Why Otters Hold Hands And Why Do We Write These Stories Based On Facts?

 

Suppose we listed for you four 'fun facts' about otters that went as follows:

​

1. Otters are adept at using rocks as tools to break open oysters, clams, mussels, crabs.

2. Otters hold hands while sleeping so that they do not drift apart.

3. Otters tie themselves with kelp so they do not drift away.

4. Otters keep kelp forests healthy.

 

To elaborate -

 

Otters hold hands to form ‘rafts’ while sleeping so that they don't drift apart while asleep. They tie themselves up in kelp for the same reason. If a otter must go to hunt, she will wrap her baby in kelp to keep the baby in place, while she is away.

 

Otters also excel at using tools. They float on their backs, crack a crab or clam using the rock that they carry, using their chest as a table. Most of them use stones as tools and they carry these in their armpit, like tucking their tools in a 'tool belt'. If they need the stone suddenly, out it comes from their armpit for use - on abalones, clams, mussels, and crabs.

 

Moreover, otters do have their 'favorite' stones.

 

Otters are a keystone species because they keep kelp forests healthy. Kelp forests are rich ecosystems and a nursery for marine life. Moreover, kelp sequesters carbon (as well as tropical rainforests apparently, according to studies - imagine). Kelp forests take in large amounts of carbon dioxide, turn it into sugar, and release oxygen into the air.

 

Sea urchins destroy kelp forests, and if otters didn't eat sea urchins, sea urchins would wreck these ecosystems.

​

When we began this site, we wanted to write stories for every interesting animal, based on that animal's life and the situations it faces. It's what drives us every day. We imagined a trove of stories, covering countless creatures in every part of the world - whether under the ocean, in the air, or on ground. We hope we can come up with stories - both organic and natural - using as many of the real characteristics as we can.

 

On the most fundamental level, without a doubt, we do it because we love these animals. Every time we read about these creatures, we laugh at what they do. We love their antics. Their special intelligence. Their unique adaptations. They are so amazing in so many ways, it is hard to keep track. Getting to know animals is our way to connect with nature. We're city dwellers. We are rarely in forests, meadows, grasslands, or under the ocean. For us, nature will be what we see in our backyard, porch, patio, balcony, or verandah, or when we travel, or through what we read (all of which are poor substitutes for real experience).

 

To us, the facts don't matter as much as the 'fun' behind the facts. We connect only when a fact is relatable or interesting or crazy or goofy or highly unusual. Emotion aids memory, as we all know. The more we feel about a fact, the more likely we are to remember it. How can one enjoy something that one doesn't remember? 

 

Our first story was based on fun facts. I had not known any of these, though I had seen otters many times in images and books. It wasn't until I realized these facts about them that I began to feel for them. Enjoy them. Laugh at the thought of them. These traits were so simple and yet wondrous. 

 

So we wrote our first story on otters: "How to Snack when you are an Otter" later updated to "Otto's Motto"

 

Yet, there is one aspect that bothers me.

 

It is summarized in an article by Jason Goldman in Scientific American blog titled - "When animals act like people in stories, kids cannot learn". The research is by Patricia A. Ganea of University of Toronto, with her team at Boston University and Florida International University, Miami. She's a psychologist at the Institute of Child Studies and her question is simple: What's the effect of anthropomorphic picture books on children's knowledge about animals?

 

Patricia Ganea refers to children's literature: chapter books, picture books, and even movies, which have one thing in common - animals behaving like humans. In other words, when a child reads about an animal at an age where he/she cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy, and he/she sees animals wear clothes as we do, live in homes as we do, grapple with the same issues as we do, he/she is bound to have a wrong understanding of animals.

 

How wrong? Ganea says -

 

"Human consciousness, knowledge, abilities, purpose, and intentions are often attributed to animal characters (e.g., seals solve mysteries, cats build houses, mice drive cars), even to inanimate objects (e.g., lamps have faces and dance the tango, trains strive against all odds to achieve impossible goals)."

 

So...

 

"Presenting animals to children in ways that are similar to how humans act and behave is likely to be counter-productive for learning scientifically accurate information about the biological world and to influence children’s view of the biological world."

 

But...

 

People don't want to read anything unless it relates to them. To make a story about any animal relatable, one must tell it in the form of a story. To tell a story anyone will like, is to color animals' behavior with human emotions. But that is counter-productive to learning.

 

See the dilemma here?

 

Perhaps the best way to learn is to use both. When I see National Geographic videos and articles, or BBC productions with David Attenborough, or Meerkats of Kalahari - the Gosa Gang, I feel there is a chance we can have amazing stories about nature and animals - in fiction and non-fiction, in video and in photographs, through narration and experience.

 

Story telling is crucial to knowledge... but the more factual it is, the better off we'll be.

 

Which one are you more likely to read, enjoy, and remember?

 

The story? Or the facts?

 

Let us know.