Do Animals Behave With Intent?
Why Read This
What Makes This Article Worth Your Time
Summary
What This Article Is About
Janet L. Jones Ph.D. opens by challenging the centuries-old assumption that animal behavior is driven purely by instinct, drives, or training. She surveys decades of discoveries in animal cognition — elephants mourning their dead, baboons recognizing words, magpies passing the mirror test, and parrots that count — to establish that science has repeatedly underestimated what animals can do. Horses in particular, long misjudged, have demonstrated outstanding memory, complex social structures, and sophisticated communication.
Jones then tells the story of Mac, a horse in training who began throwing his halter from its hook into the barn aisle precisely when a human walked past — but only on days he was not being led to pasture. She honestly entertains anthropomorphism as a counter-explanation, yet methodically dismantles it: Mac never threw the halter at night, never did it when already turned out daily, and no other horse on the premises showed the same behavior. Jones concludes that animal intent is a serious and under-studied question that warrants rigorous scientific investigation.
Key Points
Main Takeaways
Old View Has Been Overturned
The traditional assumption that animal behavior is purely instinctual has been repeatedly challenged by 30–40 years of rigorous scientific discoveries.
Animal Cognition Is Vast
Species ranging from seagulls and magpies to sea lions and prairie dogs display cognitive abilities — tool use, deductive reasoning, self-recognition — once thought uniquely human.
Mac’s Behavior Was Context-Specific
Mac threw his halter only when humans were present and on days he was not turned out — a pattern that strongly points toward deliberate, goal-directed communication.
Anthropomorphism Must Be Considered
Jones fairly acknowledges that projecting human motivations onto animals is a real risk, and presents multiple alternative explanations before evaluating their plausibility.
Horses Are Routinely Underestimated
Despite millennia of close human partnership, horse mental capacities have been consistently misjudged; they demonstrate memory, problem-solving, and complex social behaviour.
Animal Intent Needs Rigorous Study
Jones argues that intentionality in animals is the next great frontier in cognition research — one whose answers could lead to entirely unforeseeable discoveries.
Master Reading Comprehension
Practice with 365 curated articles and 2,400+ questions across 9 RC types.
Article Analysis
Breaking Down the Elements
Main Idea
Animals May Act With Purpose, Not Just Instinct
Jones argues that the question of intentional behavior in animals deserves serious scientific attention. Through accumulated evidence of sophisticated animal cognition and the specific case of Mac, she makes the case that explaining away unusual animal behavior as mere accident or coincidence is no longer scientifically adequate.
Purpose
To Advocate for Taking Animal Intent Seriously
Jones writes to shift her readers — and the broader scientific community — toward open inquiry on animal intentionality. Her purpose is not to prove that Mac acted with intent, but to argue persuasively that the hypothesis is worth testing rigorously rather than dismissing reflexively as anthropomorphism.
Structure
Contextual → Anecdotal → Counter-Argumentative → Persuasive
The article establishes scientific context with broad examples of animal cognition, then narrows to the specific story of Mac. It then honestly presents and systematically dismantles alternative explanations before concluding with a call for further research — a classic personal-perspective essay structure that moves from evidence to implication.
Tone
Curious, Candid & Scientifically Measured
Jones writes with genuine intellectual curiosity tempered by scientific caution. She avoids overclaiming, is upfront about the risk of anthropomorphism, and presents her reasoning transparently. The tone is that of a knowledgeable practitioner who is excited by a puzzle and wants to share that excitement responsibly.
Key Terms
Vocabulary from the Article
Click each card to reveal the definition
Build your vocabulary systematically
Each article in our course includes 8-12 vocabulary words with contextual usage.
Tough Words
Challenging Vocabulary
Tap each card to flip and see the definition
The attribution of human characteristics, emotions, or intentions to non-human animals or objects; a cognitive tendency that can distort objective observation.
“That explanation might just be my human desire to ascribe equine behavior to human characteristics, a form of anthropomorphism.”
Plural of millennium; periods of one thousand years each — used here to emphasize how long horses have been misunderstood by humans over vast stretches of history.
“With mental capacities under-estimated for millennia, these animals display outstanding memories, complex societies, sophisticated silent communication…”
Of or relating to horses; the adjective used in scientific and equestrian contexts to describe anything pertaining to the horse family (Equidae).
“…my human desire to ascribe equine behavior to human characteristics…”
To attribute or credit something to a particular cause, person, or source; to assign a quality or characteristic to someone or something.
“…my human desire to ascribe equine behavior to human characteristics…”
In an extremely thorough, careful, and demanding manner; with strict adherence to accuracy and method — especially as applied to scientific investigation.
“One of the next questions to be studied rigorously is animal intent.”
A building or property, typically with its surrounding land; used here (as “premises”) to mean the barn facility where Mac and the other horses were kept.
“No other horse on the premises threw halters at people passing by.”
Reading Comprehension
Test Your Understanding
5 questions covering different RC question types
1Mac threw his halter into the barn aisle regularly throughout the day, regardless of whether any humans were present or whether he was scheduled to go to pasture.
2What is the primary purpose of the long list of animal behaviors Jones cites in the second paragraph (elephants, baboons, seagulls, magpies, etc.)?
3Which sentence most directly summarizes Jones’s overall conclusion about the study of animal intent?
4Evaluate these statements about Mac’s behavior as described in the article.
Mac did not throw his halter when he was living in the pasture full-time or when he was turned out every day from a barn.
Several other horses at the same barn were also observed throwing their halters at passing humans.
Jones presents the intentional signaling hypothesis not as proven fact but as something worth testing through rigorous scientific study.
Select True or False for all three statements, then click “Check Answers”
5Based on the article, what can be most reasonably inferred about why Jones takes care to list multiple “maybe” explanations before arguing for intentionality?
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Jones offers several converging facts: Mac never threw the halter when living in pasture full-time or when turned out daily; no one witnessed him playing with the halter while it hung on its hook; barn staff never found it in the aisle on mornings when no humans had yet arrived; and crucially, no other horse on the premises ever displayed the same behavior. Each fact independently weakens the accidental-play explanation.
The term “candy-grass” is Jones’s playful characterization of how desirable the pasture is from a horse’s perspective — it offers fresh green grass, social companionship with other horses, and freedom to move. This phrasing helps readers understand that for Mac, not being led to pasture on certain days represented a real and meaningful deprivation, providing credible motivation for the communicative behavior she describes.
Jones notes that over the past 30–40 years, science has made remarkable and largely unpredicted discoveries about animal capabilities — from elephants mourning their dead to parrots counting. Many of these findings have undergone rigorous scientific replication. She argues that this track record of surprises means researchers should not prematurely close the door on questions like animal intent, since the field has repeatedly been humbled by what animals turn out to be capable of.
Readlite provides curated articles with comprehensive analysis including summaries, key points, vocabulary building, and practice questions across 9 different RC question types. Our Ultimate Reading Course offers 365 articles with 2,400+ questions to systematically improve your reading comprehension skills.
This article is rated Intermediate. The vocabulary and sentence structure are accessible, and the personal narrative keeps things engaging. However, following Jones’s reasoning — especially how she builds a case, anticipates counterarguments, and evaluates them systematically — requires careful reading and the ability to distinguish evidence from inference. Readers need to track how individual details contribute to the overall hypothesis about animal intent.
Janet L. Jones holds a Ph.D. and writes the “Horse Brain, Human Brain” blog for Psychology Today, a publication that peer-reviews its contributor content. Her credibility on the topic comes from the intersection of academic training and direct practical experience — she personally trained Mac and observed the behavior firsthand over time. This combination of scientific literacy and hands-on experience allows her to frame the observation in the context of contemporary animal cognition research.
The Ultimate Reading Course covers 9 RC question types: Multiple Choice, True/False, Multi-Statement T/F, Text Highlight, Fill in the Blanks, Matching, Sequencing, Error Spotting, and Short Answer. This comprehensive coverage prepares you for any reading comprehension format you might encounter.
