Talk:Emotion in animals

message: The opening statement that there is no scientific consensus on emotion in animals is incorrect.  The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness produced on July 7, 2012 by a "prominent international group of cognitive neuroscientists, neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists gathered at The University of Cambridge" offers the scientific community's assessment of emotion in animals and states, "The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states."  It would perhaps be more accurate to state that it has historically been a controversial topic, however, it's no longer appropriate to state that there is no scientific consensus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.214.246.249 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
Saying that for animals to have emotions they must feel things as we do, is like saying that for plants to absorb energy they must do digestion in the same way we do. If we accept our emotions as part of a necessary evolutionary process, then why is it that other species have sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste as we do... they also have fear and curiosity and panic... but they don´t have the evolutionary privilege of emotions? compare the human genome with a rat´s, a monkey´s, dog´s, or a kangaroo´s and see how much we have in common... so we are more than 90% the SAME, we all share a common biology and evolutionary context, but not emotions? is there a practical reason for nature to be SO SELECTIVE about us? tell me of one single major evolutionary trait that is exclusively present in one species trough out this planet. And for those who think emotions are not a major evolutionary trait, observe how  our own civilization was developed, motivated and shaped by emotions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.130.54 (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE FROM DR POMERANZ

message: Other than the first paragraph, this article is fairly biased towards the position of animals having emotions equatable to human emotion.
True this article is not objective - it is fairly antropocentric (ie humans are a priori more important and complex than animals).Arnoutf 08:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is a POV in the article, however there is also a POV in science dating back to 1753, when the mainstream scienctific community, informed by religious (Christian) beliefs (e.g. "God made man in his image" superior to the "dumb beasts", the "Great Chain of Being", etc, etc) came up with the term "anthropomorphism", which itself expresses a position of unscientific bias. This blind-spot on the part of scientific culture is a self-contradictory (if not hypocritical) one, because science has *not* proven that animals don't have feelings, thoughts, etc. (Only an overly simplistic approach to the idea of emotions and the nature/s of consciousness can allow these assumptions to be made. These are very complex and nuanced concepts and there is far from being any consensus.)--TyrS (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Objective

message: THEN THAT IS EVEN WORSE IT'S REALLY BAD
THAT MEANS WE HUMANS ARE WAY WORSE THAN ANIMALS , IF WE KNOW THAT THEY CAN FEEL EVEN IF WE DO KNOW WE STILL KILL AND CHOP AND CONTROL THEIR BODY PARTS LIKE THEY DON'T EVEN FEEL SO IT MEANS WE ARE TRULY MONSTERS WE ARE LESS THAN ROBOTS AT LEAST ROBOTS CAN'T FEEL WE CAN.
SO WE KEEP RIPPING CONTROLLING AND EATING THEIR BODY PARTS EVEN IF WE ARE KNOWING THAT THEY CAN FEEL
HOW CRUEL AND SAD IS THAT? IT'S GONNA BE BETTER IF WE JUST KILL THEM ALL FAST AND QUICK AT ONCE INSTEAD OF SLOWING CHOPPING THEM OFF AND THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS WE ARE DISGRACE TO WHOLE UNIVERSE
THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER KINDS OF FOODS WE CAN EAT FOREVER(ENOUGH AMOUNTS FOR EACH AND EVEYRONE OF HUMANS LIVING IN EARTH) LIKE COOKIES AND CHOCOLATES AND NOODLES, AND WE DO NEVER EVEN NEED FURS (THEY ARE EVEN WORSE THAN ANIMAL EATERS THEY DON'T DESERVE TO LIVE) SO WHY WE KEEP TALKING IF THEY CAN FEEL OR NOT WHEN WE ARE NOT GONNA STOP KILLING THEM????HUH!?
I WOULD BE GLAD IF THEY CAN'T FEEL LIKE ROBOTS, I REALLY HOPE THAT THEY DON'T FEEL A THING
YOU LITTLE SICK PSYCHOTIC PIGS(NO PIGS ARE BETTER THAN YOU PEOPLE)
---------
Okay, STOP TYPING IN CAPS. I do agree that things like fur, leather, etc. are unnecessary. But meat is. If animals feel, which I do think they do, we need to stop Tigers and owls from killing other animals. We don't do that because meat is a natural part of their diet. It has also been proven that humans, like any other omnivorous animal, are meant to eat a combination of meat and other foods.
That being said, I don't agree with hunting animals for the use of making fur clothes, leather, just hunting for fun, etc. 
FinalWish 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IF ANIMALS TRUELY CAN FEEL... 

message: this section is yet another problem with this article, it doesn't actually give an approach to studying animal emotions, instead it makes a point that appears to be designed to get the reader to assume that animals must have emotions because we can't prove it. That is, that we can't know if animals have emotions because they can't tell us, but we can't know humans have emotions either (the fact that scientists are as certain about human sentience as about anything to do with human behaviour, whereas animal emotion is not largely accepted, eccept perhaps  on an intuitive level) an therefore animals must have emotions because humans do but we can't be sure that humans do and we can't be sure that animals do so animals must. Its an incredibly circular argument. regardless, these are not approaches to studying animal emotions because it doesn't explain approaches to study animal emotions and even if it did its not approaches its an approach which is clearly not encyclopedic. Besides, as I put forth earlier the book in question is biased, unsientific (in that its not accepted by most scientists as fact) and can't be linked. For all these reasons I am deleting this section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Colin 8 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: approaches to studying animal emotions 

message: Here are some sources.  I heard this guy talk on Radio Open Source, episode "New Zoology."  
Jaak Panksepp, Ph.D
Baily Endowed Chair of
Animal Well-Being Science
Professor
Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus of Psychology,
Bowling Green State University
Head, Affective Neuroscience Research, Falk Center for Molecular Therapeutics, Northwestern University
Phone: (509) 335-5803
Email: jpanksepp@vetmed.wsu.edu
Office: McCoy Hall
But I haven't yet read his work yet, 
but here:
http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/depts-vcapp/Panksepp-endowed.asp
and here:
http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/Cognitive/?view=usa&sf=toc&ci=9780195178050
He mentioned seven bioloically based maammalian emotions: 1 seeking or exploring 2 fear 3 panic 4 rage 5 lust 6 nurture 7 joy or play
which he would say each of those have tangible regions in the brains.  were i not such a spaz I'd wread his stuff and make an entry myselr but i am tired tired iterd. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.227.164.128 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jaak Panksepp  on mammal emotions 

message: First we must define in which sense, particularly, do we understand it; then we can address the question.  --VKokielov (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in the sense that humans understand" 

message: I think another good piece of evidence about animals feeling are elephants.
Elephants are known for mourning for a loss in their herd. The herd of elephants will cry for their loss ones.
This is my soft spot. I do believe animals have feelings. I think that they understand just as much as we do about hopelessness, sadness, etc..
I think that to live emotions is a key importance of survival. You need to survive socially, but also you need to survive as an animal.71.142.242.233 (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elephants-Animal's Feelings 

message: This paragraph in particular seems to be unnecessarily...wordy, garrulous, discursive, even.
The article would be much improved if this were simplified somehow. —LaPianista! «talk» 03:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordiness 

message: Just placing this here for future reference. Its a useful summary of the state of the debate, especially with ref to the great apes and the exceptionalism of elephants. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: Why is the article primarily written as a big question?? What is the question, is it the definition of the word emotion or is it whether animals feel the same thing as human emotion or is the question whether or not animals feel in any sense??? If evolution is right, then human emotion did not simply develop from one generation to the next, it's been shaped into it's current state through billions of years! Off-course non-human animals feel, and off-course they have emotions! And off course they don't have human emotions, only humans have human emotions, i mean that's logical! A gorillah does not feel elephant emotion either, and nor do humans feel gorilla-emotions, cause that wouldn't make much sense now would it!? And i don't really think that science doubts in anyway that different animals experience emotions, and emotions of different nature respective to what animal we're talking about. I don't think scientists doubt either that different animals share some simillarities in the way they experience emotion!
This article is stupid and should be deleted cause theres not really any information about the subject in the title, there's just one huge stupid question mark in this article!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortenrobinson (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the question? This article is very unclear and has no real information about the subject! 

message: Seeing as no one else seems to be discussing this I feel a little out of place. I thing that this artical shouldn't be merged with the bigger artical of Emotion as its such a contaversal subject and it helpfully contained within this sub artical thing. Adding it to emotion would make reading through it a much more laborious process and might fill the discusion page with all of the heated debates above.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lonely Man (talk • contribs) 10:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Lonely Man. Emotion in animals has been and is still somewhat controversial while emotions in humans have been widely acknowledged and studied for centuries. Merging these two would not be helpful since there is bound to be more additions to this article as research is conducted. Bob98133 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergeing 

message: This entire article needs more research.  Just because animals don't talk or trigger facial or audible reactions  certainly does not mean they do not express combinations of feelings known as 'emotions'.   For instance, when a dog is happy when his master gets home, they wag their tail.  When a dog is sad they whimper.   Ashamed, they tuck their tails and roll over in submission.  These are all expressions of emotions the same way we have emotions and cannot be disproven anymore than the signs or words we use to describe our emotions that come from deep within our instinctual brain.  User:freq32 12:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More Research Needed | Distinctions between Pets and Humans / Wild Animals

message: I think most people would agree this article has many problems, but we need to start somewhere.  I propose that the section on fish is deleted.  It is a single article which found personality differences between fish.  This is NOT emotions.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete section on fish

message: I'm interested in whether or not amphibians have emotions. Like frogs, toads, newts, etc. Is there any proof of this? I have toads, and I consider them to be my children. I've taken them from the wild and raised them since they were young. And I KNOW that they have emotions, deep down. But are there any sources of scientific evidence or proof?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.202.28 (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amphibian emotions 

message: The lead picture purporting to show a horse kissing a man is rather biased and potentially misleading (the man might be kissing the horse!).  I suggest it be replaced with the following template.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to replace lead picture 

message: An editor recently deleted sections of "Interpretation - Occam's Razor and Morgan's Canon".  The study of emotions in animals is highly complex and open to interpretation.  Lay people can be extremely anthropomorphic and anthropocentric when they observe animal behaviour, and will often make incorrect conclusions about the animals emotions and motivations. Occam's Razor and Morgan's Canon are two easily understood principles to help people avoid making this mistake.  I really do not understand the edit summary about "salvaging" something.  I have not supplied references because there are WP articles on both these - I have already linked to these.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not our responsibility nor right to tell users to be cautious.  This is blatant original research.  You can't go around and add whatever you feel is important to articles where you want users to be suspicious.  If Occam's Razor is mentioned repeatedly in the context of the discussion on "Emotion in animals", then there should be sources to give, in which case you can give them and I will have no complaints.  If it is not mentioned repeatedly, then there are no sources, and the material needs to stay out. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reversion without discussing on the Talk page first (as politely requested) is extremely close to disruptive editing and I am considering reporting this.  Any student of animal behaviour is taught (usually in the first year) both Occam's razor and Morgan's Cannon - it is hardly WP:OR.  I am not sure you fully comprehend the principles and their relation to animal emotions.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reversion without sources is a clear breach of policy, so go ahead and incriminate yourself.  What your experience was in college does not matter.  Being an expert on the topic does not matter.  Policy states that we are not required to trust you, because here you are just another editor.  If you want to publish a book or a paper, go ahead, you can say whatever you want.  But Wikipedia requires reliable sources, not your assertions. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

text: You are obviously quoting me, but I am not sure how this is relevant to your argument - please clarify. DrChrissy (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

text: @206.223.162.194|206.223.162.194 Furthermore, I note from your contributions that you only opened your account today and you have only contributed to this article.  Have you edited previously on WP? DrChrissy (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation - Occam's Razor and Morgan's Canon 

message: Hi, I was really confused by the title of this article "Emotion in animals". The title seems redundent and would be better off called "Emotion" or merged with the existing article on emotion. I can't seem to find articles for Emotion in plants, Emotion in fungi, or articles for emotion in any other kingdom of life. Honestly, I can understand why those articles don't exist. I have never heard about emotion being observed or discussed in any organism outside of the animal kingdom. This brings me to why it is redundant. Why specify that the article is about Emotion in animals when emotion is a trait that seems exclusively animalian. It would be like calling an article Brains in animals or Leaves in plants. I don't understand why the distinction needs to be made. TBWarrior720 (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, WP seems to follow the thought that humans are not animals.  I edit a lot of animal articles and if allowed, I would follow Davidcpearce's suggestion of using "nonhuman", however, there are many editors out there that say this would be redundant because using the words "human" and "animal" is sufficient distinction.  Rather blurs the idea of accurately informing the readers don't you think?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. It might be "enough", but it is factually incorrect, which I think is what matters? Academic use would necessarily be "non human animal". 05/10/2016  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.121.98.23 (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Emotion in animals" seems like a redundant title  

message: It seems rather unusual to have a question asked in the caption of the lead image.  Is there a WP policy on this?  I am also a little concerned about the neutrality of having elephants in the lead image.  Many people believe that elephants have the capacity for "higher" emotions such as grieving for their dead, however, these claims do not stand up to rigorous scientific analysis.  The elephant lead image is very eye-catching, however, I feel a different species would perhaps be a bit more neutral.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption can easily be reworded so it is a statement. But I'm not sure why you feel another species would be more "neutral". What species do you have in mind? Would you rather show an animal that humans are less likely to feel is emotional, perhaps a reptile or squid. Bear in mind that an article like this is not confined purely to scientific matters unless it is renamed something like Emotion in animals (ethology). There are relevant philosophical issues here that remain unresolved. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  Yes, I guess I would like to see an image of a species that most people would perhaps be surprised may experience emotions.  Perhaps an image of a rat with a caption about Panksepp's work on the vocalisation commonly called "laughter".  To my mind, this is some of the most robust work on emotions in animals, and I think many humans would be surprised that it has been found in this "pest" species.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: The proposed merge of Empathy in chickens into this article has been closed with support of the proposed merge.  I intend to start merging appropriate material here.DrChrissy (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now completed my merge of Empathy in chickens.  Of course, other editors may wish to merge more, but otherwise Empathy in chickens should now be deleted.DrChrissy (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for merging. Accordingly, I have redirected Empathy in chickens to this article. Certain legal restrictions prevent us from being able to delete the former Empathy in chickens article history right away; the history has all the usernames of the contributors to the merged content, which is required for attribution. Typically, when articles are merged, the source page is redirected to the destination article while preserving the source page's history. This also allows future contributors to merge more things if they ever become relevant. Best, Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see.  Thanks very much for the explanation and sorting out the redirect.DrChrissy (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of Empathy in chickens  

message: Mentions to behaviorism are full of misinformation. The first paragraph of the "behaviorist approach" subsection has (unquoted) affirmations that are just plain not true (as well as the use of "stimulus-response" in a manner that is incorrect and outdated - mainly used by behaviorism detractors in the past). 
The subsection fails to note that a behaviorist view does not refute emotions in animals at all - it simply declines ascribing it a causal role in behavior. This is true for both human and animal behavior. The so called "internal events" (emotions, mind, thought, and so fort) in general receive this treatment. This is because there is a refusal of seeing organisms as divided (like the dichotomy "body and mind", for instance; see monism), and all behavior is effected by the whole individual in interaction with the environment. Thus, the question of whether there is conscience or specific internal events in animals is of no interest to a behaviorist. This does not imply in a denial of it - like language not pertaining physics does not imply physics refuses the existence of language. 
In fact, since behavior analysis ascribes man no significant difference from other animals, having it's behavior guided by the same rules and principles, and has several studies in the origins of emotions in humans (of note, the experiments of John B. Watson, the so called father of behaviorism), the opposite could be heavily implied - that animals probably do, in some form, experience subjective states, same as humans. 
A few useful references on the matter: 
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40732-014-0046-7  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.121.98.23 (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentions to Behaviorism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Emotion in animals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110111060117/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3354028/Dogs-can-read-emotion-in-human-faces.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3354028/Dogs-can-read-emotion-in-human-faces.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While it is important for any article to demonstrate the history of the topic it discusses, it seems to me that this article only talks about outdated ideas as if they aren't. I would like to see a larger neuroscience section that displays research on emotions in animals using modern brain imaging and other research techniques in an empirical way that suggest the presence of emotions in animals. There's only so much you can philosophize about a topic before modern science needs to come in. Reganmv10 (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated information - New technological advances in neuroscience 

message: There is a new article called Primate Sociality. That particular term has already been redirected to this article in the past, specifically to the Primates section. The creator of the new article over-rode the redirect, as can be seen in the different capitalization of the title. I propose another redirect to here, because the new article is an unnecessary content fork, but it does have some sources that could be merged into this article to enhance it a little. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Sociality (social behavior) is different than emotion. The topic has the ability to be expanded well beyond the current article and the content in Primate#Social_systems: a Google Scholar search for "primate sociality" returns nearly 2,000 articles since 2018 alone, and there are books on the subject, e.g. , , . There is no shortage of sources for a broad-topic article that can provide a more detailed overview of primate social systems, their diversity, their ecological and evolutionary consequences, etc. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Oppose Slightly different subject matter, and there is a clear difference. scope_creepTalk 12:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal