Two Siberian tigers lay side by side, basking in the sun near the Amur River in far eastern Russia.
Actually, the female - Ninotchka - was asleep. The male - Boris - was awake, and had obviously been deep in thought.
"Nina, would you describe me as 'majestic,' or maybe 'steady'?"
Ninotchka opened one eye. "What are you going on about?"
"I'm asking for your opinion. Do you think of me as 'majestic,' or 'steady'?"
She opened both eyes, stretched, and gave him a long look. "Do I have any other choices?"
Boris gave her a half-hearted scowl. "Come on, Nina. I'm asking for a serious answer."
She stood up, turned all the way around once, then sat back on her haunches. "Okay, I'll try to give you a serious answer, but I think I need a little more info. What's this all about?"
"Okay, a little more information. A group of scientists have discovered that tigers have personalities."
"Wait, hold it right there. Is there any living thing that doesn't have a personality? I mean, if they're alive, don't they...?
"Okay, I see your question, but remember that these are human scientists I'm talking about. Humans seem to believe that they're the only animals that can really think about what they do, have real feelings and emotions about what they're doing."
"And what are we supposed to be doing, when we do things?"
"I'm not entirely sure. I think they feel that we just sort of sit around, wait for something to happen, and then just instinctively do what needs doing."
"So we sit here, and an elk walks by. We run it down, catch it and kill it, and eat it. No emotion involved?"
"Apparently not."
"Does it taste good? I mean, if it's just instinct, it doesn't have to taste good."
"I'm not sure."
"When we copulate - just instinct? How come it seems to feel pretty good at times, and sometimes even downright fun?"
"I'm just saying what they think. Anyway, in this study they had humans watch the behavior of about 150 tigers, and then rank their behavior on the basis of 70 different descriptive words. In other words, which of those 70 words seemed to describe the individual tiger they were watching. Then, they grouped their findings into two dimensions of personality, and described them as 'majestic' and 'steady'."
Ninotchka pondered that information for a few moments. "Now, as I recall basic human personality evaluations, they include five dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Even in the setting up of their study, they've made sure that humans will have more variety of personality than other animals. Well, that's convenient, if a little obvious. So, they've given us 'majesty' and 'steadiness.' Which of the Big Five are those equivalent to?"
"They say that 'majesty' would be closest to extraversion. 'Steadiness' is the opposite of neuroticism."
"The opposite of neuroticism? What the heck does that mean?"
"You tell me."
"Hmm. It's been awhile since I delved into this but, as I recall, neurotics were emotional, temperamental, easily upset, and self-conscious. I guess the opposite of that would be calm, relaxed, and good at handling stress. How does that fit with the qualities they listed for 'steady'?"
"I guess, pretty good. I think they considered their 'steady' tigers to be quiet, tolerant, friendly, respectful..."
"Okay. I agree that's a pretty good match. Now, what about 'majestic' being like their description of 'extraverse?' I seem to remember that extraverts are outgoing, assertive, energetic... Let's see. They like action, and don't mind taking risks. Do those terms match with what they considered to be 'agreeable'?"
"I'm trying to remember. I know they used dignified, confident, and resourceful. I think of a majestic tiger as a respected leader, and I guess those terms fit. But I'm also remembering that they used terms like savage, greedy, cruel, competitive, uncompromising, bullying... Those don't seem like leadership terms to me."
"No, they don't to me, either. They're not even the opposite of extraversion, which would describe someone more reserved, private, and maybe more methodical. I would think that savage, bullying, and uncompromising were terms that go in the category of agreeableness - one of the categories they use for humans, but not for tigers. Those might be terms used for a 'leader,' if it was a tyrant who took control and ruled by force, but I certainly wouldn't call it 'majestic' behavior.
"In limiting the tiger personalities to only two categories, I think they're really mixing apples and oranges. They're granting that some animals may be more than one dimensional, but they still won't admit to complexities anywhere near human behavior.
"I just thought of something else. I suppose all of their observations were made on tigers in zoos?"
"Well, in zoos, and in those 'wild animal parks' - broader open spaces..."
"But still captives - not really free to be tigers. That makes quite a bit of difference."
"As I recall, they do acknowledge that their observations and conclusions might be a little different if they had been dealing with free-ranging tigers."
"A little different? I can't imagine that tiger behavior in captivity is anything like tiger behavior in the wild - particularly with cats that have been in captivity a long time, or have never known freedom. From what I know about humans in prisons, I think some of them just hunker down, be as agreeable as they can, and don't make waves. Others start up their own prison gangs, and bully even their own cell mates. I think tigers and other animals must behave the same way, adapting whatever attitudes they think they need to survive.
"Here's one more question for you? What conclusion did they draw from their study? How can they use the results?"
"As I recall, they just said that knowing tigers have personalities might help humans understand us better - might help them react to us with more compassion and understanding."
Ninotchka stretched out in a patch of sunlight. "Well, that's really great, isn't it?"
"I think you're being sarcastic."
"I think I am, too." She closed her eyes.
"What do you want to do, now?"
She opened one eye. "I was enjoying a nice nap, when you interrupted it with your question. I think I will continue my nap, now."
"Well, before you do, Nina, what do you think? Am I majestic, or steady?"
She stood up, then settled back on her haunches. "Okay. You are not majestic. I don't know what that term meant to the human researchers, but to me it implies kingliness - somebody greater and more important than the rest of us. Tigers don't have kings or presidents. On the occasions when we need a strong leader, many of us can - and do - step forward. You are certainly one of our strong leaders. Looking at the terms they used for 'majestic,' you are certainly confident and resourceful, but you are definitely not savage, ferocious, cruel, or uncompromising. Using their definition of extraversion as similar to 'majestic,' you're outgoing, mostly energetic, and assertive when you need to be. I don't think of you as being a great risk-taker, or being 'action-oriented,' unless action is really necessary.
"Are you 'steady?' Well, you're friendly, sincere, tolerant, and respectful. You're definitely not 'obedient,' but I don't think that's a term anybody would ever use for any wild tiger. Thinking of 'steady' as the opposite of neurotic, you're generally calm and relaxed, and you handle stress tolerably.
"So, using just their two tiers of behavior, you're a bit of both - as I imagine every tiger is. Using the three elements they use for humans, but not for tigers, I would say that you are curious, inquisitive, adventurous at times, generally organized and disciplined, compassionate, helpful,, considerate, and tolerant. In addition, you have a nice face, and a great body. You're an excellent lover. You have a terrific sense of humor, and you're generally nice to have around - except on the very rare occasions, when you can be a real pain in the... Well, you know where.
"In other words, you are an all-round, superb specimen of tiger maleness, and I love you dearly. Now, can I continue my nap. No, wait a minute. Do you want to explain how you found out all the details of this study?"
"No. Do you want to explain your obvious in-depth knowledge of human psychological testing?"
"Of course not. Any humans reading this would have trouble getting past the fact of two non-human animals communicating intelligently with one another. Letting them get a glimpse of our research skills would blow their minds. Let's leave them some blissful feelings of superiority."