When I started reading Inside of a Dog by Alexandra Horowitz I was interested. She started off with stating “a dog’s view is not immediately accessible to us” and I agree with that. Although I don’t think it is accessible at all. Throughout this column I found myself agreeing with some parts and completely disagreeing with other parts. I did not like how the author wrote in a way that she was speaking for the dogs like she knew exactly what they were thinking or what was really going on in their minds. Some parts were necessary but most of the time it was arbitrary and unavailing. I understand the fact that we are supposed to imagine this journey into the dog’s umvelt, but why must it sound so bias toward dogs? In a way Dr. Horowitz makes it seem that dogs are more advanced in senses than we are. Although, they might have some advantages in smelling and eyesight, our senses are more advance so I would think. How does she know whether or not dogs can see the time between our blinks? They might experience the world faster than us but how do we know whether they log all they see at one time? We don’t know and can’t because in order to we must become a dog and experience it for ourselves. I was not very amused by the way this article was written trying to explain the cognitive experience of a different life form. In order to do this, you must be that life form; in this case a dog.
Spencer
