Dog "allergy to humans"
"The more I see men, the more I love my dog": the phrase is classic in its first form, or stated more simply. How many owners point out that when they come home from work in the evening, they are at least assured that their dog will make them party, compensating in this the gloom of their wife, the indifference of their children, and the troubles of the day.
In addition, at a higher level, if we study the average quality of feelings that we can be confronted during the day, the friendship of a dog seems more free because, apart from a few acts of cabotinage, they have not not brain structures complex enough to act in a fundamentally "interested" way. The animal has the power also to put things in their true place, to attribute to them their true value.
To this species of rancor against the human race, there are several explanations. The first is the one advanced by Baruk. Both man and animal have instincts. A dog bites, the man can not because he has a possibility of brake that humanizes his instincts and his impulses. According to current theories, one has tried to free oneself from moral and social repressions, to give free rein to one's instincts, thus avoiding falling into neuroses.
The result is rather an increase in mental illnesses; man, having abolished moral and social rules, no longer knowing where the right of the unjust is, turns in compensation to animals, where he finds diversion and refuge. The second explanation is well evidenced by the reaction of the elderly, but can be applied to other social groups. We often hear: "They deserve to be killed, those who abandon animals.
It is a defensive reaction to a changing world, from which the individual is excluded, and attacks him at the same time. The first reaction is to fall back on oneself to protect oneself, and to decide that this world is bad, the person believes then to hold a value as an individual in his own eyes, while considering that it is not part of this world.
The dog is, moreover, a justification of withdrawal. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to compare the feelings of a dog with those of a man, and the famous phrase "animals are so much better than men" does not stand up to analysis. If the fidelity of a dog does not have its equivalent among the various loyalties of the human species, this is due in part to the fact that the dog knows almost no internal conflict, that it is not likely to be lost, like man in a labyrinth of moral obligations.
"From the point of view of human responsibility, the most faithful faithful dog is to a large extent an amoral being" (Lorenz). The human being who, by dint of disappointment and bitterness, removes his friendship from men, and converts it into love of animals, seems to us to be wrong because this form of withdrawal can be totally sterile.
Your dog is for you: Preferred communication type: One of the important parameters in the modulation of the communication is also the attitude of the master.
Is this article useful, does it answer your problem?