Why cats are crazy for catnip
sciencemag.org
sciencemag.org
There is no incompatibility between proximal and distal, what they call functional, explanations of behavior. Once you have a brain with a reward system, a good way to encourage (discourage) a behavior that is (dis)functional is to make it (dis)pleasurable.
A similar distinction in explanations of human behavior is what anthropologists call [emic/etic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic). The emic viewpoint is that of the subject themselves; the etic viewpoint is that of the anthropologist (the ethologist in this case). A classical, and beautiful example is Malinowski's description of the [Kula ring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kula_ring) in Papua New Guinea. Participants in the ring see themselves as exchanging presents; Malinowski showed that there is a further political and economic significance to the ring. The two perspectives are perfectly compatible.
Even in your type example, I doubt that papuan chiefs were oblivious of the political elements gift giving. OTOH, a purely etic viewpoint is (anthropologically) incomplete too. The political/economic machinery that outsiders/scholars find doesn't work, or make any sense, without the emic/cultural perspective. The same could be said of most political processes. The US just changed presidents. Leading up to it was weeks/months of ritual. Processes and procedures in many state chambers, and such. Most of it doesn't have a practical role, yet its culturally essential.
We're often warned not to personify animals. I think more often we make the mistake of personifying people, so to speak. We always have rationalisations, but the way it works is usually after the fact... or only rational within an irrational/cultural frame.
Leonard cohen said that free will is overrated. It exists but is rarely exercised. More often, we act because we are compelled.
If cats were people, they'd roll in catnip because they're compelled to do so... but then cite this article and mosquitos as the "reason."
However the sentence can simply be read in two ways. Both interpretations are equally valid.
I read it as qualifying the degree of functionality in the rolling behaviour. That is: the rolling behaviour is functional to a significant extent, but is not entirely functional.
People smoke weed all the time and it decreases violence. But that’s not why they do it.
Chances are just as good that the insect repellant is just a nice side effect of these cats getting high, not the other way around.
In evolution, couldn't it be that the trait of enjoying catnip made them more resilient to mosquitos and thus had a higher chance of surviving, or so?
Maybe their use of the word "functional" is different than mine, and we're saying the same thing. But to me there's a big difference from saying e.g. "Our findings suggest that chimps using sticks to dislodge food is a functional behavior."
> and it decreases violence
Jamie, pull that up.
But weed? Nah. People on weed just want to eat pretzels and watch cartoons.
I think you probably just got unlucky there.
I've seen many cats lounging under (or on top of) olive trees in the Alps around Nice (France).
My current cat is much less interested in olives, but loves catnip.
I have an olive tree in my yard, about 10 cats who live in the yard and the street, and none of them ever seemed to care about the tree or the olives.
I don't know about olive species, but I know that not all cats have that weakness.
Anyway, another patent that shouldn't have been issued.
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010828075659.h...
Sounds like what Israel did but with rats for cats... in a different way hehe
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/concerning-cat-population-in...
>sesquiterpenoid mixture, wherein the sesquiterpenoid mixture is an elmol/hedycaryol mixture having a purity of 55% or more (..plus any possible carrier)
Is it to see them have fun? Is it so the owners have fun? Is it good for them?
I never quite understood why catnip was so socially acceptable when we view other drugs with such different eyes.
I used to think that too. And I still smoke ( hash, which is different ).
However, it does make me complacent, which sometimes make me endure situations I would otherwise change.
Not to mention the toll on the lungs. Ask Willie Nelson if you'd like anecdata about how that can play out over a lifetime.
I've recently made the leap to edibles exclusively after a stint with a hot-air vaporizer (a la Volcano devices) and I now find the resin smell of smoking incredibly off-putting. The coughing, hacking, and lung stiffness that results from a bong rip even more so.
Doesn't lessen the complacency, but the delay your metabolism introduces can help you get started on projects before it sets in!
Yes
I grew up in Israel, where qat is legal, seen as equivalent to coffee and culturally acceptable. It's fairly common as an ornamental plant.
Giving your cat whiskey would cause an uproar, but I guess catnip gets a grandfather exception.
Eating very large quantities of catnip can give them gastrointestinal discomfort though.
If catnip isn't destroying cats' lives, what's the harm?
I don’t think there’s a long-term tolerance that builds up. I get the sense it is short-acting. I’ve read once a cat has catnip, giving them more in a 15-20 minute window is pointless because they’ve already been “activated” by it. They need to come down from the initial dose first.
My cats’ vet has suggested to use catnip to encourage activity (they’re a big chunky and need some exercise).
I don’t know about cats with catnip specifically, but many wild animals are observed to purposefully seek out and consume rotten (i.e. fermented, alcoholic) fruit to get drunk/high. (We know that alcohol is harmful to animals, so we don’t tend to offer e.g. captive apes rotten fruit; but we also don’t really stop them from hoarding fruit to make it become rotten, and then eating it. It’s a natural thing that they do. Cats gonna scratch each-other up play-fighting. Apes gonna drink.)
But why do we have such a different mindset toward this?
I think one big difference is that the human social norms on the acceptable recreational activities for humans are mostly defined/circumscribed by what doctors think is okay (i.e. we take the lead of the medical establishment — if doctors are chill about something, there isn’t usually a social norm against it, while if doctors get upset, other people also get upset.) And doctors don’t like recreational drugs very much, because they usually think in a “harm reduction” mindset rather than a QALY mindset: they’d rather decrease “risk of a loss of capability to experience a satisfying life”, than increase “the area-under-the-curve of satisfying-life-years.”
Meanwhile, the human social norms on the acceptable recreational activities for animals are mostly defined/circumscribed by what zoologists think is okay. Zoologists are the people with voices and platforms to talk about animals, since engaging in animal conservation and study tends to directly correlate with seeking funding for that conservation and study, which is usually implemented through educational outreach activities (i.e. building zoos/aquariums/nature parks, giving tours in conservation areas, etc.) And zoologists, traditionally(?), mostly care about what they observe happening in nature. The whole field of zoology is built on observing animals in nature to figure out “what they do.” So our norms on animal recreation lean much more toward “natural ⇒ good” (regardless of harm potential) than “potentially harmful ⇒ bad” (regardless of naturalness.)
If veterinarians had the voices and platforms instead, I assume you’d see much more of a harm-reduction mindset in our social norms toward animal recreation.
I've met christian, conservative, Swedish country-side folk who frown on anything the government considers illegal or drugs.
But at the same time will use catnip on a new cat toy as a tool to make the cat take to it. Or just watch it roll around for their own amusement.
Maybe that's a fringe example but I have had that experience a couple times.
More often I have contact with younger people in their 20s and 30s who don't view human drugs as anything morally wrong and just enjoy giving their cat what they assume is enjoyment.
Do you treat "drugs are bad" as an axiomatic statement, or do you accept "drugs are bad" as the contingent conclusion of a series of more fundamental statements?
We drill the former into (young) children because it is true enough for them, and they aren't ready for the latter.
If you can understand the latter, then take the underlying statements, and apply them to the cats. You'll find most of them simply don't apply to cats. Maybe a couple of them slightly do, but none of them work like humans. Humans have a unique capacity to be affected by drugs due to our superb executive functioning. Non-humans are all but incapable of bending their entire life around drug-seeking behavior the way we are partially because we're really good at making them, and also because we're uniquely good at refining them. (It's a long cognitive distance from "let the fruit sit a while to taste fun" to "let's build a still!".)
Good for them? Maybe. It's certainly not bad for them. This has been very much studied. Cats can't overdose on catnip. At worst, after 5-15 minutes of sniffing and rolling around in it, they stop responding to it.
> when we view other drugs with such different eyes.
Because most drugs humans take are harmful. The hard stuff like meth, cocaine, heroin, etc., is easy to overdose on. Alcohol can make some people belligerent and can easily be deadly. Tobacco causes cancer, among other things depending on how you consume it. Marijuana is the least harmful, but as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on whether or not it's as harmless as people think it is, especially if smoked.
But catnip? It's completely harmless. The cat will sniff or eat it, roll around in it, and appears to experience euphoria, but there are no health dangers in it.
To be fair, tobacco isn’t the drug, it’s nicotine, and nicotine does not cause cancer. (But I’m sure you knew that.)
most people are very blunt. they do not see past the surface of anything. they are impressed with superficial charm and not much else. they arent able to see inside a person, to figure out how their mind works or what it would be like to wear their shoes. they dont build models to explain the world and they arent interested in knowing how anything works. they dont listen when people speak. most people are stupid. and most of the time, this kind of talk is cast aside as being too vague and qualitative. but i have quantified it with cats.
when you consider a cat, the first impulse is to anthropomorphize. and since the cat cant speak, your assumptions about what it wants are guided by your anthropomorphism. most people only get this far and so most peoples relationship with their cats are really relationships with themselves. but some people pay close attention to what the cat is doing and how it responds to things, and carefully pack away that data instead of just writing it off as noise or "thats just what cats do." eventually you are able to demonstrate to the cat, through your actions, that you understand what it is feeling and what it wants. when a cat realizes that you are paying attention, that you are listening, it is a very different experience for the cat. the cat understands whats going on and will act in a way that is designed to communicate. and they will also trust and love you much, much more than anyone else because they know you are listening. thats the key, they are smart enough to know. most people assume they are dumb, and attribute their aloofness to it.
people get super jealous because they think they are showering their cats with love. and they try to fix it by loving them more, but it just makes it worse.
if a person has cats and has not unlocked this line of communication, in my experience they also havent deeply understood other humans or anything else. and i almost never meet people who have.
They can be surprisingly great communicators.
But in learning how to befriend this "difficult" cat I really had to set aside all of my own agendas and ideas, and I learned something very generalizable about how to learn.
Also, from the article: "Big or small, the felines surrendered to the substance, rubbing their heads and bodies in the patches for an average of 10 minutes"
Edit: twas a joke, guys...
I know silvervine is in a lot of catnip mixed, I think not all cats react to whatever pheromone is in catnip so a lot of mixes have several different euphoria in them to try to increase efficacy.
I don't overdo it, I don't have olives very often in the fridge, and even then they maybe get a tiny piece once a week.
> The team, which has already patented an insect repellent based on nepetalactol,
At the BOTTOM of this article.
My previous cats did two different things - one would instantly flop down and roll in the catnip, then lazily lick it off her paws. The other cat would make a beeline for any catnip and intently eat all of it, shoving aside the rolling cat.
Globally, catnip immunity rates are closer to a third, but Australia is at the extreme with about half cats not responding.
Villani 2011 https://www.gwern.net/docs/catnip/2011-villani.pdf establishes that catnip response is highly heritable but polygenic (not Mendelian), and to a first approximation, no one studies cat genetics - so it will be difficult to prove that there's some sort of founder effect on Australian/Mexican/Spanish cats causing a lower genetic propensity.
p.s. This is the ultimate thread-killer. Had this been posted at the very top of the thread, most of the comments and speculations posted would be irrelevant. Can @dang please pin this to the top? ;)
Our female kitty doesn't care at all for the 'nip, but goes crazy for that stuff.
Neither of my cats go as absolutely nuts over it like some other cats: That said, they both know which toy has a pile of the stuff in it for them to eat freely and somewhat regularly have some bites.
It simply serves you a random kitten GIF (some of which involve catnip) and provides your IP address alongside some other connection information.
EDIT: The ARIN JSON endpoints have rate-limited me, so ISP information is currently unavailable.
I'll add it into my kitten dev toolbox alongside https://placekitten.com/
[ The characteristic response of domestic cats to plant iridoids allows them to gain chemical defense against mosquitoes ] https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/4/eabd9135
I mean, I don't think I'd want to put that insect repellent in the savannah, north america or a place that has lots of feral cats.
Wouldn't that be the opposite of "most"?
According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5356310/ only around a third of cats does not respond to catnip.