Analysis 101 - Lesson 2: Interpreting Behavior Properly
Now that we have the Basics of “What” And “Why” in analysis, we can move onto the next important step, which is learning to interpret in such a way to get the best results for analysis or personal form-finding.
Interpretations: The Subjective vs. the Objective
Interpretation is taking animal behavior and translating it to human personality. It is the building blocks of all analysis, whether personal or public in written analysis format.
Now, analyzing animal behavior for human personality is not an exact science, and it never will be due to the nature of the process. However, that does not mean that interpretations can’t be as objective as possible. How does that happen? Generally it occurs best by removing as much subjective bias from an interpretation as one can. That means that in the final, “objective” result, it should be looking at animal behavior, human personality, and nothing else. We’ve seen examples of objective analysis in Lesson 1, but what does a subjective interpretation look like? How does it differ from objective interpretation? Take a look at the example below, using one of the most misinterpreted forms out there, the Red Fox.
Example: Red foxes are considered to be tricksters in many mythologies, and are portrayed as cunning, deceitful and cowardly. They also can be shape-shifters, and are noted for being “sly” creatures.
Interpretation: A red fox soul is a crafty individual, who can use underhanded tricks to get ahead. They may “change forms”, becoming a totally different person, and trick or deceive those around them. They have an almost “mystical” quality about them, which can be mesmerizing to some people.
And to use another highly misinterpreted form, the Gray Wolf:
Example: Wolves are pack animals, but young may disperse out and form their own packs. Loners are typically killed by other rival packs if they stray into their territory. Also, black wolves are solely descended from a lineage with domestic dog genes, and doesn’t occur naturally.
Interpretation: Though they enjoy company, a gray wolf soul may also be prone to being a “lone wolf”, living on the fringes and being mistreated by their peers. They may be harassed for simply being different, and victimized by people who were once their friends and family. Lone wolf variants of the gray wolf are cold, misunderstood, and emotional souls. Black wolves are even more so, and may be prone to brooding and dramatics.
Wow, so alone, very different, much sad.
These are two great examples of subjective interpretation. In Example 1, someone is taking a “mythical” approach to the red fox, to make them appear potentially “cooler” as a form. It is possible that there is a grain of truth to this interpretation, but in the end it is not a proper interpretation for a number of reasons. The first is that, depending on the folklore you read, the red fox will be portrayed in a different light, with some being gentle and others being a trickster-deceiver. Which one is true? Which can we apply to this personality? Second is that there is no behavioral backing here, meaning that an individual could interpret this information any way they want to with no real common ground. This is problematic, because there is now not one personality that fits, which means it has to be scrapped. Third is that this interpretation allows for personal form bias, meaning that someone can now “make the form fit”, instead of actually looking at the form and the animal behaviors for validation.
Example 2 is different, but also largely the same. While this is a point in the right direction than the mythical fox point, it has it’s own issues that should be addressed. The first is the misinterpretation of the behavior involved. Being alone is not the behavior wolves evolved for and lone wolves are dead wolves, so there cannot be a “lone wolf variant” of the gray wolf. Wolves are social creatures, and there is just no getting around that. The second problem with this subjective interpretation is that this is looking at how others perceive the wolf person, instead of what the actual personality is like. Analysis should ALWAYS be about the individual, and not how others perceive the individual because it has no bearing on their personality! Third, again, personal bias can be attributed to this interpretation. Someone can now say “well I like wolves but I’m not social and I feel mistreated, so I MUST be a lone wolf! Of course!” which again, is disregarding the actual pack-related behaviors of the animal. Also, this means that there are now multiple personalities attributed to one form, which leads this interpretation as invalid. And last but not least, the interpretation takes into consideration the color of the gray wolf, which is not necessary, since the color means nothing on the behavior of the wolf.
How To Remove Bias and Maintain Objectivity
It’s easier said than done, but you can stay in the right direction while interpreting behavior for yourself! Just keep these tips in mind:
Look ONLY at animal behavior! Things to remove from analysis: Folklore, mysticism and religion, human perception and involvement (unless it causes behavioral differences, aka urban involvement being beneficial to the opportunistic raccoon), and extremes in an animal’s behavior that is overshadowed by other behavioral points (like “lone wolves” etc).
Do NOT look at how “others” perceive the form. Predators will always be seen as “mean” to prey items, but they are “friendly” to conspecifics. Aka, reputation of an animal should have no reason for being in an analysis. How people perceive someone does not change how they really are, because many may see the same person differently. Remember that!
Keep out physical attributes (unless it affects the animal’s behavior). This also includes color morphs like melanism and ablinism. Don’t say that 9-banded armadillos are thick-skinned just because they have thick skin(physical attribute), instead say they are avoidant because they hide in their armored shells(behavior). Remember that the behavior is what counts, not the physical attributes.
Ignore captive behaviors it at all possible. Wild animals in captivity, while they can be helpful for seeing behaviors in hard-to-find animals, is not always reliable information on the animal’s true behaviors. The most infamous version of this is the “Alpha/Omega” theory in wolves, which was observed and ONLY seen in non-related, adult wolves in captivity. Captive animals may also be stressed or exhibit healthy behaviors, especially in social and mating behaviors. Be careful and wary of these behaviors, as they will give a false reading in analysis and interpretation.
When in doubt, ask “Is it the What or the Why?” Always make sure you are answering the Why and not just the What! I can be easy to fall into the “what” trap, but with practice, the Why will become easier and easier.
So What Now?
We are on our way to being bona-fide analyzers in no time! Now that we know what NOT to look for, we can next focus on what TO look for! Many behaviors are universal in animals, and it’s important to look at each one when analysing. But what are the most important traits? What is needed to make an analysis feel “complete”? In the next segment, we will look at just what it is that makes each form tick, and what behaviors are vital to any analysis.
Next Analysis 101 Lessons: What Behaviors to ALWAYS look for when Researching Plus: Just What *Is* a Nonviable Form?
