SECTIONAL TRANSACTIONS.—D. 323 
Tuesday, September 11. 
Joint Discussion with Section J (Psychology) on The interpretation 
of animal behaviour (Section D room, 10.0) :— 
Prof. J. A. BIERENS DE Haan. 
The interpretation of animal behaviour forms the foundation of animal 
psychology, and is of fundamental importance for it, as it is decisive for 
one’s attitude towards this science, and may even lead one to reject it as 
impossible. ‘There are three main tendencies with regard to this interpreta- 
tion: (a) the physiological or analytical one, which attempts to analyse 
the actions of animals into as complete a number of reflexes as possible. 
This is not very satisfactory, as it gives us only a number of parts, while 
the bond that links them is lacking, and it would also give a very unsatis- 
factory interpretation of our own behaviour. (5) The synthetical interpre- 
tation, in which we may again distinguish two tendencies : firstly, a tendency 
for interpretation only in terms of objectively perceptible phenomena 
(stimulus and response), and, secondly, one in which are taken into account 
subjective or psychical phenomena. If the latter is possible with animals, 
it will satisfy us better than the other, as we know in our own case that an 
interpretation that does not take such phenomena into account neglects 
some fundamental elements that govern our behaviour. Therefore we will 
accept the objective interpretation only when the other one is proved to be 
impossible. ‘That may be the case: (i) when subjective phenomena do not 
occur in animals, or (ii) when they do occur, but are not recognisable by us. 
To settle the first point the seven marks of behaviour of MacDougall are 
used as a criterion. ‘Testing the activities of animals by means of these 
seven marks, it may be shown that even in the Protozoa real ‘ behaviour ’ 
as an expression of subjective phenomena exists. As to the question 
whether these subjective phenomena are sufficiently knowable it is argued 
that everybody, even the behaviorist, uses them in the practical interpreta- 
tion of the behaviour of animals, so that it would be inconsistent not to do 
it in the laboratory. The objection that with the lower animals the analogies 
between their attitudes and our own diminish, so that with them the 
difficulty becomes greater, is rejected with the remark that we do not 
interpret the behaviour in subjective phenomena by observing these attitudes, 
but by imagining ourselves to be the animal, by a ‘ transferred introspection,’ 
and by the result of special experiments directed to special questions 
(discrimination, understanding, etc.). So we are fully within our right in 
interpreting the behaviour of animals in terms of subjective phenomena. 
Another question is: Why do we want to interpret the behaviour of 
animals? It might be done for practical reasons, or for a better under- 
standing of our own nature. Yet the chief value of our interpretation of 
animal behaviour lies in the fact that it brings the material for the science 
of animal psychology, that has as its object those subjective phenomena, 
and as its aim the knowledge of their psychical constitutions. Further : 
the interpretation of the behaviour of animals and the building up of this 
science of animal psychology, although both psychologists and biologists 
may work together, must for the greater part be done by biologists, as the 
interest of the psychologist will be confined to the higher animals, where 
some resemblance to the human mind may be expected, while for the 
biologist all animals have equal rights as subjects of his study. Therefore 
the interest of biologists must be awakened in the study of this aspect of 
animal life. 
