"Good" and "bad" are
human constructs and not appropriate for describing the behaviors of captive wild animals.
1) Starting with our interpretation of ourselves as their parents (or even "companions")....
In the wild (and in our homes) parrots form mate bonds: With the exception being juveniles, the basic unit of flock structure is the bonded pair. The members of mated pairs stay close together throughout the year, except for the weeks during which adult females are egglaying, incubating, or tending small young. Even in flight, members remain side by side and this is common accross genera.
I'll quote Michael Doolen, DVM
"In the case of the pet bird that is imprinted and bonded to a human as a baby,
the initial parental bond sometimes begins to transition to a mate bond. This would never happen in the natural setting. This is aberrant behavior that would not be optimal in most cases. First of all, the parent already has a mate bond with the other parent and in most bird flocks (where monogamy is practiced) the rule about adultery is similar to our own in this respect. We (and they) don’t choose an offspring as a mate unless there simply is no other choice and the other parent is not present. Secondly, this would not be optimal from a genetic standpoint as it can lead to a greater probability of genetic imperfections which would ultimately reduce the probability of reproductive success and thereby species survival. Natural selection, by trial and error, controls this very tightly over time in the natural setting.
Birds nearly always have enough choice to be able to mate-bond with a similar age flock member that is unrelated. In the tiny human/bird flocks that are the homes of pet bird owners, there is often little or no choice. Third, it has been observed in many species that individuals will tend to select mates based on displays of strength. This is seen in the form of physical attributes as well as behavioral challenges. Witness the mountain sheep who charge each other, repeatedly butting heads until one finally gives up. The winner gets the choice of female mate. A bird that has already reached this dominance class and has achieved reproductive success would not be likely to select or accept an offspring as a mate that is in a lower class and has not worked their way up the dominance structure and earned the right to select a stronger mate. It would mean less likelihood that the parent would be able, with this younger and weaker individual, to continue with optimum reproductive success. In the situation where the bird is also very over dependent on parental protection and insecure, these aberrant relationships are especially damaging. The transition to a mate bond is not complete and there is a blend that results in a bond that is partly parental and partly a mate relationship. Owners often have experiences when their bird begins to regurgitate and feed them or begin to display sexual behaviors or masturbate on parts of the owner’s body. This is not to be confused with the bird that masturbates on an inanimate object or feeds an object or mirror. These are displaced behaviors that involve objects that are taking the place of an otherwise unavailable mate."
2) On why it's wrong to let baby’s “cry it out,” in other words, to ignore cries for attention so that the behavior extinguishes. The reasoning for why it's wrong to do this with human children also applies to other animals, such as birds (Gifts of the Crow covers the avain aspect of this for those interested). The following is taken from a parenting e-mail, if one focuses on the bolded parts it’ll sound very familiar……
Parent:
“He’s got to learn that we don’t come to him every time he cries. Janet totally indulged him those first few months.” Keith continues, “But we are in charge. We are the parents. He’s got to learn his place.”
Relative:
“You mean, you purposefully let him cry…”
Tyler’s little body, covered in sweat and tears, soon exhausts itself from relentlessly crying out in panic, anger, and despair. Due to the mechanism of self-preservation, his body shuts down his conscious self and falls into a forced sleep.
CIO, also known as “controlled crying,” is an “extinction method” of
ending – “extinguishing” --the cuing for attention, help, nourishment, hydration, support, and loving, physical comfort that is programmed into the biology of young mammals. (neurochemically it works the same in birds so maybe it should read young
vertebrates)
While popularized by Dr. Richard Ferber in his 1985 book, “Solve Your Child’s Sleep Problem,” advocates of CIO date back to pre-Ferber days. In his 1946 classic entitled “Baby and Child Care,” Dr. Benjamin Spock advised parents to "say good night affectionately but firmly, walk out of the room, and don't go back."
This “don’t go back” approach perfectly describes CIO in its “unmodified” or “total extinction” form. Some pediatricians who subscribe to this method of CIO advise parents to shut the door to their baby or toddler’s room and not open it again for a full twelve-hour period. The only caveat to this involves assuming nighttime parenting duties if the child is physically ill. Yet, throwing up due to the stress of nocturnal abandonment doesn’t constitute a sign of physical illness and parents are advised by proponents of “total extinction” CIO to clean up the vomit promptly without touching the child or displaying emotion.
In its “modified extinction” form, CIO advocates argue that parents should leave a baby or toddler alone to cry to sleep. But this stressful experience is best practiced when punctuated with intermittent, and increasingly less frequent, check-ins from the caregiver.
The intention of such visits is to persuade the little one verbally, or with minimal physical touch,
that their nighttime expression of distress, thirst, and/or panic will not lead to the comfort being sought.
In both methods of CIO described above, babies and/or toddlers are repeatedly left alone to fall into cycles of sleep.
Over time, they learn not to signal to their caregivers as the bonds of attachment fray.
Recent research conducted at the University of North Texas
clearly reveals that the (stress hormone) cortisol levels of babies left alone to CIO remain at unnaturally high levels even days after they learn to stop crying/cuing for help. However, the cortisol levels of mothers --which register as abnormally high when their babies cry -- return to normal levels in the silence. At this point, mothers and babies are no longer biologically in sync. The mothers assume all is well; they interpret their babies’ silence as proof that their little ones have learned to self-soothe. Yet, physiologically babies can’t self-soothe. Rather,
CIO teaches them to panic silently and detach from those whom nature intends for them to trust.
Sarah Ockwell-Smith, a psychotherapist, doula, and UK-based author of the soon-to-be published book, “The Gentle Sleep Book: A Guide for Calm Babies, Toddlers and Pre-Schoolers” argues that the erroneous pursuit of a baby that self-soothes profoundly misleads parents. She writes:
“You are categorically not leaving your baby to ‘soothe,’ you are leaving him to cry, even if it is only for periods of two minutes at a time… Is it possible to train a baby or a toddler to not call out for their parents when they are in need? Yes, it is, but this is categorically not indicative of an infant who is happy, calm and soothed.”
http://www.phillyvoice.com/screaming-sleep/
"Recent research conducted at the University of North Texas clearly reveals that the (stress hormone) cortisol levels of babies left alone to CIO remain at unnaturally high levels even days after they learn to stop crying/cuing for help. However, the cortisol levels of mothers --which register as abnormally high when their babies cry -- return to normal levels in the silence. At this point, mothers and babies are no longer biologically in sync."
I want to compare this quote from the above linked article on human children to what is said in relation to birds by scientists.....
From "The Bird of Prey Management Series: Healthcare" found at Mike'sFalconry.com:
Why is stress bad for birds?
"When birds are stressed they release a hormone called cortisol which depresses the immune system leaving the bird open to infections which under normal circumstances would probably be harmless. In the wild, stressful events are normally sporadic, and so cortisol is released only briefly. However in captivity the stressful events are normally prolonged resulting in cortisol being released continually and the birds immune function being depressed for long periods."
More on stress:
The "cost of the stress" | Avian Avenue Parrot Forum
On the effects of social isolation, from
"Gifts of the Crow," by John Marzluff and Tony Angell (this can apply to how we understand screaming):
"Like food, companionship is rewarding to a social animal."
"Hormones (Mesotocin, Vasotocin) motivate the seeking of a companion in social animals (birds). Alone, a young animal gives distress calls and seeks companionship, even if it is risky. When a social partner is found, typically a parent or sibling, is found, the cries dissipate and calm returns. Acquiring a social partner after isolation causes endorphins to be released that then bind to neurons of the septum, striatum, preoptic area, thalamus, amygdala, and hypothalamus. This opioid reward replaces emotional distress with comfort and pleasure. Endorphins are important to the organization of reward seeking behaviors like affiliation just as they are to other reward-seeking behaviors like foraging, sex, and play. A young lone crow or raven would be highly motivated to alleviate its stress by finding a buddy."
The book makes comparisons to parrots as similar in intelligence throughout, for example: "In fact, parrots' forebrains outsize even the biggest brained corvids."
As vertebrates (and related) we have homologous similarities with regards to our needs as social animals - among other emotions. The highly social nature of parrots indicates that the advice given by parrot "behaviorists" (to ignore unwanted calls for attention so that they "extinguish") is actually advice that is contradictory to captive avian welfare.
I also recommend Temple Grandin PhD's, and Jonathan Balcombe PhD's books as they cover similar subject matter. As does "Parrots of the Wild."
