Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.93 AVERAGE
3.93 AVERAGE
Despite all of Alex's acclaim, I'm not sure I'd ever heard of him, and that includes years of psych classes including a few on animal behavior. I've seen all the videos of signing chimps, and have visited the National Zoo and it's Think Tank. But I've never found birds particularly interesting and don't watch the news, so maybe I'd somehow missed all the 'thinking parrot' stories. I picked this up from the bargain books, and certainly consider it money and a day well spent.
Pepperberg tries to break down animal behavior and psychology techniques for the layperson, and I think she does a good job. As someone with an undergrad pysch background, I wanted more details, but I understand what she's trying to do with this book.
Some people have criticized her somewhat detached approach in her recollections of Alex in the middle of the book, but I can understand her need for reserve and distance. As a woman studying a field known for the 'Clever Hans' effect that she describes, there can't be any room for accusations of unprofessional attachment to these animals. I can appreciate what she describes of her fairly rigorous experiments considering the attention span of the birds, although I wasn't sure her excuses for their mistakes were always valid.
The book was likeable and interesting, and the step by step explanations of the birds' cognition was well-done. Breaking down linguistics and developing cognition is difficult, and I think Pepperberg did well in her experiments and in her writing.
It's not quite the heartwarming story I expect from most popular 'me and my animal' books, so don't pick it up expecting a Marley and Me. Much of the book is spent on the author's kvetching about how hard her life and academic career have been. Some sections leaned towards a thinly veiled plea for money and support of her foundation. But if she's truly scrambling for money to continue her (admittedly interesting) research, I won't begrudge her a book deal and a somewhat self-indulgent storytelling technique.
If you're interested in birds, or language, or animal behavior, or pop psychology books, I'd highly recommend it. If you're looking for a quick and thought-provoking read and can look past some of the 'my life in academia is SO HARD' tendencies, pick it up. But I'm glad I paid $6 for the bargain version.
Pepperberg tries to break down animal behavior and psychology techniques for the layperson, and I think she does a good job. As someone with an undergrad pysch background, I wanted more details, but I understand what she's trying to do with this book.
Some people have criticized her somewhat detached approach in her recollections of Alex in the middle of the book, but I can understand her need for reserve and distance. As a woman studying a field known for the 'Clever Hans' effect that she describes, there can't be any room for accusations of unprofessional attachment to these animals. I can appreciate what she describes of her fairly rigorous experiments considering the attention span of the birds, although I wasn't sure her excuses for their mistakes were always valid.
The book was likeable and interesting, and the step by step explanations of the birds' cognition was well-done. Breaking down linguistics and developing cognition is difficult, and I think Pepperberg did well in her experiments and in her writing.
It's not quite the heartwarming story I expect from most popular 'me and my animal' books, so don't pick it up expecting a Marley and Me. Much of the book is spent on the author's kvetching about how hard her life and academic career have been. Some sections leaned towards a thinly veiled plea for money and support of her foundation. But if she's truly scrambling for money to continue her (admittedly interesting) research, I won't begrudge her a book deal and a somewhat self-indulgent storytelling technique.
If you're interested in birds, or language, or animal behavior, or pop psychology books, I'd highly recommend it. If you're looking for a quick and thought-provoking read and can look past some of the 'my life in academia is SO HARD' tendencies, pick it up. But I'm glad I paid $6 for the bargain version.
I never would have thought that a book about a bird could make me cry, but Alex & Me succeeded. I'm not much of a bird person. I've never had a bird for a pet, and when I've visited bird owners in the past the incessant chirping of their pets was less than endearing. After reading this heartwarming (and informative) book however, I found myself dreaming about life with an African Grey parrot.
A big part of this book centered on the linguistic and cognitive abilities of Alex, and as someone who studied linguistics in college that really appealed to me. The text is written for the layperson though and is easy to understand, telling Irene Pepperberg's story as well as Alex's.
In college I remember spending a very short amount of time learning about animal communication (probably a week or two out of my entire college education). We learned about chimpanzees using sign language, the intelligence of dolphins, and how birds communicate using birdsong. I have just a vague recollection of reading about Alex the parrot.
Part of what I thought was so fascinating about Alex was not just his cognitive and speech abilities (which were amazing), but how prejudiced the scientific community was against the idea of birds being intelligent enough to communicate with meaning. By that I mean that Alex was speaking words and knew what he was saying, not just mimicking speech.
I did cry when I read the passage where Alex died. I actually paused in my reading in order to soak in that section, went to check my email and found out that Michael Jackson died. I think I was more emotional about the news that Michael Jackson died than I would have been otherwise, because I was already misty-eyed from reading about Alex's passing.
Alex and Me is an enchanting and informative read. I highly recommend this book to anyone who has any interest in learning more about the capacity of animals to communicate with humans.
Oh, and I looked up how long African Grey parrots live - about 60 years. I guess that's not a pet you want to adopt without putting a lot of thought into it.
A big part of this book centered on the linguistic and cognitive abilities of Alex, and as someone who studied linguistics in college that really appealed to me. The text is written for the layperson though and is easy to understand, telling Irene Pepperberg's story as well as Alex's.
In college I remember spending a very short amount of time learning about animal communication (probably a week or two out of my entire college education). We learned about chimpanzees using sign language, the intelligence of dolphins, and how birds communicate using birdsong. I have just a vague recollection of reading about Alex the parrot.
Part of what I thought was so fascinating about Alex was not just his cognitive and speech abilities (which were amazing), but how prejudiced the scientific community was against the idea of birds being intelligent enough to communicate with meaning. By that I mean that Alex was speaking words and knew what he was saying, not just mimicking speech.
I did cry when I read the passage where Alex died. I actually paused in my reading in order to soak in that section, went to check my email and found out that Michael Jackson died. I think I was more emotional about the news that Michael Jackson died than I would have been otherwise, because I was already misty-eyed from reading about Alex's passing.
Alex and Me is an enchanting and informative read. I highly recommend this book to anyone who has any interest in learning more about the capacity of animals to communicate with humans.
Oh, and I looked up how long African Grey parrots live - about 60 years. I guess that's not a pet you want to adopt without putting a lot of thought into it.
Quick read and fun. Good insight into the grey parrot's mind for a general reader. I also enjoyed seeing the life of an academic researcher.
emotional
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
hopeful
informative
inspiring
fast-paced
What an amazing bird! Wonderful studies to unlock how birds are thinking and what they really are capable of language and though-process-wise.
emotional
funny
informative
sad
fast-paced
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
I fell in love with alex the parrot as soon as he arrived in the story. This is a book about a bond between a woman and an African gray parrot. The whole book was amazing!
This book failed for me on pretty much every level:
1. As a researcher with a background in linguistics and psychology, I was skeptical of the way she presented her research process and results. She repeatedly claims that she did her best to stay emotionally detached from Alex to make sure the science was unaffected by personal bias, but pages later talks about him as her only comfort during trying times, or mentions that they couldn't do proper mirror tests because her students would bring him to the bathroom with them. She jumps to conclusions about his internal states, attributing intentionality to his actions when there's not significant evidence to do so. She says at one point that she's not trying to prove that parrots have language, just learn about how parrots learn - but at another point, she says that her goal *is* to prove that parrots can speak, and that she felt she needed to change the name of her original experiment (from "Avian Language Experiments" to "Avian Learning Experiments") to have any kind of legitimacy within academia. She wants people to grant her that legitimacy so she acts as if she's not making those controversial claims, but then goes ahead and makes controversial and largely unsupported (at least from what she reported in this book) claims anyway.
She goes on and on about how many trials she had to get Alex to do to prove significance - but as she mentions in the book (and as I double-checked with a few of her papers), it's only about 30-40 trials per task. That's 40 trials in *one* subject. Yes, there are things we can learn from what one parrot can do, and we did learn fascinating things from Alex. But in most scientific fields that's a trivial amount of data and it shouldn't be treated as generalizable. It's a good starting point, a great way to say to funding agencies, "Hey, look at this! Shouldn't we study this more?", but it shouldn't be treated as conclusive, be-all-end-all proof, even if you add a couple more parrots (who have variable performance) as she does.
2. As a person, she grated on me. Given the bias with which she talked about her research here, I'm not surprised that many of her colleagues think her research is suspect - but she spends much of the book complaining about her treatment by other departments. I have no doubt she experienced sexism, and anyone in academia knows the job market is frustrating and terrible. But maybe, if by the early 2000s you haven't managed to land a tenure-track job in 20+ years despite being literally world-famous for your research, there's a problem with *you* and not with the job market. She complained about or insulted nearly every institution that had ever given her a job without a single positive word. I can't imagine why people don't want to hire her.
She claims that her colleagues at several universities were jealous of her TV spots and Alex's fame so they sabotaged her or refused her tenure. Now, a more mature adult might recognize that very few people have a thought process that goes, "I am jealous of this person, so I am going to refuse to give her tenure." What they might have thought was, "This person is publicizing results via TV and media rather than via the peer reviewed process" or "Relying on one subject to provide you data for 30 years is sketchy science at best and we don't think that's how research should be done." Whatever they thought, Pepperberg didn't think too deeply about it. She constantly puts herself at the center of others' thoughts and assumes that others are constantly attacking her for personal, petty reasons. (I noticed she often said things like "NSF *denied* my grant request" rather than "My NSF application wasn't funded" - neither is technically wrong, but how you phrase it reveals a lot about your perspective.) She shows no consideration that it might be reasonable, if unfair, to be suspect of research coming from a non-tenured researcher with a single subject and WITHOUT A RELEVANT RESEARCH DEGREE. At the very least, it's reasonable to be skeptical, so the vitriol with which she talks about people who disagree with her comes across as immature and arrogant.
3. The writing was bad. As to paraphrase a (supposed) Hemingway quote, "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." Pepperberg needed a better editor; every other adverb was "very" or "importantly."
4. Overall, the book was just... boring. This book was about 1) Alex and 2) her career. If these are the most memorable or 'interesting' moments with Alex, he was not a 'very' fun bird. Part of this is due to bad writing; there were anecdotes that could have had tension or humor if they'd been written better. If she'd written about her career struggles in a different way, portrayed herself as having an unconventional career and thoughtfully reflected on the advantages and disadvantages, or the things she learned as a person, or showed any kind of growth or insight about literally anything instead of listing a litany of complaints, this would have been a more 'interesting' book.
The best thing that can be said about this was that it's short. I don't recommend it. If you're interested in Alex, go to Google Scholar and search for Pepperberg's academic papers. If you want to read a good memoir about science that is beautifully written, thoughtfully reflects on an academic career and partnership, and even deals with sexism in academia, try Lab Girl by Hope Jahren.
1. As a researcher with a background in linguistics and psychology, I was skeptical of the way she presented her research process and results. She repeatedly claims that she did her best to stay emotionally detached from Alex to make sure the science was unaffected by personal bias, but pages later talks about him as her only comfort during trying times, or mentions that they couldn't do proper mirror tests because her students would bring him to the bathroom with them. She jumps to conclusions about his internal states, attributing intentionality to his actions when there's not significant evidence to do so. She says at one point that she's not trying to prove that parrots have language, just learn about how parrots learn - but at another point, she says that her goal *is* to prove that parrots can speak, and that she felt she needed to change the name of her original experiment (from "Avian Language Experiments" to "Avian Learning Experiments") to have any kind of legitimacy within academia. She wants people to grant her that legitimacy so she acts as if she's not making those controversial claims, but then goes ahead and makes controversial and largely unsupported (at least from what she reported in this book) claims anyway.
She goes on and on about how many trials she had to get Alex to do to prove significance - but as she mentions in the book (and as I double-checked with a few of her papers), it's only about 30-40 trials per task. That's 40 trials in *one* subject. Yes, there are things we can learn from what one parrot can do, and we did learn fascinating things from Alex. But in most scientific fields that's a trivial amount of data and it shouldn't be treated as generalizable. It's a good starting point, a great way to say to funding agencies, "Hey, look at this! Shouldn't we study this more?", but it shouldn't be treated as conclusive, be-all-end-all proof, even if you add a couple more parrots (who have variable performance) as she does.
2. As a person, she grated on me. Given the bias with which she talked about her research here, I'm not surprised that many of her colleagues think her research is suspect - but she spends much of the book complaining about her treatment by other departments. I have no doubt she experienced sexism, and anyone in academia knows the job market is frustrating and terrible. But maybe, if by the early 2000s you haven't managed to land a tenure-track job in 20+ years despite being literally world-famous for your research, there's a problem with *you* and not with the job market. She complained about or insulted nearly every institution that had ever given her a job without a single positive word. I can't imagine why people don't want to hire her.
She claims that her colleagues at several universities were jealous of her TV spots and Alex's fame so they sabotaged her or refused her tenure. Now, a more mature adult might recognize that very few people have a thought process that goes, "I am jealous of this person, so I am going to refuse to give her tenure." What they might have thought was, "This person is publicizing results via TV and media rather than via the peer reviewed process" or "Relying on one subject to provide you data for 30 years is sketchy science at best and we don't think that's how research should be done." Whatever they thought, Pepperberg didn't think too deeply about it. She constantly puts herself at the center of others' thoughts and assumes that others are constantly attacking her for personal, petty reasons. (I noticed she often said things like "NSF *denied* my grant request" rather than "My NSF application wasn't funded" - neither is technically wrong, but how you phrase it reveals a lot about your perspective.) She shows no consideration that it might be reasonable, if unfair, to be suspect of research coming from a non-tenured researcher with a single subject and WITHOUT A RELEVANT RESEARCH DEGREE. At the very least, it's reasonable to be skeptical, so the vitriol with which she talks about people who disagree with her comes across as immature and arrogant.
3. The writing was bad. As to paraphrase a (supposed) Hemingway quote, "Substitute 'damn' every time you're inclined to write 'very;' your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." Pepperberg needed a better editor; every other adverb was "very" or "importantly."
4. Overall, the book was just... boring. This book was about 1) Alex and 2) her career. If these are the most memorable or 'interesting' moments with Alex, he was not a 'very' fun bird. Part of this is due to bad writing; there were anecdotes that could have had tension or humor if they'd been written better. If she'd written about her career struggles in a different way, portrayed herself as having an unconventional career and thoughtfully reflected on the advantages and disadvantages, or the things she learned as a person, or showed any kind of growth or insight about literally anything instead of listing a litany of complaints, this would have been a more 'interesting' book.
The best thing that can be said about this was that it's short. I don't recommend it. If you're interested in Alex, go to Google Scholar and search for Pepperberg's academic papers. If you want to read a good memoir about science that is beautifully written, thoughtfully reflects on an academic career and partnership, and even deals with sexism in academia, try Lab Girl by Hope Jahren.