Antropomorfismul

Cinii mbrcai au stpni cu probleme psihologice

Relaia pe care o avem cu patrupedele noastre poate fi una ce trebuie dus la
psiholog. Dac i mbraci cinele chiar i cnd nu e frig afar, pentru c e mai
drgu aa...

Potrivit lor, antropomorfismul, adic atribuirea trsturilor umane unui obiect sau
unei fiine non-umane, a devenit cea mai nou afeciune la mod, demodnd
depresia sau dependena sexual.

Psihologul Adam Waytz consider c oamenii tiu ce i difereniaz ca specie din

punct de vedere biologic. n plan emoional ns lucruri se complic, astfel c
putem vedea mai uman cinele din faa blocului dect vecinul care ascult
manele cu volumul la maxim, n timpul sptmnii. Poate c oricine este
antropomorfic din acest punct de vedere.

Exist totui cazuri n care antropomorfia este o afeciune ce trebuie tratat. Un

caz este cel al stpnilor care i mbrac patrupedele n inute cool, arat
livescience.com.

Dat fiind ns rspndirea bolii, psihologii au efectuat cercetri i au identificat

care sunt cauzele pentru care devenim antropomorfici n relaie cu animalele de
cas i nu numai.

O principal cauz este egoismul. Atribuind obiectelor trsturi umane ctigm

control asupra mediului n care trim, susine Waytz. De ce amenin iubitul tu
calculatorul care nu mai merge, iar tu te superi pe pisica ta care iari s-a urcat
pe mas. n acele momente simim c nu mai deinem controlul i putem deveni
antropomorfici, pentru a-l recpta.

Cea mai comun reacie n astfel de cazuri este s tratm obiectul ntr-un mod
familiar, ca pe un om, pentru a stpni situaia. De aceea el amenin
calculatorul, iar tu i reproezi pisicii c este neasculttoare.

O alt cauz a antropomorfismului este singurtatea. Waytz a efectuat un studiu

n care le-a spus n mod eronat participanilor, printre altele, c sunt sraci din
punc de vedere social, n urma testelor ntreprinse pe ei.

La auzul acestei remarci participanii au fost predispui s l asocieze pe

Dumnezeu cu un prieten i s atribuie caracteristici umane animalelor de cas,
precum afeciunea i consideraia fa de stpn.

Simim nevoia s relaionm i s aparinem unui grup. Atunci cnd oamenii

sunt privai de conexiunile cu ali oameni, vor forma conexiuni cu fiine nonumane prin antropomorfism, arat psihologul Waytz.

Potrivit acestuia i reciproca este valabil. Oamenii care simt c aparin unui cerc
social extins tind s dezumanizeze alte grupuri. Tendina poate fi recunoscut
uor dac stm s ne gndim la minoritile de orice tip care sunt persecutate.
Orice genocid de pn acum a avut drept motiv lipsa umanitii victimelor.

Anthropomorphism is used with God or gods. The act of attributing human forms
or qualities to an entities which are not human. Specifically, anthropomorphism is

the describing of gods or goddesses in human forms and possessing human

characteristics such as jealousy, hatred, or love.

Mythologies of ancient peoples were almost entirely concerned with

anthropomorphic gods.The Greek gods such as Zeus and Apollo often were
depicted in anthropomorphic forms. The avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu
possessed human forms and qualities.

Current religious holds that is not logical to describe the Christian God, who is
believed to be omnipotent and omnipresent, as human. However, it is extremely
difficult for the average person to picture or discuss God or the gods without an
anthropomorphic framework.

In art and literature, anthropomorphism frequently depicts deities in human or

animal forms possessing the qualities of sentiment, speech and reasoning. A.G.H.

Reminds me of the old Mark Twain quotation "God created man in his image, and
man, being a gentleman, returned the compliment."

Anthropomorphism
General Information

Anthropomorphism (Greek anthropos,"human being"; morphe,"shape") is the

attribution of human form or qualities to that which is not human. In the history
of religion, anthropomorphism refers to the depiction of God in a human image,
with human bodily form and emotions, such as jealousy, wrath, or love. Whereas
mythology is exclusively concerned with anthropomorphic gods, other religious
thought holds that it is inappropriate to regard an omnipotent, omnipresent God
as human. In order to speak of God, however, metaphorical language must be
employed. In philosophy and theology, seemingly anthropomorphic concepts and
language are used because it is impossible to think of God without attributing to
him some human traits. In the Bible, for example, God is endowed with physical
characteristics and human emotions, but at the same time he is understood to be
transcendent. In art and literature, anthropomorphism is the depiction of natural
objects, such as animals or plants, as talking, reasoning, sentient, humanlike
beings.

The earliest critique of anthropomorphism in the West was made by Xenophanes,

a Greek philosopher of the 5th century BC. Xenophanes observed that whereas
the Ethiopians represented the gods as dark-skinned, the northerners in Thrace
depicted the gods with red hair and blue eyes. He concluded that
anthropomorphic representations of the gods invariably reveal more about the
human beings who make them than they reveal about the divine. The Greek
philosopher Plato likewise objected to a human representation of the gods; in the
dialogue The Republic, he particularly opposed the attribution of human failings
to divine beings. Both Xenophanes and Plato wished to purify religion by
eliminating elements that they considered primitive and crude.
Nineteenth-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel held that Greek
anthropomorphic religion represented an improvement over the worship of gods
in the shape of animals, a practice called theriomorphism (Greek
therion,"animal"; morphe,"shape"). Hegel also maintained that Christianity
brought the notion of anthropomorphism to maturity by insisting not only that
God assumed a human form, but also that Jesus Christ was both a fully human
person as well as fully divine. Because Christianity incorporates humanity into the
very nature of divinity, it has been accused of anthropomorphism by both Jewish
and Islamic thinkers.
Advanced Information

The term (not found in the Bible, derived from Greek anthropos, man, and
morphe, form) designates the view which conceives of God as having human
form (Exod. 15:3; Num. 12:8) with feet (Gen. 3:8; Exod. 24:10), hands (Exod.
24:11; Josh. 4:24), mouth (Num. 12:8; Jer. 7:13), and heart (Hos. 11:8), but in a
wider sense the term also includes human attributes and emotions (Gen. 2:2; 6:6;
Exod. 20:5; Hos. 11:8).

This tendency toward anthropomorphism, common to all religions, found such full
expression in Greek polytheism that the common man thought of the gods as
mortal men. Xenophanes (ca. 570-480 B.C.) reacted strongly, accusing man of
making the gods in his own image. Later developments in Greek thought
considered men as mortal gods (an early form of humanism) or viewed God in the
metaphysical sense of pure, absolute Being. The transcendentalism of the latter
influenced the hellenistic Jews of Egypt so that the translators of the Greek OT,
the LXX, made during the third and second centuries B.C., felt compelled to alter
some of the anthropomorphisms. e.g., where the Hebrew reads "they saw the
God of Israel" (Exod. 24:10) the LXX has "they saw the place where the God of
Israel stood"; and for "I will speak with him mouth to mouth" (Num. 12:8) the LXX
translates "I will speak to him mouth to mouth apparently."

However, the OT, if read with empathy and understanding, reveals a spiritual
development which is a corrective for either a crude, literalistic view of
anthropomorphism or the equally false abhorrence of any anthropomorphic
expressions. The "image of God" created in man (Gen. 1:27) was in the realm of
personality, of spirit, not of human form. Because the Israelites "saw no form"
(Deut. 4:12) at Sinai, they were prohibited images in any form; male or female,
beast, bird, creeping thing, or fish (Deut. 4:15-19). The NT declaration of Jesus,
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John
4:24), is anticipated by Job 9:32; Ps. 50:21; and Hos. 11:9.

The anthropomorphism of the Israelites was an attempt to express the

nonrational aspects of religious experience (the mysterium tremendum, "aweful
majesty," discussed by Rudolf Otto) in terms of the rational, and the early
expressions of it were not as "crude" as so-called enlightened man would have
one think. The human characteristics of Israel's God were always exalted, while
the gods of their Near Eastern neighbors shared the vices of men. Whereas the
representation of God in Israel never went beyond anthropomorphism, the gods
of the other religions assumed forms of animals, trees, stars, or even a mixture of
elements. Anthropomorphic concepts were "absolutely necessary if the God of
Israel was to remain a God of the individual Israelite as well as of the people as a
whole.... For the average worshipper...it is very essential that his god be a divinity
who can sympathize with his human feelings and emotions, a being whom he can
love and fear alternately, and to whom he can transfer the holiest emotions
connected with memories of father and mother and friend" (W. F. Albright, From
the Stone Age to Christianity, 2nd ed., p. 202).

It is precisely in the area of the personal that theism, as expressed in Christianity,

must ever think in anthropomorphic terms. To regard God solely as Absolute
Being or the Great Unknown is to refer to him or it, but to think of God as literally
personal, one with whom we can fellowship, is to say Thou. Some object to this
view, to explain how the creatures of an impersonal force became personal
human beings conscious of their personality.

"To say that God is completely different from us is as absurd as to say that he is
completely like us" (D. E. Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion, p. 270). Paradoxical
as it may seem, there is a mediating position which finds the answer in the
incarnation of Jesus the Christ, who said, "He who has seen me has seen the
Father" (John 14:9). Finite man will ever cling to the anthropomorphism of the
incarnation and the concept of God as Father (Matt. 7:11), but at the same time
he will realize the impossibility of absolute, complete comprehension of God, for
"my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the
Lord" (Isa. 55:8).

Catholic Information

(anthropos, man, and morphe, form).

A term used in its widest sense to signify the tendency of man to conceive the
activities of the external world as the counterpart of his own. A philosophic
system which borrows its method from this tendency is termed Philosophic
Anthropomorphism. The word, however, has been more generally employed to
designate the play of that impulse in religious thought. In this sense,
Anthropomorphism is the ascription to the Supreme Being of the form, organs,
operations, and general characteristics of human nature. This tendency is
strongly manifested in primitive heathen religions, in all forms of polytheism,
especially in the classic paganism of Greece and Rome. The charge of
Anthropomorphism was urged against the Greeks by their own philosopher,
Xenophanes of Colophon. The first Christian apologists upbraided the pagans for
having represented God, who is spiritual, as a mere magnified man, subject to
human vices and passions. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, abounds in
anthropomorphic expressions. Almost all the activities of organic life are ascribed
to the Almighty. He speaks, breathes, sees, hears; He walks in the garden; He sits
in the heavens, and the earth is His footstool. It must, however, be noticed that in
the Bible locutions of this kind ascribe human characteristics to God only in a
vague, indefinite way. He is never positively declared to have a body or a nature
the same as man's; and human defects and vices are never even figuratively
attributed to Him. The metaphorical, symbolical character of this language is
usually obvious. The all-seeing Eye signifies God's omniscience; the everlasting
Arms His omnipotence; His Sword the chastisement of sinners; when He is said to
have repented of having made man, we have an extremely forcible expression
conveying His abhorrence of sin. The justification of this language is found in the
fact that truth can be conveyed to men only through the medium of human ideas
and thoughts, and is to be expressed only in language suited to their
comprehension. The limitations of our conceptual capacity oblige us to represent
God to ourselves in ideas that have been originally drawn from our knowledge of
self and the objective world. The Scriptures themselves amply warn us against
the mistake of interpreting their figurative language in too literal a sense. They
teach that God is spiritual, omniscient, invisible, omnipresent, ineffable.
Insistence upon the literal interpretation of the metaphorical led to the error of
the Anthropomorphites. Throughout the writings of the Fathers the spirituality of
the Divine Nature, as well as the inadequacy of human thought to comprehend
the greatness, goodness, and infinite perfection of God, is continually
emphasized. At the same time, Catholic philosophy and theology set forth the
idea of God by means of concepts derived chiefly from the knowledge of our own
faculties, and our mental and moral characteristics. We reach our philosophic
knowledge of God by inference from the nature of various forms of existence, our
own included, that we perceive in the Universe. All created excellence, however,
falls infinitely short of the Divine perfections, consequently our idea of God can

never truly represent Him as He is, and, because He is infinite while our minds
are finite, the resemblance between our thought and its infinite object must
always be faint. Clearly, however, if we would do all that is in our power to make
our idea, not perfect, but as worthy as it may be, we must form it by means of
our conceptions of what is highest and best in the scale of existence that we
know. Hence, as mind and personality are the noblest forms of reality, we think
most worthily of God when we conceive Him under the attributes of mind, will,
intelligence, personality. At the same time, when the theologian or philosopher
employs these and similar terms with reference to God, he understands them to
be predicated not in exactly the same sense that they bear when applied to man,
but in a sense controlled and qualified by the principles laid down in the doctrine
of analogy.

A few decades ago thinkers and writers of the Spencerian and other kindred
schools seldom touched upon the doctrine of a personal God without designating
it Anthropomorphism, and thereby, in their judgment, excluding it definitively
from the world of philosophic thought. Though on the wane, the fashion has not
yet entirely disappeared. The charge of Anthropomorphism can be urged against
our way of thinking and speaking of God by those only who, despite the
protestations of theologians and philosophers, persist in assuming that terms are
used univocally of God and of creatures. When arguments are offered to sustain
the imputation, they usually exhibit an incorrect view regarding the essential
element of personality. The gist of the proof is that the Infinite is unlimited, while
personality essentially involves limitation; therefore, to speak of an Infinite
Person is to fall into an absurdity. What is truly essential in the concept of
personality is, first, individual existence as opposed to indefiniteness and to
identity with other beings; and next, possession, or intelligent control of self. To
say that God is personal is to say that He is distinct from the Universe, and that
He possesses Himself and His infinite activity, undetermined by any necessity
from within or from without. This conception is perfectly compatible with that of
infinity. When the agnostic would forbid us to think of God as personal, and would
have us speak of Him as energy, force, etc., he merely substitutes lower and
more imperfect conceptions for a higher one, without escaping from what he
terms Anthropomorphism, since these concepts too are derived from experience.
Besides, he offers violence to human nature when, as sometimes happens, he
asks us to entertain for an impersonal Being, conceived under the mechanical
types of force or energy, sentiments of reverence, obedience, and trust. These
sentiments come into play only in the world of persons, and cannot be exercised
towards a Being to whom we deny the attributes of personality.

Anthropomorphites (Audians)

A sect of Christians that arose in the fourth century in Syria and extended into
Scythia, sometimes called Audians, from their founder, Audius. Taking the text of
Genesis, i, 27, literally, Audius held that God has a human form. The error was so
gross, and, to use St. Jerome's expression (Epist. vi, Ad Pammachium), so
absolutely senseless, that it showed no vitality. Towards the end of the century it
appeared among some bodies of African Christians. The Fathers who wrote
against it dismiss it almost contemptuously. In the time of Cyril of Alexandria,
there were some anthropomorphites among the Egyptian monks. He composed a
short refutation of their error, which he attributed to extreme ignorance. (Adv.
Anthrop. in P.G., LXXVI.) Concerning the charges of anthropomorphism preferred
against Melito, Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, see the respective articles. The
error was revived in northern Italy during the tenth century, but was effectually
suppressed by the bishops, notably by the learned Ratherius, Bishop of Verona.

Publication information Written by James J. Fox. Transcribed by Bob Elder. The

Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume I. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton
Company. Nihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur.
+John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Anthropomorphism is a form of personification that gives human characteristics

to non-humans, primarily the gods or animals. It is used in religions, literature,
and has everyday uses as well. In many ways, anthropomorphism may be seen
as a way to make things that are unfamiliar seem more familiar.

The gods of many ancient religions were given distinctly human characteristics.
For example, the Ancient Greek gods were subject to intense anthropomorphism,
making them human, but as well, divine. The quarreling of the gods on Mount
Olympus exhibited many human characteristics and motivations: jealousy, greed,
lust, and deception.

Many of these quarrels can be dated to more primitive religions attempting to

incorporate the religious beliefs of different areas in Greece. However they also
serve the purpose of making the gods seem very human. In fact, some of the
gods, particularly Zeus, even fall in love with people, suggesting the gods are
very close to humans.

In literature, there are hundreds of examples of anthropomorphism. Childrens

books are quite often examples of anthropomorphism. The television series and
book series Arthur is one example. The early books in the Arthur series illustrate

Arthur as an aardvark. Later additions to the series have minimized Arthurs nose
to the point where he appears almost human.

The impetus behind such anthropomorphism is to write a story that will be

visually appealing and perhaps less threatening. Also, one can tell a story without
representing race, so it is suitable to all children. The goal is not to make the
animals more familiar, but instead to draw children to the page. However, in the
most recent books to the series, the lack of animal features, except for the
occasional pair of bunny ears or moose antlers has made the anthropomorphism
of the animals less interesting.

Writers for adults have used anthropomorphism with great effect. Sometimes
using animals may help couch controversial issues. For example, George Orwells
Animal Farm is an exploration of dictatorship and a criticism of socialism. Mark
Twain, in his short story A Dogs Tale, deliberately tells the story from a dogs
point of view in order to criticize humans behavior to animals.

Watership Down is one of the classic examples of anthropomorphism. Rabbits are

used to illustrate the heros journey. They have discreet and separate
personalities, a religion, and a desire to form a utopian rabbit society. The novel
uses anthropomorphism without being a rhetorical argument in most cases.
Anthropomorphism simply allows the tale to be told from an other than human
viewpoint.

People frequently use anthropomorphism when describing animals, especially

pets. Dressing a dog in sweaters, or attributing human emotions to animals can
become a bit excessive. Though it is clear animals have some emotions, they
may not be exactly human emotions.

Pet lovers tend to see expression of emotions in animals as a clear sign of their
human qualities. It can be deeply disturbing for young children, particularly, to
see a cat that is loving and sweet act on instinct and kill a baby bird. The danger
of anthropomorphizing pets is that we may ignore some of their true signals by
exerting and believing in their humanity.

Anthropomorphic Form
Anthropomorphic form is human form of an object. The colloquial use of the word
"form" emphasizes the physical shape of an object but designers view form as

the total expression of an object. When the object is a product, form refers not to
how something appears, but to the whole experience of interacting with the
product--with its physical shape, materials, and behavioral qualities. Why do
designers mimic human form in the products they create? Our research on
anthropomorphic form will inform design research and design practice.

Designers have a long history of imitating the human form. Contemporary

anthropomorphic forms continue a long and rich history of the use of human
shape for both functional and cultural purposes. This history traces back
thousands of years to ritual vessels and connects to contemporary design in
domains as diverse as vehicles, household products, and humanoid robots.

Our initial questions include:

What are the kinds of anthropomorphic forms?
How is anthropomorphic form created?
How is anthropomorphic form used?
To begin answering these questions, we have surveyed numerous examples and
explored anthropomorphic form through our own design exercises.

Reading on Anthropomorphic Form

In From Seduction to Fulfillment [PDF 668K], the authors identify four uses of
anthropomorphic form in designed form: making things familiar, keeping things
the same, reflecting product attributes, and projecting human values.

Collection of Anthropomorphic Forms

We have collected examples of the intentional use of anthropomorphic form by
designers. These examples include work from product, graphic, and advertising
design, architecture and art, and engineering and robotics. For each example, we
describe how the designer has used anthropomorphic form. The entries have
been grouped thematically.

For example, the use of plants, vegetables and fruit in conjunction with human
characteristics is a common theme, often found in products for the kitchen.

Theory

Anthropomorphism, our tendency to make anthropomorphic attributions (see the

psychology section), is at the heart of a scientific disagreement about the
uniqueness of human beings. Virtually all scientists accept the fact of evolution,
but new information about evolution is causing ferment about people and other
species

Darwin had a kind of stairway theory. He thought there are many "steps" between
us and the great apes and chimpanzees, but the distance between us and them
is one of degree and not kind (Darwin, 1871/1982, p 445). For example, in the
cartoon on the left, the man drops the ball and chases it. The chimp, following
the man's gaze, understands that the man is chasing the ball. In this vein, lots of
research has gone into discovering the human qualities of animals and the
human qualities we can build into robots.

Daniel Povinelli and Jesse Bering (2002) say that new science argues against the
stairway point of view. They say people differ in kind and in degree from animals.
Evolution is really about diversity and differences rather than progress up a
stairway. For instance, they believe only people can take the perspective of
others. In the cartoon on the right, the man drops the ball and imagines the
chimp capturing it, but the chimp only understands the free ball. If the chimp
goes after the ball, this happens not because the chimp understands he and the
man are in competition for the same ball, but rather because he wants the ball.
Povinelli and Bering say only humans have a theory of mind--can reinterpret
observable events, attribute reasons and causality, and see the world as others
see it. Divergent capabilities theory directs scientists and roboticists to study the
unique capabilities of people and animals.

Reading

American pets are getting naughtier by the minute. As the demand for dog
behaviorists and for prescription medication to combat "Doggie A.D.D." and
anxiety continue to escalate, we have to wonder who's to blame for this
hazardous trend. To answer the question, we have to first understand the
phenomenon behind treating pets as humans.

As the number of kids per household declines, the number of pets is increasing.
Baby boomers, a powerful segment of today's market, are quickly becoming
empty-nesters and replacing their grown two-legged children with four-legged
ones. Look no further than the proliferation of the term "pet parent" versus "pet

owner". In fact, a full 83% of pet owners now call themselves their pet's mommy
or daddy.

One possible incubator of anthropomorphism leads directly to the burgeoning pet

retail industry and the marketers who want your every pet dollar. Now a $43.4
billion annual jackpot for companies - larger than the entire U.S. toy industry - pet
care spending has reached unprecedented levels of growth and staying power
despite a recent turbulent economy.

"By buying pets human-type gifts, we are making ourselves feel good and making
them happy." says Bob Vetere, chief operating officer of the American Pet
Products Manufacturers Association. According to marketing strategist Lisa Lehr,
this trend suggests a hugely profitable strategy for entrepreneurs in the pet
business to position pets as members of the family. "People are eager to spend a
lot of money on their pets. You might as well be positioned to receive your share,"
states Lehr. The unfortunate consequence, however? A misguided view of canine
psychology that's given rise to undesirable dog behavior in thousands, if not
millions, of homes across the country.

Expecting dogs to think like a human is fairly widespread among pet owners. One
reason that ancient Fido likely earned the title "Man's Best Friend" versus other
animals was his remarkable ability to adapt his life to fit with ours. It is this very
skill set that is likely the cause for our frequently misreading of his intentions and
motives.

Dogs ultimately need rules, boundaries and limitations. When dogs live with
humans, the humans become the dog's pack. For this modern relationship to
succeed, we must be perceived as the pack's leader. To a dog, constant affection,
gifts and accommodations without rules, boundaries and limitations goes against
every grain in a dog's instinct.

In other words, dogs need to be treated like...well, dogs. And, pardon me, for
such a politically unpopular statement!

All but the most chronic anthropomorphic dog owners can improve their
relationship with their dog and ultimately their behavior if they make a valid
effort to understand their dog's unique emotional makeup. Whereas throwing
your dog a birthday party (hey, I've done it!) or filling a holiday stocking with

treats is not a heinous dog-behavioral crime, people should be wary when their
own actions impinge on providing proper timing and fair corrections for their dog.

When a dog is in any other state than being calm and submissive (e.g., if he's
aggressive, obsessive, scared, hyper or anxious) and we give him a hug or pat on
the head and tell him it's OK, it is comforting to us, but it only feeds the state of
mind for the dog, making the experience more intense. While we think we're
soothing the dog, the dog sees us as being a weak leader.

Let's look at an example. Many dogs are naturally afraid of fireworks or thunder.
During the experience, the dog is in a weak state of mind. If we step in and
comfort the dog in a way we understand (e.g., hugging or baby talk), the dog
actually sees us as being weaker than himself at that moment. For your dog to be
in a weak state of mind, and then be surrounded by a weaker state of mind, only
intensifies his original fear.

Anthropomorphic "parents" often discover that their dog has separation anxiety
(sometimes manifested by destructive behavior). In a pack, the leader is allowed
to leave, however the followers never leave the leader. If your dog instinctually
sees you as the follower and you leave him, the situation causes so much mental
anguish that he begins to take it out on your house, or worse, on himself. Owners
may want to think twice before buying that $3,000 four poster canopy doggie bed
and catering to their dog's every humanistic desire.

Whether it's the pet marketers to blame, or the glut of Hollywood films now
portraying pets as humans (have you seen Disney's Beverly Hills Chihuahua?),
giving dogs mixed leadership signals throws him off balance, confuses his psyche
and ignites a canine imbalance. Whenever we try to evaluate canine behavior
using human values we run the risk of misinterpreting our dog's emotions and
motives, while making minor behavioral issues become chronic.

So the next time you want to join the 63% of dog owners who engage in a little
kissy kissy with Fido on the bed, let the conventional disciplinarian in you take
over and remind yourself that it's not only OK to treat your dog like a dog, but it's
the BEST way to live in complete harmony with him.