What do you think?
Rate this book
Made for Each Other: The Biology of the Human-Animal Bond
Nothing turns a baby's head more quickly than the sight or sound of an animal. This fascination is driven by the ancient chemical forces that first drew humans and animals together. It is also the same biology that transformed wolves into dogs and skittish horses into valiant comrades that would carry us into battle.
Made for Each Other is the first book to explain how this chemistry of attraction and attachment flows through -- and between -- all mammals to create the profound emotional bonds humans and animals still feel today.
Drawing on recent discoveries from neuroscience, evolutionary biology, behavioral psychology, archeology, as well as her own investigations, Meg Daley Olmert explains why the brain chemistry humans and animals trigger in each other also has a profound effect on our mental and physical well being.
This lively and original investigation asks what happens when the bond is severed. If thousands of years of caring for animals infused us with a biology that shaped our hearts and minds, do we dare turn our back on it? Daley Olmert makes a compelling and scientific case for what our hearts have always known, that we were, and always will be, made for each other.
Made for Each Other is the first book to explain how this chemistry of attraction and attachment flows through -- and between -- all mammals to create the profound emotional bonds humans and animals still feel today.
Drawing on recent discoveries from neuroscience, evolutionary biology, behavioral psychology, archeology, as well as her own investigations, Meg Daley Olmert explains why the brain chemistry humans and animals trigger in each other also has a profound effect on our mental and physical well being.
This lively and original investigation asks what happens when the bond is severed. If thousands of years of caring for animals infused us with a biology that shaped our hearts and minds, do we dare turn our back on it? Daley Olmert makes a compelling and scientific case for what our hearts have always known, that we were, and always will be, made for each other.
291 pages, Paperback
First published January 6, 2009
33 people are currently reading
473 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
September 1, 2010
A rather simplistic look at human/nonhuman relationships, mostly devoted to analyzing the evolutionary and biological effects of oxytocin. Oxytocin is posited as the biochemical root of human sociability and thus as the starting point for affectionate human contact with animals. While not a necessarily implausible argument, it isn't placed in constructive dialogue with any other possibility, biological or otherwise. Olmert's surmises are plausible if rather obvious, and her conclusion is pretty much par for the course in most animal studies, that is to say, speciesist, paternalistic and timid (breaking out Temple Grandin to bolster your case for the importance of animals isn't the most effective strategy). Her empathy with animals, even coming from a scientific perspective, is rooted in a weakly argued and ill-defined standard of care that sees animals as mere instruments for human enrichment. This effort felt pretty much phoned in.
December 27, 2012
From someone with a strong background in neuroscience and sociobiology, I think this is an excellent book. You folks have to remember that this is a theory. Meg does a fantastic job of stringing together ideas to give them strength. Meg also does a nice job of showing the importance of the human-animal relationship of the past and current today. Any book recommended by EO Wilson is also recommended by me.
October 11, 2013
Meg Olmert became so fascinated by the fact that mammals produce oxytocin while giving birth and nursing their young, that she has woven a supposedly scientific account of human evolution and the concomitant relationships with other animals. I have already discussed her argumentation in my blog post Leaping Logic (smarthotoldlady.blogspot.com) and will not do it here except to note that she fantasizes "suppose this occurred" in one sentence and, in the next, treats it as if it really did. It is enough to note that, on the evidence that Ice Age mothers had a hard time giving birth to big brained babies, which is true, she posits that they were flooded with extra amounts of oxytocin which made them more maternal. Huh? Hominids were having relatively large brained infants for a long time before the last Ice Age and apparently their mothers had enough oxytocin to ensure their care. Any successful mammal has to produce enough of this chemical or it would fail to reproduce.
In any event, Olmert doesn't stop there. Not only were Ice Age mothers laden with oxytocin, the oxytocin induced love spread through the population. Apparently, she envisions leaping oxytocin. I am sure this is news to biologists. It certainly was to me.
Wait! There's more. Not only were Ice Age Humans awash in oxytocin, so were the mammals that lived around them. The mammals then began to look lovingly at humans, becoming amenable to being domesticated. Never mind that domestication didn't occur until a million years or so after the Ice Age, she claims that it was the increase in oxytocin in the Ice Age that made humans love animals and animals love humans. She fantasizes that daunting animals like the Auroch were lovingly stroked and patted by humans and that's how they became domesticated cows. How did the humans get that close to these beasts so that they could stroke them?
She does back this scenario up with the fact that Egyptians were very hands on with their animals, as were the Nubians who lived in a cattle culture. Yes, in cultures like the modern Dinka, where a man's worth is invested entirely in his cattle, and the owners have nothing else to do, the cattle are massaged often. However, this is not the scenario for most farmers today and need not ever have been. She uses as her texts books dating from the 1930's to 1980's, ignoring a spate of work on evolution of both humans and other mammals since then.
She repeats the folk nonsense that primitive women nursed wolf cubs. A wolf cub's mouth is not formed to nurse from the human breast. In the human, in order for a baby to get milk, it must grab the aureole around the nipple tip. It can't just grab the portruding nipple. Canine pups nurse solely by grabbing the nipple. There is no enlarged breast on a canine female. Besides, why would a nursing mother, for any reason, waste her milk on a wolf cub? I adore dogs, but I certainly never had an urge to nurse one when I was nursing my babies.
I bought this book partially because I am so interested in the fact that dogs have thrown their lot entirely in with humans, a virtually unprecedented occurrence. According to Olmert, wolves, laden with oxytocin, began to look lovingly at humans, just waiting to be tamed. Now, why would a wolf want to be tamed by humans who are their natural enemies? Even today, wolves can never be truly tamed. If a cub is gotten within a few days of birth and is especially cared for by a human, it can be kept by a human, but there is always the danger of its turning on its caretakers when it matures. It can never be left untethered and can not be touched by strangers. Coppinger, the authority on dogs, tells of a near brush with a "tamed" wolf when he gave it a gentle slap, such as one affectionately gives to a dog.
Yes, dogs wanted to be tamed. However, they were probably already dogs when this occurred. Yes, some wolves--or dogs-- did move in relatively close to human habitations, but not because of oxytocin. It was meat that drew them. The earliest hominids who gave up a vegetarian diet were scavengers. The earliest tools were not killing tools. They were cutting. Hominids finding a large carcass,like an elephant's, could cut through the tough outer skin to the meat below. This they carried back to their clans. It wouldn't take long for smaller wolves, unsuccessful in the hunt, to learn to follow them and then to wait until the hominids threw away the bones. Love had nothing to do with taming. Food did.
That doesn't mean your dog doesn't love you. Olmert is correct when she says that oxytocin levels rise in both humans and dogs when people pat them. Oxytocin is apparently responsible for feelings of love. Dogs often grieve and even refuse to eat when separated from their owners. I once had an Old English Sheepdog stolen from me, and the only reason the thief returned him to me was that the dog refused all food and water for a week, including steak.
I am predisposed to like any book that boosts the idea that humans should treat animals well. I myself am an almost obsessed animal lover, but I do know many people who can't stand them. So what's up with their oxytocin? As for farmers massaging their cattle, I lived next door to a dairy farm for 25 years and the farmer and his children never touched their cows except to put milking machine cups on their teats. I also lived in the Maine wilderness, and the trappers annd hunters had no love for the animals they killed. Cattle are just cattle to a rancher or a farmer. Animals are studied by the hunter so he can best know when and where to kill them.
In any event, Olmert doesn't stop there. Not only were Ice Age mothers laden with oxytocin, the oxytocin induced love spread through the population. Apparently, she envisions leaping oxytocin. I am sure this is news to biologists. It certainly was to me.
Wait! There's more. Not only were Ice Age Humans awash in oxytocin, so were the mammals that lived around them. The mammals then began to look lovingly at humans, becoming amenable to being domesticated. Never mind that domestication didn't occur until a million years or so after the Ice Age, she claims that it was the increase in oxytocin in the Ice Age that made humans love animals and animals love humans. She fantasizes that daunting animals like the Auroch were lovingly stroked and patted by humans and that's how they became domesticated cows. How did the humans get that close to these beasts so that they could stroke them?
She does back this scenario up with the fact that Egyptians were very hands on with their animals, as were the Nubians who lived in a cattle culture. Yes, in cultures like the modern Dinka, where a man's worth is invested entirely in his cattle, and the owners have nothing else to do, the cattle are massaged often. However, this is not the scenario for most farmers today and need not ever have been. She uses as her texts books dating from the 1930's to 1980's, ignoring a spate of work on evolution of both humans and other mammals since then.
She repeats the folk nonsense that primitive women nursed wolf cubs. A wolf cub's mouth is not formed to nurse from the human breast. In the human, in order for a baby to get milk, it must grab the aureole around the nipple tip. It can't just grab the portruding nipple. Canine pups nurse solely by grabbing the nipple. There is no enlarged breast on a canine female. Besides, why would a nursing mother, for any reason, waste her milk on a wolf cub? I adore dogs, but I certainly never had an urge to nurse one when I was nursing my babies.
I bought this book partially because I am so interested in the fact that dogs have thrown their lot entirely in with humans, a virtually unprecedented occurrence. According to Olmert, wolves, laden with oxytocin, began to look lovingly at humans, just waiting to be tamed. Now, why would a wolf want to be tamed by humans who are their natural enemies? Even today, wolves can never be truly tamed. If a cub is gotten within a few days of birth and is especially cared for by a human, it can be kept by a human, but there is always the danger of its turning on its caretakers when it matures. It can never be left untethered and can not be touched by strangers. Coppinger, the authority on dogs, tells of a near brush with a "tamed" wolf when he gave it a gentle slap, such as one affectionately gives to a dog.
Yes, dogs wanted to be tamed. However, they were probably already dogs when this occurred. Yes, some wolves--or dogs-- did move in relatively close to human habitations, but not because of oxytocin. It was meat that drew them. The earliest hominids who gave up a vegetarian diet were scavengers. The earliest tools were not killing tools. They were cutting. Hominids finding a large carcass,like an elephant's, could cut through the tough outer skin to the meat below. This they carried back to their clans. It wouldn't take long for smaller wolves, unsuccessful in the hunt, to learn to follow them and then to wait until the hominids threw away the bones. Love had nothing to do with taming. Food did.
That doesn't mean your dog doesn't love you. Olmert is correct when she says that oxytocin levels rise in both humans and dogs when people pat them. Oxytocin is apparently responsible for feelings of love. Dogs often grieve and even refuse to eat when separated from their owners. I once had an Old English Sheepdog stolen from me, and the only reason the thief returned him to me was that the dog refused all food and water for a week, including steak.
I am predisposed to like any book that boosts the idea that humans should treat animals well. I myself am an almost obsessed animal lover, but I do know many people who can't stand them. So what's up with their oxytocin? As for farmers massaging their cattle, I lived next door to a dairy farm for 25 years and the farmer and his children never touched their cows except to put milking machine cups on their teats. I also lived in the Maine wilderness, and the trappers annd hunters had no love for the animals they killed. Cattle are just cattle to a rancher or a farmer. Animals are studied by the hunter so he can best know when and where to kill them.
February 10, 2009
This is an intriguing look at the chemistry of the human/animal bond. Olmert explores the hormonal connection and health benefits for both man and animal. The author is not a scientist and, at times, it shows, but the writing is engaging and the ideas are very compelling.
Could there be scientific proof of why I've always needed a pony? I could have used this evidence when I was 10-years-old.
Could there be scientific proof of why I've always needed a pony? I could have used this evidence when I was 10-years-old.
September 28, 2010
What I learned from this book:
Oxytocin is awesome.
Wolves taught us how to cooperate and hunt.
Babies and animals have a weird link.
We need animals to remain what we now know as human.
Interesting, but Olmert lays it on way too thick. This book would have been much better had Olmert cut out all the bullshit.
Oxytocin is awesome.
Wolves taught us how to cooperate and hunt.
Babies and animals have a weird link.
We need animals to remain what we now know as human.
Interesting, but Olmert lays it on way too thick. This book would have been much better had Olmert cut out all the bullshit.
August 7, 2013
My copy is full of sticky notes and highlighting. Such an interesting book for those of us who work with animals and people. Reads like a novel.
September 3, 2025
This is a vast oversimplification that boils all human/mammal relationships down to oxytocin. It’s like saying the oil is what makes the car run. It ignores so many other factors and boils the whole relationship down to “you’re cute and make me feel nice.”
September 16, 2015
Subtitle: The Biology of the Human-Animal Bond.
Have you ever known someone who liked their pet a little TOO much? Nothing creepy, just a bit too much over-the-top obsession with their dog, cat, or whatever. I like animals, and I like people who like animals, and I like people who like animals too much a lot better than people who like animals too little.
However, while I liked this book, I have to admit, the way Olmert thinks of her thesis for this book is about like the way some people are with their pets. Maybe just a tad too enthusiastic.
The subtitle actually should have been, "Oxytocin is GREAT!!!". Oxytocin is a naturally produced hormone, kind of adrenaline's mellower sibling, and it is produced when we (for example) pet a cat or dog. If adrenaline is the body's way of telling the brain to go into Fight or Flight mode, oxytocin is the body's way of telling the brain not to do either one.
It is Olmert's thesis that oxytocin, originally evolved to help humans get cuddly, has been responsible for our ability to keep animals as pets. In some cases, of course, it's not all that necessary for us to feel calm around the animals we use; a hunter, for example, could probably do just as well with a jolt of adrenaline. But to use dogs for herding or guarding, or horses for riding and plowing, or even cows for milking, we had to be able to be calm and moreover empathize enough to make them calm as well.
This had, of course, all kinds of benefits for us back in the day. No other species is so adept at interacting with so many different species; there are alliances and friendly interactions between species who are not human, but we clearly have far more of these relationships than any other mammal, perhaps more than any other species.
Now, however, we mostly don't use these skills, and here we come upon Olmert's main thesis, which is that we are evolved for animal handling, with tens of thousands of years (and more importantly thousands of generations) behind us when anyone who WASN'T good at this probably didn't do so well.
This is all a good point, and probably she is correct that this is one more of a lengthening list of ways in which we have sabotaged our mental and physical health by living in ways we are not adapted for.
Sedentary lifestyles, leading to obesity.
Lots of simple carbohydrates in our diet, increasing our risk of diabetes.
Excessive sterilization of everything we touch and excessive use of antibiotics, leading our immune systems to freak out and give us weird allergies and auto-immune diseases.
Etc. etc. etc.
It's not that I don't agree with Olmert's point, or even that I disliked reading the book; I mostly enjoyed it. I just wish she had used the word "oxytocin" about 1/3 as much as she did. Really, there's nothing magical about the compound itself, for one thing, it's just what our body uses for a particular signal. If we were wired differently, adrenaline might be our "cool out" molecule and oxytocin our "fight or flight" one. Olmert has clearly ascribed to oxytocin almost spiritual powers, and it begins to wear on one about halfway through.
In the end, though, it is a forgivable flaw, and Olmert's book is easy to read with an intriguing explanation for a whole panoply of modern mental breakdowns. In many cases she is able to cite good medical or scientific studies showing the positive impact of more interaction with animals. What will we do about it, in an increasingly urban civilization? That, is a tougher question.
Have you ever known someone who liked their pet a little TOO much? Nothing creepy, just a bit too much over-the-top obsession with their dog, cat, or whatever. I like animals, and I like people who like animals, and I like people who like animals too much a lot better than people who like animals too little.
However, while I liked this book, I have to admit, the way Olmert thinks of her thesis for this book is about like the way some people are with their pets. Maybe just a tad too enthusiastic.
The subtitle actually should have been, "Oxytocin is GREAT!!!". Oxytocin is a naturally produced hormone, kind of adrenaline's mellower sibling, and it is produced when we (for example) pet a cat or dog. If adrenaline is the body's way of telling the brain to go into Fight or Flight mode, oxytocin is the body's way of telling the brain not to do either one.
It is Olmert's thesis that oxytocin, originally evolved to help humans get cuddly, has been responsible for our ability to keep animals as pets. In some cases, of course, it's not all that necessary for us to feel calm around the animals we use; a hunter, for example, could probably do just as well with a jolt of adrenaline. But to use dogs for herding or guarding, or horses for riding and plowing, or even cows for milking, we had to be able to be calm and moreover empathize enough to make them calm as well.
This had, of course, all kinds of benefits for us back in the day. No other species is so adept at interacting with so many different species; there are alliances and friendly interactions between species who are not human, but we clearly have far more of these relationships than any other mammal, perhaps more than any other species.
Now, however, we mostly don't use these skills, and here we come upon Olmert's main thesis, which is that we are evolved for animal handling, with tens of thousands of years (and more importantly thousands of generations) behind us when anyone who WASN'T good at this probably didn't do so well.
This is all a good point, and probably she is correct that this is one more of a lengthening list of ways in which we have sabotaged our mental and physical health by living in ways we are not adapted for.
Sedentary lifestyles, leading to obesity.
Lots of simple carbohydrates in our diet, increasing our risk of diabetes.
Excessive sterilization of everything we touch and excessive use of antibiotics, leading our immune systems to freak out and give us weird allergies and auto-immune diseases.
Etc. etc. etc.
It's not that I don't agree with Olmert's point, or even that I disliked reading the book; I mostly enjoyed it. I just wish she had used the word "oxytocin" about 1/3 as much as she did. Really, there's nothing magical about the compound itself, for one thing, it's just what our body uses for a particular signal. If we were wired differently, adrenaline might be our "cool out" molecule and oxytocin our "fight or flight" one. Olmert has clearly ascribed to oxytocin almost spiritual powers, and it begins to wear on one about halfway through.
In the end, though, it is a forgivable flaw, and Olmert's book is easy to read with an intriguing explanation for a whole panoply of modern mental breakdowns. In many cases she is able to cite good medical or scientific studies showing the positive impact of more interaction with animals. What will we do about it, in an increasingly urban civilization? That, is a tougher question.
August 5, 2009
A book that is much more anthropological than I initially expected, I actually really enjoyed the author's take on how social interactions (both intra- and interspecies) have played such an important role in the development of humanity and civilization. The book was filled with several "wow" moments for me about the biology behind our sociality; information about the ways all social mammals have a built in understanding of vocal tones and body language was particularly fascinating.
The main fault that I found with Olmert's arguments, however, was how repetitious the whole thing was. She's trying very hard to prove the importance of the hormone oxytocin in the forming of social relationships not only between humans, but between humans and animals as well. I think that her argument is very interesting, and it seems to have quite a lot of validity, but when it's brought up every other page the repetitiveness becomes almost amusing. Olmert would have us believe that oxytocin not only plays a role in child birth and lactation, but also forms social relationships between mothers and babies, good friends, lovers, and between humans and other social mammals of all sorts. In addition, she says (multiple times), oxytocin calms us down, reduces stress, makes us more patient, increases our ability to focus, makes us smarter, makes us more socially attractive, helps us heal faster, and is generally responsible for the creation of settled civilization as we know it. Wow. I'm not sure if I completely believe everything that Olmert credits oxytocin with (or at least the level of insistence with which she states it). However, this novel has definitely piqued my interest, and I'll be on the lookout for new information regarding oxytocin in the future. It seems that it definitely deserves more than the half a lecture we've gotten on it in vet school so far.
The main fault that I found with Olmert's arguments, however, was how repetitious the whole thing was. She's trying very hard to prove the importance of the hormone oxytocin in the forming of social relationships not only between humans, but between humans and animals as well. I think that her argument is very interesting, and it seems to have quite a lot of validity, but when it's brought up every other page the repetitiveness becomes almost amusing. Olmert would have us believe that oxytocin not only plays a role in child birth and lactation, but also forms social relationships between mothers and babies, good friends, lovers, and between humans and other social mammals of all sorts. In addition, she says (multiple times), oxytocin calms us down, reduces stress, makes us more patient, increases our ability to focus, makes us smarter, makes us more socially attractive, helps us heal faster, and is generally responsible for the creation of settled civilization as we know it. Wow. I'm not sure if I completely believe everything that Olmert credits oxytocin with (or at least the level of insistence with which she states it). However, this novel has definitely piqued my interest, and I'll be on the lookout for new information regarding oxytocin in the future. It seems that it definitely deserves more than the half a lecture we've gotten on it in vet school so far.
Currently reading
December 6, 2009I started reading this book a little while back, and then last night I opened it toward the end, and could not put it down. I basically have read the last two chapters, and the intro. and I really love it so far. It explains the human-animal bond, and enveils the scientific explanation of why do animals do lower your blow pressure, relieve stress, and make you more sociable and a more loving human being. That secret to the recipe is the hormone oxytocin, more known for it's important role in labor and the bonding between mother and infant.
It is fascinating to understand the evolution of humankind basically and the role that oxytocin played on it. It made us civilized, and explained the miracle of domestification.
It is fascinating to understand the evolution of humankind basically and the role that oxytocin played on it. It made us civilized, and explained the miracle of domestification.
May 19, 2015
As humans started to take better care of our babies and of each other, did that make us love animals more too? This book provides a peek into the reasons why we may have come to domesticate and love animals, how they have changed us and how we have changed them. An excellent alternative subtitle could be: "Blame it all on oxytocin".
While I wish there had been more precise citations (individual footnotes/endnotes) and worried in some places that the author overdrew some conclusions, the book still posed interesting questions and reasonable suppositions.
While I wish there had been more precise citations (individual footnotes/endnotes) and worried in some places that the author overdrew some conclusions, the book still posed interesting questions and reasonable suppositions.
January 3, 2011
Interesting and quick read. There are a few scientific details that I thought were a bit too simplified and were maybe a bit off - but I was also reading an advanced copy and it was obvious it did not have the final edits yet. But, I enjoyed it. The author was good at keeping it focused, and just introducing connections to other parts of science. It would have been easy to go off on some serious tangents, but she kept it reined in and that made the book much more readable.
July 4, 2011
Like a lot of non-fiction these days, you read the intro and you don't need to read the book. Interesting premise which I already agreed with re: positive value of pets and hugs from spouses.
The section on autism and the effects of technology (modern) on the brain(ancient) actually provided additional information.
The section on autism and the effects of technology (modern) on the brain(ancient) actually provided additional information.
December 25, 2012
Presented some interesting information about the history and possible evolutionary biology behind animal domestication, but was repetitive, melodramatic in tone, and had a really unsophisticated level of writing about autism. This book pointed me in Temple Grandin's direction, for which I'm grateful, but by the end of it I was super-annoyed.
Read
January 11, 2016Should have been called The Oxytocin Connection or some such.
A super fast read. While it was interesting, it seemed forced in places. Still, it felt sincere and I appreciate that.
If you want super rigorous science, this isn't it. If you want armchair science-tainment regarding animals, this will fit the bill.
A super fast read. While it was interesting, it seemed forced in places. Still, it felt sincere and I appreciate that.
If you want super rigorous science, this isn't it. If you want armchair science-tainment regarding animals, this will fit the bill.
January 19, 2010
A fun read for anyone with an interest in how we relate to animals, how they relate to us, and how those relationships might have first come into being. Be warned, however, that the answer to everything is apparently ... oxytocin.
August 11, 2010
I was a little turned off by the author's overly romantic descriptions of prehistoric interactions between animals and our ancestors but once I got past that, the descriptions of the biology behind our interdependent relationship with each other, particularly among mammals is fascinating.
November 16, 2011
I just could not make myself finish this book. At first I was getting into the biology of the moment shall we say. Then that biology was all there was and I had to stop. Her concept of how we came to have 4-legged companions is interesting. Just not sure it was worth a book of this length.
September 15, 2015
A solid, easily readable exploration into what connects humans so intimately with other animals. Not sure why some reviewers have labeled it "lightweight" or one-sided; plenty of science writers and publications have reviewed it favorably.
October 11, 2014
If you don't already know the power of oxytocin, this book is a must read, especially for anyone who plans to get old. You don't need a furry animal to elicit it, but they help a lot. I would give more stars for a shorter version.
April 11, 2009
I only skimmed this book and read sections here and there. Too sciency for me personally, but I did get some great info from it.
December 1, 2010
The writing was a bit tiresome--too much reiteration of ideas--but I was glad I pushed through it, as the ideas were fascinating. It is one of those books that changed how I look at the world.
July 4, 2012
Enjoyed this discussion of oxytocin and the role it plays in the creation of cross-species relationships.
June 6, 2013
Fascinating reading! Full of scientific research that explains why we love our animals.
December 8, 2014
Nature walks, petting [zoos | pets], and contact / pressure receptors being tripped.
April 2, 2016
I loved the first line from the last paragraph.
"We may exist because we think, but we live because we love."
"We may exist because we think, but we live because we love."
February 11, 2010
what a interesing book
Want to read
February 22, 2013This book is suggested reading for an upcoming dog yoga workshop.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews