The Andy/Barney effect: Courage and fear revisioned

There are two things out there; reality and our perception of reality. In the world of behavioral science, that is of paramount importance. The researchers draw conclusions that are the product of their perspective. In real science, that is not possible. Either a compound is potassium sulfate or it’s not. Either this is its chemical signature or its not. (K2SO4) 1,000 scientists examining a white chemical with this signature are going to say “potassium sulfate”. It’s not their perspective that matters. It’s their ability to objectively observe reality.

Now we get to behavior – the fantasyland of pretend science. Consider the mighty wolf. It hunts with its eyes. What do scientists focus on? Its sense of smell and hearing. The animal is very simple. What do scientists focus on? Whether this simple creature had mental abilities as compared to humans. The wolf is alternately courageous and cowardly as a matter of its continued existence. What do scientists focus on? Alleged long-term ‘dominance’ that implies that a wolf can be always valiant.

To find out some of the truth behind the misplaced perspective of ethologists, we shall go to another Fantasy-Land…Mayberry. Mayberry is the mythical home of Andy Taylor, Aunt Bee, Opie, Gomer, Goober, Floyd the Barber and, of course, Deputy Barney Fife.

Why is Mayberry like wolves? Because a wolf-pack is actually a wolf-family. Their genetically transmitted behavior creates as many personalities as Mayberry. There is undoubtedly a Gomer-Wolf. There is an Aunt Bee and an Opie. For our investigation, we shall only concern ourselves with Andy and Barney.


Every wolf in the world is Andy and Barney, at any given instant. Consider a pack of wolves attacking a Bison. The Andy wolf is the “Alpha Male” and charges forward to rip the throat out of the bison. The bison isn’t interested in that and turns at the last instant as he perceives the lunging wolf. Andy misses. His momentum carries him slightly away from the bison and in its range of vision. The bison charges. Viola! Andy turns into Barney. No longer the ‘Alpha Male’, he tucks his tail, lays back his ears and runs like hell away from the charging and pissed-off beast. Andy can hear the k-thump, k-thump of the hooves, perfectly, because his ears are rotated in that direction. If the fight was between these two creatures we could end the story here. But it’s not. We are seeing the broader Darwinian fight in progress.

Wolves hang out together. They hunt together, eat together and sleep together. That is the instinctive bent of the species. Those wolves that possess those behaviors lived to breed more wolves and have further generations. They are predators – they hunt. But prey animals don’t care about the instinctibve family behaviors of their enemies. When the wolf family finds prey, their collective behavior puts them all there at the same time. That means that when an attack begins they are all there – but in essence, it’s every wolf for himself. They are not organized as warriors. They attack as Mayberry would attack – some stalwart, some hesitant, some alternating between the two polarities. Some only attack the animal when there is little danger. Some ignore danger and plunge headlong into the fray. The instant that Bison picked Andy as a target, Aunt Bee, Gomer, Goober and the rest of Mayberry attacked with unbridled fury. The bison is forced to turn and meet the attack.

Now Barney, running furiously away from the k-thump, k-thump of thunderous hooves, magically transforms back into Andy. Now he’s ferocious. Now he is cunning. He looks for an opportunity. Why? Because the bison is no longer looking for him. It’s fighting for its life amid a dozen or more threats. This is the niche that wolves fit. (That is the context of the word ‘fit’ in survival of the fittest – to fit an environmental niche.) Yes, they attack as a group. However, they attack as individuals with their own personalized flair. There is no commander coordinating their movements. After all, within moments of the attack, Andy is out of the picture. The reality is that no prey animal can address multiple unique attack styles forever. There is no predictability and there is no respite. It’s a melee, not a planned ‘battle’. If the animal breaks free, the younger, faster wolves catch up and worry it until the heavy hitters can lope up to the beleaguered animal. Now the donnybrook begins again…and again…and again…until the prey animal stands, exhausted, bloody and damaged. Aunt Bee calls Mayberry to the pot luck. Andy has been Barney and Barney has been Andy, over and over and over again.

And that is why the perspective of ethologists is flawed. They imagine fear and courage as if those terms describe anything of importance. Andy is fearless, Barney is fearful, yet it is the same animal in the space of a heartbeat. It is not emotional feelings that dictate this transformation, it is the circumstances of the hunt. The environment triggers behaviors that humans wish to classify as finite and static. Does Andy turn into Barney because he ‘feels’ afraid, or did he turn into Barney because he perceived a bison charging at him? Is his Barney posture – ears laid back, tail tucked – a sign of fear or is it a sign of rapid retreat? Those laid-back ears may be pinned against his head, but he isn’t rotating them forward and fully erect. Who said ears-laid-back means fear? What if it just means ‘Barney’?

And now you know why fearful dogs bite. It is not their fear that controls them, it is the circumstance that generates a perceived threat. That is why big, confident dogs bite children – who can be not threat to them at all. They bite strangers because their genes tell them to drive non-family away from the group. If they can’t drive them away, they still attack. They don’t have a choice, really. The take-away is that even Aunt Bee is capable of blowing away an intruder with a shot-gun. Andy is capable of running like hell. Barney is never ‘courageous’ because he has Andy to do that. The community of wolves and dogs includes all the personalities of Mayberry – a collection of individuals who are rarely forced to work independently.

Here’s a thought. When a ‘fearful’ dog attacks a guest/intruder, did you ever stop to consider that the dog is expecting you to join the fight? We talk of dogs attacking to mistakenly protect their owners, but in a group of similar creatures they would all attack if one perceives a threat. That is also why groups of dogs kill their owners. It starts with one and then all join in. So, forget fear. It can be flipped in an instant. It doesn’t fuel behavior – the environment and perceived threats trigger behaviors that may appear fearful. A ‘thunder-phobic’ dog is more likely to bite someone than a dog sleeping through the storm, no?

This video illustrates what I am talking about, perfectly. If you say “OMG!” when you see the penultimate moment, you have placed a human perspective on a perfectly natural, unhuman event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=bBmLHqyXfS0

6 thoughts on “The Andy/Barney effect: Courage and fear revisioned

  1. Just to be clear, you say “So, forget fear. It can be flipped in an instant. It doesn’t fuel behavior”, and yet in’t fear of being killed by the bison (aka survival instinct) what you mention as having caused “Andy turns into Barney. No longer the ‘Alpha Male’, he tucks his tail, lays back his ears and runs like hell away”?

    Every animal I’m aware of has a primitive fear-and-threat-driven self-defence system is what I’m thinking?

      • I’m not sure I missed your point about ethologists describing behavior in a way that could be fantasy, that ethologists might disagree on what they’re seeing and in possibly differing in their ability to objectively observe reality.

        What I was noting was there were still some behavioral areas that folks with Ph.D.s (in “hard” science or ethology) and non-doctorate-level dog trainers like yourself could agree on in the sometimes fantastical area of behavior.

        And that is the fact that animals use self-defence tactics when threatened. I’m pretty sure a group of 1,000 “hard” scientists would note Andy’s behaviour in that cateogy. No fantasy required. That was my point.

        And I would add that I think rather than trying to suggest all observations of behavior are pure fantasy, it might be worth considering what value we can take from the work – and whether the “tests” are getting better (even if not quite to the level of which presumably university educated scientists in this generation with great quality tests could identify the chemical makeup of a white powder).

        • Susan,
          Let me give you a tip. If you make a statement, stick to it before attempting to expand the discussion.

          I said your definitions do not match observable behavior. EG: You mentioned a “primitive fear-and-threat-driven self-defence system ” Fear is an emotion. A threat is based on a perception. Does the fear cause the behavior, or the perception of a threat? Additionally, the context of my comments relate to predatory behavior that has served wolves for eons. It is the perception of opportunities to attack a prey animal AND a perception of a threat during that activity. What role does fear play in this?

        • As a person with a PhD in Chemistry, an actual hard science, I could tell you that I’ve seen as many idiots with PhD’s as smart people without them. I, a PhD, have spoken, and wave my magic wand, and you must take my word as law now. I think everyone, hard or soft, would agree it’s obnoxious to talk about degrees, ad hominem.

          • Hat tip to Catherine – a real scientist. She is justifiably proud of her achievements and discounts people who use ‘false flag’ credentials.

            p.s. “social sciences’ aren’t science. “Hard science’ like math, chemistry and physics are.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *