Dogs May Understand a Human's Point of View.

[Havelock]

In a study conducted in the UK at the University of Portsmouth's Department of Psychology by Dr. Juliane Kaminski, dogs were found to be four times as likely to “steal” a forbidden treat when the room they were in was dark as opposed to when the lights were on. More details may be found here: Dogs May Understand Human Point of View.

“So what”, one might ask, “dogs feel safer in the dark. What's so remarkable about that?” Well, the question is why do they feel safer. The experiments were done in such as way as to minimize the chances that the dogs involved simply became conditioned to understand that they were more likely to get away with stealing food in the dark. Thus, a reasonable conclusion is that the dogs understood on some level that they were less likely to be observed when the room was dark. In other words, to one degree or another the dogs in the study were able to view their situation from the perspective of another participant in the exercise. To one degree or another they (figuratively) said to themselves, “If I can't see him, then he can't see me.”

This may seem like a trivial finding to some, as we humans are so accustomed to attributing mental states to others that we do it unconsciously and so routinely that we even end up personifying non-living things in various ways. For example, my dad named every car he ever owned and even made up little back stories to explain why the name fit the vehicle's “personality.” Anyway, what we're talking about here is what's commonly termed the Theory of Mind. Until fairly recently only human beings were presumed to possess such cognitive abilities. Lately we're learning that other species may well possess elements of a Theory of Mind and, like many cognitive attributes, there exists a continuum of abilities along which species and individuals fall. In other words, it's not all as black and white as we had assumed. Or, if you like, we humans are not quite as uniquely endowed as we thought we were.

This study helps to illuminate and reinforce that lesson.

Cheers.

 

[Queen Titania]

Lol mmmmmm guessed as much Havlock

 

[NightSwimmer]

My kids had a dog back in the 1980s who was bumped by a car as it was leaving our driveway. He was less than a year old when this happened. We had him checked out by the Vet. It was not a serious injury -- only a bruise, but it caused him to limp for about a week. For years after that incident, his limp would mysteriously return whenever he was being admonished for misbehaving. I'd say that he had a pretty good grasp of the human thought process.

 

[fairsheet]

On the one hand, I suppose I wonder how science can be certain that it's accounted for the effects of canine intuition and conditioning in a study such as this. On the other hand - in terms of the various members of my pack - I've noticed rather profound differences in their levels of sneakiness, even as all shared the same environment.

And on that note, Dachshunds are sneaky snakes. Terriers just go for it.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

My kids had a dog back in the 1980s who was bumped by a car as it was leaving our driveway. He was less than a year old when this happened. We had him checked out by the Vet. It was not a serious injury -- only a bruise, but it caused him to limp for about a week. For years after that incident, his limp would mysteriously return whenever he was being admonished for misbehaving. I'd say that he had a pretty good grasp of the human thought process.

A few years ago, I read about a dog that was hit by a car, and fairly seriously injured. The dog managed to limp about two miles, and went to the veterinarian office where he had been before! In other words, the dog apparently understood that the vet was an animal doctor, and that if he went there, they would help him with his injuries!! I would call that pretty sophisticated reasoning.

 

[fairsheet]

A few years ago, I read about a dog that was hit by a car, and fairly seriously injured. The dog managed to limp about two miles, and went to the veterinarian office where he had been before! In other words, the dog apparently understood that the vet was an animal doctor, and that if he went there, they would help him with his injuries!! I would call that pretty sophisticated reasoning.

I hope he had his Visa card on him!

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

I hope he had his Visa card on him!

Well, the people at the vet clinic recognized the dog, and knew who the owners of the dog were, and so they did go ahead and treat the dog's injuries, and contacted the family, who were very grateful. And they were ALL very amazed that the dog seemed to know where to go.

I just think it is a rather astonishing story.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

My dog licks his anus, drinks from the toilet and runs into the screen door almost daily.

When they quit eating cat poop and running away from lightening...I'll consider they might have some reasoning capability.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

My dog licks his anus, drinks from the toilet and runs into the screen door almost daily.

When they quit eating cat poop and running away from lightening...I'll consider they might have some reasoning capability.

It wasn't all that long ago that the vast majority of humans thought lightning bolts were thrown by angry gods in the sky. Even now, humans are still pretty full of themselves, as your post proves.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Dogs are well known for adopting the habits of their owners, you know.

 

[Havelock]

My dog licks his anus, drinks from the toilet and runs into the screen door almost daily.

When they quit eating cat poop and running away from lightening...I'll consider they might have some reasoning capability.

Hmmm... Can you give us your definition of “some reasoning capability?” After all, no one has suggested that dogs have exactly the same “reasoning capability” as the average human being does. And by themselves the behaviors you cite don't necessarily prove or disprove any particular degree of “reasoning capability” as such. Thus, your point is not entirely clear.

I mean, if you stop to think about it, modern understandings of hygiene, sanitation, the germ theory of disease, and the cause and significance of natural phenomena such as lightning, are are, well, both recent and modern. For example, there are lots of folks in the world today who don't understand how to keep drinking water clean and sanitary and why it's important to do so. That's not because they're dumb, it's because they're ignorant. And ignorance doesn't necessarily signify a lack of “reasoning capability”, does it? Well, unless one clings to an ignorant opinion in the face of contradictory facts, I suppose...

As for irrational fears, you've surely noticed that some individuals are more prone to giving in to what we might call instinctive responses than others. I sure have. See it all the time... For example, I had a grandmother who was absolutely petrified by lightning. I think she understood in a general way what caused it, but all the same in bad weather she would huddle in a chair in the middle of the living room and shake till the storm passed. I gave her the benefit of the doubt with respect to her “reasoning capability”, though. On the other hand, at the moment I have a dog who's relatively unconcerned when thunderstorms roll through. Doesn't bother him a bit unless the lightning is so close you can smell it. In fact, I have to call him in out of the rain sometimes. I often think he'd benefit from a little more prudence. Of course the same is true for a lot of humans as well, eh?

Ah, but perhaps you're assigning “reasoning capability” based on your own distaste for another's personal habits. That's tempting; there'd be an awful lot of human beings I'd put in the “dumb brute” category using that standard. But no... I don't think that'll do.

Anyway, in the absence of further explanation all I can say is thanks for sharing your opinion. I'll file it away with the other opinions you've shared so freely and give it the weight it merits based on the “reasoning capability” you've demonstrated in advancing and supporting it. For the moment, however, I think I'll stick with the conclusions laid out by the authors of the peer-reviewed study I cited in my top post.

And speaking of peer-reviewed studies, I assume that you missed my reply to you in the Homophobes might be hidden Homosexuals thread. I'll just copy it here for your convenience:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'May be' Jen.

May, might, possibly.

No proof...no PEER REVIEWED studies.

None...not one.

From one of the links in the top post:

"The research, published in the April 2012 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, reveals the nuances of prejudices like homophobia, which can ultimately have dire consequences."​

Like most serious scientific journals, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology has a peer review process for evaluating submitted manuscripts. Do you have reason to believe that this particular study was inadequately reviewed?​

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, given that you made the same claim several times – i.e. that a link between homophobic attitudes/behavior and heightened same-sex attraction had never been substantiated by a peer-reviewed study and was just a canard and an “old gay wives tale” – and given that you repeated that claim in at least two separate threads, I have to believe that you'd want to be alerted to the fact that your assertions were mistaken and in fact were demonstrated to be wrong in the very top post of the thread in which you most vigorously pressed your claim.

Hey, it may be kind of embarrassing I know, but we all overlook important information in our haste to make a point sometimes. The important thing is that we learn from our mistakes and don't continue to embarrass ourselves – or worse, earn a reputation for pig-headedness and calumny – by repeating those mistakes, right?

Cheers.

 

[fairsheet]

Well, the people at the vet clinic recognized the dog, and knew who the owners of the dog were, and so they did go ahead and treat the dog's injuries, and contacted the family, who were very grateful. And they were ALL very amazed that the dog seemed to know where to go.

I just think it is a rather astonishing story.

I'm certainly in no position to parse this story specifically. BUT.....there are a couple of things that hinder human understanding of dogs specifically and animals more generally. The first is that we simply can't comprehend the acuity of some of their senses, as compared with ours. And the other..is our natural tendency to anthropomorphize - to attempt to explain their actions, from our frame of reference.

Note please, that I'm not pointing a specific finger at anyone here, nor calling any particular study into question. I'm just saying that these are things that make it a little more difficult for us to come to any absolute conclusions.

For instance...awhile back, there was a story about some mutt who'd been forgotten at a highway rest stop. A few weeks later, he showed up at his family's home a few hundred miles away. How is that possible? The experts in this sort of thing, are pretty well convinced that what he did was use his nose to follow the "scent" left by the car's tires, on the roadway. That's sounds a little farfetched, but not when we consider the incredible sense of smell possessed by some dogs. And, we also have to remember that 99.99% of dogs left hundreds of miles from home, don't find their own way home...because their sense of smell isn't that acute (for a dog), or because there was a big rainstorm that washed away the scent, or they got hit by a car, or someone picked them up......

 

[888888]

My dog licks his anus, drinks from the toilet and runs into the screen door almost daily.

When they quit eating cat poop and running away from lightening...I'll consider they might have some reasoning capability.

Wait a minute here corrupt, we are sure this was your dog, and not you that you are talking about?

 

[Havelock]

I'm certainly in no position to parse this story specifically. BUT.....there are a couple of things that hinder human understanding of dogs specifically and animals more generally. The first is that we simply can't comprehend the acuity of some of their senses, as compared with ours. And the other..is our natural tendency to anthropomorphize - to attempt to explain their actions, from our frame of reference.

Note please, that I'm not pointing a specific finger at anyone here, nor calling any particular study into question. I'm just saying that these are things that make it a little more difficult for us to come to any absolute conclusions.

For instance...awhile back, there was a story about some mutt who'd been forgotten at a highway rest stop. A few weeks later, he showed up at his family's home a few hundred miles away. How is that possible? The experts in this sort of thing, are pretty well convinced that what he did was use his nose to follow the "scent" left by the car's tires, on the roadway. That's sounds a little farfetched, but not when we consider the incredible sense of smell possessed by some dogs. And, we also have to remember that 99.99% of dogs left hundreds of miles from home, don't find their own way home...because their sense of smell isn't that acute (for a dog), or because there was a big rainstorm that washed away the scent, or they got hit by a car, or someone picked them up......

Hi fairsheet,

You make a very good point, one that I had meant to reply to earlier. As you suggest, it is very easy to fall into the trap of anthropomorphism when we examine non-human behavior and hypothesize about non-human minds. The Scylla to that Charybdis (sorry, couldn't resist) is of course undue anthropocentrism. It's a fine line to walk and there is always some debate among researchers about where that line should be drawn.

For years and years the “official” line was that any attribution of “human” mental states to non-humans was verboten . Even the use of “human” descriptors was a no-no. For example, non-humans didn't express “friendship”, they exhibited “alliance facilitating interactions.” That was mostly a reaction to pre-scientific interpretations of animal behavior. It was an effort to stamp out the remnants of what we might call a “folkloric” understandings of non-human species, an understanding that more or less made non-humans into just another tribe. In that world view, the language of some non-human tribe might be indecipherable to most of us and their customs might be odd, but their motivations, perceptions, and understanding of the world were more or less the same as ours. This world view was roundly and soundly rejected as part of the scientific revolution, and rightly so.

The general consensus now among ethologists is that this rejection went too far; I think that's right. The real fight is over how far back we should swing in the other direction. Personally, for a host of related practical, ethical, and philosophical reasons, I believe that if it's a close call we should err on the side of possible anthropomorphism. Others disagree, sometimes on the basis of what I'd call good and defensible – if misguided – rationales; too often on the basis of what can crudely but succinctly be subsumed under the label of vanity.

I suppose the academic argument simply reflects our society's and more broadly our species' profoundly confused and contradictory attitudes toward our non-human fellow travelers as a whole.

Anyway, back to the amazing story of the injured dog. It is a great story. Moving, even inspiring... But I have to agree that it's as easily explained by chance as by any astounding reasoning ability on the part of the wounded canine. He might have stumbled off in the direction that took him towards the clinic entirely by chance, simply recognized it as a familiar place when he got close to it, and sought help there not because he understood however dimly that medical treatment was available there but just because he knew there were likely to be people he knew present in the building.

Or maybe he did understand on some level that the folks at the clinic would treat his injuries and therefore he deliberately set out to go there. Who knows? That's the trouble with isolated bits of anecdotal evidence, eh?

Cheers.

 

[fairsheet]

Hi fairsheet,

You make a very good point, one that I had meant to reply to earlier. As you suggest, it is very easy to fall into the trap of anthropomorphism when we examine non-human behavior and hypothesize about non-human minds. The Scylla to that Charybdis (sorry, couldn't resist) is of course undue anthropocentrism. It's a fine line to walk and there is always some debate among researchers about where that line should be drawn.

For years and years the “official” line was that any attribution of “human” mental states to non-humans was verboten . Even the use of “human” descriptors was a no-no. For example, non-humans didn't express “friendship”, they exhibited “alliance facilitating interactions.” That was mostly a reaction to pre-scientific interpretations of animal behavior. It was an effort to stamp out the remnants of what we might call a “folkloric” understandings of non-human species, an understanding that more or less made non-humans into just another tribe. In that world view, the language of some non-human tribe might be indecipherable to most of us and their customs might be odd, but their motivations, perceptions, and understanding of the world were more or less the same as ours. This world view was roundly and soundly rejected as part of the scientific revolution, and rightly so.

The general consensus now among ethologists is that this rejection went too far; I think that's right. The real fight is over how far back we should swing in the other direction. Personally, for a host of related practical, ethical, and philosophical reasons, I believe that if it's a close call we should err on the side of possible anthropomorphism. Others disagree, sometimes on the basis of what I'd call good and defensible – if misguided – rationales; too often on the basis of what can crudely but succinctly be subsumed under the label of vanity.

I suppose the academic argument simply reflects our society's and more broadly our species' profoundly confused and contradictory attitudes toward our non-human fellow travelers as a whole.

Anyway, back to the amazing story of the injured dog. It is a great story. Moving, even inspiring... But I have to agree that it's as easily explained by chance as by any astounding reasoning ability on the part of the wounded canine. He might have stumbled off in the direction that took him towards the clinic entirely by chance, simply recognized it as a familiar place when he got close to it, and sought help there not because he understood however dimly that medical treatment was available there but just because he knew there were likely to be people he knew present in the building.

Or maybe he did understand on some level that the folks at the clinic would treat his injuries and therefore he deliberately set out to go there. Who knows? That's the trouble with isolated bits of anecdotal evidence, eh?

Cheers.

As to the injured dog, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that he probably didn't "reason" his way to the veterinarian, the way a human would. My guess would be that he probably smelled the vet's office and "associated" it with care. But then, who is to draw some sort of absolute distinction, between what I'm calling "reason", and what I'm calling "association"?

Also, I agree that when in doubt, it does make sense to err on the side of anthropomorphizing. For instance...awhile back, there was a move afoot by some do-gooders, to codify a specific set of "rights" for the great apes. And although the rights they proposed weren't EQUAL to the basic human rights we demand for one another, they were similar - if not more basic and funamental.

Anyway...the majority of people were put off by this idea. In their minds, by ascribing something akin to human rights to a "lesser" species, we're are necessarily lowering the value of humans, to the level of apes.

But...I see it the exact opposite. I see it as a given, that humans are at the top of the "species chain". Therefore, if we enhance the rights and value of species "below" us and we know that our value is greater than theirs, then we're actually elevating the value of humans.

 

[Havelock]

As to the injured dog, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that he probably didn't "reason" his way to the veterinarian, the way a human would. My guess would be that he probably smelled the vet's office and "associated" it with care. But then, who is to draw some sort of absolute distinction, between what I'm calling "reason", and what I'm calling "association"?

Also, I agree that when in doubt, it does make sense to err on the side of anthropomorphizing. For instance...awhile back, there was a move afoot by some do-gooders, to codify a specific set of "rights" for the great apes. And although the rights they proposed weren't EQUAL to the basic human rights we demand for one another, they were similar - if not more basic and funamental.

Anyway...the majority of people were put off by this idea. In their minds, by ascribing something akin to human rights to a "lesser" species, we're are necessarily lowering the value of humans, to the level of apes.

But...I see it the exact opposite. I see it as a given, that humans are at the top of the "species chain". Therefore, if we enhance the rights and value of species "below" us and we know that our value is greater than theirs, then we're actually elevating the value of humans.

Well, I guess we agree that recognizing the “rights and value” of other species doesn't devalue us as human beings. I'd phrase it a little differently, though. I'd rather say that we as humans better realize our potential and honor our responsibilities to ourselves and to our fellow creatures when we understand and appreciate that it's good to respect other beings for what they are and allow them to live their lives in a way that's true to their nature and gives them the potential to maximize their happiness.

Perhaps that sounds grand, or even grandiose. But it's really little more than taking a blend of Utilitarianism and Kant's notion of respect for persons as ends in themselves rather than mere means to an end and extending it to non-humans. Of course there are all sorts of caveats and challenges associated with that enterprise. I don't claim to have all the details worked out by any means, but I think the way forward is to start with the fundamental premise that “rights” flow as much or more from having basic cognitive abilities, broadly defined, as from possessing human DNA.

Anyway, blah blah blah, I'm sure I've said all this before on this forum at one time or another. Back to your reply, I have to say I'm not a big fan of the “chain of species” metaphor. Too similar to the notion of the Great Chain of Being with all the baggage that entails. That aside, I'm all in favor of establishing some sort of charter of rights for our nearest non-human relatives. Seems like a great place to start.

Cheers.

 

[OldGaffer]

 

[Havelock]

View attachment 5493

Ummm... Okay. Thanks for sharing that. It's not falling down funny, but it's funny. Maybe I'm not much of a cat person...

Cheers.

 

[fairsheet]

Well, I guess we agree that recognizing the “rights and value” of other species doesn't devalue us as human beings. I'd phrase it a little differently, though. I'd rather say that we as humans better realize our potential and honor our responsibilities to ourselves and to our fellow creatures when we understand and appreciate that it's good to respect other beings for what they are and allow them to live their lives in a way that's true to their nature and gives them the potential to maximize their happiness.

Perhaps that sounds grand, or even grandiose. But it's really little more than taking a blend of Utilitarianism and Kant's notion of respect for persons as ends in themselves rather than mere means to an end and extending it to non-humans. Of course there are all sorts of caveats and challenges associated with that enterprise. I don't claim to have all the details worked out by any means, but I think the way forward is to start with the fundamental premise that “rights” flow as much or more from having basic cognitive abilities, broadly defined, as from possessing human DNA.

Anyway, blah blah blah, I'm sure I've said all this before on this forum at one time or another. Back to your reply, I have to say I'm not a big fan of the “chain of species” metaphor. Too similar to the notion of the Great Chain of Being with all the baggage that entails. That aside, I'm all in favor of establishing some sort of charter of rights for our nearest non-human relatives. Seems like a great place to start.

Cheers.

As to "chain of species", I think we both know that one was pulled straight from my ass, not from any sort of anthro/sociological/scientific lexicon. AND, please note that I specifically chose to put this phrase in quotes, so's to try an' highlight the fact that I'm not some sort of "Dominionist". I believe - per my support for the idea of "Rights for the Great Apes", that it's not in our interest to simply assume the superiority of our species over all others. On the flipside though, I'm not down with some sort of "Kumbayism" that would ponder the relative nature of the Human brain vs. that of the Cetacean, while ignoring the fact ....that the ONLY species capable of engendering say....climate change, is the human species.

 

[Havelock]

As to "chain of species", I think we both know that one was pulled straight from my ass, not from any sort of anthro/sociological/scientific lexicon. AND, please note that I specifically chose to put this phrase in quotes, so's to try an' highlight the fact that I'm not some sort of "Dominionist". I believe - per my support for the idea of "Rights for the Great Apes", that it's not in our interest to simply assume the superiority of our species over all others. On the flipside though, I'm not down with some sort of "Kumbayism" that would ponder the relative nature of the Human brain vs. that of the Cetacean, while ignoring the fact ....that the ONLY species capable of engendering say....climate change, is the human species.

Fair enough, fairsheet, fair enough... I didn't mean to imply you were a Dominionist either. (Do we even have any big or small letter “D” dominionists on this board? Seems like the only topics debated with any passion these days are gun rights and the precise degree to which either pugs or libtards are f-ed up. Well, those and the latest wacktastic conspiracy theory about whatever... )

Anywho, I like to think that I'm a fairly realistic guy as well, though I've been told otherwise on occasion. I'm not down with mushy-headed “kumbayahism” either. And I'll be first to admit that there's a lot of that in the current “animal rights” movement. I have very little patience with those who see human beings as something apart from the natural world, whether those folks elevate human beings undeservedly or denigrate them as hopeless despoilers and corrupters.

Cheers.