Originally Posted by DobeOwnrX2
Edited by Admin
These studies that you quote are based on such 'research'. Observing in an objective manor, means not making conjectures or truths out of such observations. You are reading into subjective material, animal psychology is not as credible as its human equivilant. We can interview human beings and communicated with them. You cannot observe and animal and be sure of anything.
There is no such field as animal psychology, we have ethology and behaviorism.
Calling an animal dominant or submissive is
subjective because it is assuming psychology. Saying that an animal displays dominant or submissive behavior is both more correct and assumes nothing about the animal's personality.
I'm having a hard time accepting your argument that my information is more subjective when yours is anecdotal.
If you have any resources or studies of your own that directly refute the validity of my sources, by all means post them. I would be happy to read them. But we're not going to get much farther than this if your counter-argument to my information is to attack the credibility of my source material without proof. You can't just say a source is biased and dismiss it, first you have to prove the bias.