Comparison of Communication Among Human and Animals

Introduction

The excerpt “Chatty As A Magpie” by Hannah Holmes discusses the similarities between human communication and the communication of our animal brethren. Holmes strongly believes that animals are much more intelligent than we give them credit for and that their communication bears a remarkable resemblance to our own. She uses various types of evidence to prove this, including personal experiences, examples from nature, expert opinion, and statistics based on scientific studies. Her evidence is displayed in an unusual form, which can be perceived as either positive or negative, depending on one's point of view.

Personal Experience

Holmes' use of personal experience is one of the most controversial aspects of her evidence. The first personal experience she recounts is a story about how she was able to 'speak' to her mother and send signals of what she wanted while in the womb. “The only medium available to me at the time was chemistry. So with an ink of protein, I scrawled missives to my mother: More nourishment, please” (Holmes, 2009, p. 2). While Holmes obviously does not remember what she was doing in the womb, it is likely her information is based on real science. Presenting her information as a personal anecdote makes it more engaging and easier for a younger audience to understand. However, for those interested in empirical data, it may make the story seem trivial and less believable. Holmes later shares another tale from her childhood, set when she was one year old, where she used visual communication, such as body language and facial features, to convey her message. “There I was at a year old, throwing around protolanguage like nobody's business. Throwing around my facial features and my hands” (Holmes, 2009, p. 7). This story seems more believable than the previous one, as it could have been witnessed by someone like a parent or older sibling, thus providing more credibility as an actual personal experience.

Examples from Nature

In addition to her personal experiences, Holmes offers an example from nature that correlates with her womb story. “This kind of 'chem-munication' was pioneered by single-celled organisms […] The eyeless, earless Amoeba proteus, for example, emits a peptide that prevents fellow proteuses from cannibalizing it” (Holmes, 2009, p. 2). This evidence seems more reliable than personal anecdotes for two major reasons. First, it presents a more honest-sounding statement, as she does not attempt to deceive us into thinking it is her own story. Second, the details she provides appear too obscure to be fabricated. However, without clear citations to scientific papers supporting these facts, readers must rely on Holmes' credibility alone.

Expert Opinion

Expert opinion is one of the most reliable forms of evidence, and this is where Holmes makes up for some of the credibility lost due to her personal anecdotes. She discusses how prairie dogs have complex vocal communication similar to human speech. “The prairie dog shouts specific words for specific predators […] prairie dogs are even thought to encode information on the direction an animal approaches […] when biologist Con Slobodchikoff recently delved deep into the printouts of their chatter, he found the dogs make tiny alterations to their calls in response to such minutia as the color of a shirt” (Holmes, 2009, p. 5). Since this research was conducted by a real biologist and is clearly stated, it makes the argument more valid and believable to the reader. This makes Holmes' statement appealing to a more scholarly and intelligent audience.

Statistics and Scientific Studies

The last type of evidence Holmes uses effectively is statistics based on scientific studies. Statistics are a well-respected form of evidence. Holmes uses statistics when discussing differences in how women and men interpret facial communication. “One of the clearest studies shows that 90 percent of mature females can identify an expression of sadness on an actor's face, while only 40 percent of males can. Scientists also know that females analyze facial expressions faster than males” (Holmes, 2009, p. 7). This is a very convincing piece of evidence due to its basis in scientific study, yet it is simple enough for anyone to understand, regardless of their scientific background. This makes it an excellent medium for displaying information, as it can be understood and accepted by a wide range of people.

Conclusion

Overall, Holmes has crafted an excerpt that is both interesting to read and accessible to a broad audience. However, in doing so, she sacrifices some credibility on the topic. While this may not be an issue for everyone, those approaching the text from a scientific viewpoint may harbor doubts about some of the facts and examples used throughout. Nevertheless, it serves as a valuable resource for explaining the similarities in communication to a young audience.

References:

Holmes, H. (2009). Chatty As A Magpie. In Comparison of Communication Among Human and Animals.