Attributing traits to either genetics or environment is a false dichotomy. As the genetic disorder PKU shows, outcomes depend on the *interaction* between the two. Believing a trait is purely "in our genes" wrongly dismisses the power of environmental interventions, which can completely alter outcomes.
Our emotional connection to pets makes us almost completely incapable of objective observation. We invent stories and infer motivations that often don't align with scientific reality. This highlights the power of cognitive bias in personal relationships and the need for objective data in understanding behavior.
Animals actively treat their own illnesses. Chimpanzees consume specific bitter plants to fight intestinal parasites, while urban birds weave nicotine-filled cigarette butts into their nests as a fumigant. This behavior reveals a sophisticated, evolved understanding of their environment for medicinal purposes.
The assumption that intelligence requires a big brain is flawed. Tiny spiders perform complex tasks like weaving orb webs with minuscule brains, sometimes by cramming neural tissue into their legs. This suggests efficiency, not size, drives cognitive capability, challenging our vertebrate-centric view of intelligence.
Compared to other social hunters or domesticated species, dogs do not possess exceptional cognitive abilities in areas like problem-solving or navigation. Their intelligence is adapted for their evolutionary niche, not for passing human-centric tests. This challenges our biased view of animal smarts.
Unlike dogs, which evolved from pack animals and see humans as leaders, cats formed a looser companionship with humans. They were tolerated for their rodent-hunting skills around grain stores. This history explains their independent nature; their bond is based on mutual benefit, not hierarchical attachment.