4 ms·
> Most scientists and pet owners assumed the only reason that cats roll around in catnip was for the euphoric experience, Miyazaki says. "Our findings suggest i
by Schiphol 6y ago
> Most scientists and pet owners assumed the only reason that cats roll around in catnip was for the euphoric experience, Miyazaki says. "Our findings suggest instead that rolling is rather a functional behavior.”
There is no incompatibility between proximal and distal, what they call functional, explanations of behavior. Once you have a brain with a reward system, a good way to encourage (discourage) a behavior that is (dis)functional is to make it (dis)pleasurable.
A similar distinction in explanations of human behavior is what anthropologists call [emic/etic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic). The emic viewpoint is that of the subject themselves; the etic viewpoint is that of the anthropologist (the ethologist in this case). A classical, and beautiful example is Malinowski's description of the [Kula ring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kula_ring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kula_ring) in Papua New Guinea. Participants in the ring see themselves as exchanging presents; Malinowski showed that there is a further political and economic significance to the ring. The two perspectives are perfectly compatible.
- dalbasal 6y agoEtic/emic is an insightful metaphor, mr airport. These things are complicated. Even in your type example, I doubt that papuan chiefs were oblivious of the political elements gift giving. OTOH, a purely etic viewpoint is (anthropologically) incomplete too. The political/economic machinery that outsiders/scholars find doesn't work, or make any sense, without the emic/cultural perspective. The same could be said of most political processes. The US just changed presidents. Leading up to it was weeks/months of ritual. Processes and procedures in many state chambers, and such. Most of it doesn't have a practical role, yet its culturally essential. We're often warned not to personify animals. I think more often we make the mistake of personifying people, so to speak. We always have rationalisations, but the way it works is usually after the fact... or only rational within an irrational/cultural frame. Leonard cohen said that free will is overrated. It exists but is rarely exercised. More often, we act because we are compelled. If cats were people, they'd roll in catnip because they're compelled to do so... but then cite this article and mosquitos as the "reason."
- armada651 6y agoI think you're misreading that paragraph. It is specifically saying the euphoria is not the _only_ reason that cats roll around in catnip.
- Schiphol 6y agoThe "rather" connotes mutually exclusive alternatives, doesn't it? (I'm not a native speaker.)
- armada651 6y agoI think it translates best to "echter" in this context. Which doesn't necessarily exclude other possibilities. However the sentence can simply be read in two ways. Both interpretations are equally valid.
- andyjohnson0 6y agoNative English speaker here. I read it as qualifying the degree of functionality in the rolling behaviour. That is: the rolling behaviour is functional to a significant extent, but is not entirely functional.
- selimthegrim 6y ago"I had rather a good time."
- svachalek 6y agoInteresting, as a native speaker I am only familiar with it meaning mutual exclusion, with a range of connotations from "the former is the opposite of correct" to "let me adjust that thought slightly". However, Merriam-Webster supports my experience with the first 4 definitions and then drops a "but also" as the fifth. Sometimes I hate English. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rather https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rather