Tag Archives: communication

Can Cats Learn Human Speech?

If the question is “Can cats learn to speak like humans?” the answer is “obviously not.” Cats have a very limited vocabulary, though they make the most of what they’ve got. Mostly, they say “meow” or some variation thereof, like “mew.” Most cats purr and occasionally hiss.

(I’ve had or known cats that had more extensive vocabularies. One of them could say “now.” Our present cat, Toby, often says “meep,” though it’s unclear what he means by it. Other cats make odd little bleating noises. Then there are cats that are capable of mouthing words, or at least one word. The silent meow happens when a cat moves its lips but doesn’t make an actual sound. But I digress.)

Cats expect their humans to interpret their vocalizations, and for the most part, we do. Generally, whatever they say means “Feed me,” or occasionally, “Pet me.” I say, for the most part. You can get some nasty scratches if you misinterpret a certain meow or purr as “pet me” when it really means “Stay away from me, human.” It’s difficult or impossible to tell the difference unless the cat also has the power of vocal inflection, which most don’t. (I did have one cat who was able to make her needs known by telepathy and another who was able to express the equivalent of “Don’t fight. It stresses me,” using both voice and actions. But I digress again.)

But if you mean, “Can cats understand what human speech means?” the answer is “not always.” Toby understands “Do you wanna eat?” or its variations and pays rapt attention when you say it.

He doesn’t understand “Get down,” or if he does, he simply ignores it. When Toby gets on my desk, which he is absolutely forbidden to do, no amount of “Get down” will work. Neither will “Get off the desk ” or “Get down from there, you horrible, naughty beast!” I can understand why he wouldn’t comprehend “bad kitty.” He deserves it so often that it has lost its meaning.

(Cats are supposedly able to learn a few simple commands like “Get down.” I’m supposed to give the command calmly but firmly, and then point to where I want him to go. If he doesn’t get the idea, I should put my hand on his backside and give a gentle push while saying “Get down.” Finally, if nothing else works, I should physically relocate him and then pretend that it was his idea all along, petting him and saying “good kitty,” which simply isn’t true. He’s been coerced, not cooperative. (I’ve heard of cat agility competitions where cats must navigate an obstacle course and have clearly learned to respond to commands in order to participate. But I digress even more.))

Cats can also learn and respond to their names. They just sometimes choose not to. Humans give their cats nicknames, and sometimes cats’ names are changed when they’re adopted, and the cats adapt accordingly. We once took in a stray and called her Dushenka. Only later did we learn that in her previous life, she had been known as Carmen. The change appeared to bother her not at all, and we kept calling her Dushenka after we found out. (I did know of a cat that would respond immediately to “Hey, you! You with the fur!” It was no doubt clear to the cat that he was the only one in the household who fit that description. But I digress still more.)

I hate to admit it, but understanding human speech is one area where dogs are actually superior to cats. Dogs can learn dozens of commands, even relatively complex ones. They can respond appropriately to voice commands, hand signals, whistles, and other forms of training and communication. Cats are simply no good at performing complex tasks such as being service animals or rescuing lost hikers. It’s all they can do to make it to the food bowl when obviously they’re perishing from hunger.

Dogs even have devices that allow them to press buttons corresponding to messages they want to give their humans. These include “Feed me,” “I need to go potty,” and “Play with me,” of course, but they can also combine two different buttons to indicate their wants or needs, such as the combination of “outside” and “potty” versus “outside” and “play.” (It’s been noted that dogs don’t use the button that corresponds to “I love you” as often as their humans say it to the dogs. Cats would, I suppose, need an “I tolerate you” button. But I digress even more.)

But I am, after all, one of those crazy cat ladies who holds entire one-sided conversations with Toby. I know he doesn’t understand, but I chalk it up as another way that being a pet parent gives me satisfaction. Not that I wouldn’t feel even more satisfaction if he would just stay off my desk!

Political Noise

USA Flag Man YellingThis was written seven years ago. Unfortunately, it’s just as relevant today.

A friend of mine started a Facebook page called Political Noise. I wish he hadn’t.

Oh, I don’t mind that he (mostly) keeps his political rants on a separate page from his puns, movie reviews, and discussions of pop culture. What I mind is the title. There’s already too much noise in politics.

So much noise that the signal can’t get through.

Wikipedia defines signal-to-noise ratio (or SNR) as “a measure … that compares the level of a desired signal to the level of background noise.” Think of an old-fashioned television set or radio.  When there’s too much static, you can’t get a clear picture or clear sound. At most, you get a snowstorm of non-information or a meaningless buzz.

That’s what’s happening in interpersonal communication these days. It’s worse because of upcoming elections, of course. It seems that whoever shouts the loudest gets the most attention. The content – the message – has become irrelevant.

In fact, the content has dwindled to nothing. Words that no longer retain any meaning are flung at the heads of those who are supposed to be recipients of the message. Patriot, citizen, terrorist, liberal, fascist, tyrant, and other, cruder, forms of common words no longer have denotations (agreed-upon definitions), but only connotations (emotional content). Linguist S. I. Hayakawa nailed it back in 1941:

[W]e discover that these utterances really say “What I hate (‘liberals,’ ‘Wall Street’), I hate very, very much,” and “What I like (‘our way of life’), I like very, very much.” We may call such utterances snarl-words and purr-words.

Then there’s the problem of who’s supposed to be receiving the message, the snarls and purrs. Sadly, the answer seems to be, only those who already agree with you. Try as they might, nay-sayers’ voices will not be heard – certainly not understood. Multiple viewpoints are not welcome.

We are all shouting across an abyss and can neither hear nor be heard. The only response is an echo.

If ideas are not in play, surely facts must be. Alas, not. Facts are fungible and loaded with political opinions. Want a fact about climate change or voter suppression or welfare, or, god help us, guns? People on both sides can rustle up some statistics from somewhere. There is always a scientist who’s an outlier, or is funded by someone with an agenda. Cherry-picking and rhetorical fallacies (strawman, slippery slope, post hoc ergo propter hoc, appeal to the common man or to authority, etc.) have become Olympic-level sports.

Not only is this cacophony damaging, it is counterproductive. No one convinces anyone of anything by shouting at them. The goal isn’t really persuading anyone else – you can’t do that by telling people they’re evil and stupid. The only goal is reinforcing oneself and one’s own worldview – intellectual masturbation.

I do not think that the situation will change for the better once the elections are over. I can’t believe that people will stop, take a step back, and lower their voices or the heat of their rhetoric. The only solution offered for noise is louder noise.

Some of us wish for clearer signals, less interference, a volume knob that begins at less than 11. Less shouting and more hearing. Listening. Thinking. Considering. Compromising. Maybe the secret is asking questions instead of yelling slogans. What do you suggest? Why do you think that will work? Whom will that help? How can we best use our time, our resources, our selves?

I’m not a little old-fashioned lady asking for a little old-fashioned civility here. Empty politeness is not the solution. Real work is – the extremely hard work of true communication. Sharing ideas, not screaming them. Trying solutions, instead of dismissing them. The mental work of trying to understand; the physical work of acting locally; the emotional work of finding common ground; the spiritual work of valuing one another. These are ways to get signals through the noise.

If what we really want to do is communicate, not pat ourselves on the back and vilify others, that is. But all I hear are snarls and purrs.