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]