Customer Reviews

Why We Love the Dogs We Do: How to Find the Dog That Matches Your Personality

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

I really did enjoy the little anecdotes in this book -- the ones about James Stewart and his dogs were especially sweet. It's worth browsing for some of those little gems, although frankly I don't think there's much here that hasn't been reported elsewhere. I can't answer for the structure of the "find your breed" quizzes, although I thought it weird that different breeds were recommended for men and women of the same personality "type." ...[I]t seems odd that no breed falls into two categories -- surely some are *both* "friendly" and "clever"?

Where Coren drops the ball and then trips over it is when he discusses people who dislike dogs, and people who like cats. ...I think it's worth taking a closer look at exactly what he does in these two chapters. Apparently, people who dislike dogs have no other redeeming features. It's interesting to see Harry Truman discussed solely in light of his failure to enjoy the company of dogs. Apparently, Napoleon grew up a dictator because he lacked the love of a good dog. This is superficially convincing, until you remember that Adolf Hitler was apparently capable of being fond of at least ONE dog in his misbegotten life. What Coren is doing here is playing to the prejudices of animal lovers, who sometimes believe we're superior to people who don't like animals. Specifically, though, it's to any inherent feelings of superiority experienced by dog lovers.

The chapter about cats and cat people is even worse -- and again, it's worse for an interesting reason. In his far superior book, *The Intelligence of Dogs,* Coren is at great pains to point out that "obedience intelligence" is only one kind of intelligence, that dogs bred for different purposes think in different ways, and just because a terrier is not as biddable as a goldenn retriever, it does not make the terrier "dumb."

Then he uses the word "dumb" to characterize cats -- repeatedly. It never occurs to Coren that an animal which is not a dog might legitimately behave in a way different from dogs. And it's obvious he doesn't know much about cats, because he mouths all the stereotypes (aloof, unfriendly, doesn't socialize with its humans) in a manner to make anyone who knows a well-socialized cat howl with laughter. ("You rarely see cats during the day." Sure, you rarely see mine, unless you happen to be near me and looking down -- they're almost always underfoot!)

Coren then quotes from a "study" he did of cat and dog owners. He doesn't reproduce his survey instrument, so there is no way of knowing whether it's reliable, but he uses it to characterize cat owners as cold, aloof, unloving people -- far inferior to the nice warm dog people! Then, just in case we haven't already lost all faith in his scientific impartiality, he proceeds to relate an anecdote from his past, in which a single, neurotic woman with obvious attachment issues is made to represent all cat people. (And yes, he says she is the quintessential cat person.) Now, if half of what he says about this poor woman is true, she was a mess -- but I know dog owners who treat their unfortunate pets in the very same ways. Turn them into picky eaters and then feed them an unbalanced diet of people food? Some dog owners do it all the time. Fail to socialize their pets and then make excuses when Fluffy bites someone? Again, plenty of dog owners do this. Let your pet run loose and then shrug when it comes to a tragic end, because "that's the natural way"? I've known several dog owners who did that, with a series of dogs. Coren's attempt to characterize these flaws as "typical" of cat people make it clear that he is unable to overcome his own dislike of cats, and either lacks the insight to realize it, or hopes to foist his agenda off on his readers.

Me, I like dogs. I like cats. And I enjoyed his earlier book. But after he's exposed his own unacknowledged prejudices to this extent, how am I supposed to believe his discussions of different breeds of dogs carry any less bias? If the only criteria he has for dismissing cats as pets is his own opinion (and he does, in fact, offer his unsupported opinion that owning a cat is just slightly better than coming home to an empty house), what if he doesn't care for a particular breed of dog? Will that influence the groupings he creates?

This is pop psychology of the most shallow, facile sort. Read this book for the anecdotess about Jimmy Stewart, but for heaven's sake don't hope for any insights into animals or people!

This book might be okay if you hadn't read any other dog breed references, and if your primary interests were in a) celebrities and their dogs, and b) the psyche of the book's author. Okay, I take it back: if you haven't read any other breed references, this book will actually be counterproductive, now that I think of it...

Where to start?

First off, at least half of the text in this thing is taken up with the rich and famous and their preferred breeds. Um, who cares? Jimmy Stewart was a "warm" guy, so he liked Golden Retrievers. Hoop-de-doo. Wading through this junk takes up a lot of reading time.

Once you fight past your indifference to all the eagerly-related inside celebrity scoops, you realize Mr. Coren is attempting to use a personality inventory approach to dog selection. He has you take a little set of personality exams -- a quite rudimentary example of this sort of test, about on the level of an article in Cosmo or Women's Day -- and then use the results to choose a breed. As I said, the test is irritatingly incomplete. As another reviewer here has mentioned, the results you get are ridiculously biased against certain groups of dogs, too. It's impossible to score well for certain groups, and almost inevitable that you'll score well for others. A comparable test is included in Daniel Tortora's "The Right Dog for You," only that one's more well-rounded.

Did I mention the way the dogs are grouped? Other books -- "Paws to Consider" by Kilcommins and Wilson, for example -- use interesting systems to group dogs. "Paws" uses groups like Nine-to-Five dogs, or non-shedding dogs, as a counter to the AKC's "Working Breeds" and "Terriers." Why We Love... tries the same thing, but it's trying to group dog personalities in a really reductionistic way. Believe me, if you love a particular breed, you'll feel vaguely insulted at the way this book tries to stomp that breed's personality flat. The most thorough personality descriptions of the different breeds are probably in "The Right Dog for You," which uses 16-some personality traits for each dog. This book describes one. "Steady." "Warm." Gee, does that mean it's territorial? Dog-aggressive? What DOES it mean?

Finally, don't even get me started on this author's strangely compulsive revelations about his own personality. The cats chapter, which amounts to a really insulting, embarrassing tirade against cats AND their owners, is probably the worst example. I can honestly say I learned much more about the author's romantic life from the chapter than I learned about cats. He phrases a fair chunk of the chapter in anecdotes about a former girlfriend, whom he is plainly misquoting and insulting throughout. No, I'm not pulling your leg. This girlfriend supposedly tells him at one point that cats are good for older people because they won't care when their owners die. Does that sound plausible to you?

If what you want is excellent, carefully written, well-rounded descriptions of different breeds, my personal recommendation is "Paws to Consider" by Brian Kilcommins and Sarah Wilson. They get to a breed's essence without writing like a ponderous encyclopedia. If you're really into the personality test approach, you'd want a copy of "The Right Dog for You" by Daniel Tortora. The tests in that book are sort of half-put-together, but they'll actually help you think about dogs, which this title doesn't do.

If, on the other hand, you want to learn about this author's internal life and whether Zsa Zsa Gabor prefers Great Danes to Yorkies, well, here's your title. I wouldn't use it to choose a dog, though.

This was a very poorly written and researched book. I found many mistakes and inconsistencies. The books idea is to rate your personality and find a dog that would be an ideal match. A good idea, but this book won't help you find an answer. Just a small example of the books problems is the dog groups matrix. It is absolutely impossible to get a higher score than "2", (meaning not a good match) for the "consistent" breeds (his name for most toy dogs.) Although he plainly says that Elizabeth Taylor rated a "3" (which is impossible.) I can only think he made a huge typo and carried the error thoughout the whole book.

Then I can take the other example about what he calls the "clever" dog group. It is much easier for a man to rate "higher" for the clever dogs than a women. And, yes, he makes a distinction between dogs suitable for men and others for women. If a woman is an extrovert she could be happy with an Akita, yet if the man is an extrovert, he should get a clever dog like a poodle. Go figure. I certaintly can't see where he is coming from....or where he is going for that matter.

Oh, and although this isn't my last complaint about this book, it is the last I'll mention--the chapter on "cat people" is truly humiliating for both the cat, and the cat lover.

Don't waste your money on this book. The only interesting thing in it is its list of famous people and the breed of dog they owned. If your looking for a good book to help you choose your next dog, try "The Perfect Match" by Walkowicz, "The right dog for you" by Tortora, or "Choosing a Dog" by Baer. They are all good books with excellent information.

This book gives a good alternative insight into the perception of people and their dogs. Not only are the anecdotes from various famous people entertaining and enlightning, the book really gives a good picture of how humans build their relationships with others (not just limited to those of the same species!) I found the test very accurate in terms of what I was ACTUALLY looking for in a pet and learned not to be fooled by a pair of sad puppy eyes! For couples, this is important - just because you and your mate picked each other, doesn't mean you'd enjoy the same type of dog!

Stanley Coren, a psychologist famous for his popular 'The Intelligence of Dogs,' attempts in this more recent book to categorize the various dog breeds by their phychological natures in order to best match prospective owners and dogs.

An intriguing idea, but unfortunately not accomplished in this work.

Coren places each breed in one of seven rather indistinct categories: Friendly, Protective, Independent, Self-Assured, Consistent, Steady, Clever.

He tests your personality and indicates which of the groups is best for you. You are then encouraged to choose from among the breeds in that group, breeds he bills as fairly interchangeable compatibility-wise.

A large flaw in this is that no breed is described as having more than one strong characteristic: for example, no breed is listed as both friendly and clever.

Additionally, no other compatibility issues are considered. For example, in matching you with a breed, no consideration is given to the breed's needs/demands for attention and exercise. Nor is consideration given to the breed's tolerance for children and other dogs.

The most noteworthy accomplishment of this book is Coren's very extensive historical description of famous people and their relationships with their dogs, but the contribution of such anecdotes in establishing breed characteristics is rather ambiguous.

Interesting concept of matching dog and human personalities. I found the personality quiz fun. A great deal of research went into the dog personalities and groupings. I thought the groupings were sensible. This book will help prospective buyers better aquaint themselves with what to expect from a prospective breed of dog. Whether you agree with his advice is not the point, this book helps you research your breed and learn about your personality. This information should help you make better choices. Besides, the celebrity pet stories are worth the price of the book. They were funny and poignant.

The book was very interesting in comparing human personality types with dog personalities, but after taking the quiz, I discovered that information on the Table (Table 5) summarizing the categories was inconsistent with the same information presented elswhere in the book, so I was left with not knowing which was the best dog type for me--which was the purpose in buying the book. Perhaps later editions of the book corrected the errors. Also, the stories about well-known dog owners and their dogs was very interesting. Would have givien it a higher score were it not for the typographical errors--which were major.

While I applaud Coren for encouraging people to put more effort into selecting the appropriate breed for their lifestyle and personality, there are major inconsistencies in this book that could lead to disastrous results for the novice dog owner who might accept the results of the quizzes as gospel truth. Although Coren has some interesting ideas and a wealth of anecdotal, self-reported evidence to back them up, overall this book represents much better social science than it does a practical manual for selecting a canine companion. Very few breeds are considered, and a crucial fact is overlooked: while (amongst good breeding lines) there is absolutely some similarity of temperament within each breed; within each litter of pups there exists a broad range of personalities. Without the assistance of a reputable breeder who knows his/her lines and litters well, one can easily select a puppy who won't fit into one's lifestyle or household. This book won't teach you how to recognize a reputable breeder, however, unlike Michele Lowell's "Your Purebred Puppy: A Buyer's Guide," which is a much more useful and comprehensive guide to a similar subject.

I found reading this book to be a waste of time. There's a lot of fluff (pages and pages of celebrities and their dogs) and very little, if any, useful info. I can't believe this "expert" recommends that the least dominant people get the most dominant/protective dogs. This is a recipe for disaster. A much better, practical guide to choosing a dog breed is "Choosing a Dog: Your Guide to Picking the Perfect Breed" by Baer and Duno.

I don't know how many people I know who have bought a puppy because they like the look of the breed or because they see one on TV, only to find out that they and the dog don't get along. This book can help the potential dog buyer avoid the heartbreak of choosing the wrong dog.

Coren groups breeds by personality and matches them to corresponding human personalities. If you're more extroverted or controlling or trustworthy or whatever, you can find the breed to suit you best.

Coren's typing is also useful for the potential owner looking for a mixed breed dog. "Mixed breed" isn't a breed of its own; every mixed breed dog is descended from purebreds, and the genetic components of those dogs' temperaments are passed on to the mix. (Genes don't disappear just because they're in a mixed breed dog.) With this book the potential owner has a better idea of what temperament a little mixed breed puppy will have, and can match the dog to their own personality with greater confidence than otherwise.

This is all very well and fine if the dog you're planning to choose is well-bred. Unfortunately, most dogs out there aren't. Pet store puppies, puppy mill dogs, and puppies bred by people who want the kids to see 'the miracle of life' don't have consistent temperaments. Puppies from these sources have a far higher chance of having both physical and mental problems. In fact, most of the modern prejudices against purebreds come from people who have bought badly tempered dogs from backyard breeders or puppy mill outlets. Coren doesn't address this vital issue. This is far more than an unfortunate oversight; it's forgetting a major piece of the puzzle.