Kim Fox said:
>Having the ability to communicate with animals, I have learned that they
>are responding as a protective instinct because they associate the sound
>with a ferret being hurt.
 
Now Kim, ferrets steal things, they hide them in stashes of treasure,
they fight with each other, rip up carpet, stain walls, purposely poop
on the floor, delight in messing up the house, rationalize misdeeds,
constantly try to get out of the house, stay up all night making
noise....
 
Hold on!!  They are not ferrets!  They are teenaged punks, troublemakers
all!  If ferrets were humans, you would count your CDs and DVDs after
they left and lock up your jewelry before they came.  These types are
notorious for bending the truth until it breaks!  Ferrets are even more
renowned for lying than the average teen punk.  There is not a long-term
ferret owner on this list that hasn't caught a delinquent ferret breaking
the rules, then looking up with innocent face and LIE to the depths of
their soul, suggesting they didn't do it -- the cat did!  Ferrets are
horrible, terrible liars, so why on earth would you believe one saying
they were "only trying to protect a ferret" after they danced the
squeaky-toy dance with your finger?  <evil grin>
 
Seriously, I wondered about the protective instinct hypothesis for some
time as well, but a couple of things changed my mind.  Ferrets are
domesticated polecats, but the types of domestication changes wrought in
the ferret are mostly behavioral.  Of those behavioral changes, most are
one type or other of sustained juvenile behaviors.  For example, play
fighting is mostly a juvenile behavior in polecats, but it is extended
into adulthood in ferrets.  Similarly, polecat adults are quite solitary,
but ferrets retain "litter-mate acceptance" behaviors for the most part.
Because polecats are solitary, the protective type of behavior (running
to attack an interloper) would probably not persist into adulthood
because it is energy costly, can result in serious injury, and it is
unlikely such a "cry for help" would ever be heard.  That would suggest
such a behavior would belong to the juvenile suite, rather than the adult
group.  But the implication is that IF it is a juvenile behavior, then
it is more common in juvenile compared to adults.  In other words,
while you might expect some ferrets to retain the behavior because of
juvenilization, many would not.  THAT means many more juvenile ferrets
would have the squeaky-toy reaction than adults.  That is where it fails
the test, because that statement is not true; the behavior is consistent
during all stages of a ferret's life.
 
Another observation tends to disprove the hypothesis (or at least erodes
credibility), and that is the reactions when I accidentally step on a
ferret's foot.  Most of us have done that, or maybe nipped a quick when
clipping nails, or even sadly observed a ferret squealing after being
seriously hurt.  The squeals made when frightened, or those made in pain
DO NOT illicit the "squeaky-toy response." The noise may cause ferrets to
investigate, but I have never seen a ferret react to a squeal of pain as
they do to a squeaky-toy.
 
Still, while this is an interesting argument, it is not proof.  Even if I
did a scientific study and collected overwhelming data, all it would show
is that some percentage of ferrets react "negatively" to squeaky-toys,
and others do not.  The reason is because animal behaviorists cannot test
for intent.  How many times have you asked someone "Why on earth did you
do that?" and they just stare back at you with a blank expression?  They
did it and they can't tell you why!  There are things *I* do that I
cannot explain; how can anyone know the intent of another species?
 
This is not a post attacking your communication ability with animals.
I don't personally believe humans evolved some type of paranormal
ability for animal telepathy, but I don't care if you believe it
exists.  In fact, I strongly support your right to such beliefs.
I'm a zooarchaeologist, which means I am fundamentally a trained
anthropologist, and from a scientific point of view, I respect all
beliefs and support their preservation.  From a spiritual point of view,
I am a Quaker, so I have a tremendous respect for people and their
worldview.  And this brings us back to the most fundamental problem
facing ALL behaviorists, human or animal: determination of intent.  For
example, there are perhaps a dozen people on this planet that know my
real birthday.  If you ask me for it, I will invariably lie and give
you the wrong date.  Now, I know why I do this, but can you be accurate
in describing my intent?  There is not a person on the FML that can
determine that intent, unless I've told them.  And that is the problem
in trying to determine intent behind ANY behavior.  Because of that,
behaviorists speak in terms of statistical probabilities, rather than in
individual certainties.  In other words, I can tell you why the average
ferret will do a behavior, but I cannot tell you why an individual ferret
will do it.  To use humans as an example, women in general use make-up to
increase sexual attractiveness, but there are plenty of women who shun
the use, and others who use it for other reasons.  The generality may be
true, but it fails when explaining the specific.
 
Kim, the implications of that last statement are important, because
it means ferrets, in general, may react to squeaky-toy noise for one
predominant reason, but YOURS might have been telling the truth when they
said it was because of a protective instinct.  Not that I trust lying
delinquent ferrets one bit, but yours might be exceptionally truthful.
Mine just mock me.  Your's might be sweet, but mine are weasels with
attitude...the punks.
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 4379]