Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why We're Not Anthropomorphising Dogs

  • 28-05-2009 2:51pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭


    I hate it when people bítch about people anthropomorphizing their dogs.

    Unlike cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, snakes, lizards, horses or any other kind of pet or companion animal one could possibly have, dogs understand humans. They have evolved alongside them for thousands upon thousands of years. Their motives are unselfish and not just ruled by desire for food.

    The thing about dogs is that they have been at our sides for so long, they have taken up human traits. Us thinking our dogs understand or thinking our dogs feel and share emotions isn't anthropomorphism at all. Dogs have a very strange relationship with human beings and understand us often a lot better than we believe. We have ultimately created the perfect companion creature in dogs-- loyal, honest, loving, and understanding of us.

    There's been a lot of scientific research, especially lately, that indicates dogs can read our emotions and feelings from our faces and body language. That they have "morals" and know when they've done right or wrong. Any dog owner has seen their dog act guilty or proud. They've all had their dog comfort them when they're sad and share in their joy. Articles here and here reference these studies. There's thousands more articles out there that do the same.

    Yes, dogs are animals, but they are most certainly not wild. They have a special understanding of humans that no other animal in the world has-- not even our closest animal relatives, the primates. I think people pawning off our perception of dogs' actions or feelings as simple anthropomorphism are quite honestly doing our canine companions a great injustice by underestimation.

    I grew up with dogs. There hasn't been a time in my life when I haven't had one except when travelling. I have seen them get angry and frustrated, get snappy and irritated when in a bad mood, go through depression when another dog or a human passed, share in my excitement and joy, become defensive of me and my family, become suspicious of certain new faces and welcoming of others, become guilty when I haven't even noticed anything's amiss yet. They have comforted me when I was inconsolable or sick. They have missed people when they leave for awhile. This is not anthropomorphism. This is the trait of an incredibly special animal like no other creature in the world.

    Here's to our dogs, and the world of joy and delight they bring to us. May they forever be considered man's best friend, and may their underestimation cease.


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 476 ✭✭Blueprint


    As a cat and dog lover, I get annoyed by the "Dogs are wonderful, not like cats who care about nothing but their food" attitude".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    There's a big difference between cats and dogs, though. Ultimately cats have not had the history with humans that dogs have. They have not been both best friend and work companion. They have not spent thousands upon thousands of years by our side and thus haven't evolved alongside us in near the same way as dogs.

    This isn't a cats vs. dogs thing. This is the fact that dogs have an understanding of us that no other animal could possibly have due to the fact that they have been with us pretty much every step of the way. It's history.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 527 ✭✭✭Call me Socket


    liah wrote: »
    I grew up with dogs. There hasn't been a time in my life when I haven't had one except when travelling. I have seen them get angry and frustrated, get snappy and irritated when in a bad mood, go through depression when another dog or a human passed, share in my excitement and joy, become defensive of me and my family, become suspicious of certain new faces and welcoming of others, become guilty when I haven't even noticed anything's amiss yet. They have comforted me when I was inconsolable or sick. They have missed people when they leave for awhile. This is not anthropomorphism. This is the trait of an incredibly special animal like no other creature in the world.
    That's a lovely part of your post....

    I'm not sure they understand us per se. I think they can be incredibly perceptive though.

    liah wrote: »
    Here's to our dogs, and the world of joy and delight they bring to us. May they forever be considered man's best friend, and may their underestimation cease.
    Here here!icon14.gif


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 476 ✭✭Blueprint


    The cat (Felis catus), also known as the domestic cat or house cat to distinguish it from other felines and felids, is a small predatory carnivorous species of crepuscular mammal that is valued by humans for its companionship and its ability to hunt vermin, snakes, scorpions, and other unwanted household pests. It has been associated with humans for at least 9,500 years.[5]

    A skilled predator, the cat is known to hunt over 1,000 species for food. It can be trained to obey simple commands. Individual cats have also been known to learn on their own to manipulate simple mechanisms, such as doorknobs and toilet handles.[6] Cats use a variety of vocalizations and types of body language for communication, including meowing, purring, hissing, growling, squeaking, chirping, clicking, and grunting.[7] Cats may be the most popular pet in the world, with over 600 million in homes all over the world.[8] They are also bred and shown as registered pedigree pets. This hobby is known as "cat fancy".

    Until recently the cat was commonly believed to have been domesticated in ancient Egypt, where it was a cult animal.[9] However, a 2007 study found that the lines of descent of all house cats probably run through as few as five self-domesticating African Wildcats (Felis silvestris lybica) circa 8000 BC, in the Near East.[4]


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    The domestication of the gray wolf took place in a handful of events roughly 15,000 years ago in central Asia. The dog quickly became ubiquitous across culture in all parts of the world, and was extremely valuable to early human settlements. For instance, it is believed that the successful emigration across the Bering Strait might not have been possible without sled dogs. As a result of the domestication process, the dog developed a sophisticated intelligence that includes unparalleled social cognition and a simple theory of mind that is important to their interaction with humans. These social skills have helped the dog to perform in myriad roles, such as hunting, herding, protection, and, more recently, assisting handicapped individuals.

    You can make the argument about cats all you like; there is nothing like the dog in terms of relating to and understanding humans. It's not my opinion, it's a simple historical fact.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    liah wrote: »
    Their motives are unselfish

    And that is the biggest antropomorphism of them all. :D

    Yes, dogs have evolved to be more or less perfect companions for humans. They have learned to read and understand us often better that we read and understand ourselves. They dream, they have moodswings, they have (limited) emotions and a rake of other wonderful traits.

    But they are not unselfish, much to the contrary.

    By having abandoned the wild as source for food and ultimately survival and having attached themselves to us, dogs as a "species" were under the evolutionary pressure to wring as much favour out of us as they could in order to survive.

    Dogs pretty much totally depend on us (and over their history with us have become ever more dependent) and rely on us for an awful lot. Food, shelter, care, protection, etc. It is in their interest that we not only tolerate them but love and indulge them. In their short but turbulent evolution from wolf to lapdog human selection has seen to it that only those survived and propagated that were the most agreeable to us. The species dog has had a genetical advantage in being "nice" to us and only the most endearing dogs (or the most effective workers) made the grade on the survival stakes.

    Dogs are genetically selfish (like any other being)

    But they are also individually selfish. Next time you see your dog, look at it with a cold eye ...it does things for you because it wants things form you. It will look at you with "those" eyes, not becaue it loves you or adores you, but because it wants you to move your butt so it can lie on the sofa as well. :D

    It doesn't come to to express its undying love for you, but to get your attention ..a very valuable commodity in the doggy world.

    When you're sick and your dog "consoles" you, it doesn't do that out of worry for you, instead it senses that something is wrong and on the mere suspiscion that it may have been the cause (and now out of favour) it cozies up to you. (doesn't make it any less enjoyable or endearing)

    Dogs are hard wired for social interaction and to be integrated into a social structure. They will do everyting in their power to be a good member of the "pack". Not out of civility or a sense of duty ...but simply because they are miserable when they feel outcast.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    A lot of that is quite arguable, especially the consolation bits, but I think you took my "unselfish" remark to an extreme tbh-- I don't mean wholly unselfish, like robots or something, I just mean they do a lot of things for us that other humans wouldn't do out of selfishness or not wanting to put themselves in a certain position or situation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 923 ✭✭✭sorella


    Amen, amen, amen.

    Wonderful post.

    The art of course is to love and cherish them as they really are. As with cats also. Not to mak them out to be what they are not

    And to think more of humans also.

    Many of whom are utterly unselfish in spite of all their basic instincts.

    This is probably why some think of dogs as so great; because they have been let down by people.

    And they thus distort the dog.
    peasant wrote: »
    And that is the biggest antropomorphism of them all. :D

    Yes, dogs have evolved to be more or less perfect companions for humans. They have learned to read and understand us often better that we read and understand ourselves. They dream, they have moodswings, they have (limited) emotions and a rake of other wonderful traits.

    But they are not unselfish, much to the contrary.

    By having abandoned the wild as source for food and ultimately survival and having attached themselves to us, dogs as a "species" were under the evolutionary pressure to wring as much favour out of us as they could in order to survive.

    Dogs pretty much totally depend on us (and over their history with us have become ever more dependent) and rely on us for an awful lot. Food, shelter, care, protection, etc. It is in their interest that we not only tolerate them but love and indulge them. In their short but turbulent evolution from wolf to lapdog human selection has seen to it that only those survived and propagated that were the most agreeable to us. The species dog has had a genetical advantage in being "nice" to us and only the most endearing dogs (or the most effective workers) made the grade on the survival stakes.

    Dogs are genetically selfish (like any other being)

    But they are also individually selfish. Next time you see your dog, look at it with a cold eye ...it does things for you because it wants things form you. It will look at you with "those" eyes, not becaue it loves you or adores you, but because it wants you to move your butt so it can lie on the sofa as well. :D

    It doesn't come to to express its undying love for you, but to get your attention ..a very valuable commodity in the doggy world.

    When you're sick and your dog "consoles" you, it doesn't do that out of worry for you, instead it senses that something is wrong and on the mere suspiscion that it may have been the cause (and now out of favour) it cozies up to you. (doesn't make it any less enjoyable or endearing)

    Dogs are hard wired for social interaction and to be integrated into a social structure. They will do everyting in their power to be a good member of the "pack". Not out of civility or a sense of duty ...but simply because they are miserable when they feel outcast.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    op what you are saying is the very definition of the word

    'Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.'

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropomorphising

    it is your opinion that only dogs have these attributes, it is others opinion that cats have them. your assertion that cats have not been around humans like dogs have have already been disproved.

    but it really dosnt matter because you love dogs thats fine but you are anthropomorphising them weather thats a bad thing or not is personal opinion


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    I suggest reading the following, and googling for others;

    Dogs have souls, but you already knew that By Electa Draper
    The Denver Post



    DENVER — For centuries, humans have imagined they are the only animals with morals. But humans are not alone in the moral arena, a new breed of behavior experts says.
    Natural historian Jake Page said some scientists are acknowledging what pet owners have told their canines all along: "Good dog."
    Dogs are full of natural goodness and have rich emotional lives, said animal behaviorist Marc Bekoff, professor emeritus at the University of Colorado, Boulder.
    A dog's code of ethics is on display daily in parks, backyards and family rooms.
    "We're not trying to elevate animals," Bekoff said. "We're not trying to reduce humans. We're not saying we're better or worse or the same. We're saying we're not alone in having a nuanced moral system."
    Page, author of "Do Dogs Smile?," said biology no longer dismisses dogs and other animals as "furry automatons" driven by instinct and food.
    "People like Bekoff have figured out how to measure these things," Page said. "It's a whole new ballgame for studying dog personalities and emotions."
    Bekoff, co-author of "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals," spent thousands of hours observing coyotes, wolves and dogs. He analyzed videotapes frame by frame. The work convinced him these animals possess empathy and compassion, the emotions upon which moral sense is built.
    While much the same can be said of monkeys, wolves, elephants, dolphins, whales and other social animals, dogs are special cases; they share in human lives, he said.
    "Dogs know they are dependent. They learn to read us," Bekoff said. "Dogs develop this great sense of trust. We're tightly linked, and there is something spiritual about that unity."
    This intimacy and mutual influence prompted Harvard University to open a Canine Cognition Lab, where researchers attempt to gain insight into the psychology of humans and dogs.
    "I'm convinced many animals can distinguish right from wrong," Bekoff said.
    He said looking for the roots of morality in animals is a difficult scientific undertaking. It begins with looking for emotions central to morality, such as empathy: understanding of another's situation, feelings and motives.
    In humans, emotions are centered in specific brain structures and are affected by chemicals called neurotransmitters. Mammals possess the same brain structures, affected by the same chemicals as humans.
    "Dogs apparently laugh," Page said. The same brain structures show the same activity in laughing humans and in dogs that are enjoying themselves. A dog's laugh is a rhythmic pant.
    Play is necessary for healthy brain development in animals and is seen in many mammalian, and some avian, species, Bekoff said.
    Play hones cognitive skills and later helps in hunting and mating. And play would not be possible without cooperation and trust.
    "Virtue is its own reward," Bekoff said. "Fairer is fitter."
    To prevent any misunderstanding, a dog will signal to another dog that the imminent jostling, nipping and chasing are "just play" rather than aggression, he said.
    The game is initiated with the "play bow." A dog, wolf or coyote will crouch on its forelimbs while keeping its rear upright.
    Any hard-biting cheats find themselves excluded from games.
    "Dogs are thinking animals," Bekoff said. "They seek the outcomes they want. They avoid the ones they don't. They solve problems. They have expectations. They have hopes."
    Critics skeptical about some research trends in animal thinking, emotion and morality downplay the evidence as often anecdotal and anthropomorphic, that is attributing human motivation or characteristics to animals.
    Bekoff countered that thousands of anecdotes equal data. And anthropomorphism, he said, is a misleading label for what is a shared evolutionary history.
    Humans and dogs share most of their genes and a great deal of physiology and behavior. Bekoff sees that shared heritage extending into the spiritual realm.
    "If we have souls, our animals have souls. If we have free choice, they have it," Bekoff said. "If we can't know this for sure, let's give them the benefit of a doubt."



    and



    Dogs can read emotion in human faces



    By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
    Last Updated: 4:54PM GMT 10 Nov 2008


    Dogs are the only animals that can read emotion in faces much like humans, cementing their position as man's best friend, claim scientists.
    • Dogs have a sense of right and wrong
    • Dogs 'may be able to read their owner's minds'
    • Dogs display aspects of human intelligence
    Research findings suggest that, like an understanding best friend, they can see at a glance if we are happy, sad, pleased or angry.

    When humans look at a new face their eyes tend to wander left, falling on the right hand side of the person's face first.

    This "left gaze bias" only occurs when we encounter faces and does not apply any other time, such as when inspecting animals or inanimate objects.



    A possible reason for the tendency is that the right side of the human face is better at expressing emotional state.
    Researchers at the University of Lincoln have now shown that pet dogs also exhibit "left gaze bias", but only when looking at human faces. No other animal has been known to display this behaviour before.
    A team led by Dr Kun Guo showed 17 dogs images of human, dog and monkey faces as well as inanimate objects.
    Film of the dogs' eye and head movement revealed a strong left gaze bias when the animals were presented with human faces. But this did not occur when they were shown other images, including those of dogs.
    "Guo suggests that over thousands of generations of association with humans, dogs may have evolved the left gaze bias as a way to gauge our emotions," New Scientist magazine reported.
    "Recent studies show that the right side of our faces can express emotions more accurately and more intensely than the left, including anger. If true, then it makes sense for dogs - and humans - to inspect the right hand side of a face first."
    Surprisingly, when the dogs in the study were shown an upside-down human face, they still looked left. In contrast, humans lose their left gaze bias altogether when shown an inverted face.
    This may be because the right side of a dog's brain, which processes information from the left visual field, is better adapted to interpreting human facial emotion than the left side, the scientists believe.



    and



    Dogs have become more intelligent, and even learnt a sense of right and wrong, through spending time with humans, a study shows.

    Although still controversial, recent research is beginning to support the view that an owner is perfectly correct when they pat their pet and coo "who's a clever boy then?"


    Because of the way owners have selected smarter and more empathic dogs down the generations, these pets now appear to have a limited "theory of mind", the capacity that enables us to understand the desires, motivations and intentions of others, New Scientist reports today.
    A decade ago, most scientists would dismiss the claims of dog owners that their precious pets could experience pain, excitement and other "human emotions" as sentimental claptrap that anthropomorphises the abilities of animals.
    Now that dismissive view has been challenged by studies presented a few weeks ago at the first Canine Science Forum in Budapest, Hungary, which back the idea that the 10,000 years that the descendants of grey wolves have spent evolving alongside humans have had a remarkable effect on dog cognition.
    In a remarkable experiment to probe canine cognition, Prof Ludwig Huber and colleagues at the University of Vienna put dogs through a classic experiment done with children in which an instructor demonstrates to a toddler how to turn off a light using her forehead, once with her hands clearly visible and once when wrapped in a shawl, so that she can't use them.
    When invited to turn the light off for themselves, toddlers who were shown the first version use their heads, but those shown the second use their hands.
    The standard interpretation is that the first group conclude that there must be a good but non-obvious reason for using the forehead method, as otherwise the instructor would have used her hands. Dogs do the same thing in Prof Huber's experiments, where they had to pull a lever to obtain a reward, lending support to the idea that dogs have a rudimentary "theory of mind."
    They possess a moral compass too, in order to negotiate the complex social world of people, adds Prof Marc Bekoff from the University of Colorado at Boulder.
    He argues that the fact that rough-and-tumble dog play rarely escalates into full-blown fighting shows that the animals abide by rules and expect others to do the same. In other words, they know right from wrong.
    Dr Friederike Range from the University of Vienna, Austria, has found in experiments where one pooch was given a treat and another denied it that dogs possess a sense of fairness too, though she stresses that the data are not yet published.
    "Dogs show some aversion to inequity," she says. "I prefer not to call it a sense of fairness, but others might."
    Barking is rare among feral dogs, suggesting that it evolved during domestication to allow dogs to communicate with us, says Prof Péter Pongrácz from Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. His team has even found a way to use a computer program to understand what dogs are trying to tell us, and can disern whether a pet is barking at a ball, or wants to play with greater accuracy than their owners.
    Akiko Takaoka from Kyoto University, Japan, played dogs recordings of unfamiliar voices - both male and female - with each voice followed by a photo of a human face on a screen. If the gender of the face did not match that of the voice, the dogs stared longer, a sign that the image did not match their expectations and yet more evidence that they have been honed to communicate with people.
    Meanwhile, Dr Juliane Kaminski at the University of Cambridge has examined how dogs can use human gestures such as pointing and gazing to find hidden food or toys and concludes that dogs do understand that we are trying to tell them something. "Domestication seems to have shaped dogs in a way which enables them to use these gestures from as early as six weeks," she tells New Scientist.



    and



    Dogs 'may be able to read their owner's minds'

    By Roger Highfield, Science Editor


    Last Updated: 11:02PM GMT 10 Nov 2008


    Comments 20 | Comment on this article


    Evidence that dogs may be able to read the mind of their owners comes today with a study that shows that dogs can "catch" human yawns.

    Scientists have known for decades that yawns are infectious among people, so much so that simply reading or thinking about them can trigger a chain reaction of gaping mouths in what they call "contagious yawning".

    Yawns can spread in a similar way among chimpanzees and macaques too, though not among people with autism, and is thought to be linked with empathy and the ability to read the thoughts of another individual.

    Now the first ever study to report that human yawns induce yawning in dogs is published today in the journal Biology Letters by a team led by Dr Atsushi Senju of Birkbeck College, University of London.

    They presented 29 dogs with yawning humans and also with a control movement, where people just opened their mouths.
    Even though a wide variety of breed was represented, such as Dobermans, Yorkshire Terriers, Dachshund, Spaniels, Labradors and more besides, they found that 21 of the dogs yawned in response, showing that "dogs possess the capacity for a rudimentary form of empathy."
    This supports recent research, said Dr Senju. "Other studies also demonstrated that dogs follow human pointing, more likely to tell humans the location of hidden objects when they didn't see the object being hidden, and tend to steal food when the humans are looking away or closing their eyes."
    The reason that dog and man are best friends is that they were domesticated 15,000 or more years ago when our ancestors started to produce more food than they could consume and befriended wolves, probably animals that liked to spend time in human company.
    Fido's great-great-grandmother was a grey wolf who took more interest in humans than her peers did. Subsequent selection of those dogs that were more communicative and aware of human emotions probably helped them to be so empathic.
    "As the dog's amazing skills to read human communication cues are thought to have been selected by human over last 15,000 years, it is also possible that the same evolutionary process affected their skills to empathise with humans," he said.
    But he said more work must be done to prove this conjecture. "Another possibility is that contagious yawning (and possibly empathy) could be a more widespread characteristics among mammals."
    The former explanation, that they are empathic, would back other work that shows that ill and elderly people do better with pets. "It is possible that such contagion coordinate the mood status between the dogs and humans. We may even feel like that "(my) dog understand my feelings" based on their contagious behaviour."
    But surprisingly little is known about the mechanisms underlying this common expression of tedium, with some arguing it is a mere reflex and others that it shows we empathise with another person.
    The yawn is primal, being present in a vast range of creatures: mammals and most other animals with backbones yawn as well as fish, turtles, crocodiles and birds. But the fundamental reason we yawn remains mysterious.
    It does not always mean an individual is tired - it could help increase the state of alertness, may help keep the brain cool and is linked with being nervous too.



    and


    Dogs display aspects of human intelligence

    By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

    Last Updated: 6:51PM GMT 29 Nov 2007



    Dogs-display-aspects-of-human-intelligence.html Training stimuli: Images of dogs and landscapes are used to test dogs' recognition of abstract concepts


    Dog lovers have long claimed that their pets are smarter than many of us realise.

    New evidence to back that view comes from research published today which concludes that, like us, our canine friends are able to form abstract concepts.

    Friederike Range and colleagues from the University of Vienna, Austria, show for the first time that dogs are able to learn how to classify complex colour photographs and place them into categories in the same way that humans do.

    "Dogs were for a long time considered to be just pets - so showing that they are able to also form abstract concepts maybe gives their cognitive abilities more credit," she said.

    However, the abstract concept they were able to grasp in this pioneering experiment was rather familiar, that of "dog."

    The team reports in the journal Animal Cognition a clever way to show that the dogs are not picking up subtle signals from their handlers: the dogs successfully demonstrate their learning through the use of computer touch-screens, eliminating potential human influences.

    Four dogs were shown both landscape and dog photographs simultaneously and were rewarded with food if they selected the dog picture on the touch screen.



    Then they were shown a new set of dog and landscape pictures. They continued to reliably select the dog photographs, demonstrating that they could transfer their knowledge gained in the training phase to a new circumstance, even though they had never seen those particular pictures before.
    In a second test, the dogs were faced with a choice between a new dog pasted on a familiar landscape and a completely new landscape with no dog, In this case, they reliably selected the landscape with the dog.
    "These results show that the dogs were able to form a concept, that is 'dog', although the experiment cannot tell us whether they recognized the dog pictures as actual dogs," said Dr Range.
    "Using touch-screen computers with dogs opens up a whole world of possibilities on how to test the cognitive abilities of dogs."
    The dogs that took part were a Border Collie (Maggie), one Border Collie mix (Lucy), one Australian Shepherd (Bertl), and one mongrel (Todor). Two dogs were male (Bertl, Todor), two were female (Maggie, Lucy).
    In earlier work, the team showed striking similarities between humans and dogs in the way they imitate others, showing they do more than copy. They also interpet what they see.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    /sigh you completely missed my point but never mind


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    op what you are saying is the very definition of the word

    'Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.'

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Anthropomorphising

    it is your opinion that only dogs have these attributes, it is others opinion that cats have them. your assertion that cats have not been around humans like dogs have have already been disproved.

    but it really dosnt matter because you love dogs thats fine but you are anthropomorphising them weather thats a bad thing or not is personal opinion

    It's not my opinion dogs have these attributes, it's been subject to study for some time as the articles referenced do okay in showing.

    Cats have them, but not to the same degree as dogs, and that has been proven. Cats have not been around humans like dogs, that has not been disproven. Read the articles-- there is no other animal like the dog when it comes to human relations, and that is NOT my opinion, it is a fact.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    liah wrote: »
    I suggest reading the following, and googling for others;

    It may have escaped your notice, but all your quoted articles (if not in the body of the article, then in the heading) are antropomorph-ing/-isizing in that they mix cold scientific facts with a uniquely human interpretation.

    A typical doggy play invitation gesture now means that they have "souls"?

    They can read our emotions and that makes them our "understanding best friends" ?

    Having rules of engagement for inter-doggy play suddenly provides them with a "moral compass"?

    The yawn one is the real killer! Yawning is a calming signal among dogs...when they get yawned at they'll yawn back ...but this article credits them with "mind reading" capabilities :D

    The last one is just as much of a howler: Dogs can recognise the abstract shape of another dog ..whoopdeedoo, whaddasurprise ... but it's enough for the editor to credit them with "aspects of human intelligence" in the heading ...as if intelligence on its own wasn't good enough.

    Which brings us neatly back to the reason why antropomorphisizing is wrong ...it discredits the dogs and all their wonderful capabilities because it only calls them wonderful if they can somehow be construed to be similar to ours.

    Balls to that !


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    my point was that everything you are saying and quoting is anthropomorphising the animals


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    my point was that everything you are saying and quoting is anthropomorphising the animals

    mine too :D

    and just to clarify: I am not disputing the scientific findings in the quoted articles, but I take umbrage with the way they are interpreted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    peasant wrote: »
    It may have escaped your notice, but all your quoted articles (if not in the body of the article, then in the heading) are antropomorph-ing/-isizing in that they mix cold scientific facts with a uniquely human interpretation.

    A typical doggy play invitation gesture now means that they have "souls"?

    They can read our emotions and that makes them our "understanding best friends" ?

    Having rules of engagement for inter-doggy play suddenly provides them with a "moral compass"?

    The yawn one is the real killer! Yawning is a calming signal among dogs...when they get yawned at they'll yawn back ...but this article credits them with "mind reading" capabilities :D

    The last one is just as much of a howler: Dogs can recognise the abstract shape of another dog ..whoopdeedoo, whaddasurprise ... but it's enough for the editor to credit them with "aspects of human intelligence" in the heading ...as if intelligence on its own wasn't good enough.

    Which brings us neatly back to the reason why antropomorphisizing is wrong ...it discredits the dogs and all their wonderful capabilities because it only calls them wonderful if they can somehow be construed to be similar to ours.

    Balls to that !

    I think you're missing my points actually. And took the "soul" and "mind-reading" thing too literally :p

    Of course they're not human. Of course they perceive things differently to humans. But generally when people anthropomorphise it's to degrade the intelligence of a beast and consider it just that-- a mindless beast.

    My point is they do think, they do feel, they do have their own version of morals, they do relate to us and they do have emotions in a very similar and relatible way to our own that should not be discredited as "well they're only just an animal." They're not like other animals, they're the single animal that has evolved as a species to specifically to suit, communicate with, and understand us.

    It's a stand against people who think they're just dumb animals who only do things for themselves and that they only stick around for food or other selfish reasons-- which is completely not true, look at all the horribly loyal and affectionate dogs who get starved and beaten by their owners. They're obviously not just in it for themselves, are they?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    I'm with you all the way (well most of it) ...except on your interpretation of anthropomorphism
    an·thro·po·mor·phism (nthr-p-môrfzm)
    n.
    The attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to nonhuman organisms or inanimate objects

    EDIT:

    Oh ..and by the way ...most animals above the stage of amoeba are more than just "dumb animals" and are capable of feats that we usually and traditionally don't credit them with.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    peasant wrote: »
    I'm with you all the way (well most of it) ...except on your interpretation of anthropomorphism



    EDIT:

    Oh ..and by the way ...most animals above the stage of amoeba are more than just "dumb animals" and are capable of feats that we usually and traditionally don't credit them with.

    Ah no I don't disagree there.

    I am admittedly using a loose version of anthropomorphism, as in "don't anthropomorphise the dog, it doesn't actually care, it just wants food from you" when while that is the case sometimes (and boy do they make that known :P), it isn't overall considering they could take off and get food from anyone.

    It's just during our uniquely shared evolution they have picked up certain human characteristics-- it's inevitable when two species grow so closely together. Cats have done the same to a degree but not quite on the same level as dogs. It's clear that we have had impact on their evolution and means of adapting, perceiving, etc. It'd be nearly impossible not to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 923 ✭✭✭sorella


    This, especially the last paragraph, shows clearly that you are totally seeing a dog in human terms.

    yes, they stay loyal even to those who abuse them. Our dog Sandy loved her abusers so that they could nto see that they had abused her.

    Because they, lik you, were interpreting her response as if she were a human and was assessing them, saying they were fine.

    Dogs bond early to their owners; and from them on they have no choice. This is why we value them; they show unswerving devotion. Blindly, doggedly.

    I had a pet goose that did the same; I had helped him hatch and he bonded to the first moving creature he saw. There was no chosen loyalty. It is programmed into them to do that for survival. Had it seen a cat or a dog that would have been theirs.

    A dog is the same once it bonds; because it needs a protector in the unnatural world we have made for them.

    It is survival

    We choose; they do not.

    And they do not have souls, or morals. Of any kind.

    You are anthropomorthising 100 % here and it amazes.

    I see your points; but again it is misinterpretation. Assessing in human terms.

    Animals are capable of so much love; and maybe the opposite happens, that they pick up traits from us? I know pet lambs become much more acute and aware than wild ones.

    And there are things about them that will always be a mystery.
    liah wrote: »
    I think you're missing my points actually. And took the "soul" and "mind-reading" thing too literally :p

    Of course they're not human. Of course they perceive things differently to humans. But generally when people anthropomorphise it's to degrade the intelligence of a beast and consider it just that-- a mindless beast.

    My point is they do think, they do feel, they do have their own version of morals, they do relate to us and they do have emotions in a very similar and relatible way to our own that should not be discredited as "well they're only just an animal." They're not like other animals, they're the single animal that has evolved as a species to specifically to suit, communicate with, and understand us.

    It's a stand against people who think they're just dumb animals who only do things for themselves and that they only stick around for food or other selfish reasons-- which is completely not true, look at all the horribly loyal and affectionate dogs who get starved and beaten by their owners. They're obviously not just in it for themselves, are they?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    sorella wrote: »
    We choose; they do not.

    And they do not have souls, or morals. Of any kind.

    I disagree with that greatly, and it's quite insulting to the species to insinuate. They have the ability to choose, and they can tell right from wrong. You just need to watch them with other dogs to know that.

    The "souls" thing isn't meant like a spirit. It's just meant to indicate individuality and personality and presence of mind. People just keep getting hung up on words for some reason.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 923 ✭✭✭sorella


    Words matter, Liah. "Soul" has a deep, spiritual meaning that is not valid here in any way.. It is not what you seem to think it is.. Quite separate from personality etc.

    They are pack animals.

    Which deals with most of your ideas here.

    They have a pecking order; so actually do hens when kept in groups

    For survival reasons; not like us when we refuse to accept and rebel

    Insulting is a bizarre word to use .

    No one here as most really love dogs, is insulting them.

    We have a situation here of some conflict because our two dogs have not yet sorted their pack status out. At present I have to be pack leader. Else they would kill each other in the need for dominance; and nothing can reason with that. They are dogs after all.

    But clearly you are polarising more and more so over and out.

    Time to take the mutts out for a last pee and to chase some birds.

    Over and out.

    liah wrote: »
    I disagree with that greatly, and it's quite insulting to the species to insinuate. They have the ability to choose, and they can tell right from wrong. You just need to watch them with other dogs to know that.

    The "souls" thing isn't meant like a spirit. It's just meant to indicate individuality and personality and presence of mind. People just keep getting hung up on words for some reason.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    sorella wrote: »
    Words matter, Liah. "Soul" has a deep, spiritual meaning that is not valid here in any way.. It is not what you seem to think it is.. Quite separate from personality etc.

    No, but the context from which it was picked indicated it was about presence of mind moreso than anything spiritual.
    Else they would kill each other in the need for dominance; and nothing can reason with that.

    Arguably so do people. But anyway, I highly doubt domesticated dogs would kill each other for need of dominance. Wolves, maybe, but not domesticated dogs. Hell, even wolves very rarely "kill eachother" in the name of dominance.

    I think you're underestimating them, that's all. Their reactions to life are quite similar to ours. That's my entire point. They're not like other animals, because they've evolved and adapted to suit us so closely as a companion. Yes, other animals have evolved and adapted to suit us, but none of them have the same perception of humans as dogs do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,602 ✭✭✭patmac


    People need to look at things from the cat's and dog's point of view here are extracts from their respective diaries:
    Excerpts from a Dog's Diary......

    8:00 am - Dog food! My favourite thing!

    9:30 am - A car ride! My favourite thing!

    9:40 am - A walk in the park! My favourite thing!

    10:30 am - Got rubbed and petted! My favourite thing!

    12:00 pm - Lunch! My favourite thing!

    1:00 pm - Played in the yard! My favourite thing!

    3:00 pm - Wagged my tail! My favourite thing!

    5:00 pm - Milk bones! My favourite thing!

    7:00 pm - Got to play ball! My favourite thing!

    8:00 pm - Wow! Watched TV with the people! My favourite thing!

    11:00 pm - Sleeping on the bed! My favourite thing!


    Excerpts from a Cat's Daily Diary. ..

    Day 983 of my captivity.

    My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects.

    They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while the other inmates and I are fed hash or some sort of dry nuggets.

    Although I make my contempt for the rations perfectly clear, I nevertheless must eat something in order to keep up my strength.

    The only thing that keeps me going is my dream of escape.

    In an attempt to disgust them, I once again vomit on the carpet.

    Today I decapitated a mouse and dropped its headless body at their feet.

    I had hoped this would strike fear into their hearts, since it clearly demonstrates what I am capable of.

    However, they merely made condescending comments about what a "good little hunter" I am. Bastards.

    There was some sort of assembly of their accomplices tonight.

    I was placed in solitary confinement for the duration of the event.

    However, I could hear the noises and smell the food.

    I overheard that my confinement was due to the power of "allergies."

    I must learn what this means and how to use it to my advantage.

    Today I was almost successful in an attempt to assassinate one of my tormentors by weaving around his feet as he was walking.

    I must try this again tomorrow -- but at the top of the stairs.

    I am convinced that the other prisoners here are flunkies and snitches.

    The dog receives special privileges.

    He is regularly released - and seems to be more than willing to return.
    He is obviously retarded.

    The bird has got to be an informant.

    I observe him communicating with the guards regularly.

    I am certain that he reports my every move.

    My captors have arranged protective custody for him in an elevated cell,

    so he is safe. For now................


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    liah wrote: »
    I am admittedly using a loose version of anthropomorphism,

    There is no such thing as a "loose version". That's why someone came up with that annoyingly complicated word ...to clearly define what it is and it isn't ...otherwise they'd called it "jack"

    Here is a good article on why it is wrong to anthropomorphisize your dogs:
    http://www.understandinganimals.com/article/12

    an excerpt:
    I cannot tell you how many times people have said to me that their Dog thinks it is human and I always give the same answer “No it doesn’t it thinks you’re a dog”.

    If we could teach a dog to draw and give the concept of a “God” it would draw “God” as a dog. Many so called dog trainers and countless owners have a mistaken perception of what really constitutes a dog, and often have expectations far above the animal’s actual ability.

    Some people imagine that their dogs are little people in fur coats, and that their pets are able to understand complex thought patterns, and comprehend our moral and ethical codes; they assume a dog’s level of understanding is on a par with our own. Animals work on drive levels and instinct. It is vital to keep in mind that they do not have the capacity to comprehend the complex thought processes that bring us to understand human emotions, language, and behaviour.

    There is a scientific name for this “Anthropomorphism”: The textbook definition of anthropomorphism is “to assign emotions or thought patterns to animals or objects, which are incapable of achieving such dimensions”. This is like explaining that a vine climbs up the tree to get a better view of the garden. How often have you blamed your computer for being bloody minded and awkward?

    I believe that anthropomorphism is one of the main reasons we find immense difficulty communicating successfully with our pets. So why do we do it? Humans always find it easier to relate to something when they see their own emotions and thought patterns into the actions of their animals. Using the vine illustration, this is an example of projection. Projection is a psychological phenomenon in which one projects their feelings upon others, animals, or objects. This is useful in everyday life for it takes the guesswork out of reality. Instead of constantly contemplating why something is as it is, you simply put it into context with how you think and your everyday life.

    Dogs are capable of linking ideas together, but are totally incapable of linking actions that are separated by time. If for example a dog makes a mess on the floor during your absence, there is no point in telling the dog off or rubbing its nose in it, which to my mind is barbaric, you wouldn’t rub a child’s nose in a soiled nappy? and even if you did, what learning process would the child get?

    The dog’s brain cannot link the action with any passage of time. So many people say, “He knows he has done wrong” or “He looks as guilty as hell”. NO HE DOESN’T, he looks submissive because he can read every nuance of your body language and is aware you are annoyed, but not why?. This is because their brains are not formulated to feel guilt as we perceive it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    peasant wrote: »
    The dog’s brain cannot link the action with any passage of time. So many people say, “He knows he has done wrong” or “He looks as guilty as hell”. NO HE DOESN’T, he looks submissive because he can read every nuance of your body language and is aware you are annoyed, but not why?. This is because their brains are not formulated to feel guilt as we perceive it.

    That sure as hell doesn't explain why my dog started acting guilty about eating an entire carrot cake off the table before we'd even gone into the kitchen or noticed it was missing..

    Hell, I can think of loads of times my dogs have acted guilty despite us not knowing anything about why. Peeing on the carpet upstairs as puppies while we're all downstairs and unaware, then running away and hiding once we begin to go up the stairs, stealing food off the table while we're in another room and then disappearing, etc.

    Dogs definitely know when they've done wrong, believe you me, I've missed out on enough meals to know that one! :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,070 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Liah, I've seen many posts by you which state your favoritism to dogs. I don't know why you think cats are impersonable or indifferent to their owners affections.

    I have both a cat and a dog, sure enough my dog gets excited by my presence more than my cat but that doesn't make cats seem ''smug'' imho =p ... It makes them seem wiser to our actions if anything, because they're clever enough to know that being excitable will bring no reward.

    My cat show's immense affection, and I can't believe that it's solely driven for desire for food.
    That sure as hell doesn't explain why my dog started acting guilty about eating an entire carrot cake off the table before we'd even gone into the kitchen or noticed it was missing..

    Your applying a human emotion to your dog there, so I'd say that's Anthropomorphisation to some degree =p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    Your applying a human emotion to your dog there, so I'd say that's Anthropomorphisation to some degree =p

    I've nothing against cats but I was raised (nearly literally) by dogs, so yeah, everyone has their preferences. But it still doesn't change the fact that there's a lot of scientific research going on lately that is proving dogs are set apart from other companion animals, which was the initial point I was trying to get across.. even cats aren't at the same level. They're smart, yes, of their own type, but largely unchanged by human evolution. Dogs, on the other hand, have been.

    Anyway, dogs have their own version of guilt which they display with other dogs, you can't really call it anything else, guilty is the only word we have for it.. They skulk around low to the ground because they know they've done something displeasing. It's not anthropomorphism, imo, when you're using a currently existing term to label a behaviour. Of course it's a human term, are we meant to invent new words to label the dog's version? No, that would be a waste of dictionary space when the term pretty much covers the same reactions and behaviours in both species.

    It's like saying a dog is happy is anthropomorphism. Well when its whole body is shaking and it's prancing around and very obviously thrilled, what else would we call it? When it's sulking, not eating, not responding, we'd call it upset or frustrated or sad, wouldn't we? Is that still anthropomorphism when the dog is clearly displaying equivalent behaviours?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    liah wrote: »
    Anyway, dogs have their own version of guilt which they display with other dogs, you can't really call it anything else, guilty is the only word we have for it.. They skulk around low to the ground because they know they've done something displeasing. It's not anthropomorphism, imo, when you're using a currently existing term to label a behaviour. Of course it's a human term, are we meant to invent new words to label the dog's version? No, that would be a waste of dictionary space when the term pretty much covers the same reactions and behaviours in both species.

    Ahh ffs ....

    When dogs are, as you put it, "skulking around" each other because they have done something displeasing (the other dogs) they are not displaying "guilt". They are displaying specific, ritualistic, typical dog behaviour, in this case called "submissive behaviour". Dogs, being pack animals, have developed highly ritualistic behaviours like dominance gestures, submissive gestures, calming signals, etc, etc. They use this rituals and gestures to communicate among each other and to avoid conflict.

    They also use these behaviours to communicate with us. We are therefore well advised to study and understand these behaviours and call them by their proper name. Submissiveness does not equal guilt. No way, Jose.

    We are bloody well meant to expand the dictionary if we really want to understand our dogs better and want to communicate with them better.

    I understand that you love dogs and only want the best for them ...but seriously, It DOES help to know what you're talking about when lecturing other people :rolleyes:. If that means you have to use words and concepts you're not familiar with ... now would be a good time to start reading up on them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Sigma Force


    Dogs don't have a natural understanding of humans really, they have to learn how to live with humans and tolerate our weirdness and become socialised just like cats etc. do.

    Cats can understand a human just as good as a dog and African greys and other parrots are highly intelligent and can learn the ways of the human world just as good as a dog can.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    :rolleyes:

    That's just bloody semantics tbh. If it shows equivalent behaviour when put in similar circumstances then call it what we're used to calling it-- guilt. Happiness. Frustration. Those words shouldn't be exclusive to humans. Just because you call it learned behaviour and instinct doesn't change crap, it's still feeling it in its own doggy way.

    If a child steals something from the table, then goes around acting sulky and suspicious, we call them guilty. If a dog steals something from the table, then goes around acting sulky and suspicious, we suddenly have to invent a new word for the equivalent behaviour? Give me a break. The dog's displaying guilty behaviour.

    Basically, you could replace the word "dog" with "human" in your post and it would be the exact same thing. All species have their own rituals and societal behaviours. We call these displays of ritual and instinct and societal behaviour by certain words to describe them. Guilty, happy, sad, frustrated, etc. I don't see why you can't apply the words to an animal who's clearly displaying the equivalent of what we feel as humans.

    OBVIOUSLY it's not going to be the same as a human-- no one here has claimed that once. It is their equivalent. There is no shame in putting a label on it. You seem to really, really hate the idea that other animals are capable of emotion and brain processes.

    And if dogs only operate on instinct, then why are there so many stories of the dog staying with an owner who's passed away til they starve to death (which goes against EVERY natural doggy instinct of theirs)? Sitting by their grave? Travelling cross-country to find their owners? Why would they do all that if all they were concerned with is food and attention, which they can get from any randomer who would pick them up?

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504508,00.html
    For serious scientists, Lassie and her friends were deemed little more than dumbed-down ancestors of the wolf, degenerated into panting morons by millennia of breeding. But a younger generation of researchers has set out to restore the reputations of our beloved pets. "Dogs can do things that we long believed only humans had mastered," says Juliane Kaminski of the Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Evolutionary Anthropology in the eastern German city of Leipzig.




    It is precisely their proximity to people -- which disqualified our four-legged friends as a model for so long -- that now makes them interesting to animal researchers. "When it comes to understanding human behavior, no mammal comes even close to the dog," says Kaminski. Her Leipzig research team has demonstrated that dogs are far better than the supposedly clever apes at interpreting human gestures. The researchers held two containers, one empty and the other containing food, in front of chimpanzees and dogs. Then they pointed to the correct container. The canines understood the gesture immediately, while the apes, genetically much more closely related to humans, were often perplexed by the pointing finger.
    That's not all. Many dogs were even capable of interpreting the researcher's gaze. When the scientists looked at a container, the dogs would search inside for food, but when they looked in the direction of the container but focused on a point above it on the wall, the dogs were able to understand that this was not meant as a sign.


    Follow the Finger
    Dogs are so geared toward communication with people that it seems to run in their genes. For a still-unpublished study, Kaminski and her fellow researchers repeated the pointing experiment with six-week-old puppies. Astonishingly, even the puppies understood immediately that it was worth investigating the area the human finger was pointing to.
    "Puppies are still with their mother at six weeks. The phase in which they are most susceptible to human influence only begins after that," explains Kaminski. Her conclusion is that the animals must already have the innate ability to interpret human gestures.
    In a complex experiment, Adám Miklósi, a biologist at the Hungarian Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest and one of the pioneers of modern dog research, demonstrated that wolves, on the other hand, lack these communicative abilities, nor are they capable of learning them. He had 13 of his students each raise one wolf puppy. The students fed the wolves with bottles, took them home and onto the subway, and taught them to walk on a leash and respond to basic commands.




    After a few months the researchers had the young wolves and a group of young dogs attempt the same task. First both groups were taught to remove a piece of meat from a container. After a while, the investigators closed the containers. While the young wolves kept trying to get to the food, the dogs stopped immediately, sat down in front of their human trainers and stared at them. "The wolves were only interested in the meat," says Miklósi, "and, of course, so were the dogs, but apparently they knew that they would reach their goal more quickly by communicating with the people."
    MPI researcher Kaminski believes "that dogs can show us how simple mechanisms can enable highly complex understanding." Human beings also had to learn highly developed communication over the course of the millennia, which leads the MPI researchers to hope that the dog can in fact teach his owners a great deal about their own history. "If two remotely related species have similar characteristics, they probably developed as a result of comparable evolutionary processes," says Michael Tomasello, one of Kaminski's colleagues.


    ...


    The cats, says Osthaus, "did far worse than the dogs."


    Interesting reads here too actually.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070302082518.htm
    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/04/13/for_hints_on_humans_scientists_study_dogs_thinking/?page=full
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3354028/Dogs-can-read-emotion-in-human-faces.html
    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Health/story?id=1370911
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29895614/
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5540532&ft=1&f=1007



    I'm just saying, people are grossly underestimating our canine friends, and finally some research is starting to be done in regard to our evolutionary relationship with them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,070 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Flies don't hover around windows when they're trapped inside a house because they have a yourning for freedom, they do it because they've developed instinct over millions of years to follow a light source.

    The same goes for every other animilistic behavior, even in humans.

    The only difference is our understanding of behaviour on a non-instictive level, personal thought etc.

    When you apply that concept to an animal it's perfectly reasonable because that's the way our brains work... on a meta-level, thinking about, reasoning with and applying our own thought to the actions of others.

    But at the end of the day, that's our own perogative and does not compute in most of the animal kingdom


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    liah wrote: »
    You seem to really, really hate the idea that other animals are capable of emotion and brain processes.

    That's were you are utterly and completely mistaken.

    I do have however a limited amount of time for people who are incapable of stepping outside their own egocentric view of the world around them and have to measure everything by their own definition and parameters.

    Dogs are not "equivalent" to us, they are unique and should be admired for their uniqueness and not because they are so "similar" to us.
    liah wrote: »
    I'm just saying, people are grossly underestimating our canine friends
    Indeed as are you.
    With your inability to really see them for what they are and your total lack of understanding for them.

    And with this I throw my hands in the air ....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    peasant wrote: »
    do have however a limited amount of time for people who are incapable of stepping outside their own egocentric view of the world around them and have to measure everything by their own definition and parameters.

    But that's exactly what you're doing..
    Dogs are not "equivalent" to us, they are unique and should be admired for their uniqueness and not because they are so "similar" to us.

    When did I say dogs were equivalent to us? I said they have equivalent behaviours. Very big difference. Like our version of anger vs. theirs. They'd get ticked off if a puppy was at them incessantly, we'd get ticked off if our kid did the same. It's still anger as a result of an equivalent situation-- their puppies vs. our kids. But apparently now I have to call it "aggressive or dominant behaviour" because otherwise I'm "anthropomorphizing" and being "insulting" to dogs. :rolleyes:
    I'm not talking about intelligence. They obviously have a different type of thought process. Never claimed they didn't.
    With your inability to really see them for what they are and your total lack of understanding for them.

    I do see them for what they are. They're dogs. They're amazing and complex animals, and they're an animal that has evolved specifically with humans and has a tie with us that no other animal has. I'm not underestimating them at all, everything I've said indicates otherwise.

    Reading comprehension has apparently eluded you I suppose.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 485 ✭✭macshadow


    Liah when your dog ate the carrot cake from the table and you saw what you thought was guilt, it had learned from previous times when you maybe said AH AH, Leave it, NO ect.
    So learned is the key word here, and dogs have very good memory.
    How about humans have equivalent behaviours to dogs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    macshadow wrote: »
    Liah when your dog ate the carrot cake from the table and you saw what you thought was guilt, it had learned from previous times when you maybe said AH AH, Leave it, NO ect.
    So learned is the key word here, and dogs have very good memory.

    You can say the exact same thing about human children. Guilt isn't an inherent emotion for stealing food, you learn it through repetition, so why is it less valid when a dog learns it but wholly valid when a human child learns it?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 485 ✭✭macshadow


    liah wrote: »
    You can say the exact same thing about human children. Guilt isn't an inherent emotion for stealing food, you learn it through repetition, so why is it less valid when a dog learns it but wholly valid when a human child learns it?

    But the human child will develop a concept linking ability eventually.
    Where a dog will always be stuck at first base if you get me. ie learning through repetition.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59 ✭✭SaturnV


    liah wrote: »
    When did I say dogs were equivalent to us? I said they have equivalent behaviours. Very big difference. Like our version of anger vs. theirs. They'd get ticked off if a puppy was at them incessantly, we'd get ticked off if our kid did the same.

    It's still anger as a result of an equivalent situation-- their puppies vs. our kids. But apparently now I have to call it "aggressive or dominant behaviour" because otherwise I'm "anthropomorphizing" and being "insulting" to dogs.

    Let us stretch that idea a little further; if you were looking down a microscope, and bunch of microscopic amoebae bumped into a bigger amoeba, and it responded in some way, would you say the amoeba got "angry"? Of course not, but why? Because an amoeba isn't capable of anger? How do you know? How do you know a dog is?

    See, what defines "their version of anger"? Essentially, you are comparing how the animal responds to something to how you respond to an equivalent event. If there is a similar behaviour, you interpret a similar motive, rationale, and mental process underlying that response. That's anthropomorphic thinking, plain and simple. You're filling in the blanks with a human mind.

    Unfortunately, the mind of a dog, or a cat, on any other animal, is ultimately unknowable. You could be right. The dogs may feel anger, or guilt, or whatever. But so might a goldfish; you cannot ever know.

    (Your links to media interpretations of research do not prove your point by the way)
    I do see them for what they are. They're dogs. They're amazing and complex animals, and they're an animal that has evolved specifically with humans and has a tie with us that no other animal has. I'm not underestimating them at all, everything I've said indicates otherwise.

    I don't know that this assertion you keep making can just go unchallenged. First, they haven't "evolved" specifically with humans, any more than an Aberdeen Angus has; they were selectively bred. And what exactly do you mean when you say they have a "tie" to us?

    If you're looking for animals that have probably actually evolved to live with humans, I would suggest rats and pigeons btw...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 124 ✭✭Broad


    Everyone is so serious here! It looks to me that all of the participants in this dicussion only want the best for our animal friends and really does it matter if we call it "guilt" or "submission" when our dog cannot possibly get lower to the ground after she has chewed the slipper? Personally I go for the guilt option as I actually think that my slipper-eater genuinely knows she has done something "wrong" but the temptation was just so great she couldn't help it and then she feels "bad" or "uncomfortable" or "guilty", what does it matter what we call it. And I have never given her a hard time over it, just an exasperated response so it is not fear of repercussions. That is not to say it is a tortured style guilt, she is over it in seconds after she knows she is forgiven with a rub behind the ears. It is a very similar response to that of one of my children if they have eaten all the chocolate without permission. I know about it even before finding the wrappers just from their demenour. And they too are over it instantly after being forgiven. They don't get a rub behind the ears though.

    I have a pack here in this house of seven humans and four big dogs. If I walk in in a bad humour the dogs and the children instantly know and respond cautiously to me. If I am in good form they are all forthcoming and friendly. I do not if this picking up of my humour is innate in either the dogs or the kids or if it is learned, but whichever the result is that they both exhibit the same awareness.

    I have also been owner of fourteen cats over the years and have had several at a time so have plenty of experience of them also. I do love cats and have great respect for them but don't believe they need quite the relationship a dog does. And ultimately that is in their favour they are more independant. I no longer keep cats because I just lost so many on the road it was heartbreaking. My last seventeen year old cat had to be put to sleep last year. And in recent years I have become very fond of the wild birds in the garden so really can't justify getting a cat again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    Because they react negatively? Biting, snapping, etc., which we-- and other dogs-- recognize as "stay away, this is annoying" behaviour, which is pretty damn similar to our anger.

    Re-read this
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504508,00.html
    for the evolution thing, as well as various articles I've posted in reference to that.

    Yes, we've bred them specifically-- in terms of breeds-- but you can't breed in understanding what a pointing finger means. You can't breed in understanding another species' facial expressions. That's something that involves from incredibly close coexistence over thousands of years.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59 ✭✭SaturnV


    liah wrote: »

    Yes, we've bred them specifically-- in terms of breeds-- but you can't breed in understanding what a pointing finger means. You can't breed in understanding another species' facial expressions. That's something that involves from incredibly close coexistence over thousands of years.

    Oh, absolutely you can breed in those things. Those are the most important things to breed in when it comes to working dogs. Obedience, and understanding messages/signals from humans, was crucially selectively bred for working dogs.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    Then why has no other species managed to pick up these abilities? Cats haven't, and they're the next most popular companion creature.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59 ✭✭SaturnV


    Broad wrote: »
    Everyone is so serious here! It looks to me that all of the participants in this dicussion only want the best for our animal friends and really does it matter if we call it "guilt" or "submission" when our dog cannot possibly get lower to the ground after she has chewed the slipper?

    Indeed, and I for one didn't mean to come across so serious. However, I fall into the camp that feels that framing any animal's behaviour in human terms ultimately puts the animal in a position of inferiority. Dogs make crappy humans; but humans make crappy dogs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59 ✭✭SaturnV


    liah wrote: »
    Then why has no other species managed to pick up these abilities? Cats haven't, and they're the next most popular companion creature.

    What is the job of a cat, in a domestic setting? To kill vermin. Does learning the subtleties of human behaviour make a cat better at that? No. So people made sure to keep around the cats that were best at their job.

    Now, look at all the jobs that dogs do. Many of them, from sheep dogs to gun dogs to guard dogs, are better at their job if they can "read" their owners/handlers better. It's pretty simple really. Why aren't cows more friendly? Because their job is to eat, get fat, and make milk. No people skills needed...

    None of which takes away from how amazing and interesting dogs, and their relationship with their owners, are.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    And horses?

    Horses have a multitude of uses; companion animal, therapy animal, pack horse, vehicle. They've been used by humans longer than dogs, and have been bred just as selectively-- some for work (drafts), some for sport (thoroughbreds and warmbloods), some for companion (minis). Arabians were close companions with humans, they slept in the same vicinity as their people and their people were never without them.

    Horses have just as many uses and different breeds and types as dogs, so why have they not picked up these abilities, especially considering they've been "with" humans for a longer period of time?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,658 ✭✭✭✭The Sweeper


    Dogs are great.

    But this attitude that 'dogs love and understand humans and cats are aloof, unfriendly animals who only respond to food' really, really pisses me off.

    That attitude is behind a massive disservice to the domestic cat.

    You got statistics for the number of dogs put down in pounds every year? Try and find the same for cats. You can't, because they don't even bother to count them.

    The domestic cat can reach 16-18 years of age. It rarely gets the chance because something kills it before it dies naturally of old age. Why? Because people think cats are wild, feral, unfriendly, independent things that should be allowed to roam indiscrimiately. Thus they're frequently killed by cars, people, other animals, etc. etc.

    Just look at the number of posters on these boards who say "I had a cat and one day it never came back". Imagine the overwhelming arse-kicking that anyone, presenting the same attitude to their dog, would get on these forums!

    I work with rescue with cats, I foster cats, and I own five cats, and I can tell you this:
    • Cats most definitely know their names.
    • Cats that are well treated and interacted with from a young age display the same interest in company and interaction as dogs do.
    • If you spend a half an hour a day playing with your cat, you'll see a world of difference within two weeks.
    • If you interact with your cat, they'll greet you on arrival at home. (I have five cats who greet me at my front door when I come home, tails in the air, vocal noises, interest, interaction.)
    • Cats can be trained - they're just not approval-driven, the way dogs are. They are, however, still interested in your approval and you can use that in training. They are strongly food-reward driven.
    • Cats can be trained not to do something. The biggest difference between them and dogs on this point is that, if they really like whatever it is you don't want them doing, they'll just wait until you're not around and then do it. Walking across the kitchen worktops is a big one. I regularly walk down my hall to hear a thump in the kitchen and arrive in to see a cat, sitting innocently on the floor, pretending nothing's going on.
    • My cats move around the house from room to room with me as I go about my day. Whatever room I'm in, at least two of them will be with me. If it's the living room in the evening and we're watching TV, all five cats are within touching distance - that's every single day, no exceptions.
    • If you learn the body language of the cat, you'll see they communicate with you all the time - it's not their fault if you can't read it because they're more subtle than dogs. A tail flick is a good one - when you call your cat and they flick their tail upright at you, but don't look at you, that's them saying 'Hey, I hear you, I'm just doing something, be with you in a sec'. The tail is a massive communication tool in the cat - just like in the dog. You just need to learn how to read it. Similar applies to the ears and the rest of the cat's body language.

    A cat is, indeed, a very different animal to a dog, but it's a huge misnomer that they don't require the same level of interaction. Yes, they'll cope as a single, largely ignored animal, better than a dog would, but you only get out of a cat what you put into it. If you put a lot of time and effort into a cat, the same as with your dog, you get a truly fantastic, affectionate, obedient, playful pet.

    My cats will even initiate play with me, and the oldest ones are far from kittenhood at this stage.

    The OP may not have intended this as an anti-cat thread, but anyone who tells me a cat isn't capable of the level of interaction you get from a dog - well, to be honest you just haven't put enough into your cat.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    No, I didn't intend it to be anti-cat. But the last article I referenced was interesting insofar that when cats were put to the same tests, they performed poorly-- specifically the reading of their humans perceptions.

    I've had cats and I know what you're saying is the truth. They are what you put into them and they can be fantastic little animals and are definitely smart creatures.. they're just not as linked with us as dogs are, since they're independent and dogs are pack animals. Dogs have required human interaction whereas cats can do just fine without it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59 ✭✭SaturnV


    liah wrote: »
    And horses?

    Horses have a multitude of uses; companion animal, therapy animal, pack horse, vehicle. They've been used by humans longer than dogs, and have been bred just as selectively-- some for work (drafts), some for sport (thoroughbreds and warmbloods), some for companion (minis). Arabians were close companions with humans, they slept in the same vicinity as their people and their people were never without them.

    Horses have just as many uses and different breeds and types as dogs, so why have they not picked up these abilities, especially considering they've been "with" humans for a longer period of time?

    True, horses are an interesting case. However, bear in mind that in the case of the closest relationships between horses and humans, the relevant human is usually sitting on the horse. Selecting a horse that can interpret human facial expression in this case is not so important as, say, a horse that can run fast, or charge down a pike or whatever.

    Ferrets are another interesting case, now that I think of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59 ✭✭SaturnV


    liah wrote: »
    Dogs have required human interaction whereas cats can do just fine without it.

    I think think this is the heart of the matter. Not everyone would agree with you on this point.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    To be honest I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I enjoy bringing up bizarre viewpoints and seeing how they affect people. I agree with a lot of the stuff I've posted, but I agree with a lot of what other people have said, too.

    Though, I will forever be convinced that dogs and humans do share something special, and that our reactions to situations are intrinsically linked, as are our emotions and learning process. Obviously a dog isn't going to have the same learning capacity as a human being, and obviously their intelligence level isn't going to be as high.. but on a very basic, primal level, I think all animals have an instinctual set of "emotions" that can be very much global, regardless of what label you want to put on it. Guilt, anger, joy, etc. are simply words. Guilt is indicated when a human or creature has done something that has given them a bad reaction in the past. Anger is indicated when a human or creature responds negatively to a situation. Joy is when a human or creature responds positively to a situation. I don't think humans should have a monopoly on these words when it is very evident that animals feel an animal equivalent of these; to deny that they feel similarly is simply ignorant. Of course we compare it to ourselves-- what other reference do we have? It hardly undermines the creature in question to compare them to the only thing we have a true understanding of, ourselves, in order to allow our minds to grasp a concept. It's like trying to comprehend infinity.

    On top of it all, humans and animals aren't so different. We all came from the same roots. There's a reason we have similar reactions. Dogs are just more attuned to us for whatever reason, be it their unmatched relationship with us over history or just some natural perception as a species. It's there, however you want to look at it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,819 ✭✭✭✭peasant


    Broad wrote: »
    Everyone is so serious here! It looks to me that all of the participants in this dicussion only want the best for our animal friends and really does it matter if we call it "guilt" or "submission" when our dog cannot possibly get lower to the ground after she has chewed the slipper? Personally I go for the guilt option as I actually think that my slipper-eater genuinely knows she has done something "wrong" but the temptation was just so great she couldn't help it and then she feels "bad" or "uncomfortable" or "guilty", what does it matter what we call it.

    It matters an awful lot.

    As soon as you call behaviour by its "human" name that also implies that it is (the same as) human behaviour.

    Once you deem you dog capable of "guilt", by extension you will also deem it to be capable of "revenge", "stubbornness", being "devious" or "under handed".

    Nothing could be further of the thruth, your dog isn't capable of any of these things ...yet thousands of dog owners every day punish their dog, shout at it, lock it away because they *think* it commited one of the above offenses.

    If we want to treat our dogs justly and fairly, it is of vital importance that we understand them correctly first.

    Recognising and naming their behaviour for what it really is and not what we *think* it is, is the very first step into that direction.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement