There are two types of people in the world: the dog people and the cat people. I mean, of course there are also people who don’t care for pets at all, and people whose affection is split equally between the canines and the felines. But the former ones are evil and the latter ones are statistical aberrations, so we’ll ignore them in this discourse.
Ever since I was a teeny tot, I knew that I was definitely a dog person. Unfortunately this meant that for a long time I suffered from a “dog person inferiority complex”. It tends to be caused by the theory (developed and perpetuated primarily by the cat people, no doubt) that those who prefer pooches to pussies are social rejects secretly craving world domination. Thus the qualities they’re looking for in their pet are unreserved admiration and slave-like obedience, rather than self-respect and independence. Anybody who’s actually ever spent any time around dogs knows that the rumours of their “slave-like obedience” are mucho exaggerated. (Ditto for cats and “independence”.) However, since I was indeed a geeky social outcast from kindergarten through university, I actually subscribed to this offensive theory and felt bad about myself.
But don’t worry, dog people! That theory is wrong. I realized today, as I was watching TV and loathing the process, that it’s not “obedience” and “blind admiration” that I’m looking for in a pet. It is basic interactivity. A dog listens and responds to your voice and gestures. A cat pretty much stares blankly right through you. They just forgot to build that feature into cats. Oops.
Sure, you can get a cat to interact with you. Attempting to wash a cat, for example, would probably result in more interaction than you are ready to handle. But is this the kind of interaction you’re looking for? It’s like trying to interact with a TV by pounding it with a hammer. Sure, things would happen, and they would be a direct result of your actions. But that’s hardly a reason to call TV an interactive medium.
But with dogs, my friend, your input (words and actions) produces output – both immediate and long-term. And the output is not necessarily slave-like obedience – at all. Different actions produce different reactions in different dogs. Every dog is like an exciting computer game that you have to figure out. What makes its tail wag? How can I teach it not to pee on the floor? What strategy do I need to employ to avoid being jerked around by the leash? How do earn its trust and get it to love me (awww)?
So all you cat people who tried to belittle me for my canine addiction, I have a theory to throw right back at ya. You are just lazy bums who sit on the couch all day and waste your life watching stuff, be it TV or cat. And we puppy lovers are active minds that need mental stimulation. Just like our favourite pets… ’cause while you’re figuring out a way to train Fido to sit on command, he’s figuring out a way to train you to feed him treats on a sit. That’s why he likes you so much, by the way – he enjoys the basic interactivity in his pet too. *wink*
18 June, 2008 at 11:01 pm
But people have been able to train cats, too…*whines*
18 June, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Well, you can program your TV to do slightly interactive things, like turn on at a certain hour in the morning and wake you up. Still… :-P
18 June, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I enjoyed your analysis tremendously. Fine writer. Very witty! I’m part of the “statistical aberrations” but I don’t think I’ll hold the characterization against you.
18 June, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Thank you, nathalie! And by the way it’s not a bad thing to be a statistical aberration. That’s another way of saying “unique and special”. :D
19 June, 2008 at 10:42 am
Awwww. You just made me feel so unique and special.