#42 - Dr. Katie Homan - What Makes a Good Life for Dogs? Play, Meaning, and Relationship

What does it mean for a dog to live a “good life”? Can animals experience something like meaning or purpose? And what role do play, relationship, agency, and training have in helping animals flourish?

In this episode, Dr. Kristina Spaulding talks with philosopher, dog trainer, and behavior consultant Dr. Katie Homan about philosophy, play, ethics, flourishing, and the deeply relational nature of life with dogs.

Katie shares how her background in philosophy shaped the way she thinks about play, welfare, attachment, and human–animal relationships. Together, they explore questions that don’t have simple answers — including:

•  What philosophy actually is (and why it matters) 
•  The difference between pleasure and flourishing 
•  Whether dogs can experience meaning and purpose 
•  Why play may be fundamentally relational 
•  The role of agency, vulnerability, and reciprocity in our interactions with dogs 
•  Whether training can become more playful 
•  How ethical assumptions shape animal behavior practice 
•  Why learning to tolerate uncertainty may be essential for both science and philosophy 

The conversation also explores how concepts like flow, attachment, resilience, and social connection may contribute to positive welfare — and why asking better questions may matter as much as finding definitive answers.

Katie also discusses her current thesis research examining attachment styles and human–dog interaction patterns in olfactory detection work.

This episode is less about arriving at fixed conclusions and more about learning to “live the questions” together.

You can learn more about Katie’s work through her training business, See Spot Play at https://www.seespotplay.dog/ or email her at katie@seespotplay.dog.

For more information, please check out my website and social media links below!

• Website: https://sciencemattersllc.com/ 
• Unlocking Resilience: https://sciencemattersllc.com/unlocking-resilience
• Research Bites: https://sciencemattersllc.com/research-bites
• Join the Science Matters newsletter
• Facebook
• ...

Transcript

RBP_Holman_AUDIO_v1

[00:00:00] 

Host: Hello and welcome. I'm Dr. Kristina Spalding, and this is the Research Bites Podcast brought to you by Science Matters Academy of Animal Behavior. We foster conversations about science and its application to animal training and behavior. In an effort to improve wellbeing for animals and the people they live with, please enjoy geeking out about the science of behavior.

Host: All right everyone. Welcome back to the Research Bites podcast. Today I am excited to talk to Dr. Katie Homan, who is also a research Bytes member, and she completed her BA in philosophy in German at Creighton University in 2007, and then completed her PhD in philosophy at Emory University in 2014. Her dissertation [00:01:00] was focused on the relationship between play and ethics.

Following that, she became associate professor and chair of philosophy and theology at Mount Mary University in Milwaukee. She's had dogs all of her life, but in 2021 adopted a bonded pair that threw her into the deep end and she fell in love with all things study of animal behavior, and working and living with dogs.

She started the online masters in Agricultural and Life Sciences with a concentration in applied Animal Behavior and Welfare at Virginia Tech in 2024. Her thesis examines whether there is a connection between dog handler attachment and interaction styles and performance in old faction detection tasks.

So I'm really looking forward to this. Katie, I think you're gonna have, I love your, you know, the different background that you bring into this field, and I'm excited to talk about how that informs your work. 

Guest: Thank you. I'm really excited to be here as well, so thanks for inviting me. 

Host: [00:02:00] Yeah, no problem. So I'll start with the question that I start with for everyone, which is, what brought you to this subject and why do you study it?

Guest: So I think in true philosopher form, I want to define our terms a little bit and think about like what subject are we talking about? So I think overall throughout undergrad, grad, and now, I'm really interested in play and what play means philosophically, and then also the applied use of play with dog training and interactions and things.

Um, and I think what I find most fascinating about play is that it's actually quite difficult to define. We can all know it when we see it, and we all do it from infancy on, but it's nebulous and difficult to define and has a lot of infirm boundaries and contours. And so that's where the philosophical questions really get me because it's really trying to unpack like, what is this thing and [00:03:00] how does it work and how do we understand that?

And then from a very applied way of thinking like, well, how do other. Animals play and does play mean the same thing for them that it might mean for humans? And how does that shape how we interact with other species and things? 

Host: Yeah. Yeah. Play is really interesting from that aspect because it is really hard to define and things that some people think of.

I mean, even just sticking to humans, it's complicated, right? So some things that some people think of as play is not at all playful or fun for other people. So that's, it's, yeah. There's so many things we can talk about when it comes to play, right? 

Guest: Right. Yep. 

Host: Okay. So let's start with the very basics, which is what is philosophy and what role does it play?

And before you answer that question, I just wanna share with the listeners a little story about my background with [00:04:00] philosophy. So. I took philosophy, I think my very first semester in college because we had to have a liberal arts background. And I hated it. Like, I just, I remember writing papers and just having fits because I'm like, there's not like, I can't, like, I don't know what the right answer is.

And I really, I mean, this was, I just couldn't handle it at that time in my life. And I felt very strongly that, you know, science was the way and that's what we had to do. And of course, now I understand that there isn't one right answer most of the time. But back then, when I was very young, young, and still learning about the world is I, I still thought that there was a correct answer to everything.

And it wasn't until I was much older that I started to really understand the value of wrestling with questions that don't necessarily have concrete answers. So that's just my, my little, [00:05:00] you know, two sentence about my experience with philosophy. But yeah. Can you talk about what exactly it is and why it's important?

Guest: Yeah. Yeah. And I would say you are absolutely not alone. And those feelings, I can't tell you how many times I was, I've been on like a plane and somebody has sat next to me and asked me what I did. I said, I teach philosophy. And they say, well, I hated that. I wouldn't sit next to someone else and be like, I hate doing taxes.

Why would you ever be a CPA? But there's something about philosophy where people feel like it's perfectly reasonable to say how much they hated it. But then I was also thinking, I saw one of your social media posts about being a good scientist is being comfortable with uncertainty. Yes. So I see the trajectory.

Host: Yes. 

Guest: And that it's, it's uncomfortable to not have answers. And I think philosophy is not so much about. Not having answers or not giving answers as it is about thinking through [00:06:00] what kinds of questions we ask and why some questions might be relevant or not. Because the question is always in search of an answer.

And so philosophy would be sort of a mo exercise if we asked a bunch of questions that didn't look for answers. But I think fundamentally philosophy is about resisting obvious answers because usually things are not as obvious as we think. so for example, I was thinking about this. My nephew is five and he was over at our house over Christmas and he saw me feeding our dogs and we feed our dogs a fresh cooked diet so it has like broccoli and Turkey and sweet potato and stuff in it.

And so he sees it and he sees the broccoli and he says, well, is that. I said, yeah, it's dog food. And he said, well, are there bones in it? Like, no, this, there aren't any bones in this. Now they do chew on bones occasionally, but this is what we're feeding them. And he said, [00:07:00] well, that's people food. And I'm like, well, the dogs are eating it.

So food for dogs. Food for dogs. And so for him, like these are actually like really good questions about like, well, a person would eat this and a dog would eat this, but what makes something dog food versus human food? And like that's basically just what philosophy is. It's like, yeah, what is this thing and how do we know it's this versus that?

Or what would be the fundamental characteristics of one thing versus another? And so he's like, a five-year-old is a great philosopher because it's like, well what is that and why is that the case? And. Why should I do this thing that I do not want to do? And so I think a lot of philosophy is investigating what we would take to be assumptions and trying to unpack them.

And I think sometimes philosophy gets a bad rap for being really tedious because it resists a lot of answers to things, um, and can suck the fun [00:08:00] outta some things. But I think it's so important because if fundamentally we're concerned about good lives and what we should be doing in life and with others and for ourselves, then we need to really dig down deep to think about like, well, is that actually the case?

Or could something else be true? And how would I know that that's true? And what would that mean for all of my other philosophical commitments, but also behaviors in the world and with others? And so if we aren't thinking through those things, then I think we can end up in really dangerous territory of.

Or just very superficial existences, which I don't think would be as rich and meaningful as it really could be. 

Host: Yeah, I mean, that's a very fantastic answer and I think very convincing for the value of this kind of thinking. I think, you know, I like what you said said about it being, you know, without thinking more deeply about these [00:09:00] questions, that we're maybe living on a more superficial level.

And at the same time, it is uncomfortable for people, right? It's hard to, in my mind, sort of step off a cliff. This is what we, we know the listeners can't hear see me, but I'm using finger quotes, like, this is what we know. And then if you start questioning that, that can feel very threatening. And I think that's one of the lovely things about kids, right?

Because they're, they're new enough to the world that they are questioning everything. And they can ask these fantastic questions that we, maybe our thinking has become a little bit too rigid to consider some of those things, which maybe is why people get so frustrated with kids asking questions all the time.

You know, the why, why, why? It's like we don't wanna think about the why, every minute of every day if, if you've ever had kids or been around kids that are constantly asking that question. So I think, I'm trying to think of where [00:10:00] I wanna go next with this question. 'cause you kind of opened a couple of doors and I, I want to go down all of them, but why don't we start, with a good life.

You mentioned a good life, and I'm probably gonna butcher the pronunciation of these words, but I know that what we want, one of the things we wanted to talk about today was the concept of eudemonia. 

Guest: Yeah. Eudemonia, or I usually pronounce it as uia. 

Host: Okay. So can you talk a little bit about what that is?

And what Hedonia is and how they are different and why, like how they relate to not only how we live our lives, right? But to bring it back to the animals that we live with. How does that impact our relationship with them? Or how can we use that as a lens to look at our relationship, relationship with?

Guest: Sure. Yeah, good question. So was sort of, well, not sort of, it was developed as a concept by the philosopher [00:11:00] Aristotle who is trying to think about how do we have a good life, not just whether a particular action is good, but over the course of a lifetime. Was that a good life? Was that a praiseworthy life or was that a blameworthy life?

And so Mia is about flourishing. So not just existing, but actually living life well or an excellent kind of life. So Aristotle thought that everything that exists has some kind of inherent function. So the function of the eyeball is to see the function of, um, wolf is to hunt. The function of water is to hydrate and allow things to grow.

And obviously Aristotle was an ancient philosopher, so his science wasn't what it's now knowing all the functions of things. But he was very [00:12:00] much a scientist. And so he was very much about, let's go out in the world and see what things are actually happening and what they're doing and testing different hypotheses.

So Aristotle thought that what distinguishes the human from other entities is that. The function of the human is to use the capacity to reason, so to deliberate, to think, to plan activities, and then what sort of life we want. And so a good life for a human would be one that maximizes the ability to reason, reason.

And so he develops a whole system of virtues that have to do with their ability to think and develop a good life. So where a person could just exist and live, if they're not actually exercising that capacity to reason, to philosophize, to deliberate, to choose, then they're not [00:13:00] flourishing. And so Aristotle is saying that when we flourish, we have a better life than not.

And that better life also leads to happiness. And so. Happiness for Aristotle is not the same as joy or pleasure, but it's much more that inherent good that comes from exercising a life well lived. So you is about that constant activity of flourishing. and it's usually like a much broader time scale.

So it's not like I'm flourishing at time A and not at time B, but more over the course of the life, what's actually happening in that life. Hedonia is a little bit more about pleasure and pain and that what is better is to have experiences of pleasure and it's less good to have experiences of pain and that can get into some tricky territory because things can be mixed, both pleasurable and painful.

[00:14:00] It could become very difficult to rank whether one pleasure is better than another kind of pleasure, or whether one pain is worse than another kind of pain. Um, not just at the individual level, but also for other lives. The very subjective experience, you, I mean, he is going to be more concerned with meaning and purpose.

Hedonia is going to be more concerned with pleasure and pain. And so the philosopher at John Stewart Mill in Utilitarianism says like, I would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, because it's still going to be more meaningful to me to be Socrates, who not only knows that I'm dissatisfied, but can also think about why and do something about it.

And he thinks like the pig can't think about those things. And so the pig has a pretty superficial, pleasurable experience. I don't. Know that that's actually true of pigs, but that's what Mill and a lot of other philosophers thought. [00:15:00] So in essence, like is looking at not just function, but functioning in excellent kind of way.

Aristotle didn't talk about nonhuman and he also limited the capacity to flourish to white male landowners who had the leisure time afforded to them to be able to think about things. And so there's been a lot of work more recently about whether we can extend those concepts to wider human populations, but then also think about whether it's possible for non-human animals to flourish, um, according to their functions as well.

And so that's what I'm especially interested in, of what it would mean for. Humans to flourish, but also other species to flourish and what that might look like and how we'd be able to tell that that was happening. 

Host: Yeah, that's so interesting. And what, what you said it was, it was Mills that made the human pig comparison.

So what I was thinking as you were talking [00:16:00] about that is like, well, maybe he as a human being wouldn't feel satisfied if he, you know, like based on the things that would make a pig feel satisfied. But you also have that problem of like, but he is not a pig, so that doesn't mean that the pig can't be, you know, have this really positive, meaningful experience by doing pig things, which is, you know, I know, not terribly technical, but I, I just, I guess it's just so self-centered, right?

So anthropomorphic, I guess. And I, I know that as you said, like people are sort of going beyond that now, but that's still something I think we struggle with a lot or even. I don't wanna get too much into person to person 'cause I'm very interested in this, but this is a, you know, animal behavior podcast.

But whether we're talking about comparing what is fulfilling to us with another human being or with another animal, that's not necessarily the best metric for answering that question for that other [00:17:00] individual. Right, 

Guest: right, right. Exactly. Exactly. And I think the problem of other minds has been a problem in philosophy since its inception of how do I know what another person is thinking when I can't be in their brain or have their sensory experience?

And this is still a problem for philosophers, but basically if we can have a conversation, we're able to respond to what the other is saying, then there must be some way in which we're communicating and understanding maybe not exactly what the other person means, but because we know how to go on. We can enforce some things about that person's mental states based on our own and past experience.

And I think the problem of non-human animal minds is also more complicated because we're not using the same kinds of language to communicate, but we can still draw some inferences based on behavior [00:18:00] of what is more likely than not going on for that animal in their mind. And I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to the capacity for non-human animal cognition because we just don't know.

But I do think like we should be thinking about what would it be like for the pig to enjoy doing pig things and could there still be meaning there, even if it might be very different from the way that a human enjoys doing human things. And some humans also enjoy doing pig things. So that's also something to think about.

Host: Yeah, and I, I mean, I think this is a really important question and animal welfare researchers are really looking at this too, is so I, I think it, I think trying to answer the question about whether or not non-human animals can find meaning and purpose or whether or not they can flourish, kind of using that definition, right?

Because I think, to me anyway, I think it's [00:19:00] pretty clear that they can experience pleasure and pain. The reason I think this is a really important question for us is because if we want to, I was gonna say maximize happiness, but then I'm like, well, does that mean pleasure and pain? So if we want to create a good life for our animals, they can experience something akin to meaning and purpose.

Maybe it's not exactly like the human experience. It, it'll be the pig version of We're just gonna stick with pigs. It'll be the pig version of meaning and purpose. So if that is possible, then I think that raises a lot of questions for us as people who are caring for and living with animals of, are we creating a world in which they can find that meaning and purpose?

And I, I assume that's kind of where you're coming at this question from as well. 

Guest: Right, right. Because I think one of the things about being human and flourishing is that [00:20:00] my ability to flourish also requires that I create opportunities for other humans to flourish, so that my actions are not violating another's capacity to lead a good life.

Host: Mm-hmm. 

Guest: That I should be creating opportunities for others to maximize a good life. And so I would say even just being a good human being. If I think other non humans are capable of flourishing, then I have an ethical obligation to also create opportunities for those other beings to flourish. I don't know exactly what that means or what that looks like, but I think like that's a question we should constantly be asking ourselves of what are our obligations and why is that an obligation, and what does the obligation actually mean?

And I don't know any of those answers, and I get stuck thinking about them like standing in the grocery store. Well, if I buy this thing that has palm oil, have I [00:21:00] been compromised? An orangutan's ability to be a good orangutan because of deforestation? So it's very complicated. 

Host: It is. And I think this brings us back to why some people, you know, hate philosophy, right?

Because we don't want to be standing in the grocery store thinking about if our choice is going to, you know, negatively impact. I mean, on one hand I think we do, and again, it, you know, I think it comes back to meaning and purpose versus just pleasure and pain. We're just going with pleasure and pain.

Like just buy the, you know, peanut butter, the Nutella, whatever, and enjoy it. But once we start to ask these other questions, it does make our lives a lot more complicated. Um, and, and I think what many would argue that it can also make your lives better, but it's, it's not an easy path. And it can be exhausting, I think especially in the beginning of that journey and, and asking those questions 

Guest: or to add on a little, I think it's not so much about making things complicated [00:22:00] as recognizing the complexity that's already there.

Yes. 

Host: Right. 

Guest: And one of. The aspects that I think is really aspects of ethics, I think is really important, is creating space for others to be seen and heard and understood. So my biggest obligation is not just what I should do, but am I listening to another. And so our obligation is to recognize the complexity that is already there and then think about how we stand in relation to that complexity and what we wanna do about it.

Host: Yeah. Yeah. And I'm wondering, I mean, I have some thoughts on this too, and I can talk about my thoughts as well. What are your thoughts on what kinds of things might create meaning and purpose for, let's just say dogs. 'cause I know that's the species that you

work with. 

Guest: it's hard. I think about this a lot, [00:23:00] Deb.

Where I think about meaning in life comes from Susan Wolf, a philosopher, and maybe it's appropriate that her last name is Wolf, thinking about Dogs. But she develops an idea of happiness and meaning contributing to a good life. That a good life is one that's happiness is more than just pleasure or simple pleasures.

But she says that there are two fundamental ingredients to, a happy, meaningful life. It's active engagement in projects of worth. And it's a little bit intentionally, a little bit unclear what exactly constitutes a project of worth. But basically we would say, well, it's probably more worthwhile to work with my child's Girl Scout troupe than it would be to just sit and do crossroad puzzles all day.

She doesn't necessarily give a justification for that, but it's sort of the idea that like we would probably be able to agree on something more akin to a worthwhile project than [00:24:00] not, but that we aren't going to achieve meaning if we are not actively engaged in that. 

Host: Yeah. 

Guest: So someone could be a really great Girl Scout troop leader, but bread it hate it.

It's not meaningful. Someone could be super actively engaged in eating as much chocolate as they possibly could, but we wouldn't necessarily say that that's meaningful. 

Host: Yeah, 

Guest: and so what's also interesting about this is that over the course of our lives. We might be very actively engaged in a project of worth at one time, like going to college or starting a job or having a family.

And then as we age or change, we might have different projects that we're actively engaged in. And so there's no one singular meaning. and it's always subject to revision. And I really like this idea of active engagement in projects of worth because I do think that that is something we could maybe think about for [00:25:00] dogs, for example.

And there's also, as you've talked about on other podcast episodes and things, the concept of flow, of being very actively engaged in this sort of full confidence and capability and something that is also challenging. And there's a different orientation to time, there's a different orientation to itself.

But that flow for humans at least seems to be very meaningful. And I think insofar as dogs can do that through. Or puzzles or sniffing or other things like I would say that it's a project of worth and that we should give. And I don't like saying give because it makes it seem like I have all the power.

Host: Yeah. 

Guest: But I think that's sort of the reality of sharing our lives with pets is that there is a power differential that I'm also very concerned about, but that we should provide as many opportunities as we can for our dogs to be actively engaged in projects of worth. And sometimes our dogs [00:26:00] might find something, a worthwhile project that we might not find a worthwhile project.

And so sometimes it's also a matter of how do we harmonize those things to allow you to do what you wanna do in a way that's safe and reasonable and can also be done in perhaps a more limited context. Like I know you would like to dig up every dead fish on the beach. We're maybe not going to do that, but here's another thing that you might wanna do that could still get at some of those inclination.

Host: I wasn't familiar with her work, and I think that's a great way of framing it. Of course, the hard part, I think it's pretty easy to define and recognize active engagement. A lot harder to define and recognize, what was it? A project of Worth. 

Guest: A project of worth. 

Host: Yeah. But the things that come to mind when I think about things like flow, meaning, and purpose, and this project of worth are behaviors [00:27:00] like, so I, I guess natural behaviors, although I don't know if that's entirely true, so I'll give you an example in a second.

But you know, things like scent work, hunting behavior, uh, herding, which holes a lot of natural behaviors. But also I suspect relationship, right? So I have to make sure I remember to come back to the non-natural behaviors that might fit into this category. 'cause I think we're gonna go off in another direction for a second.

But I think it's really interesting that the things that you are most interested in are play and scent work. Because to me, those are two things that I feel like maybe fall right into this category of activities that may provide meaning and purpose or whatever the animal version of that might be. And again, I'm not saying I absolutely think that they can have this experience, I really don't know.

But I think what we can [00:28:00] observe and what people have observed is that behaviors like trailing, you know, various kinds of scent activities, like not just the sort of formal nose work, but other kinds of scent activities and play. Can have appear to have hugely beneficial impacts on dogs. And you know, scent work is obviously related to hunting and then play, actually play has a lot of benefits that we're only beginning to understand.

It probably contributes to resilience and things like that, but at least social play probably also contributes to relationship. And that might be something else that might be considered a project or might qualify as a project of worth for other animals if they can experience that. So do you wanna talk about play and scent work a little bit and how they fit into all of this?

Yes. Relationship, if you wanna throw that in there. 

Guest: Yeah. All of that I think goes together. And [00:29:00] I'm probably gonna go way off track, so read me and that's 

Host: totally 

Guest: fine. Yes. This is my life project. Okay. So I teach a nose work class and I have a Monday class and there are usually like four, six students in there.

And two weeks ago I was thinking about like how I wanted to start class. And usually we do different exercises of the dog solving different problems. Right. They do the, they find the hidden Q-tips, they get rewarded at source and they seem to enjoy it. And I've been recently reading some of the papers you've talked about lately regarding positive animal welfare.

Host: Mm-hmm. 

Guest: And that what contributes to welfare for, I would say humans and non-human is agency. And that agency is made up of competence, confidence, and resiliency. And so the more we can maximize the ability to develop [00:30:00] competence, the more we're also developing confidence, the more we're also developing resiliency and all of those make it so we're better able to cope with our world.

And being able to cope better means we're also more likely to flourish. So talking with my students, I, it turned into like a philosophy lecture that I didn't necessarily intend, but it was a really productive conversation of a lot of us do nose work with our dogs because we have fun doing it. The dog gets to do something that they are better at than we're better at that their capacity to detect things and solve olfactory problems is much better than the humans typically.

And that it seems meaningful that we are building this relationship together as a team. And so then we talked about what would it look like to go into a search and maximize agency? So what would it look like to provide [00:31:00] opportunities for the dog to engage in competency, to engage in confidence, to develop resilience.

And then we set our hides based on that and thought like, well, what did the dog do? How do I stay in relationship to them? But we also started thinking a lot about agency that a lot of times when we think of agency, we think of an individual acting that I have this capacity, I'm going to do something.

And this is like where my philosophy background comes in. Because I wonder like, is that actually agency that actually, like we don't come into the world as. We come into the world in relationship, right? We're born into social dynamics. We're born into cultures and contexts. We're born into language that gives us the ability to process all of those things and also create [00:32:00] meaning.

And similarly, our dogs are not born as isolated individuals. It's only through playing with litter mates through early life experiences or even epigenetic experiences, if they're called experiences factors, that all of those things give shape to the individual dog. That dog becomes. But at bottom, the dog isn't an individual, just like at bottom, a human's not an individual.

Social relations, relations. And so what would be more important for agency and flourishing than cultivating those social relations? And so really thinking about if we're maximizing the ability for like the dog driven search and nose work, what that means for it to also be a relationship where the dog is responding to [00:33:00] what we're doing and we're responding to what the dog is doing, and it's fostering that relationship and a kind of reciprocity.

And I think that's where play is so important because play is fundamentally relational, right? Even if, if we're playing by ourselves, we're responding to the last thing that we did. So even if I'm bouncing a ball, I have to respond to the last bounce. I have to respond to whatever substrate I'm playing on.

The weather conditions, whatever. So play is a matter of attuning ourselves to what is other. And so I think there's nothing more meaningful than learning to understand and attune ourselves and play with something other. And so I think when we see dogs most in their flow state, it is in play. It's in that relationality that is also a little bit risky.

It's safe [00:34:00] testing things out, it's trying things and it's cultivating that relationship. And so sort of what I think is so important in my work as like a behavior consultant, let alone just like someone who has dogs, is learning how to play better with them. Because I think if we play better, they have better lives.

And I think a lot of what. It gets construed as play with our dogs isn't play right? If I'm only throwing balls for my dog to chase, it's not play because I haven't entered into any kind of vulnerability. I haven't put anything at risk. I haven't let the dog ask me a question. I'm telling them what to do and they're doing it.

Or if we play tug and the point of tug is to never give up and the dog always loses, that's also not play, that's bullying. And so I think we need to stop [00:35:00] bullying our dogs when we think we're playing with them. And I think that impulse to play is really well intentioned and I never wanna shame anyone for trying to play, but I think we can play better where it is a matter of give and take and really letting the dog also have something to say about things.

Learning how to listen to that better so that we're also committed to developing that relationship more because that's the thing that's gonna be the most meaningful for either one of us. 

Host: Yeah.

Speaker 2: If you've ever thought, I really want to stay current on the science, but I just don't have the time to dig through journals. I get it. That's exactly why I created Research Bites. Each month I host a live webinar where I break down a recent research paper, what the authors actually did, what they found, and how to interpret it.

There's time for questions and discussion, and if you can't attend live, the full session is recorded. In addition, we meet. For separate, informal coffee break conversations [00:36:00] focused entirely on translating research into real world practice. If you want to stay connected to the Science without feeling overwhelmed or like you're doing it all alone, research Bites is there for you.

You can learn more@www.science matters llc.com, or click the link in the show notes. Use the code R. Podcast for 50% off your first month. I'd love to have you join us.

Host: I love what you said. I mean I love, there's so much in there, but one of the things that I wrote down is that play isn't play if we, the human, haven't put ourselves into any vulnerability. And Yeah, I love that. And I think fetch is such an interesting example because there's so many expectations around fetch.

Like I've had a lot of clients that really seem almost. [00:37:00] Offended or like they feel like they've been cheated in some way when their dog doesn't automatically chase after the ball, bring it all the way back and put it in their hand. And that's what fetch is to them. Right. And when I play with Finn, so unfortunately Darwin our beagle, he came to us at five months and I worked very, very hard to get him to play.

And I tried all the tricks and the food and the shaping it and everything. And he did sort of kind of play for like a short period of time. But then he stopped and it, it's every once in a like maybe three or four times a year, he will see a toy and very clearly go into play. And I get all excited and then it's over and there's nothing I can do to like.

Bring it back. So unfortunately we don't do a lot of play with Darwin, although I am gonna bring this back to training and is training play. And, but with Finn, probably [00:38:00] because, I mean, I don't remember exactly why, how I started doing this, but I'm sure it was related to what I've been learning about play and relationship and give and take and all of that.

So when I play with Finn, I try to be very responsive to his behavior. So for one thing, he gets to choose the toy that he's going to play with, and sometimes he picks, in my opinion, ridiculous toys to play fetch with. You know, he'll, he'll choose this like huge stuffed toy that has like no aerodynamics or weight.

And so I'll throw it and it'll go like two feet. But he's thrilled how he's pouncing after it and prancing around and shaking it. And so. It's less fun for me on an individual level, I think partly because it doesn't fit my picture of what fetch is supposed to be. But it's okay because watching his joy like brings it back to me, right?

So like if, if you asked me how I think we should play fetch, I would not say I'm gonna throw this [00:39:00] huge, lightweight, stuffed animal a couple feet in the air. You know, like that's not how I would define it, but that's how he wants to play, right? And who cares if it's fetch or something else, like who cares what, whether it fits the, whatever our definition of fetch is.

But I try very much to read his body language. And some days he does seem like he pretty much just wants to run really far after the toy and bring it back. And other days he wants much more interaction, you know? And so he'll come and he, he'll slam into me and I'll push him around, or we'll play tug a little bit and then he wants me to throw it again and.

I, I mean, I never really thought about it this way, but I do think there is vulnerability for me in that, because I'm trying to figure out what he wants, and sometimes I get it wrong and sometimes I feel bad, you know, because I'm like, oh, I gave you this like, offer and you rejected it. And it's not, I mean, it's, it's fleeting, right?

But I [00:40:00] do feel like I make myself vulnerable when I offer something to him and, and he says, Nope, that's, that's not what I wanna do. But I never thought of it in that way, you know, that is much more relationship building, right? Than just always doing the same rote behavior. So, yeah. So that's my, I like, thank you for that, because I think that's really, really interesting.

Guest: Yeah. Because I think like when we look at how other dogs play. I have two dogs. I have an older peer and he's mixed. And then a lab. And if she's very insistent with him in his face with a toy, he gets up and he walks away. 

Host: Yeah, 

Guest: right. He's like, that's not how I wanna play. And you just doing the same thing over and over again is not playful.

And so I think we can use some of dog dog interactions to think about how to play with the human dog dyad that so much a dog play is [00:41:00] anthropomorphizing a little bit here. But like, Hey, what do you think about that? What do you think about this? And sort of making little invitations and responses rather than like play like this over and over and over and over again.

And there are some dogs who might enjoy that, right? And there might be some dogs who like to do the exact same play behavior with each other over and over. But typically we see role reversal and self handicapping and all those other things. And so I'd like to see more of that. A lot of human dog play.

Host: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I wanna go back to, I mean, not back to in my mind because I don't think we've actually verbalized it really yet, but I wanna talk about training and play, because I guess this comes back to the definition of play, right? So certainly I think training is not always play, but I think it can be.

I think, I mean, I'm not really sure, right? But like [00:42:00] Darwin, who I cannot get to play with toys and stuff, he loves being trained, you know, it's one of his favorite things. And it doesn't really matter what we're doing. You know, we, we could be for Darwin, uh, I'm not saying this is true for all dogs, but for Darwin, we could be doing probably the same thing every single day.

He would still think it was great and fun and he, you know, we could be doing whatever. He just doesn't care. And maybe it's because there's food involved. He's a beagle mix. But I don't know. But for me, that's how we have that kind of social interaction because I can't get the, whatever, I can't get the, the, again, I'm struggling with, well how am I defining play?

Like, 'cause I was gonna say I can't get play, but maybe the training that we do together is play. I don't know. But, but that's how I try and have that positive interaction with him. Right. And we, you know, we walk together too. But again, with Darwin, our walks aren't particularly interactive unless he is asking for food.

[00:43:00] Finn is very different for him. You know, we have this great play together and sometimes, by the way, like he wants, he'll solicit play inside when I'm working or something and I'll throw the toy once and then he is like, okay, cool. I'm gonna lay down and chew on it now. And again, I'm kind of like, well, ugh.

You asked me to play with you and I stopped working and you gave me like two seconds. But I'm like, but you know what? The lovely thing about that is I was supposed to be working anyway so I can do something and make him happy and apparently satisfy him and then go back to work. But I think thinking about meaning and purpose and does training give dogs meaning and purpose?

There's so many questions here and we've gone totally off script, by the way, for those of you that are listening. But, so there's that power dynamic that you mentioned because I'm deciding what we're gonna train, you know, when I'm training the dogs. Now, you could potentially put choice into that. I haven't experimented with that, but maybe at some point I will.

I stopped doing formal training with Finn quite a while ago because of all these questions I [00:44:00] was having about agency and the power dynamics and you know, focusing on things like resilience and competence and enrichment and so on instead. But again. Training can also be enrichment, but I recently went back to it because it's been cold and snowy and bad weather and we can't even play outside right now because it's been this constant like freeze thaw cycle.

And so the backyard is very, very icy. So I started playing with him 'cause I'm like, I have to do something 'cause he's losing his mind. And immediately it was obvious like how reinforcing this is to him. But you know a little bit about Finn and I think a lot of the listeners know a little bit about Finn and his arousal.

Well, I mean like through the roof when we're playing. And so I have so, or sorry, training actually they're better when we're playing. Interestingly. So I have so many questions in my mind, right? Like, is this play? What is the power dynamic? And. Does this [00:45:00] fulfill him or does it just get him amped up? Like we have to go through a whole process to bring him back down again after we train, which we, which I don't have to do with play, which is interesting because you would think play is being more high arousal, but I feel like I'm sort of just bam, you know, rambling around here and babbling a little bit.

But this is, this is what I always tell my students, right? Like express your thoughts even if they're not yet fully formed. But I don't quite know what I'm trying to say except that I have so many questions about what is happening there. Like what is like, I guess it's about like what is the best way for me to give him his best life and his training actually hurting or helping that, because he is clearly highly motivated to do it.

But is it more about pleasure and not so much meaning and purpose? Is there even a distinguish there? Is it a, a distinction there? Is it okay that this particular thing is just about [00:46:00] pleasure? And I know you don't have all the answers either, but it's, it's just bringing up a lot of questions for me and I, which I think can be a good thing.

Krista Tippett talks about living the questions, which I love. And it's this idea of like, sort of this value of having these questions that we carry with us that we don't have answers to, and how having those open questions can impact how we think about the world and, and live our, 

Guest: there's so much in there that I think it's really fantastic.

Um, I'm trying to think of where to start. So what I think and other philosophers think is that play is different from other behaviors because play is auto telic, meaning it's for its own sake. It has its own telos, its own goal. Other behaviors are usually to achieve some outside goal. And so what is like so fascinating about [00:47:00] play then from like an evolution standpoint of like if a member of a species only has limited resources, will they play or not?

Um, and that play now for a lot of species is a welfare indicator, meaning like they can play because their basic needs have been met and there's enough energy left over. But I would say for thinking about that in relationship to training is play, can be training, and training can be playful. But I would not say that technically training is play.

Because training usually has some predetermined goal, right? And we've already sort of determined like, well, I want. Able to opt into a nail trim, so we're gonna train cooperative care. So I'm maximizing choice. I'm looking for her to opt in for certain things, but I've already decided like, here's what [00:48:00] we're going to do and I might change my training plan based on how she's responding, but I've still already sort of decided what the end goal is and how we're going to achieve it.

I think play can be training because there are all sorts of things that out of play, like fight inhibition or, 

We might use play as a way to reinforce other training behaviors or for the arousal thing, I think play is fantastic because play is constantly about changing arousal levels in response to different things.

And so I would be curious if one reason, I'm just completely speculating, we see arousal spikes in training and not in play. Is because in training, the goal is access to reinforcer, and so it's like everything is focused on that. At least that is how it's with my very hungry Labrador of meat a cookie.

That's what I want. And so I get [00:49:00] fixated on that with plays for its own sake. Then it's not necessarily thinking about like, well, what do I get next? And sort of worrying about what might happen there. That's just again, speculation. Where's going? Sorry. So I think your questions about power are so important because training is important in many regards.

We have chosen to bring these pets into our homes, and we have an obligation then to help them develop the skills they need to function well in those homes, and so. I live like in the downtown area of Milwaukee, my dog needs an ability to walk on a leash. And so that is one of our trading skills. But I might use play more to develop the relationship so that when we do walk down the street, she wants to be with me and finds being with me.

I [00:50:00] dunno if it's meaningful because it could be that the 8,000 chicken wing bones that litter my street are more meaningful to her than sticking next to me. But we've already developed that relationship and so I think before we get to any training, we need to do things that cultivate that relationship and also counteract some of that really extreme power differential so that we are maximizing actually our dog's ability to have a more reciprocal relationship with.

Host: Yeah. So there are many things I could comment on, but what I'm gonna comment on is let's continue with this power dynamic aspect of it. So one of my, one of the members of Research Bites, Mason Small, she talks a lot. She, she talks a lot about relationship and she talks about doing a kind of improv with dogs, which I'm gonna do a terrible job of explaining this, but that is exactly the idea, right?

That it is not, [00:51:00] this is my goal that I'm gonna teach you, but that she will sort of make, again, I'm gonna, I apologize Mason, because I, I probably won't do this justice, but that she makes sort of an opening offer to the dog and then sees what the dog does, and then she responds. They go back and forth in that way.

So it's kind of, I mean, maybe, maybe you would say that is play, but it's not play, it's a different kind of play. You know, like maybe there's some, there's probably some kind of queuing involved, although you could argue that play involves queuing the weeds on that. But I guess what I'm saying is like there is potentially a way that we could turn training.

I don't think all training. 'cause like you said, like in order for our dogs to be able to function in our world, like there are certain things that they have to be able to do, but certain times, kinds of training, we may be able to turn to move more towards that play scale and build more on that relationship and building competence on both the dog and the, in both the [00:52:00] dog and the person.

And again, that vulnerability aspect of it, right? Like I feel like if you are, if you're offering something to the dog and I say, no, I'd rather do this, and then you go with that, that again is still. Vulnerability on your part. So yeah, I have a lot to think about after this discussion. 

Guest: Yeah. And I think it's hard to be vulnerable at all.

Right? Yeah. And so I think that goes back to what you were saying about Krista Tippet, like inhabiting those questions and uncertainty requires a great deal of vulnerability. And yet we've also created these situations where one side of the pair is fundamentally vulnerable and we keep them in that vulnerability in some ways.

And that a lot of dog training has historically been about, I'm the authority and I tell you what to do, and you're the dog. You don't get a say. And that's just what happens. So I think it's a major shift, not just in how. We relate to our individual dog and play, but just [00:53:00] think about like what it means to share our lives with dogs in general of thinking about that vulnerability.

But I really like what you were saying about that sort of invitation and response because I think that is play and there's like a whole lot behind this. Read my dissertation, that all play is a conversation, right? And so it's always a conversation because all play is a back and forth question and answer.

So what do we think about this? I respond, what do we think about that? And our conversation right now is, I think play, right? We had a set of questions. We started with, we've gone a field in many ways. We're still sticking to what one another has been saying and responding to it and then saying like, well, what about this other thing?

And maybe we can bring it back. And so even if there is a goal in mind of we're gonna have a conversation about X, the way it unfolds hasn't been strictly predetermined from the outset. And [00:54:00] so that's where I think we can allow for training to become more playful. That even if we have that goal in mind, we might let it unfold in different kinds of ways and see what use the language that kids use say of like what the vibes are, right.

Of just like, how are we going to respond to one another in this context? 

Host: Yeah. Yeah. I think there's lots to think about there. So I do want to, we do have to start to wrap up here. But there was one thing that is on our list of questions that I really do wanna talk about, and I do actually think it relates to this conversation too, and that is ethics.

And I do think, especially now that this is a very important conversation. This is a conversation that comes up repeatedly as it should in dog and animal training and behavior. And I want to, maybe we'll have to have you back and do a longer conversation about ethics, but can you at least talk briefly about what it is and also is it the same thing as virality [00:55:00] or is it something different?

And then maybe we can talk really briefly about how we can apply this to our work. We don't really have time to do this conversation justice, but I don't wanna totally leave it out either. 

Guest: Sure. I think we've been talking about it the whole time. Yeah, we have. But just maybe not naming it specifically.

This is a hard question. There are lots of different approaches. So. Some philosophers will say that there is a difference between ethics and morality. Some will say that ethics is sort of the codified expectations of the community, or different rules where morality is about the individual principles we follow.

I don't think that that is a correct or helpful distinction personally because I don't think that we can actually separate those individual principles from the larger cultural context. and also sort of what I was alluding to before, we're not strictly individuals and [00:56:00] so we're in constant conversation with our communities and giving shape to different kinds of things.

So my approach is largely informed by like some 20th century German thought hearkening back to the ancient philosophers. Where ethics is about ethos of just being in the world and being in the world with others. And so my approach to ethics is one where, sort of what I was saying before of creating spaces for the other to continue speaking because that means like I've not already decided what is the case.

I'm open to new understandings and revision and rehabilitation and doing things better so that there's this overall trajectory. I think right now there's a lot of conversation in the animal behavior world about ethics, where ethics sounds a little bit more like codified policies about things.

Mm-hmm. And I think those are really [00:57:00] important, but I also think they can't. As meaningful if we don't think about the background beliefs that they stand up against. And so if my view of the world is one that wants to preserve vulnerability, wants to create more possibilities to listen and understand to alternative views, I'm obviously going to have very different policies than someone who does not share those worldviews.

And so I think sometimes we get caught up in saying a policy is good or bad without thinking about what the underlying assumptions and philosophical commitments are behind those things. So I think the importance of ethics is really trying to figure out what those fundamental assumptions are, and if those are.

Whatever good means and what that means for how we live in the world and engage with others. 

Host: So time for me to be a little bit vulnerable [00:58:00] because this is an area I don't have a lot of understanding in. So when we're talking about underlying assumptions, and I'm going to something that I do know a little tiny bit about is that sort of like, so like Jonathan Het talks about differences between, and don't worry listeners, we're not gonna get into politics, but like differences between liberals and conservatives and how, hopefully I'll remember this correctly.

You know, liberals tend to value things like justice over respect for authority, whereas conservatives might be different. So when we're talking about like underlying assumptions is that, I don't, I don't wanna call it an assumption exactly, but is that sort of like what we're talking about a little bit is like, how do we.

Decide what's important to us and how does that then impact our behavior? Like am I right at all? 

Guest: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. 100%. 

Okay. 

Guest: Yeah. And I think where like philosophy would come in would say like, well, what do we actually mean by respect? And what do we actually mean by authority? 

Host: Yeah. 

Guest: And based on my [00:59:00] beliefs, authority could mean something very different from what someone else means by authority, or we could actually mean the same thing, but what respect for that authority means could mean very different things.

And so digging down into the fundamental presuppositions is really trying to figure out like what those things mean and why they are important and what reasons I would give for them being important. So for example, if I'm someone who thinks of. Authority has a kind of developed expertise that is also willing to listen to alternative views, then I'm not going to be swayed by an argument as says like, I'm an authority because I'm older and I say so.

Right. So the justifications and the reasons are gonna be very different for even claims that I might otherwise expect. Like I think scientific authority is great. I respect that I want to listen to the science, [01:00:00] but that is going be very different based on what other beliefs I hold. 

Host: Right? Yeah. Hey, definitely lots more we could talk about there, but we do, we do have to wrap up.

But I appreciate that. I mean, even that right? I think that is, is helpful and makes me think about, oh, well, I think influence how I think about writing ethics statements and decisions that I make, right. People are gonna be coming from different perspectives and back, gonna influence their underlying assumptions and the importance of listening, right?

Because we're having a conversation about authority and we haven't talked about what that means then, I mean, this is the same thing that happens in labeling of behavior, right? But if we're having a conversation about authority and we don't, we think we're talking about the same thing and we're not, we may spend a lot of time arguing about something that maybe do we agree on more than we think we do, or maybe we don't, but like at least if we're disagreeing, it would be nice to know that we both understand, but we're disagreeing [01:01:00] about, so, yeah.

Guest: Right. Exactly. And I think what philosophy can do is help us disagree well, right? Right. So we actually can have a productive disagreement that may ultimately lead to agreement, but it might not, but at least. We understand what each other's trying to say. Right, right. 

Host: All right. Well this has been a very fascinating discussion.

So thank you so much for agreeing to come on the podcast. And I'm just gonna wrap up by asking you what unanswered, maybe we just spent the whole podcast talking about this, but what unanswered questions are at the top of your mind right now. And if you wanna talk about your thesis research here, you're welcome to do that.

Guest: Yeah, thank you. yeah, I'll mention my thesis research. So it's looking at attachment theory and interaction style of humans and dogs. So thinking about secure, insecure, ambivalent attachment styles and whether those are associated with search tasks, performances with nose work, and other [01:02:00] olfaction detection tasks.

So sort of going back to the idea that. A good life is probably one where our dogs feel secure. If nose work is a kind of play, does it yield more secure attachment and does more secure attachment lead to better problem solving? Those aren't necessarily the questions. My narrow research question of my thesis will answer, but those are the questions I'm interested in of what, what are ways that we can participate in things with our dogs that foster secure attachments, which hopefully will also yield better lives.

Host: All right. I can't wait to see the results of that. That's very interesting. I always wanna learn more about attachment, so, okay, so where can people find you if they'd like more information? 

Guest: Yes, so my training business is called See Spot Play, and I'm hoping to develop more writing on my blog and things, and otherwise I'm on Google Scholar if you wanna look at.

[01:03:00] Niche philosophy stuff. Um, but otherwise I think show notes, you can include my email, reach 

Host: so much. Katie, 

Guest: thank you so much, Kristina. This really fun. 

Speaker: If you enjoy these conversations and want to stay connected between episodes, I'd love to invite you to join my mailing list. That's where I share reflections on current research, updates on coming classes, and my thoughts about working at the intersection of science uncertainty and real world practice.

No hype, just thoughtful science grounded writing. For those who care deeply about doing this work well, you can sign up@sciencemattersllc.com or use the link in the show notes. If you're already listening here, you'll fit right in.

Speaker 2: Thank you for listening to the Research Bytes podcast. If you enjoyed this content and would like to learn more, please visit www.sciencemattersllc.com. For more information, [01:04:00] you can also find the link in the podcast description. The website has information on upcoming events, as well as my monthly research, webinars, and upcoming courses.

I hope to see you there. Thank you.