Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals (P.S.)

Western Carolina University psychology professor Hal Herzog discusses the peculiar and misunderstood subject of the human-animal connection in his eye-opening new book Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals. He attempts to reconcile why some animals that are considered pets in some parts of the world end up on the dinner table in another culture. He also examines the fine line of distinction we draw as humans about why we kill certain animals for human survival and co-habitate with other animals for companionship (and flee certain other animals out of fear). I've never quite read a book like this one that will force you to think a little deeper about your own relationship with animals.

In this book, Professor Hal Herzog talks about the complexity of human interaction with animals:

- Why he became so interested in the relationship between humans and animals
- His love for the "creepy crawly" animals like snakes as a child that piqued his interest even more
- The cockfighting event that changed the way he thought about the distinction between animals
- The lines of demarkation that allow animals to be treated in a variety of ways (loved, hated, eaten)
- How different cultures look at animals in a "blurry" kind of way
- The fear of snakes that is so common
- The social science study of anthrozoology and why he's so passionate about it
- What people are doing when they are choosing a pet
- How and why he and his wife became "cat people"
- The studies that show dogs start looking like their owners
- Why humans and only humans have pets
- How you could tell if an animal had another animal as a pet
- The "pet" relationship of humans to animals
- Why dogs are referred to as "man's best friend"
- How gender plays a "mixed" role in choosing animals as pets
- Why most people who work with PETA or animal rights are women
- Why 90% of hunters are men (even in the Southern United States)
- How people can eat a Chicken McNugget and not see that as cruelty towards the chicken
- Why most people don't care about the source of their food and how the animal is treated
- The insatiable desire by people to buy "cheap meat" rather than more expensive quality meat
- Why humans have been drawn to be "natural meat-eaters" back to our hunter-gatherer ancestors
- The "dark side of vegetarianism" and how meat avoidance can lead to problems for some people
- Why vegetarians are more susceptible to getting eating disorders like bulimia and anorexia
- What it was like eating a raw steak
- Why mice and guinea pigs are primarily used in animal-model research
- How PETA compares the fish-throwing at Pike's Market in Seattle with throwing kittens
- Whether we are all just a bunch of hypocrites regarding our love for animals
- What the "right" thing to do regarding animals

this is basically a fairly comprehensive survey of animal issues: the cute factor, pets, dogs, bugs,cockfighting, eating meat, mice, etc. i think u get the picture.

the issues are raised but really there are no conclusions drawn here. in the last chapter, to paraphrase, the author said we are all "yahoos", changing out thoughts at times & our relationship with animals is "more complicated than we thought".

there's a lot of food for thought here, but no conclusions or as far as i can tell biases. in this way, the book is good to leave you to make up your own mind.

This book is a fantastic introduction into the complexities of human-animal relationships. Herzog's voice is refreshing, knowledgeable, and often funny. The book is- for the most part- not biased, and Herzog often presents many perspectives about a single topic, leaving it up to the reader to form his or her own opinion. As a student majoring in neuroscience, I found this book an enjoyably readable overview of several topics relevant not only to my major, but to the modern American public. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in psychology and animals, but who lacks the resources or the patience to read long, dry, and often wordy research papers.

This was a great book about humans confusing thoughts and feelings towards animals. It made me think alot about where some of our food is coming from and what some of our experiments are doing to animals, even little ones that aren't so well liked. It was a very interesting read.

I was interested in the ideas explored by this book, but worried that it would become a polemic against eating meat. I needn't have worried. The book remains engaging and encourages you to question how you think about animals without preaching.

one chapter- asking which chickens prefer, fighting or being factory farmed- what? there is a third option- NEITHER. The entire book is flawed logic to prove nothing of note. There is little science but a few valuable references to other studies. It sounds like the author is trying to convince himself it is ok to do certain things to animals, because he cannot bring himself to face his own truth. I was hoping for a serious discussion of all sides of this important issue, but I got some halfbaked jokes and stupid questions . The who would you save question was raised- gee, I don't know, but if I am ever on a train and have to make that decision I will let you know. This is the real world with real world problems, and the author has done little to answer the very Question that is the title of the book. Don't waste your money.

Suggestions that eating other animals brings about an inner discomfort, or inconsistency, that people are generally unaware of. The question, then, is how can the average American, who very likely considers her - or himself nonviolent toward other animals, eat their bodies and experience no apparent discomfort?

This particular book reminds me very much of another ... "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism" by Melanie Joy. That being said ....

Carnism denotes the ideology of meat consumption. Ideologies are social belief systems that have enormous power to shape people's attitudes and behaviors. Ideologies are often so embedded in society that their influence is mostly unconscious-and therefore unquestioned. Typically, ideologies are only recognized when are an exception to the "normal" way of thinking (what we call the "dominant ideology"). This is why there is a name, vegetarianism, for the ideology that considers the consumption of other animals inappropriate or unethical. The dominant ideology in our society maintains that eating other animals is normal and even necessary. However, there is no name for this ideology. We therefore tend to view eating animals not as a choice, but as a given. This way of thinking makes society view the consumption of animals as normal, natural, and legitimate.

Ideologies can hide contradictions between people's behaviors and their values. They allow people to make exceptions to what they would normally consider ethical, without even realizing it. This is how we can understand carnism. If we consider carnism to be an ideology, then we can explain why it is possible to love some animals and eat others. We have been so socialized to believe in the legitimacy and necessity of carnism that most people do not even think of their meat as having once been an animal. Indeed, most people begin eating meat before they can even talk, and the process of maintaining the invisibility of the animals who become food continues for the rest of our lives.

Certain ways of thinking support carnism. In order to eat or process the bodies of other animals, individuals need to use a degree of "psychic numbing" - the separation of thoughts from feelings and of beliefs from practices. This psychic numbing was expressed through a variety of defense mechanisms. Among the most notable are:

* Denial ("animals don't really suffer when being raised and killed for meat")

* Justification ("it's acceptable to eat certain animals because they're bred for that purpose")

* Avoidance ("don't tell me that; you'll ruin my meal")

* Dichotomization ("I think of some animals as companions and some as food")

* Dissociation ("when I look at meat, I don't connect it with an animal-if I did, I would be disgusted and unable to eat it")

Carnists often continue as carnists due to a number of factors, perhaps the most prominent of them being fear. Since ideologies tend to perpetuate themselves, it should be no wonder that the carnistic system works quite hard to ensure that its members remain loyal, using fear as an effective tool toward this end. For instance, many of us have been led to believe that if we stop eating meat, we will become unhealthy, seen as antisocial, weak or less "manly," flaky, and a host of other stereotypes. These notions are communicated through the mass media, in which vegetarians are often portrayed as strange or radical. They are also conveyed through carnistic "education" campaigns and marketing, where meat is associated with health, strength, community, and normalcy.

While an understanding of psychic numbing may help us better relate to carnists, it can also help us better appreciate and value our own choice to be vegetarians. Psychic numbing, when used to enable violent practices such as carnism, is, arguably, psychologically unhealthy. Unfortunately, though, the field of psychology has typically supported, rather than challenged, the status quo, and so the use of massive psychological defenses to enable participation in violent practices that are contrary to one's deeper value system is generally not considered psychologically questionable. Instead, those who resist the dominant ideology (i.e., vegetarians) tend to be either ignored or pathologized-for instance, a psychologist might assume that one's vegetarianism is simply a mask for an eating disorder.

Thus, what may be one of the most important points to remember as vegetarians is that mental health comes not from unquestioningly participating in what we have learned is normal (consider the average German in Nazi Germany), but from practicing we believe is right. It comes from living in accordance with our deepest values, values such as personal authenticity, integrity, empathy, and compassion for all beings. What better model for a peaceful planet? What better lesson to teach our children?

"Since all creatures without exception, great or small, want only to be happy and not to suffer.
May they have compassion and kindness, the source of happiness
May they be free from aggression and cruelty, the source of suffering."

Though this book is predicated from a most likely pre-determinant non animal consumer ... at the very least it affords the viewpoint of many's "gut feeling". Animals chose not to be in cages or in huge factory farms ... if in fact they did they would not need electrified fences (and such things) to imprison them.

Herzog admits that meat-eating is by far the largest cause of animal suffering. He claims pro-animal rights philosophies are failing to reach people and therefore pointless, as evidenced by the fact that meat-eating is increasing everywhere, apparently justifying all the suffering. (Circular reasoning).

He admires the quote by John LeCarre, "The fact that you can only do a little is no excuse for doing nothing." Yet, his obvious moral relativism concerning animals is in total conflict with this ideal. Maybe LeCarre is referring only to human concerns, excluding those of other sentient animals.

The message seems to be: when it comes to animals, give up on compassion, logic, consistency, idealistic goals - cave in to whatever the crowd is doing, don't be different, maintain the status quo. Reminds me of the 60's "If it feels good, do it!"

Every time Herzog turns to "Darwinian" theories or "our genes" for explanations about human behavior, all I can think is that he'll never get anywhere near the truth. His approach reveals that he is still mired in Descartes' insane notion of "biological machines", and he is applying it to humans as well as animals.

The unfortunate truth is that the insanity of "biological machines" still does infect every aspect of how we deal with animals, even in our age of pampered pets. And animals are no more biological machines than we are--we are all spiritual, emotional beings that think, feel, and love. This does not fit into Herzog's old-fashioned "scientific" viewpoint, however, and so his book is behind the times and worthless.

As others have pointed out, even from his outmoded point of view Herzog's writing is bad. He poses preposterous questions; he jumps to preposterous conclusions. Example: "If pets were so great a providing unconditional love, you would think that everyone would be bonded to the animals in their homes. They are not." WHAT?!? How can you conclude that a person's ability to bond with an animal is a reflection of the animal's ability to love? (Hint: You can't. Not if you're thinking logically.) He then finds some other author who says that unconditional love is equivalent to being a Cartesian robot that takes whatever we dish out and comes back for more. OMG. Have these people ever truly observed animals? Some of the most loving animals I have known have been previously-abused (seriously abused) animals now in a better environment. That doesn't make them machines, but it does say something about their ability to love.

As Gareth Patterson (a man with a LOT of actual experience with animals) said, "...we are not much different in fact to many other forms of animal life; and it is because of subtle human conditioning -- not the actual facts -- that we are raised to believe there is a wide gap between what is human and what is animal." We need to examine that conditioning, and it is very difficult because it begins on day one of all of our lives. You are not going to find a proper examination of that conditioning in this book.

In another review here, a university professor says he uses this book to stimulate questions in his class. That's fine as far as it goes, but if you get bogged down in the questions, you never make progress. Herzog revels in his "academic" approach and never progresses beyond it.

You will get far more out of a book written by someone who has dedicated their life to animals, instead of academia. Gareth Patterson,Kevin Richardson,George Adamson,Jane Goodall, even Clyde Beatty (of all people) will do more to shed light on the natures of animals and our relationships with them. This book is a waste of time.

...about being morally consistent in conclusion to his book exploring the various inconsistencies in human thinking and consequent actions towards animals. This argument didn't work for me in math class and it won't work to excuse us (or Hal) from the responsibility to use our supposed higher mental faculties to determine right from wrong. The 'Boys will be boys' attitude is no longer acceptable as far as several issues are concerned such as owning slaves, raping women or children, and bullying others because they're different (black, gay, Muslim, disabled), nor is it acceptable as far as our actions towards animals are concerned.

In spite of the weak conclusion and some oddities such as lumping ruining someone's car in the same category of 'terrorism' as killing thousands of people and considering vegetarianism an eating disorder while eating raw liver for breakfast is not, for the most part the book is a fairly balanced exploration of the issues for someone who has never thought about them before and doesn't have the ability to identify the moral inconsistencies on their own and wants to waste their time pondering false dichotomies such as 'Would I throw a fat man in front of a train?'.

I like how Herzog provides a behind-the-scenes look at human-animal interactions, from the researcher who got "too attached" (my words) to his laboratory animals to the manatee keeper who gave up personal vacations because her charge refused to eat in her absence. I also like how the author explores conventional wisdom. He asks and answers questions like "Do children who have been cruel to animals grow up to be adults who are cruel to people?"

This would be a great discussion starter book for a class!

I am an ethologist - person who studies animal behavior. I have studied wildlife for many years, and have been a dog trainer in the past. Over the years I have worn many hats, including (sadly) animal researcher at University of R Medical Center, where I assisted with research on toxicology of monkeys, rats, and frogs. Later I worked as assistant director for an international animal welfare non-profit. Now I am a conservationist and college instructor in Environmental Science and Zoology. My opinion: do not buy this book.

The good thing is I don't need to write a long review of this book, as Tom Schmidt already wrote it for me when he said, "Herzog's book is childish, simple-minded, and tiresome. It's only recommended for people who like to ponder answers to bogus questions. The fact is, anyone who is making an effort - any effort - to treat non-human animals with respect and dignity doesn't need to question themselves. If we are only able to be approximately moral, that doesn't mean we should try to give up being moral at all. The only people that tend to question themselves are the ones that (for the most part) are not interested in making an effort in the first place. They're looking for an escape."

I don't think Schmidt is being too harsh, and I'll tell you why: this book takes illogical questions, throws anecdotes in and claims it not only to be science but asserts it as fact. But here's my bigger problem: his logic is skewed (and often not well supported), and not because Herzog is a dummy. It is because like many scientists out there, Herzog unfortunately believes he needs a shtick to sell his books and his professional contribution. I think Herzog knows that cruelty to animals is abundant, and an abhorrent thing we otherwise supposedly rational humans do. So why doesn't he use his research time, money, and what expertise he has to talk about that?

Why doesn't he use his intelligence to discuss the role of human psychology and compassion (or lack thereof) for animals when people make the decisions they do, good and bad, towards animals? I'll tell you why: because from day one every scientist studying animals (for whatever reason), beginning as grad students, are brainwashed and brow-beaten by their peers and their advisers into the sad belief that they will be pigeon-holed as emotional, and thus irrational, and by default not worth endorsing for research and grant funding - or book publishing - if they appear or sound too supportive of animal rights. These scientists take what they purport to be an objective high road, where in reality they are more subjective in their analysis by default of their motivations and their resultant hypocrisy. It's a sad truth. Especially prone to this misguided and ego-preserving school of thought are wildlife managers, animal researchers, and psychologists.

Perhaps what bothers me most is when people like Herzog make hay off of a skewed logic and ill-gotten deductions that were created to support no doubt what he perceives as a better-selling, more professionally acceptable shtick. If you want to read a worthwhile author on the topic of animals, compassion, and our role as humans, read something by Dr. Marc Bekoff, or one of Dr. Jane Goodall's book. Don't waste your time on this author until he gets enough courage to speak from an intelligent, committed place of compassion, and not an ego-driven, insecure motivation for his theories.

This book seems like it would be a dry dissertation on animals and why we treat some good and some bad.. but this is a well researched and funny book about that very subject.
Why are puppies in the usa petted and other countries food for dinner? Why is it ok to sacrifice 10,000 mice for a cure for ALS but wrong to kill one disabled child for research?
This is a very interesting book and i found myself thinking hard about alot of the subjects.. things i had already thoguht of just did not have anyone elses' opinions on that subject.
Why is it ok to eat a Tyson chicken, but not the family pet cat?
The Tyson chicken suffered horribly before going to the slaughter house...
I really liked this book and it gave me alot to think about.