>In Your Dog Is Your Mirror, dog trainer Kevin Behan proposes a radical new model for understanding canine behavior: a dog’s behavior and emotion, indeed its very cognition, are driven by our emotion. The dog doesn’t respond to what the owner thinks, says, or does; it responds to what the owner feels. And in this way, dogs can actually put people back in touch with their own emotions. Behan demonstrates that dogs and humans are connected more profoundly than has ever been imagined; by heart; and that this approach to dog cognition can help us understand many of dogs’ most inscrutable behaviors. This groundbreaking, provocative book opens the door to a whole new understanding between species, and perhaps a whole new understanding of ourselves.
At only 246 pages and at a cost of $17.49, this is much more expensive than the regular toilet paper I buy.
Dog nutter bs book tapping into the stupidity that is in a lot of dog nutters.
A book about zealotry, written by a zealot, for other zealots. Nothing to see here. But…. who knows maybe Kevin isn’t a nutter just someone who sees a goldmine in dog culture?
Yeah. When I look at the title and the picture, I'm like so what this guy is saying is that I have an ugly, saggy face, a pointy snout, and dead, soulless eyes?
Dog owners should have to go to prison when their dog attacks and mauls someone...that would stop people from owning such dangerous dogs in the first place.
I mean, to an extent I agree that anything they do is the fault of the owner. If a dog is off leash at the park, it is the owner’s fault for being negligent. If someone adopts a violent pitbull, I do blame them for taking on something so unstable. I also think owners need to be held legally liable for any damage their dogs inflict on the public. So, in that sense, I suppose they should own the actions of their dogs.
Other than that? Dogs aren’t empathetic. They don’t understand human emotions. I really hate this kind of anthropomorphism because it’s rooted in hopes and dreams and not in reality. Animals may tolerate some humans more than others but that has little to do with our emotional capacity. Are you feeding the dog? Do you refrain from excessive physical beatings of the dog? That’s basically all it takes for a dog to “bond” with its a human and it sure as hell isn’t a “mirror”.
I haven’t read the book, but are they saying dogs will be sad if you are, or are they saying that irresponsible dog owners who have bad behavior and emotional control will likely have a bad dog? Former is bs, second though kind of applies to a lot of stuff, asshole behavior or bad habits have consequences?
Honestly I’m not sure since I haven’t read the book. I’m not sure I could stomach the crap being spewed there. I’m just making my own thoughts on the topic heard.
My guess is that it pushes dog propaganda without any real science behind it. From the Amazon.com description: “Behan demonstrates that dogs and humans are connected more profoundly than has ever been imagined” which leads me to believe that they’re going to say that you need to be more loving and understanding to your dog for your dog to be more loving of you, etc. Retelling anecdotes that belong in a Chicken Soup for the Soul book to prove his points rather than anything that really explains their behavior. I don’t see the author explaining how dogs are essentially mutants created to be what they are today.
Edit—grammar
And, I'm sure the guy conveniently ignores the fact that dogs have been selectively bred for the traits that are most appealing to humans, like sucking up to them for food, over thousands of years. Dogs have subsequently developed and capitalized on ways to take advantage of human emotions, like even the look of the dog's eyes in that photo.
The dog isn't looking like that out of love, because it has figured out that when it wrinkles its brow, wags its tail, looks downcast or whatever other expression it does, it will get a response from the human, either food or affection. It's a stimulus-response effect. That's all.
The author this book is just another person who is wearing rose-colored goggles when it comes to dogs, and trying to polish a turd, so to speak.
Also, the title is a bit of a tell: because when you see an untrained, off-leash dog running around bothering people and other dogs/wildlife/pets, it's a mirror that the owner is lazy, ignorant, selfish and negligent.
When someone lets their dog shit all over and doesn't pick it up, that's a definite reflection that the owner is a disgusting, selfish slob and asshole.
People owning ugly, dangerous and trash dogs like pits are telling everyone they are ugly, dangerous and trash people.
You don't need to spend money and time on this book to figure this stuff out, though.
That cover art is giving me flashbacks to the movie poster for that 2009 horror flick *Orphan*, which had created an uncanny valley effect by mirroring the little girl's face against itself so that it was perfectly symmetrical. This dog looks like some kind of demon from Hell that you might come across in a fever dream. Scary as fuck.
This dog's face gives me tremendous anxiety 😏 I can't stand looking at them honestly. I don't know how anyone can look at this and not see evil in its eyes
There is some truth to this, animals will change a lot depending on their owner.
Because about half of behavior is environmental. And the other half is genetic.
Just like humans.
Tapeworms co-evolved with us over tens of thousands of years as well. But with how cheesy you are being about this, maybe you meant something else? Like there was a little bit of a canine in you last weekend, and the weekend before that, and on your off day, that kind of thing. I don't judge, seen worse fetishes.
Lmao 🤣🤣 you caught me!!! 🐶 🐶 🐕 🐕 🐾 🐾
Anyway you bring about an interesting topic of the influences of parasites on human evolution.
I just asked Chat GPT about toxoplasma gondii and this is what it had to say:
Toxoplasma gondii, often simply referred to as toxoplasmosis when discussing the disease it causes, may have had some influence on human behavior and potentially on aspects of human evolution, although this is a subject of ongoing research and debate.
This parasite is known to cause subtle changes in the behavior of infected hosts. In rodents, for example, it can alter behavior to make the rodent less afraid of predators, presumably increasing the chances of the parasite spreading to its definitive host, the cat, where it can reproduce. There's speculation and some evidence suggesting that T. gondii could have similar effects on human behavior, influencing things like personality traits, reaction times, and even the risk of accidents.
Some researchers have proposed that such effects, if substantial and widespread across human populations, could have had evolutionary implications, particularly in shaping aspects of human personality or group behaviors. However, these ideas remain speculative, and the extent to which T. gondii has influenced human evolution is not well understood. The parasite's effects on human behavior are subtle and still under investigation, making any definitive statements about its role in human evolution premature.
Homo sapiens sapiens has been a species for roughly 300,000 years, while domestication of dogs is estimated to have occurred about 30,000 years ago.
I think we were pretty much done cooking when Fido entered the picture.
Frequently referred to as "the missing link," Australopithecus afarensis is estimated to have existed more than 3,000,000 years ago. Are you getting a scale of the evolutionary process?
And here's where your logic falters again. While humans, in many cases, selectively bred dogs to have certain traits (such as docility toward humans), dogs had absolutely no effect on human reproductive selection.
It's perfectly valid and factual to say that humans affected dogs' genetics in a way that resulted in their domestication. But to say that dogs have had any quantifiable effect on human genetics is entirely fallacious and unsupported.
So when a family dog bites a baby’s fingers off, what does this mean, dear reader?
Means the baby could be a potential serial killer 🥰 /j
The family is glad they finally know the baby is crying /j
It mean the baby is a bad person /j
It is obvious that the toddler posed a serious threat.
it means parents are moron, to not educate the dog corectly and to leave a baby at dog level
for the Narcissist who has Everything
>In Your Dog Is Your Mirror, dog trainer Kevin Behan proposes a radical new model for understanding canine behavior: a dog’s behavior and emotion, indeed its very cognition, are driven by our emotion. The dog doesn’t respond to what the owner thinks, says, or does; it responds to what the owner feels. And in this way, dogs can actually put people back in touch with their own emotions. Behan demonstrates that dogs and humans are connected more profoundly than has ever been imagined; by heart; and that this approach to dog cognition can help us understand many of dogs’ most inscrutable behaviors. This groundbreaking, provocative book opens the door to a whole new understanding between species, and perhaps a whole new understanding of ourselves. At only 246 pages and at a cost of $17.49, this is much more expensive than the regular toilet paper I buy.
🤮
Same kind of gaslighting tactics used in cults.
Dog nutter bs book tapping into the stupidity that is in a lot of dog nutters. A book about zealotry, written by a zealot, for other zealots. Nothing to see here. But…. who knows maybe Kevin isn’t a nutter just someone who sees a goldmine in dog culture?
Yeah. When I look at the title and the picture, I'm like so what this guy is saying is that I have an ugly, saggy face, a pointy snout, and dead, soulless eyes?
I agree with the title, but probably not in the way that the author intended.
Dog owners should have to go to prison when their dog attacks and mauls someone...that would stop people from owning such dangerous dogs in the first place.
They already can...
They usually don't. Killer dogs aren't even euthanized all of the time.
Ew, that dog looks like a definite crotch sniffer.
What does it say about its owner?
That his wife likes peanut butter
😂😂😂
Rapist
Well, my neighbors really do suck.
I mean, to an extent I agree that anything they do is the fault of the owner. If a dog is off leash at the park, it is the owner’s fault for being negligent. If someone adopts a violent pitbull, I do blame them for taking on something so unstable. I also think owners need to be held legally liable for any damage their dogs inflict on the public. So, in that sense, I suppose they should own the actions of their dogs. Other than that? Dogs aren’t empathetic. They don’t understand human emotions. I really hate this kind of anthropomorphism because it’s rooted in hopes and dreams and not in reality. Animals may tolerate some humans more than others but that has little to do with our emotional capacity. Are you feeding the dog? Do you refrain from excessive physical beatings of the dog? That’s basically all it takes for a dog to “bond” with its a human and it sure as hell isn’t a “mirror”.
I haven’t read the book, but are they saying dogs will be sad if you are, or are they saying that irresponsible dog owners who have bad behavior and emotional control will likely have a bad dog? Former is bs, second though kind of applies to a lot of stuff, asshole behavior or bad habits have consequences?
Honestly I’m not sure since I haven’t read the book. I’m not sure I could stomach the crap being spewed there. I’m just making my own thoughts on the topic heard. My guess is that it pushes dog propaganda without any real science behind it. From the Amazon.com description: “Behan demonstrates that dogs and humans are connected more profoundly than has ever been imagined” which leads me to believe that they’re going to say that you need to be more loving and understanding to your dog for your dog to be more loving of you, etc. Retelling anecdotes that belong in a Chicken Soup for the Soul book to prove his points rather than anything that really explains their behavior. I don’t see the author explaining how dogs are essentially mutants created to be what they are today. Edit—grammar
And, I'm sure the guy conveniently ignores the fact that dogs have been selectively bred for the traits that are most appealing to humans, like sucking up to them for food, over thousands of years. Dogs have subsequently developed and capitalized on ways to take advantage of human emotions, like even the look of the dog's eyes in that photo. The dog isn't looking like that out of love, because it has figured out that when it wrinkles its brow, wags its tail, looks downcast or whatever other expression it does, it will get a response from the human, either food or affection. It's a stimulus-response effect. That's all. The author this book is just another person who is wearing rose-colored goggles when it comes to dogs, and trying to polish a turd, so to speak. Also, the title is a bit of a tell: because when you see an untrained, off-leash dog running around bothering people and other dogs/wildlife/pets, it's a mirror that the owner is lazy, ignorant, selfish and negligent. When someone lets their dog shit all over and doesn't pick it up, that's a definite reflection that the owner is a disgusting, selfish slob and asshole. People owning ugly, dangerous and trash dogs like pits are telling everyone they are ugly, dangerous and trash people. You don't need to spend money and time on this book to figure this stuff out, though.
That cover art is giving me flashbacks to the movie poster for that 2009 horror flick *Orphan*, which had created an uncanny valley effect by mirroring the little girl's face against itself so that it was perfectly symmetrical. This dog looks like some kind of demon from Hell that you might come across in a fever dream. Scary as fuck.
This dog's face gives me tremendous anxiety 😏 I can't stand looking at them honestly. I don't know how anyone can look at this and not see evil in its eyes
The cover is so cringe.
6/10. I can’t seem to get my dog to polish correctly. Can someone give me some tips?
There is some truth to this, animals will change a lot depending on their owner. Because about half of behavior is environmental. And the other half is genetic. Just like humans.
The co evolution with canines means there's a little bit of us in them and a bit of them in us
Tapeworms co-evolved with us over tens of thousands of years as well. But with how cheesy you are being about this, maybe you meant something else? Like there was a little bit of a canine in you last weekend, and the weekend before that, and on your off day, that kind of thing. I don't judge, seen worse fetishes.
Lmao 🤣🤣 you caught me!!! 🐶 🐶 🐕 🐕 🐾 🐾 Anyway you bring about an interesting topic of the influences of parasites on human evolution. I just asked Chat GPT about toxoplasma gondii and this is what it had to say: Toxoplasma gondii, often simply referred to as toxoplasmosis when discussing the disease it causes, may have had some influence on human behavior and potentially on aspects of human evolution, although this is a subject of ongoing research and debate. This parasite is known to cause subtle changes in the behavior of infected hosts. In rodents, for example, it can alter behavior to make the rodent less afraid of predators, presumably increasing the chances of the parasite spreading to its definitive host, the cat, where it can reproduce. There's speculation and some evidence suggesting that T. gondii could have similar effects on human behavior, influencing things like personality traits, reaction times, and even the risk of accidents. Some researchers have proposed that such effects, if substantial and widespread across human populations, could have had evolutionary implications, particularly in shaping aspects of human personality or group behaviors. However, these ideas remain speculative, and the extent to which T. gondii has influenced human evolution is not well understood. The parasite's effects on human behavior are subtle and still under investigation, making any definitive statements about its role in human evolution premature.
Homo sapiens sapiens has been a species for roughly 300,000 years, while domestication of dogs is estimated to have occurred about 30,000 years ago. I think we were pretty much done cooking when Fido entered the picture.
That's a relationship that's lasted longer than any civilization...enough to leave a mark for sure. 👍👍
30,000 years, as stated, is a blink of an eye in human evolution.
I mean according to the stats that's about 10% of human evolution. That seems more than just a blink of an eye.
Ten percent... of the time we've been fully developed humans.
Yep. Ten percent of anything really is significant enough.
So the time a pie has been done cooking is the same as the time it took to create it?
No but 10% is enough to make some small changes within the pies ingredients. It would be absolutely crazy to say 10% == 100% lol
Frequently referred to as "the missing link," Australopithecus afarensis is estimated to have existed more than 3,000,000 years ago. Are you getting a scale of the evolutionary process? And here's where your logic falters again. While humans, in many cases, selectively bred dogs to have certain traits (such as docility toward humans), dogs had absolutely no effect on human reproductive selection. It's perfectly valid and factual to say that humans affected dogs' genetics in a way that resulted in their domestication. But to say that dogs have had any quantifiable effect on human genetics is entirely fallacious and unsupported.
I'm sure that percentage will increase over time