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
Why We're Not Anthropomorphising Dogs
Options
Comments
-
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 kingdom0 -
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.
Indeed as are you.I'm just saying, people are grossly underestimating our canine friends
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 ....0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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...0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Then why has no other species managed to pick up these abilities? Cats haven't, and they're the next most popular companion creature.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 10049
Great post Majd and its all true especially the bit I have highlighted.
I hate the attitude of people regarding their cats and I dont mean to sound cruel here but it seems like cats are treated like a throwaway pet.
Our cat has the personality of the dogs.
He does know his name and will usually come to you when you call him.He regulary follows me to the shop at my side just like the dog does.Hes forever wanting to play and will even bring his toys over and drop them at your feet just like the dog does with a ball.
They do have personalities but its a much more subtle approach to pick up their signs.Minesajackdaniels wrote: »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.0 -
Breeding Siamese for many years taught me how intelligent - and endearingly manipulativee- cats can be.
My present pair (rescued moggies) were with me from kittenhood and the interaction is awesome and beautiful.
Different from our dogs; as it should be - but tenacious and fine.
Some cultures see cats as vermin sadly; because they have no monetary value; they are left untended. This was so on a small Scottish island where we lived; when they heard what we were selling Siamese kittens for there was astonishment.
They grudged the money to get them spayed . "For a CAT"
We have found the same in some parts of Ireland; as many here know; it is so good to read mails here thus; thank you.
One person we know says she can well afford to get hers spayed but then they may get killed on the road and what a waste of money. Her dogs on the other hand are so well cared for.0 -
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.
Definition.0
Advertisement