Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Animals could have a desire seek revenge it seems!

Options
  • 15-01-2013 2:01am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭


    A article in Time magazine suggests that animals may be taking revenge on certain humans. First two seperate tiger revenge stories have hit the media in recent times. First one is set in Siberia.

    Man comes across a siberian tiger eating a boar. Man shoots the tiger and steals the boar. The tiger escapes waits 12-48 hours and then tracks the man to his cabin. The man isn't there when the tiger arrives at the cabin so the tiger destroys object the man owns then waits for the man to come back. When the man gets back the tiger kills him and then eats him (zoologists think the eating might be secondary).

    The second story is set in San francisco zoo. Involving a group of young men who were thought to have been taunting a female Siberian tiger. The tiger then escapes, walks 300 yards past other zoo goers and kills one of the men and mauls the other two before she was unfortunatly shot dead.

    There was also the story of elephants who are thought to be developing post traumatic stress disorder as a result of poaching and culling of their numbers. These elephants have been attacking rhinos and have even attacked people.
    Elephants, whose memory is often celebrated, have also been thought by some experts to hold grudges. But "grudge" may be the wrong word — and it's not exactly a scientific term. More tenable than the notion of animals bearing grudges is the theory that they suffer stress. A 2005 paper in the journal Nature examined what some scientists called an "elephant breakdown" in Africa, and argued that elephants that had randomly attacked rhinoceroses were behaving pathologically. They were, the scientists suggested, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder — terminology usually reserved for humans — responding to years of hardship, inflicted by people. Their population and social order had been decimated by poaching, culls and habitat loss, and the elephants, in a sense, were striking back. Neuroscientist Allan N. Schore, one of the paper's authors and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the UCLA Medical School, demurred at calling such actions "revenge" or evidence of a "grudge" — but says the fact that elephants act out under stress suggests that their psychology may not be so different from ours.

    Full article below:
    The Siberian tiger that killed Carlos Sousa Jr., 17, and mauled two other men, brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, at the San Francisco Zoo on Christmas Day, has sparked a police investigation and much speculation as to who is to blame. Authorities are still investigating how the animal escaped — recent reports indicate she could have jumped or scaled the enclosure's wall, which is nearly 4 ft. lower than the recommended standard — and whether or not the victims taunted her before the attacks.
    However uncertain the preceding circumstances, the facts of the assault are clearer: Just before the zoo's closing time, the 4-year-old tiger named Tatiana escaped her pen and attacked the older of the Dhaliwal brothers, then turned on and killed Sousa, who was apparently trying to save his friend by distracting the animal. She then made her way 300 yards to the zoo café, following a trail of blood left by the first injured man who had fled with his brother. It was there she attacked her third victim, the younger Dhaliwal, and was shot dead by police officers — 20 minutes after they had received the call that the tiger was loose.
    So, what exactly was Tatiana's motive? It may well be that she, despite being born into captivity and identified with a human name, was simply being a tiger — acting as any other predator would in nature. It's no surprise that tigers can be aggressive. But is it possible that Tatiana may have remembered the three men — who may have taunted her — and set out for them specifically? Was she, in other words, holding a grudge?
    "That tiger could have been surrounded by 10,000 people," says Dave Salmoni, the Animal Planet network's predator expert, who spent years training big cats; but if the animal has a mission, "it will avoid all of those people and just to go to those three people." Says Salmoni, "There's nothing more focused than a tiger who wants to kill something." The thing is, though, it's not easy to prompt such enmity: "To get a tiger to want to fight you is pretty hard," says Salmoni. "Tigers don't like to fight. They hunt to kill and eat. That's it." Unlike lions, which grow up in groups and are used to sparring, tigers are solitary animals, responsible for their own food and survival, Salmoni says. They will take the risk to fight only "if they feel they have to."
    The gap between Tatiana's attacks on the men at the San Francisco Zoo was relatively brief, so the word "grudge," which implies ill will that persists over time, may not be appropriate in this situation. Perhaps Tatiana's behavior would more accurately be described as a crime of passion — no grudge necessary. Still, could years of captivity have led to harbored resentment against humans, and her eventual attack?
    Citing Tatiana's so-called history of violence — her assault just over a year ago on a zookeeper during a feeding — Salmoni says, "It may hold what we call a grudge on people." Tatiana wasn't put down then because the zoo director had determined that the tiger was acting as a normal tiger does.
    Captive animals have acted violently before. In 2006 an orca (a.k.a. killer whale) at SeaWorld in San Diego attacked its trainer, who survived. That summer an elephant killed its handler at the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee. In 2004 a gorilla at the Dallas Zoo went on a rampage, injuring four people. A white tiger critically hurt illusionist Roy Horn, half of the performing duo Siegfried & Roy, at the Mirage Hotel-Casino in Las Vegas in 2003. More recently, in February 2007, a jaguar at the Denver Zoo killed a keeper. Despite these, among other dramatic attacks, some people wonder why they don't happen more often. Salmoni suggests it's because animals are actually "very forgiving," and that the stories we hear are the exceptions. So, are those exceptions evidence that animals bear grudges?
    It's controversial, but some experts believe it's possible. "There's a difference between what we know anecdotally and what we can prove," says Salmoni. Most people who work with animals, he says, would agree that they act on past experience. True, what we refer to as a grudge might more accurately be characterized, in the animal world, as conditional reinforcement. "Any animal that can be trained can remember, and if you can remember, you can hold a grudge," says Salmoni. If a 6-ft.-tall man once threw rocks at a puppy, that puppy could be conditioned to believe, later in life, that another 6-ft.-tall man is a threat, and may attack him.

    Elephants, whose memory is often celebrated, have also been thought by some experts to hold grudges. But "grudge" may be the wrong word — and it's not exactly a scientific term. More tenable than the notion of animals bearing grudges is the theory that they suffer stress. A 2005 paper in the journal Nature examined what some scientists called an "elephant breakdown" in Africa, and argued that elephants that had randomly attacked rhinoceroses were behaving pathologically. They were, the scientists suggested, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder — terminology usually reserved for humans — responding to years of hardship, inflicted by people. Their population and social order had been decimated by poaching, culls and habitat loss, and the elephants, in a sense, were striking back. Neuroscientist Allan N. Schore, one of the paper's authors and a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the UCLA Medical School, demurred at calling such actions "revenge" or evidence of a "grudge" — but says the fact that elephants act out under stress suggests that their psychology may not be so different from ours.
    One of Schore's co-authors, Gay Bradshaw, professor of psychology and ecology at Oregon State University and director of the Kerulos Centre for the Study of Animal Psychology and Trauma Recovery, uses the term "trans-species psychology" in her work. She acknowledges that human and animal psychology are not the same, but says they hold more similarities than we tend to think. Like Schore, she's reluctant to use the word "grudge" when it comes to animals' motivations. But she believes that animals, like humans, can suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, of which captivity is a key trigger, and can act abnormally.

    Tatiana, a zoo tiger, was not acting under "natural" conditions, Bradshaw points out, and the animal's physical and social limitations ought to be taken into account when examining her violent behavior. This is not to say the tiger might not have attacked had she been in the wild, but Bradshaw says her history of captivity can't be ignored. Like the elephants in Africa, she might have been striking back.
    The science of animal sentience is far from a firm one; there's no way of knowing exactly what any animal is feeling. But it's conceivable that something in Tatiana's life, beyond her instinct, could have impelled her to attack. She may have been simply behaving like a tiger — but, perhaps, behaving like a tiger is not so psychologically distinct from behaving like a human.


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    Fair enough, I'd say. You mess with a tiger, you face them next...


  • Registered Users Posts: 684 ✭✭✭pushkii


    Fair is fair !
    Its a pity that more animals don't seek revenge for humans being cruel to them


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    before she was unfortunatly shot dead.
    Unfortunately? I'm a big animal rights person but when it comes to where we sit on the food chain I've no sympathy.

    In other news, animals are a lot smarter than people think.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,720 ✭✭✭Hal1


    Cats evil backstards, nuff said.

    /thread


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 754 ✭✭✭Auntie Psychotic


    After reading this, I will never make fun of another animal at the zoo again.

    Except maybe the penguins. Cause what the fùck is a penguin goin to do about it?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Hal1 wrote: »
    Cats evil backstards, nuff said.

    You wouldn't say that to a Tiger because he'd rip the face off you while you screamed like a little girl. :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭Jacob T


    What's the story with all the grammatically incorrect thread titles lately?


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭ladysarastro


    The only shame in this story is the tiger got put down, There's less then 4000 tigers left in the world and yet there's still 7 billion pesky humans running round.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Unfortunately? I'm a big animal rights person but when it comes to where we sit on the food chain I've no sympathy.

    In other news, animals are a lot smarter than people think.

    Well she should have been shot dead in the circumstances but she's an endangered species. For an animal of her power she shouldn't be in a cage. I'm just sorry we lost a tiger to something like this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Jacob T wrote: »
    What's the story with all the grammatically incorrect thread titles lately?

    Well in my case it's eleven hours of work with little rest. It's a mistake I suggest you get over it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Turpentine


    Jacob T wrote: »
    What's the story with all the grammatically incorrect thread titles lately?

    Per fur the curse here I'm efrayd


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    It always strikes me as pseudo science when people try to attribute human characteristics to animals.

    Humans are capable of forming rational thought and overriding their instinctual behaviour. Animals react because they are incapable of thinking. They act purely on instinct.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,720 ✭✭✭Hal1


    Or just go to sleep and stop posting threads when you're tired :D.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,846 ✭✭✭Fromthetrees


    Lets eat all the animals alive now over bottles of good chardonnay and some nice jazz music. Hmm, tiger and elephant cutlets with potatoes and honey glazed carrots sounds delish, we have some good eating ahead of us friends.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    After reading this, I will never make fun of another animal at the zoo again.

    Except maybe the penguins. Cause what the fùck is a penguin goin to do about it?

    Have you never seen Madagascar? Penguins are sly bastards.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 7,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭Yakult


    After reading this, I will never make fun of another animal at the zoo again.

    Except maybe the penguins. Cause what the fùck is a penguin goin to do about it?

    They will write terrible jokes, that slowly kill your humor as you read them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,324 ✭✭✭JustAThought



    Have you never seen Madagascar? Penguins are sly bastards.


    And extremely inventive : )


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Humans are capable of forming rational thought and overriding their instinctual behaviour. Animals react because they are incapable of thinking. They act purely on instinct.
    Depends on the animal. I've never met a reptile I couldn't predict 90% what they were going to do next, but you can't say its a pure on-off switch. Some animals are a lot smarter than others. Grey parrots are very quick, and many breeds of dogs show signs of high intelligence, relatively speaking.

    My own dog understand two dozen verbal commands, eight patterns of claps, and three hand signals. And she knows by context as well, if I say "outside" when we're on the beach she just cocks her head from side to side, but if I say it in the house she runs to the door. You can't say that's instinct.


  • Registered Users Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Turpentine


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    It always strikes me as pseudo science when people try to attribute human characteristics to animals.

    Humans are capable of forming rational thought and overriding their instinctual behaviour. Animals react because they are incapable of thinking. They act purely on instinct.

    Yeah but the whole point of this is that the animals in question are acting in a way that would imply rational, revenge-fuelled thought.

    Apparently the tiger in this article by-passed other people and sources of food:

    http://www.cracked.com/article_20141_5-mind-blowing-ways-animals-display-human-emotions.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,372 ✭✭✭im invisible




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,204 ✭✭✭dodderangler


    The only shame in this story is the tiger got put down, There's less then 4000 tigers left in the world and yet there's still 7 billion pesky humans running round.
    Well we could start cullin the humans but seems with all the shootings happening in Ireland lately that Irish hit men can't shoot straight


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    I'm scared to think what that surviving pack of snails is going to come up with to put me in my place...

    Some doors are better off left unopened :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Turpentine


    1ZRed wrote: »
    I'm scared to think what that surviving pack of snails is going to come up with to put me in my place...

    Some doors are better off left unopened :(

    Run. Run quite fast.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    It always strikes me as pseudo science when people try to attribute human characteristics to animals.

    Humans are capable of forming rational thought and overriding their instinctual behaviour. Animals react because they are incapable of thinking. They act purely on instinct.

    Well In fact the reverse is the case.
    human characteristics to animals

    The above quote has been called anthropomorphism by several commentators and this accusation has no scientific basis. Psychologists and animal behaviour experts (ethologists) have studied animal behaviour and psychology for years now and it was religious bodies like the Catholic Church and church of England who accused these scientists of anthropomorphism or attributing human characteristic to animals.

    The real pseudoscience occurs when people assume that only humans possess any degree of certain traits. A condition called anthropocentrisim. Scientifically speaking there is no such thing as an exclusively human trait.
    Certain animals have been found to possess neuronal cells called spindle cells. Spindle cells are responsible for rapid communication in the brains of intelligent animals. They also play a part in the limbic (emotion) system of the brain. To find these in animals and then say animals are not capable of rational thought would be akin to finding legs on an animal and saying it cannot walk.
    Several members of the great ape family have learnt sign language. They have, through sign language expressed what they like, what they don’t like, what scares them, what they think of humans and what they think of captivity.
    Humans are a new species relatively speaking and we inherited our brains from the other animals which came before us. It is extremely unscientific to come to the conclusion that animals (we are a species of animal by the way) are not capable of rational thought.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Turpentine wrote: »
    Yeah but the whole point of this is that the animals in question are acting in a way that would imply rational, revenge-fuelled thought.

    Apparently the tiger in this article by-passed other people and sources of food:

    http://www.cracked.com/article_20141_5-mind-blowing-ways-animals-display-human-emotions.html

    This and many other examples of an animal over riding instinct. Chimps, elephants and other intelligent animals have been known to give up food if their mother dies. The infants even refuse food even if they're being cared for and end up dying. This is hardly an example of following survival instinct.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Depends on the animal. I've never met a reptile I couldn't predict 90% what they were going to do next, but you can't say its a pure on-off switch. Some animals are a lot smarter than others. Grey parrots are very quick, and many breeds of dogs show signs of high intelligence, relatively speaking.

    My own dog understand two dozen verbal commands, eight patterns of claps, and three hand signals. And she knows by context as well, if I say "outside" when we're on the beach she just cocks her head from side to side, but if I say it in the house she runs to the door. You can't say that's instinct.


    I trained my cockatiel to say "Go fùck yourself!" whenever somebody entered the room, it doesn't mean the bird understood what he was saying, it just means he reacted with a trained behaviour when somebody entered the room.

    You have trained your dog well. It means he reacts in a specified manner to your commands. He does not understand your commands, but is trained to react in a specified manner. A chinese shìh tsu will not understand english, but will recognise verbal patterns that you are speaking in english and react accordingly. They will not understand the same pattern in Chinese unless they are trained to respond to chinese verbal commands.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    You have trained your dog well. It means he reacts in a specified manner to your commands. He does not understand your commands, but is trained to react in a specified manner. A chinese shìh tsu will not understand english, but will recognise verbal patterns that you are speaking in english and react accordingly. They will not understand the same pattern in Chinese unless they are trained to respond to chinese verbal commands.
    I never claimed the dog understood or spoke English, merely that she acts beyond the requirements of instinct. Instinct is when she buries food or turns around in a circle before lying down for sleep, I never taught her that. There is real evidence of thought patterns going on there though, filtered through that tiny doggy brain. When cadging treats for example, she's quite the drama queen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I trained my cockatiel to say "Go fùck yourself!" whenever somebody entered the room, it doesn't mean the bird understood what he was saying, it just means he reacted with a trained behaviour when somebody entered the room.

    You have trained your dog well. It means he reacts in a specified manner to your commands. He does not understand your commands, but is trained to react in a specified manner. A chinese shìh tsu will not understand english, but will recognise verbal patterns that you are speaking in english and react accordingly. They will not understand the same pattern in Chinese unless they are trained to respond to chinese verbal commands.

    Can you explain the discovery of spindle cells in some animals? Or can you back up the ascertation that other animals (we are animals) are incapable of rational thought using nueroscience or any other science that can explain behaviour?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    steddyeddy wrote: »

    Can you explain the discovery of spindle cells in some animals? Or can you back up the ascertation that other animals (we are animals) are incapable of rational thought using nueroscience or any other science that can explain behaviour?

    I'll be honest eddy I can't, as you've just gone WAY over my head with this post-
    steddyeddy wrote: »

    Well In fact the reverse is the case.



    The above quote has been called anthropomorphism by several commentators and this accusation has no scientific basis. Psychologists and animal behaviour experts (ethologists) have studied animal behaviour and psychology for years now and it was religious bodies like the Catholic Church and church of England who accused these scientists of anthropomorphism or attributing human characteristic to animals.

    The real pseudoscience occurs when people assume that only humans possess any degree of certain traits. A condition called anthropocentrisim. Scientifically speaking there is no such thing as an exclusively human trait.
    Certain animals have been found to possess neuronal cells called spindle cells. Spindle cells are responsible for rapid communication in the brains of intelligent animals. They also play a part in the limbic (emotion) system of the brain. To find these in animals and then say animals are not capable of rational thought would be akin to finding legs on an animal and saying it cannot walk.
    Several members of the great ape family have learnt sign language. They have, through sign language expressed what they like, what they don’t like, what scares them, what they think of humans and what they think of captivity.
    Humans are a new species relatively speaking and we inherited our brains from the other animals which came before us. It is extremely unscientific to come to the conclusion that animals (we are a species of animal by the way) are not capable of rational thought.

    I'm going to have to read up some more about anthropocentrism tbh as I'd always thought of animals as reactionary creatures that reacted rather than thought about their behaviour (yes, I know as you mentioned that humans are animals and we did indeed evolve from the apes), but it's after throwing me an awful lot tbh, lol, I'm reminded of tv programs like "flipper the dolphin" and "skippy the kangaroo" and how much we all used laugh at the way they "understood" english... :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I'll be honest eddy I can't, as you've just gone WAY over my head with this post-



    I'm going to have to read up some more about anthropocentrism tbh as I'd always thought of animals as reactionary creatures that reacted rather than thought about their behaviour (yes, I know as you mentioned that humans are animals and we did indeed evolve from the apes), but it's after throwing me an awful lot tbh, lol, I'm reminded of tv programs like "flipper the dolphin" and "skippy the kangaroo" and how much we all used laugh at the way they "understood" english... :D

    Well you are right aswell to be honest. We dont know what animals are capable of but I dont think we can say what they're not capable of either! Good night xxxx!!


Advertisement