
Speaker 1: guess that's helpful. But like I guess what I'm trying
Speaker 1: to say is, like I feel like we end up
Speaker 1: pathologizing people who are just show up in the world
Speaker 1: a little bit differently. But what does differently even mean?
Speaker 1: Because it's not like there is a norm from which
Speaker 1: they really can divert There isn't normal, Like, you can't
Speaker 1: be different if there's nothing to be different from, right,
Speaker 1: So that's the only point I'm trying to make there.
Speaker 1: So the question becomes, can our pets or non human
Speaker 1: animals in general have autism or other diagnoses? Some race
Speaker 1: think so by taking some of the characteristic features of
Speaker 1: again starting with autism, that diagnosis such as social interaction
Speaker 1: quote unquote, deficits language delays, maybe a fear of new
Speaker 1: things they call neophobia, or even what might be species
Speaker 1: specific things such as eye blinking. Apparently, they have attempted
Speaker 1: to identify behavior patterns and animals that could be labeled
Speaker 1: as autistic because of the correlates that they see when humans.
Speaker 1: And also what they have attempted to do is isolate
Speaker 1: genetic markers associated with autism and other diagnoses and look
Speaker 1: for those similar genetic markers in these non human animals.
Speaker 2: So while we kind of ponder that for a second,
Speaker 2: here's an ad from pet Smart.
Speaker 1: All right, we're back. We've been talking about essentially the move,
Speaker 1: I guess, the advocacy, the attempt that people are making
Speaker 1: to superimpose human experiences onto non human animals and classify
Speaker 1: their behavior patterns in ways that map on with taxonomies
Speaker 1: we have of pathologies that we've identified what we call
Speaker 1: pathologies for humans.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So a twenty seventeen study found that the mutations on
Speaker 2: the shank three gene associated with autism have also been
Speaker 2: seen in some dogs, specifically beagles with this mutation seem
Speaker 2: to have lower desire to interact with people. I mean,
Speaker 2: I have a low desire to interact with people, but
Speaker 2: like you know, I'm not a beagle.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we'll get to that too. There was also a
Speaker 1: study out of Japan that reported that non human primates
Speaker 1: can exhibit autistic like traits, such as going back to
Speaker 1: this one social interaction deficits quote unquote deficits. And it's
Speaker 1: worth noting that for all of the research that has
Speaker 1: started to merge, what's important is that there is no
Speaker 1: actual way, there's no formal, scientific, validated way to diagnose
Speaker 1: non human animals as autistic. So the current number of
Speaker 1: verified autistic non human animals is zero in the whole world.
Speaker 3: Yep. That's actually I think really valid to know. Now.
Speaker 2: Of course, there's skepticism about this, consider that there's natural
Speaker 2: variability in how all creatures show up in the world,
Speaker 2: and actually it would be flabbergasting if all animals of
Speaker 2: a species behave the same way like that. Just doesn't
Speaker 2: make any sense from a learning standpoint, from behavior a
Speaker 2: variability standpoint, just doesn't make any sense. And this would
Speaker 2: kind of defeat the ability of evolution to apply selective
Speaker 2: pressure to adapt to different environments. So, are differing levels
Speaker 2: of social preferences pathological or part of a natural species variability?
Speaker 2: Are these behavior patterns learned as all behavior patterns are? Yes,
Speaker 2: Feral animals are usually scared of humans? Is it because
Speaker 2: they are autistic? That's a pretty flimsy argument to argue yes,
Speaker 2: And then we can't really it's nearly impossible to make
Speaker 2: that argument.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like they might not be very social because
Speaker 1: they only grew up in a world where they had
Speaker 1: to fight for themselves constantly. And like, does that mean
Speaker 1: they're autistic? I would say no, you know, I would
Speaker 1: also say no. But even if, like, even if you
Speaker 1: identify these genetic markers, even if you identify that, like, okay,
Speaker 1: among these other beagles, these beagles seem particularly not social,
Speaker 1: Why does that have to be autism? Like, if we
Speaker 1: see a gene mutation that tends to result in fewer
Speaker 1: than average whatever that might mean social interactions, why can't
Speaker 1: we just say there's a gene mutation that tends to
Speaker 1: result in fewer than average whatever that might mean social interactions,
Speaker 1: And like what is there to be gained by calling
Speaker 1: it autism specifically? Right? And again, like, once we call
Speaker 1: it autism, people start assigning the cause of their behavior
Speaker 1: to autism when we already know that the cause and
Speaker 1: this particular case is a genetic mutation. So it's like
Speaker 1: we start treating the label as if that explains things
Speaker 1: when we actually already know the explanation that is utterly
Speaker 1: irrelevant to the label.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: The question we have to ask inside of this is
Speaker 2: how effectively are we ruling out typical species behavior? I mean,
Speaker 2: we're learning about new species across the world. We're discovering
Speaker 2: new species all the time, let alone discovering new behaviors
Speaker 2: and new things with the species that we already know,
Speaker 2: So how well are we ruling out what could be
Speaker 2: described as normal behavioral variation? And I think that we're
Speaker 2: not even attempting to rule these things out and kind
Speaker 2: of taking some leaps to human diagnoses for non human animals.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we'll take the example of like with dogs.
Speaker 1: I'm like, if every single dog was like super friendly
Speaker 1: to every single human I'm like, that would be astonishing
Speaker 1: to me. They're just there's too much variability in how
Speaker 1: they're going to experience the world and show up in
Speaker 1: the world and how people are going to treat them
Speaker 1: for them to be that way. It just it couldn't
Speaker 1: ever happen. It just couldn't. And so it's like, how
Speaker 1: are we saying that, like, because it doesn't happen for
Speaker 1: this one dog, that the reason is autism, Like that's right,
Speaker 1: probably not the reason. It's almost certainly not the reason.
Speaker 1: It's definitely not the reason. Okay, So it comes back
Speaker 1: to the point that we have made time and time
Speaker 1: again that I like to make on this on this
Speaker 1: show because I just think asking, like, what is the
Speaker 1: actual sking point of a diagnosis?
Speaker 3: What is the point?
Speaker 1: Like in humans, it tends to be that a diagnosis
Speaker 1: provides access to supports, specifically to people who need those
Speaker 1: supports at best. That tends to be how we use
Speaker 1: them now medically speaking differently, but we're talking about behavior
Speaker 1: psychological things, that's how it's used. There are some people
Speaker 1: who like having that label has them feel more accepting
Speaker 1: of their behaviors, which could potentially be a good thing.
Speaker 1: So there could also be that point there, But what
Speaker 1: does it do for non human animals?
Speaker 3: Right?
Speaker 1: Like, crucially, the diagnosis doesn't even give any direction as
Speaker 1: to what those supports might be. It doesn't give you
Speaker 1: any direction as to what to expect from their behavior.
Speaker 1: If you're going to try and do anything about this,
Speaker 1: you would do it through an assessment, most effectively, a
Speaker 1: behavioral assessment. Like the whole point being here, like that
Speaker 1: diagnosis barely does anything for humans. It does do something
Speaker 1: a lot of the time, but like not a ton
Speaker 1: Like so we said, like if you've met one person
Speaker 1: with autism, you've met one person with autism, right Like,
Speaker 1: if I were to see on intake paperwork that of
Speaker 1: a person I'm going to be working with that they
Speaker 1: have an autism diagnosis, I know exactly nothing about what
Speaker 1: to expect from their behavior because of the variability that
Speaker 1: exists in an existing diagnosis. Like that's how much variability
Speaker 1: there is. Like let alone with an animal who it's
Speaker 1: like they certainly don't feel any differently about their own
Speaker 1: behavior when we say that they're autistic. I know that
Speaker 1: it feels maybe like a stretch, but I guarantee you
Speaker 1: that it is the case, right, us calling them autistic
Speaker 1: does not change how they feel about their own behavior,
Speaker 1: I promise you. And then the other thing is like
Speaker 1: it doesn't inform trutment or provide access to supports. So
Speaker 1: what is that's the point?
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's a fair question. Right.
Speaker 2: So now, if you have a behavior that causes the
Speaker 2: behaving organism suffering, a diagnosis does not help you change
Speaker 2: that behavior. The diagnosis is irrelevant in that situation. So
Speaker 2: you identify the behaviors and functions and intervene at the
Speaker 2: level needed. And if you had a dog or cat
Speaker 2: with some challenging behaviors, a diagnosis doesn't help you change
Speaker 2: the behavior. It's not intervention. It's arguably not information for
Speaker 2: a non human animal.
Speaker 1: Except in so far as it might be medical and
Speaker 1: medical situation sometimes there are like interventions that are needed
Speaker 1: because sure, part of their behavior is like they have
Speaker 1: some internal pain, that is like that they tend to
Speaker 1: maybe be a little more aggressive when they're hurting internally.
Speaker 1: That could make sense, So like they're medical diagnoses, but
Speaker 1: again we're talking about psychological behavioral diagnoses, right, And to
Speaker 1: be fair, I think some people might hear this and argue,
Speaker 1: like and they're right there, might be some medications that
Speaker 1: could help in some instances, But a counterpoint I would
Speaker 1: say is that we already really don't actually know how
Speaker 1: a lot of psychiatric medications work in humans. Like this
Speaker 1: might be scared to unders in this, but talk to
Speaker 1: a pharmacist that they will tell you we don't actually
Speaker 1: know why this works or how. We know the effect
Speaker 1: that it has most of the time, but we don't
Speaker 1: actually know why or how. And at best, what would
Speaker 1: happen is we give some drug that has some behavior
Speaker 1: changing effect in a non human animal, but actually have
Speaker 1: no idea what else we're potentially doing. And like, just
Speaker 1: because we can sedate them and calm that down, is
Speaker 1: that all we wanted out of this? Like that's all
Speaker 1: we needed to do, is just like have them be lethargic.
Speaker 1: Like I feel like that's not actually getting after what
Speaker 1: the issue is probably is going on for them. Like
Speaker 1: if it was medical, that certainly is problematic because now
Speaker 1: they're not even responding to a medical emergency that they
Speaker 1: might have. And if it's behavioral, there are better in
Speaker 1: different ways to go about helping provide supports than just
Speaker 1: calling it autistic or ADHD or something else.
Speaker 2: Right, right, Right, so ultimately, can our pets have autism?
Speaker 2: It's possible maybe, but it kind of doesn't really matter,
Speaker 2: especially at this point, because we just don't have any
Speaker 2: information on it and it doesn't need anything, right, So
Speaker 2: I think that the motivation to assign these labels is
Speaker 2: largely born out of a desire to super impose our
Speaker 2: experiences onto our non human counterparts. I mean we do
Speaker 2: this for everything, not just diagnoses. We think our dogs
Speaker 2: are smiling, We think our dogs are we say happy,
Speaker 2: and you know, there are beavers to indicate that stuff,
Speaker 2: but like we don't. But we were assigning that because
Speaker 2: it's you know, it's one of those things.
Speaker 3: Where we just like to do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah it feels better, Yeah, it feels better, and maybe
Speaker 2: that's like easier to explain, like certain situations.
Speaker 3: I guess, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But for some there is a desire to elevate
Speaker 2: these animal status in our minds to be closer to humans,
Speaker 2: which is a kind thing to do, we could say.
Speaker 2: But for others, I think it is an attempt to
Speaker 2: try to understand the things that we observe when we
Speaker 2: don't otherwise understand them, and when we find comfort in
Speaker 2: applying labels to things as if those labels explain them.
Speaker 3: So it's kind of.
Speaker 2: Like, I don't have better language to describe this, so
Speaker 2: this is sufficient to describe this thing. So I'm going
Speaker 2: to use this label to describe this thing because I
Speaker 2: don't have a better way to describe it.
Speaker 1: To me, it's it's as useful as saying it's a
Speaker 1: ghost like. It's as objectively true and as useful, like
Speaker 1: why are they behaving this way? A ghost That's why?
Speaker 3: Ghost like?
Speaker 1: It just doesn't like, what are you gonna do about that?
Speaker 1: Go find a ghostbuster like? It just doesn't It doesn't
Speaker 1: do anything. So anyway, that's what I have to say
Speaker 1: about this. Probably some of you disagree with me, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry kind of, but feel free to tell us your thoughts.
Speaker 1: You can email us directly at info WWDWWD podcast dot
Speaker 1: com or reach us on the social media platforms, and
Speaker 1: I do look forward to hearing from you. I'm always
Speaker 1: open to constructive criticism, but if you just want to
Speaker 1: send hate mail, then I just won't even bother with it.
Speaker 1: So yeah, don't bother yourself. But otherwise we look forward
Speaker 1: to hearing from you, And if you'd like to support us.
Speaker 1: You can join us on Patreon. It really helps us out.
Speaker 1: I will read your name at the end of our
Speaker 1: full length episodes or some bonus content early episodes, ad
Speaker 1: free episodes, that sort of thing. You can also leave
Speaker 1: us rating and review, like subscribe and to a friend.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned before, all of this stuff really helps
Speaker 1: us and gets us into the algorithms of more people.
Speaker 1: So do that thing.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thank you to team of people without whom I could
Speaker 1: not make this episode. Thank you for recording with me today.
Speaker 3: Shane, Hey, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Anything else that I'm mister you'd like to add before
Speaker 1: we sayah, goodbyes?
Speaker 3: Uh Nope, I don't think so. I think I'm good
Speaker 3: at this one.
Speaker 1: All right, go forth, be skeptical. This is Abraham, this
Speaker 1: is Shane. Why we Do what we Do? Mini is out.
Speaker 3: Bye. You've been listening to Why We Do What We Do.
Speaker 2: You can learn more about this and other episodes by
Speaker 2: going to WWDWWD podcast dot com. Thanks for listening, and
Speaker 2: we hope you have an awesome day.