|
|
6 internautes sur 8 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile :
2.0étoiles sur 5
Nice anecdotes, but hardly unbiased science, Jui 5 2002
I really did enjoy the little anecdotes in this book -- the ones about James Stewart and his dogs were especially sweet. It's worth browsing for some of those little gems, although frankly I don't think there's much here that hasn't been reported elsewhere. I can't answer for the structure of the "find your breed" quizzes, although I thought it weird that different breeds were recommended for men and women of the same personality "type." ...[I]t seems odd that no breed falls into two categories -- surely some are *both* "friendly" and "clever"?Where Coren drops the ball and then trips over it is when he discusses people who dislike dogs, and people who like cats. ...I think it's worth taking a closer look at exactly what he does in these two chapters. Apparently, people who dislike dogs have no other redeeming features. It's interesting to see Harry Truman discussed solely in light of his failure to enjoy the company of dogs. Apparently, Napoleon grew up a dictator because he lacked the love of a good dog. This is superficially convincing, until you remember that Adolf Hitler was apparently capable of being fond of at least ONE dog in his misbegotten life. What Coren is doing here is playing to the prejudices of animal lovers, who sometimes believe we're superior to people who don't like animals. Specifically, though, it's to any inherent feelings of superiority experienced by dog lovers. The chapter about cats and cat people is even worse -- and again, it's worse for an interesting reason. In his far superior book, *The Intelligence of Dogs,* Coren is at great pains to point out that "obedience intelligence" is only one kind of intelligence, that dogs bred for different purposes think in different ways, and just because a terrier is not as biddable as a goldenn retriever, it does not make the terrier "dumb." Then he uses the word "dumb" to characterize cats -- repeatedly. It never occurs to Coren that an animal which is not a dog might legitimately behave in a way different from dogs. And it's obvious he doesn't know much about cats, because he mouths all the stereotypes (aloof, unfriendly, doesn't socialize with its humans) in a manner to make anyone who knows a well-socialized cat howl with laughter. ("You rarely see cats during the day." Sure, you rarely see mine, unless you happen to be near me and looking down -- they're almost always underfoot!) Coren then quotes from a "study" he did of cat and dog owners. He doesn't reproduce his survey instrument, so there is no way of knowing whether it's reliable, but he uses it to characterize cat owners as cold, aloof, unloving people -- far inferior to the nice warm dog people! Then, just in case we haven't already lost all faith in his scientific impartiality, he proceeds to relate an anecdote from his past, in which a single, neurotic woman with obvious attachment issues is made to represent all cat people. (And yes, he says she is the quintessential cat person.) Now, if half of what he says about this poor woman is true, she was a mess -- but I know dog owners who treat their unfortunate pets in the very same ways. Turn them into picky eaters and then feed them an unbalanced diet of people food? Some dog owners do it all the time. Fail to socialize their pets and then make excuses when Fluffy bites someone? Again, plenty of dog owners do this. Let your pet run loose and then shrug when it comes to a tragic end, because "that's the natural way"? I've known several dog owners who did that, with a series of dogs. Coren's attempt to characterize these flaws as "typical" of cat people make it clear that he is unable to overcome his own dislike of cats, and either lacks the insight to realize it, or hopes to foist his agenda off on his readers. Me, I like dogs. I like cats. And I enjoyed his earlier book. But after he's exposed his own unacknowledged prejudices to this extent, how am I supposed to believe his discussions of different breeds of dogs carry any less bias? If the only criteria he has for dismissing cats as pets is his own opinion (and he does, in fact, offer his unsupported opinion that owning a cat is just slightly better than coming home to an empty house), what if he doesn't care for a particular breed of dog? Will that influence the groupings he creates? This is pop psychology of the most shallow, facile sort. Read this book for the anecdotess about Jimmy Stewart, but for heaven's sake don't hope for any insights into animals or people!
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
 
|
|
|
|
de Stanley Coren
de Stanley Coren
