There are many studies dedicated to different communication channels (olfactory, auditory, visual, multimodal) in wild species.
Mostly, communication is regarded as aimed at the following intents:
- territory maintenance;
- advertising of reproductive status;
- group affiliation;
- marking of food resources (ownership, location, depletion);
- individual recognition;
- intraspecific recognition;
- avoidance;
- alarm;
- attracting attention or begging food etc.
Rarely I have come across studies researching self-communication, i.e., communication signals that are voluntary but aimed at oneself.
Such studies are usually aimed at ‘making notes’ (individuals inspecting marks left by others and minding the status of group membership, neighbouring groups etc. or individuals leaving marks that inform on, e.g., location of depleted food caches).
However, these activities would not really be defined as a ‘conversation with oneself’ because they are involved in processing data that has been created earlier and while there is a possibility of response (e.g., behavioural reaction, decision making consequential to what has been learned), the temporal gap between the marking and the reading of the mark is too long to include factors that we normally associate with a conversational exchange (speed of messaging, emotional reaction etc.).
There are, of course, also involuntary signals that individuals produce and that are not aimed at anyone else but rather they serve as a release of some experiential ‘trial’.
For example, there can be gasps, squeals, grunts etc. produced in situations that have awakened instinctual fear, exhaustion, relief or other such states.
One could argue that talking to oneself is not so different from these involuntary sounds that have no other recipient or are not meant to be processed by another recipient – because we often talk to ourselves without making active decisions to do so and without a clear purpose as well as, indeed, with no other objective than seeking an emotional release.
I am not composing this text to discuss the definition of communication or conversations directed at oneself.
I would like to share an observation of a roe deer male who, in my view, appeared to be holding a conversation with himself that could be regarded as intellectual because it was participatory to his decision making.
This roe deer male has been very vocal from April until now (beginning of June).
In April I frequently saw him roaming through his territory along what were possibly the boundaries (because he was often frequenting the riverside and I believe that the river separates home ranges of several roe deer males and females although it is not deep and they cross it often).
The river might be a place where encounters with other deer are likelier also because it is one of the few major drinking sources.
Usually, as mentioned before, the male was on the move while barking.
While it was difficult to observe whether other individuals (other males) were present, sometimes the barking became localized and more intense which suggested to me that the male was directing these signals at another individual or the same or another species.
In May, the male did not relax much but gradually his barking bouts turned somewhat softer.
One morning I met the male in an area where the forest edge bounds on an agricultural (wheat) field.
The male was on the field some 400 – 500 metres ahead of me.
The deer around this town are accustomed to humans and they mostly do not flee easily but apparently during these more emotionally, territorially and probably hormonally heightened periods (spring, autumn), their reactions can be different.
The male was considering his further action and I stopped to give him time because if I had moved on, I would be standing between him and the forest which was perceived by him as the shelter and the destination (on occasion he decided to run and hide).
Something seemed strange about the situation, however.
The buck was barking but not really at me. He appeared to be barking at something in the forest but some of the barks were quieter and, in my honest opinion, were directed at himself.
Later when the male disappeared in the forest and all grew silent, I heard rustling in the shrubs forming the forest edge and therefore there had been some other animal, by the sound not a large one, perhaps a hare, concealed by the shrubs.
The male had apparently heard or otherwise perceived the presence of the other animal and his indecisiveness was due to inability to determine the species and the best course of action because it can be dangerous to run straight at a spot where a sound of unknown origin is emanated from.
Certainly, the roe deer male could have barked to communicate to this other animal that there was a disturbance or to warn that he was intending to head toward it, or to cause a stir in the other animal that would reveal its identity etc.
And I believe that some of the vocalizations, indeed, served this purpose.
But the other, quieter vocalizations, that hardly reached the forest edge (it was also about 400 – 500 m away from the buck) and that were not directed at me, made me wonder at their objective.
It seemed to me that the roe deer male was talking to himself in order to either persuade himself to take the bold action, or to dissuade himself from running toward an undetermined wildlife form.
Some of the quieter barks suggested an attitude of confusion while others were more commanding.
While I cannot substantiate the claims behind this observation, I would like to share my impression that the roe deer male was using two different types of barks that induced two different emotional states (conviction and boldness vs. indecisiveness and timidity) in order to experience these two states and, based on these experiences, to take action with the state which felt the best to him according to his final judgement.
It could be compared to the pop-culture ‘angel’ vs. ‘devil’ situation where there are two entities on each of our shoulders encouraging us to consider very opposite courses of action through appealing to emotions and passions and intellectual reasoning that draw us in different directions.
If the barks had words, I would say that the roe deer was saying to himself,
‘Let us go, there is nothing in this forest that is larger than I am at this time of day, and whoever is there, I can deal.’
‘Caution is needed. This is a troubled time when my mates of winter are claiming what I must claim. And can I know with certainty that the rustling has not been caused by a foe? Should I take this course if my experience shows that running away from humans is often unnecessary and they go away if I wait long enough?’
These considerations seemed to be expressed through emotional appeals that were communicated as barks of different attitude.
In some respects, it could be compared to role playing rather than a conversation with oneself (arguing with oneself) where the individual first plays out the character of one type and then the other to see which character fits the situation.
And the role is assumed through impersonating it in one’s speech.
If it were true, it would, undeniably, point at complex cognition in roe deer where they can externalize their states and empathically react to them.
It would mean, for example, that they can perceive themselves as ‘the other’ and, thereby, that they can experience compassion or doubt toward themselves.
It would also mean that they can process emotional states without reacting to them which is not as easy as we might assume because it involves imagination.
It calls for imagining the consequences (albeit on a level ‘how it will feel if I do this’) and making decisions not in accordance with the current situation alone but with the simulated situations that the individual has worked out in their imagination.
It would mean playing out scenarios in one’s mind rather than scrutinizing the bodily states and physical responsiveness without comparing it to other possibilities.
For example, if we reacted without imagination, we might listen to how we feel physically and emotionally and we might make decisions based on the physical and psychological reactions formed after the first impression which is very convenient in high stress situations that ask for an immediate response.
On the other hand, if we have more time to spare, we can ‘summon’ other types of experiences and we can contrast them to our immediate physical response in order to make more complex decisions.
One of the general assumptions that have prevailed through history of civilization is that animals are ‘machines’ – they react to situations based on instinct and not cognition, and they are therefore slaves to circumstance and their physical disposition.
However, I disagree because it is enough to observe mammals at play with their children or teaching their young some important skills in order to disbelief that their responses and actions are not deliberate and do not involve decisions making.
On this occasion, I think I was able to observe the decision making process which was not performed quietly, as is more usual, but carried out as a communicative exchange and a dramatic act directed at oneself.
Notes by Ieva 