Latest / Why We Do What We Do / Mini: Do Our Pets Understand Us?

Transcript

Mini: Do Our Pets Understand Us? · Why We Do What We Do

0:03
Speaker 1: You're listening to Why we do what we do? Welcome
0:15
Speaker 1: to Why we do what we do? Many I am
0:18
Speaker 1: your host Abraham, and I'm your.
0:20
Speaker 2: Host Shane, or is I like to say in dog
0:22
Speaker 2: Bark Bark, Bark, Bark Bark.
0:24
Speaker 1: We are a psychology podcast. We like to talk about
0:27
Speaker 1: the things that humans and non human animals do, kind
0:31
Speaker 1: of the subject of today's podcast. And this is a
0:33
Speaker 1: mini that means we're going to do a quick dive
0:35
Speaker 1: into this topic and then be done with it and
0:38
Speaker 1: move on about our day and let you move on
0:40
Speaker 1: with your day. So it's just short and that's the
0:42
Speaker 1: thing that we do because it's a mini. So welcome.
0:44
Speaker 2: Yeah, super stoked to have you. And so for those
0:46
Speaker 2: of us, like we have pets and we hang out
0:48
Speaker 2: with our pets and stuff, and we hope so much
0:50
Speaker 2: as they understand us. And so we're going to unpack
0:52
Speaker 2: that today.
0:53
Speaker 1: Yes, and before we do that, I'll say if you
0:55
Speaker 1: like to support us, who can join us on Patreon,
0:56
Speaker 1: leave us a rating and review, like subscribe, tell a friend.
1:00
Speaker 1: I'll talk more about that at the end of this discussion. Now,
1:03
Speaker 1: we actually have a lot to say here, so I'm
1:05
Speaker 1: going to try and just do it efficiently. I try
1:08
Speaker 1: not to speak so fast that at double speed I
1:10
Speaker 1: am unintelligible. I'll try and say somewhat slowly here, but
1:14
Speaker 1: also make sure that we're moving efficiently, which is not
1:17
Speaker 1: very effective when I repeat myself. Sure, jumping into it.
1:20
Speaker 1: Then we talk to our pets. That's the thing that
1:22
Speaker 1: we do. And I think many of us believe that
1:25
Speaker 1: our pets are understanding us, at least in part, if
1:28
Speaker 1: not in full, and maybe even believe that our pets
1:31
Speaker 1: try to communicate back to us. So the question we're
1:34
Speaker 1: asking in this mini is do our pets understand us?
1:37
Speaker 1: Do they know their names? And if that was the
1:40
Speaker 1: case one way or the other, how would we know
1:43
Speaker 1: that thing? So let's go ahead and jump into the
1:45
Speaker 1: research here.
1:47
Speaker 2: Yeah, so here's what you want to hear. Of course
1:49
Speaker 2: they understand us, Yes, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt.
1:53
Speaker 2: Everything you think about your pets brilliance is totally correct. Yep,
1:57
Speaker 2: And that's the end of the mini. Thank you guys
1:58
Speaker 2: for being here. We appreciate it. We'll see at another time.
2:01
Speaker 1: Great easy peasy, we ac published circle very short. Maybe
2:04
Speaker 1: all right, here's the reality though, do they understand us?
2:07
Speaker 1: Kind of, but not in the way that you think
2:10
Speaker 1: that they do. Probably do they know their names? Depends
2:14
Speaker 1: on what you mean by no know. How would we
2:19
Speaker 1: know if they know their names or if they understand us? Again,
2:22
Speaker 1: it depends on what you mean by no, but mostly
2:26
Speaker 1: through their behavior and some basic epistemological agreements about how
2:32
Speaker 1: we would understand such things.
2:35
Speaker 2: Yeah, so let's start with this. The research on this
2:38
Speaker 2: is just terrible. Yeah, to the degree that Abraham takes
2:42
Speaker 2: personal offense, it feels like a personal attack. I do
2:45
Speaker 2: these research articles. Yeah, so we're gonna outline it. We're
2:48
Speaker 2: gonna talk about the research that's been done. We're going
2:49
Speaker 2: to criticize it into a deep, deep grave where it
2:53
Speaker 2: belongs because it's just not done.
2:55
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, that's bad. So one study put dogs in
2:59
Speaker 1: an FMR on We've done a whole episode on fMRIs.
3:02
Speaker 1: But they wanted to look at these dogs' brains, and
3:04
Speaker 1: the functional MRI will do that. And what they did
3:07
Speaker 1: is they issued a series of verbal commands like they
3:10
Speaker 1: would for these creatures who have likely experienced these verbal
3:14
Speaker 1: commands in the form of statements. And then what they
3:17
Speaker 1: did is they tried to vary the tone of those statements.
3:19
Speaker 1: Then they looked at the dog's brains to see where
3:22
Speaker 1: the information they received in the brain was being perceived.
3:26
Speaker 1: That was what they wanted to accomplish, to see like
3:29
Speaker 1: where are these things happening in the brain?
3:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, so they reported that words were processed in one
3:33
Speaker 2: part of the brain, but tone was processed in another.
3:36
Speaker 2: How they determined which part of the brain was processing
3:38
Speaker 2: which part of the speech is they decided they wanted
3:41
Speaker 2: it to be that way, and then it was that's
3:44
Speaker 2: as far as that went.
3:45
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's science, Like, this is the outcome I want.
3:48
Speaker 1: So this is the outcome I'm going to say, is
3:49
Speaker 1: what happened? Yeah, well, again, they did try to vary
3:52
Speaker 1: the pitch, so they tried to associate changes in the
3:55
Speaker 1: level of brain activity with whether it was responding to that.
3:58
Speaker 1: But what you can't actually know is is among the
4:02
Speaker 1: various issues that exist with fMRIs when trying to understand
4:05
Speaker 1: psychology and things like understanding, which is to say, it
4:10
Speaker 1: basically doesn't do that at all. Right, the assumptions they
4:14
Speaker 1: have to make are that the changes they see in
4:17
Speaker 1: the brain are directly related to the stimulation, that the
4:19
Speaker 1: aspects of the stimulation that they concerned with our reflecting
4:21
Speaker 1: those parts of the brain, and that it's somehow meaningful
4:23
Speaker 1: that they are separated in those two places. Their argument
4:26
Speaker 1: essentially is that they are processing words and their processing tone,
4:30
Speaker 1: but they do them differently, meaning they do understand us.
4:33
Speaker 1: That's sort of the argument they're trying to get at here.
4:35
Speaker 1: But no, not really, Nah. It very well could be
4:41
Speaker 1: the case that they process both of those things in
4:43
Speaker 1: both parts of the brain at the same time. It
4:44
Speaker 1: could be that they had the relative associations of one
4:47
Speaker 1: switched with the other, and the fact that they are
4:49
Speaker 1: maybe processing different parts, which again comes from the average
4:52
Speaker 1: of filtering out a bunch of other processes going on
4:55
Speaker 1: in the brain, and assuming that the fact that there's
4:57
Speaker 1: more activity in those parts of the brain then the
5:00
Speaker 1: others indicates that those are the most important parts of
5:02
Speaker 1: the brain involved in activity. And while they might be,
5:05
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that they're the only parts, or that
5:07
Speaker 1: they have anything necessarily to do with the fact that
5:09
Speaker 1: they're processing that speech in any way that could potentially
5:12
Speaker 1: be interpreted as meaningful. It is dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb,
5:15
Speaker 1: and they're wrong. Yeah, But anyway, the point of here
5:18
Speaker 1: was that that was what they decided what happened in
5:21
Speaker 1: that one. But there's another study, and what they decided
5:23
Speaker 1: to do is have dogs look at these two dimensional
5:26
Speaker 1: pictures of humans showing characteristic emotional features. And we've talked
5:32
Speaker 1: about this before, but they use the sort of Ekman's
5:34
Speaker 1: emotional picture like facial expressions thing for this. So they
5:37
Speaker 1: showed essentially these dogs these these two dimensional, flat printoutive
5:41
Speaker 1: pictures and they're like looking for the dog's heart rate
5:46
Speaker 1: when they looked at those pictures of various emotional states
5:48
Speaker 1: depicted on human faces. And then they also measured which
5:51
Speaker 1: direction the dog turned its head when presented with a picture.
5:55
Speaker 1: That is how they decided they would understand dogs under
5:59
Speaker 1: like have a respet sponds to emotional reactions in humans.
6:03
Speaker 2: It's amazing to me that they think that dogs would
6:07
Speaker 2: respond to this in a way like could you imagine
6:10
Speaker 2: like playing an ad and then having a dog respond
6:13
Speaker 2: to it and then measuring their response.
6:14
Speaker 1: I can imagine it. I don't think it's a good idea.
6:17
Speaker 1: Well let's try it if you have a pet play
6:18
Speaker 1: this ad? All right, So we're back talking about this
6:29
Speaker 1: one where they showed dogs pictures and then the measure
6:31
Speaker 1: their heart rate, because you know, when you have a
6:34
Speaker 1: bad idea, just run with it. I guess, yeah, this
6:37
Speaker 1: study is so absurd.
6:39
Speaker 2: It's not good. First, dogs famously have super eyes. Their
6:43
Speaker 2: eyes are about as useful to their interaction with the
6:45
Speaker 2: world as our noses are. Imagine if you could primarily
6:49
Speaker 2: navigate your environment by smell, how difficult would it be
6:52
Speaker 2: to drive or even get around your space, or how
6:55
Speaker 2: difficult would it be to tell how somebody feels by
6:58
Speaker 2: their smell? Extremely and that's what their vision is like.
7:02
Speaker 2: We are terrible with our smell. They are terrible with
7:05
Speaker 2: their eyesight. Their best senses are their spell in their hearing,
7:08
Speaker 2: and those two senses alone are so much more powerful
7:10
Speaker 2: than ours that we can't even begin to grasp what
7:13
Speaker 2: it must be like.
7:14
Speaker 1: And yet they used visual.
7:17
Speaker 2: Cues to measure their emotions, like, I don't even think
7:20
Speaker 2: that they would respond to a human model in a
7:22
Speaker 2: way that would be reliable that if it only had
7:24
Speaker 2: visual cues to go with it, let alone a two
7:27
Speaker 2: dimensional version of this.
7:29
Speaker 1: Right now, of course, heart rate is objective, they were
7:31
Speaker 1: trying to use that. But also heart rate is like
7:33
Speaker 1: constantly changing it goes up and down all the time.
7:36
Speaker 1: And I suppose if you were trying, you could probably
7:38
Speaker 1: eke out some statistical significance with any large enough sample
7:42
Speaker 1: size here, which is what they seem to have done
7:44
Speaker 1: in this case. And they may have found a statistically
7:47
Speaker 1: significant difference in their heart rate with respect to those
7:50
Speaker 1: different images, but these are not meaningly significant, and they
7:52
Speaker 1: had no control group. And I look through the study
7:55
Speaker 1: and it does not like there's no reason to believe
7:57
Speaker 1: that that heart rate should be interpreted as anything that
8:00
Speaker 1: has to do with their understanding of the emotional state
8:03
Speaker 1: of the pictures that they're looking at, because again, that
8:05
Speaker 1: requires a crazy number of assumptions based on stimuli that
8:09
Speaker 1: have very little stimulus control. Again, I would really like
8:13
Speaker 1: to emphasize that this is like trying to have humans
8:16
Speaker 1: smell another human and interpret their emotion from smell alone blindfold.
8:21
Speaker 1: You walk up to a body and you go and
8:23
Speaker 1: you're like, I think that they feel sad. Like that's
8:25
Speaker 1: like the equivalent of what they're trying to do with this. Yeah,
8:28
Speaker 1: the study by using having dogs look at two D images.
8:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, and then they rationalize that turning their head corresponds
8:35
Speaker 2: to a particular hemisphere of the brain indicating how information
8:38
Speaker 2: was being processed, as if that is the most important
8:40
Speaker 2: factor in why a dog might turn its head. I
8:43
Speaker 2: don't think it is even a factor, let alone the factor.
8:47
Speaker 2: And we could almost guarantee that we could train a
8:49
Speaker 2: dog to do the opposite any in very very little time. Like,
8:53
Speaker 2: just give us the right treats and the right context,
8:56
Speaker 2: and I bet we can get this dog doing all
8:57
Speaker 2: kinds of things.
8:59
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it could. We could have them yawn, we
9:01
Speaker 1: could have them do all kinds of things. The factors
9:04
Speaker 1: that go into in determining why a dog would turn
9:06
Speaker 1: its head are varied and numerous, and pretty much none
9:09
Speaker 1: of them have to do with two D stimuli right,
9:11
Speaker 1: exactly at all. So that's just ridiculous. All right, Let's
9:15
Speaker 1: pretend that those studies never happened, because we'll know more
9:18
Speaker 1: about dog psychology without those studies than we will know
9:20
Speaker 1: about dog psychology with those studies, and move on to
9:23
Speaker 1: the really answering the question, then do our pets understand us?
9:26
Speaker 2: So? Non human animals primarily learn to interact with a
9:30
Speaker 2: variety of stimulus inputs with respect to what happens when
9:33
Speaker 2: they react to those stimuli so the amount of stimuli
9:35
Speaker 2: they can learn is pretty large, but it is never abstract.
9:39
Speaker 2: They learn stimulus equals response equals outcome. It's pretty straightforward,
9:43
Speaker 2: and that's that's pretty true for almost every organism on
9:46
Speaker 2: the planet.
9:47
Speaker 1: Yeah, except for humans. We can learn that stimulus equals
9:50
Speaker 1: like semantic representation of a sure right that this seems
9:55
Speaker 1: to be something that is kind of unique about us,
9:56
Speaker 1: But the vast majority of animals don't demonstrate that, not
9:59
Speaker 1: in the way that we ever measured it, or if
10:01
Speaker 1: they do, it's in a capacity that looks very very
10:02
Speaker 1: different from how humans do it, which means that even
10:04
Speaker 1: if they do something that looks like our version of language,
10:07
Speaker 1: we're not measuring it by measuring our version of language
10:09
Speaker 1: with them, right, at least not meaningfully. So let's start
10:12
Speaker 1: with the fact that some animals are genetically predisposed to
10:15
Speaker 1: respond to greater or lesser capacity to social cues. I
10:18
Speaker 1: think that we can acknowledge that, like some of us,
10:21
Speaker 1: we just have evolved to respond to social cues more
10:24
Speaker 1: than others. Son animals do not particularly participate in social cues,
10:28
Speaker 1: and therefore have not evolved to be very sensitive to
10:31
Speaker 1: those social cues or social consequences, Like there are many animals.
10:35
Speaker 1: I think spiders are kind of a fairly good example
10:37
Speaker 1: of this, Like they don't tend to like do a
10:41
Speaker 1: lot socially with one another, We don't. They kind of
10:43
Speaker 1: sometimes hang out in similar spaces, but I think that's
10:45
Speaker 1: by nature of the fact that tends to be where
10:47
Speaker 1: there's food and where breeding happens. But they do not
10:49
Speaker 1: seem to otherwise respond to a lot of other social cues.
10:52
Speaker 2: Right Let's talk about reptiles for a second, because they're
10:55
Speaker 2: not usually very social at all, Like mammals tend to
10:58
Speaker 2: be more social, with dogs being on the pretty extreme
11:00
Speaker 2: into the social relevance of their evolutionary development, so they
11:03
Speaker 2: tend to be more sensitive to our cues as a species.
11:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, whereas reptiles really also again not particularly social. They
11:11
Speaker 1: just don't respond very much to cues or in consequences
11:14
Speaker 1: that come from a social stimulus. Right now, dogs and
11:18
Speaker 1: other pets, they do rely on a lot of different
11:20
Speaker 1: types of cues from us. We did an episode talking
11:22
Speaker 1: about how they can smell small changes in our saliva
11:25
Speaker 1: that indicate if we're about to have a seizure, Like
11:27
Speaker 1: that's crazy to wrap your head around thinking about like
11:29
Speaker 1: smelling something that nuanced. Therefore, are hormones. Pheromones and other
11:34
Speaker 1: smells we give off when communicating are important to their
11:37
Speaker 1: ability to recognize our communication, what we're saying and communicating,
11:41
Speaker 1: And of course our tones are also very important. So
11:43
Speaker 1: in addition to the fact that we're saying something to them,
11:46
Speaker 1: they get the tone of the thing that we're saying
11:48
Speaker 1: and any smells that we're giving off that probably change
11:51
Speaker 1: on a moment to moment by basis with respect to
11:53
Speaker 1: our emotional states.
11:54
Speaker 2: So let's remind you about that first study. Okay, in
11:57
Speaker 2: that first thing we mentioned in this topic in this episode,
12:00
Speaker 2: it even showed that praise only registered as praise if
12:02
Speaker 2: the words and tones matched. So, yes, they will learn
12:06
Speaker 2: a pretty significant arsenal of words, but they'll also learn
12:09
Speaker 2: a pretty significant arsenal of tones. In addition, they learn
12:12
Speaker 2: our body language, so they don't have any metaphorical or
12:15
Speaker 2: semantic understanding of our language at all. However, they'll be
12:18
Speaker 2: able to learn words, pattern, tone, smells, body language, and
12:21
Speaker 2: engage in behaviors to produce the most positive outcome for
12:24
Speaker 2: them from that set of cues.
12:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, if you imagine someone trying to communicate
12:28
Speaker 1: with you in a language you don't understand at all,
12:31
Speaker 1: like it has no cognates, nothing that you can latch onto.
12:34
Speaker 1: You can still use their tone in body language quite
12:36
Speaker 1: a bit, and even in that case, you'll barely be
12:39
Speaker 1: able to understand them at all, like right, pretty much,
12:41
Speaker 1: very little, but you'll get like maybe a general idea,
12:44
Speaker 1: particularly if they're like trying to mime things to you,
12:47
Speaker 1: which again, like that is a lot more than you're
12:50
Speaker 1: going to get from like being able to communicate with dogs,
12:52
Speaker 1: because we can have the semantic arbitrary meaning of those
12:55
Speaker 1: mimed things. And furthermore, you have the benefit of having
12:58
Speaker 1: a general understanding of how language works, which our pets don't.
13:01
Speaker 1: So that's like how that communication is happening with them
13:05
Speaker 1: relative to like if we're trying to speak with someone
13:07
Speaker 1: who we do not share language with.
13:09
Speaker 2: Right. So then the other question that comes up around
13:12
Speaker 2: this is do they know their names? And again kind
13:15
Speaker 2: of but not in the way that you might think.
13:17
Speaker 2: So they will learn to respond to a pattern of words, tone, smells,
13:20
Speaker 2: and body language that you use when using their name
13:22
Speaker 2: in particular ways.
13:24
Speaker 1: It'll likely be.
13:24
Speaker 2: Something they encounter more than most other words and sounds
13:27
Speaker 2: that you make, and we'll have a relatively clear set
13:30
Speaker 2: of actions that they can engage in and expect a
13:32
Speaker 2: positive outcome from doing so. So remember that when we're
13:35
Speaker 2: talking about this, they don't use language the way that
13:37
Speaker 2: we do. So names are no more important to their
13:40
Speaker 2: identity than your own. Scent is important to your identity,
13:43
Speaker 2: even though that matters a lot to your pet.
13:46
Speaker 1: Yeah, like we don't. We don't walk around thinking about
13:49
Speaker 1: how like our smell is who we are. I mean
13:52
Speaker 1: maybe some people do, but like relatively few of us are,
13:55
Speaker 1: Like this is felly John does? This is my body odor?
14:00
Speaker 1: It is mine and no one else has it here.
14:02
Speaker 1: I am smell me roar exactly. But our names very
14:06
Speaker 1: very critical to sort of our to our identity. Right.
14:09
Speaker 1: Dogs are the opposite, Like they couldn't give to about
14:11
Speaker 1: like what names they received or their genders or anything
14:14
Speaker 1: like that. But the smells very important, like they can
14:17
Speaker 1: I think a lot of effective information out of smells, right,
14:21
Speaker 1: And so that is a way that is a lot
14:23
Speaker 1: more effective for them to communicate. So I don't think
14:25
Speaker 1: names they just don't have any meaning for them. They shouldn't.
14:27
Speaker 1: They wouldn't they don't. But what they do have is
14:30
Speaker 1: like they do get to learn that like we communicate
14:33
Speaker 1: in a particular way, which involves a series of smells, sounds, tones,
14:37
Speaker 1: and body language, and that those would then all become
14:39
Speaker 1: relevant cues that they can respond to. And the name
14:41
Speaker 1: is that thing they hear a lot, So like do
14:44
Speaker 1: they know their name? Not the way that you think
14:46
Speaker 1: they will recognize the series of patterns, words and tones
14:49
Speaker 1: that come with it. But like even before off Mike,
14:52
Speaker 1: before we started recording, Shane mentioned a story where they
14:54
Speaker 1: had a dog where they would just call it whatever,
14:57
Speaker 1: like they'd give it. They just call it random things
14:59
Speaker 1: and would respond as if it were its name. And
15:01
Speaker 1: you could probably try this with your pets. And also
15:03
Speaker 1: think about the fact that like often enough you call
15:06
Speaker 1: your pets by a nickname, then often isn't even their name.
15:09
Speaker 1: You might call them other like pet names like cutie
15:12
Speaker 1: or love or baby or things like that, where like
15:16
Speaker 1: that's not even remotely close to their name, and yet
15:18
Speaker 1: they kind of respond to it as if it were. Yeah,
15:20
Speaker 1: we say those things to them, and they like, look
15:22
Speaker 1: at us because we are saying it in a pitch
15:25
Speaker 1: and tone and cadence and delivery that's very similar to
15:27
Speaker 1: how we would say their names.
15:28
Speaker 2: Yeah.
15:28
Speaker 1: And furthermore, if we say their name in like a
15:30
Speaker 1: pitch and tone and cadence that's very different from how
15:32
Speaker 1: we usually say their name, we might get nothing from
15:34
Speaker 1: them whatsoever. So like just acknowledging that, like there are
15:39
Speaker 1: a lot of stimulus features that they can attend to. Yeah,
15:43
Speaker 1: And so knowing their name is a dumb question because
15:46
Speaker 1: it depends on what you mean by no, will they
15:48
Speaker 1: respond to it? Probably? Do they internalize that as part
15:51
Speaker 1: of their identity? No, because that's dumb, and that they don't.
15:53
Speaker 1: They don't use language in that way, right.
15:55
Speaker 2: I think of a My friend has a dog named Masuka.
15:58
Speaker 2: Nobody ever calls them massuit. Sure, when I see him,
16:01
Speaker 2: I say, I call him super Zook, Like what's up, superzooke?
16:05
Speaker 2: So like that's how he responds, and but then all
16:07
Speaker 2: also change my pitch. They've got another dog named Minnie Minerva,
16:10
Speaker 2: and she goes by Minnie and we don't call her mini.
16:13
Speaker 2: We all go like it's not intelligible, and she freaks out.
16:18
Speaker 1: She loves it.
16:18
Speaker 2: She like her ears drop and she's like yeah, like
16:21
Speaker 2: she's like super stoked. So you know, it's one of
16:23
Speaker 2: those things where it's like you can call her anything
16:26
Speaker 2: you want and she would respond to that tone. And
16:28
Speaker 2: because that tone and like the body languag would be
16:30
Speaker 2: reaching for her to pet her. Is all part of
16:33
Speaker 2: like the cues of responding in the to the in
16:36
Speaker 2: getting those outcomes of like pets and scratches and treats
16:38
Speaker 2: and stuff.
16:39
Speaker 1: Yeah, now everything we said about dogs applies to cats
16:42
Speaker 1: here as well. For those of you who are questioning
16:44
Speaker 1: that cats do tend to have slightly less social impetus
16:48
Speaker 1: than dogs, but still like they have more social relevance
16:52
Speaker 1: than many other animals that we might also keep his pets,
16:54
Speaker 1: like your pet spider truly does not care about his
16:57
Speaker 1: name or anything that you say to it, right, it doesn't.
17:01
Speaker 1: It does not operate that way. But like cats and
17:03
Speaker 1: dogs and other mammals like, they tend to be more
17:05
Speaker 1: further on that spectrum. Cats and dogs are pretty high
17:08
Speaker 1: on that spectrum. Things like rabbits and guinea pigs fairly
17:11
Speaker 1: low on the spectrum, but still more so than your spider.
17:13
Speaker 1: So like it just there is a spectrum there. But yeah,
17:16
Speaker 1: the short answer of all this is do they understand us?
17:18
Speaker 1: I mean, they can learn to respond to us in
17:21
Speaker 1: meaningful ways, but under they don't have There's no reason
17:24
Speaker 1: to believe that they have any semantic relation to those
17:25
Speaker 1: And the only way that we would have to measure
17:28
Speaker 1: whether or not they quote unquote understand is did they
17:32
Speaker 1: react to us? Right? All right? We going kind along
17:34
Speaker 1: for a many but so let's go ahead and wrap
17:36
Speaker 1: this one up. If you like what you heard today,
17:37
Speaker 1: you'd like to support us, go join us on Patreon.
17:39
Speaker 1: You'll get ad free episodes, behind the scenes content, and
17:41
Speaker 1: I'll read your name during our full length episodes. You
17:44
Speaker 1: can also leave us a rating and review if you
17:45
Speaker 1: like us, and go tell a friend help share the
17:48
Speaker 1: word as very helpful as well. You can tell us
17:50
Speaker 1: your thoughts about pets by emailing us directly info at
17:52
Speaker 1: wwdwwdpodcast dot com, or reaging us on the social media platforms.
17:57
Speaker 1: Thank you so much to my team of people for
17:58
Speaker 1: helping me make this podcast. Thank you for recording with
18:01
Speaker 1: me today.
18:01
Speaker 2: Shane anytime.
18:03
Speaker 1: Thank you everyone for listening. Is there anything you would
18:04
Speaker 1: like to add or anything that I forgot before we
18:06
Speaker 1: wrap this one up?
18:07
Speaker 2: Not today, nope, just pet your dogs for me. Tell
18:09
Speaker 2: your dog, I said Hi.
18:12
Speaker 1: Yes, tell your dogs and your cats that we said Hi.
18:16
Speaker 1: I think that's very good, all right. I think that's
18:18
Speaker 1: all we have for the for today. This is Abraham
18:21
Speaker 1: and this is Shane. Why We Do what we Do
18:22
Speaker 1: Mini is out.
18:23
Speaker 2: Bye.
18:25
Speaker 1: You've been listening to Why We Do What We Do.
18:27
Speaker 2: You can learn more about this and other episodes by
18:30
Speaker 2: going to WWDWWD podcast dot com. Thanks for listening, and
18:35
Speaker 2: we hope you have an awesome day