Anthropomorphism is described as applying human emotional characteristics and thought processes to nonhumans. Conversely, Anthropodenial, as it is defined in this article, is what occurs when we deny animals these characteristics and furthermore ignore the fact that we ourselves are animals and should be denied these characteristics when talking about ourselves as well, if we were to use a truly logical and scientific approach when studying the behavior of humans.

It is understandable how we could arrive at a point in which we elevate our mental and emotional capabilities above those of other animals, although it is somewhat unfair. We have no real insight into the psyche of other species as none of us is a member of another species, and as they cannot communicate to us the nature of their thought processes we are forced to learn by observation. Humans can be observed as well, but inferences about their feelings and emotions are much more readily accepted as they are feelings and emotions most likely shared by all of us. Our proof of their existence is that we have experienced them ourselves. But just because we cannot directly experience something does not mean it isn't there.

It is most acceptable to describe the behavior of animals in terms of stimulus and response. It is believed that they must learn all behavior through a system of rewards and punishments. Much of human behavior (especially cultural) can be attributed to this same logic, however we accept emotions, feelings, and independent thought processes as underlying currents in our behavior as well. If we were to be at all fair in studying ourselves, we would force ourselves to think of every human action as a reaction to a stimulus, which we learned (via reward and punishment) from the other humans we are in contact with. But we acknowledge the other driving forces in ourselves despite the fact that we are not being consistent in our research methods as compared to our observations of nonhumans.

In an article titled "Flo and Her Family" Jane Goodall describes numerous interactions between a group of chimpanzees. Most notable is that the majority of interactions described in this article occur between members of one family, four siblings all sharing the same mother. The mother-child bond between the chimps can be explained physiologically, as they are dependent on their mother for survival while they are young, but the siblings also seem to have a bond amongst themselves. The fact that they primarily seek out companionship from those related to them would imply that there is an emotional bond between them. They did live in a group of chimpanzees, but still sought out the most contact from their known siblings (being that there would be no way for them to know if they were related to other chimpanzees through their fathers).

Also notable about this article is Fifi's apparent fixation on her younger brother Flint. She is described as having a genuine interest in him. How can her interest be described in terms of learned behavior? How come she does not have the same interest in other chimpanzee infants? I'm sure that these can be explained at length by a complex system of reward and punishment, but were they a human family, we would not feel the need to do so.

In an article "No Time for Bullies: Baboons Retool Their Culture" by Natalie Angier a troop of baboons is portrayed as being unusually passive ever since all of the most aggressive males were killed of by tuberculosis. This peaceful state has remained for generations in this particular troop, and is attributed to their attitude. They even say that this peaceful attitude is transmitted to other entering male members of the troop, who must abide if they want to live in this troop. To say that these baboons have a certain attitude is to apply a "human" characteristic to them, but also this term could be considered the summation of a number of different factors. One could say these baboons have a natural predisposition toward passiveness, or that they learned it from their parents, but to apply the term attitude is simply a shortcut to explain what seems obvious to us. We would not go to such lengths to define a particular attitude in a human, and I am glad to see that it was so easily applied to baboons in this article.

Even in the article by Dian Fossey, "Karisoke Field Impressions", which is written very objectively, the gorillas are given human characteristics at times. She depicts incidents in which she was charged by an angry gorilla (or gorillas) and that her solution was to stand her ground because the gorillas were bluffing. The majority of this article is simply observation with minimal inference to any human-like characteristics the gorillas may or may not possess, but this instance of calling the gorillas bluff implies that they are capable of deception, albeit as a defense mechanism.

I think that researchers would be most scientific if they were to use the same system of behavioral analyses for all life forms. The fact that we elevate ourselves above other animals in this way seems almost biblical in nature, and therefore seems extremely biased as well. In the name of fairness we need to learn a way to apply some "human" characteristics to animals (especially those who so closely resemble ourselves), as it would be impossible to avoid making emotional inferences while observing human behavior.