Dogs May Understand a Human's Point of View.

[fairsheet]

I was driving down the road and noticed an interesting fly-type of insect, with his/her 3/8" long wing, stuck in my windshield wiper. It wasn't smashed under the rubber part. It was just levered up into the metal parts, such that the only thing keeping him/her there, was the forward velocity of my car.

I HAD to pull off the road and let that insect loose. It may sound a little stupid - it WAS just an insect. Now I'm certainly not some sort of navel-contemplative new-ager, who could launch into some rambling treatise as to how insects have little brains, little feelings, and little families who care about them. BUT...I still felt compelled to pull over and let that godamned bug loose.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Are you suggesting that dogs believe in Zeus?

 

[Corruptbuddha]

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.

Well, let's see. If you and I run into a patio door, we would reason that even though we can't see it...it's there. Dogs..no such luck.

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...

So, dogs are ignorant of microbiological sciences, but they have the ability to understand it?

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?

In fact, I have to call him in out of the rain sometimes

'Nuff said.

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.

'another's personal habits'? Dogs don't have 'personal habits'...they're dogs.

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.


See below.



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:

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.

Please link me the site that shows the study and it's review process and I'll concede that you could fine ONE study that says what you wanted it to say. Short of that, I'll stick with my assertion of the old canard.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

No pretty sure it was the dog.

You see, I've learned that drinking from the toilet is unhealthy, that the screen door actually exists, and I can't reach my nether regions with my tongue.

Defiantly the dog.

 

[fairsheet]

How did you learn that drinking from the toilet was unhealthy?

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Stands to reason..if feces goes in..you don't want to eat or drink out of it.

Dogs...not capable of that sort of reason.

 

[ARMCX1]

Some chimps use tools and the use of tools spans generations. The genomes of chimps and gorillas are ~98% identical with human genomes when it comes to the genes that encode the proteins that build biological bodies. It seems reasonable to speculate that some of the genes responsible for human intelligence are also shared by other primates (we are a primate).

In the case of dogs, there is reported to be a 5% similarity at the genomic level. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1207_051207_dog_genome.html

Frankly, that's confusing because individual canine genes are very similar to their human counterparts.

I compared the sequence of two genes (Mst1R, a cell surface receptor; KRas, a signaling protein) between humans and dogs. In the case of Mst1R, the genes were 84% identical over ~4300 base pairs between the two species. In the case of KRas, there was 66% identity over 566 base pairs. So, the claim that dogs and humans share 5% of their genomes is misleading when it comes to the similarity of the genes encoding proteins. It's more likely that the organization of the dog genome is dissimilar to the organization of the human genome.

I guess what I'm coming around to say is that at the level of genes encoding protein, dogs and humans are similar, and that some of the genes that determine human intelligence are present in dogs.

Humans domesticated dogs 15-20 thousand years ago, so the effect of domestication on dog breeding has to be considered. In the past, humans bred dogs for desirable traits -- maybe the most important trait being communication between humans and dogs.

 

[fairsheet]

I think that the human species' ability to form complex words and vocabularies, gives it a significant edge, not just in its ability to communicate, but in its ability to formulate complex ideas in its head.

 

[Havelock]

Okay then, as near as I can tell from your rather terse responses, you seem to believe that any “reasoning capability” short of what the average human being possesses isn't worthy of the name. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, well, someone has to.

If that is indeed your position, then let's just say that it falls well outside the mainstream of current scientific thought on the matter. If you're comfortable with that then so be it. I'd argue that you're not really advancing the discussion, though, particularly as you seem to believe that your opinion is sufficient evidence in favor of whatever point you're trying to make. Again, no one has suggested that dogs possess exactly the same degree of “reasoning capability” as the average human being. Thus, continuing to point that out isn't really accomplishing anything. No one other than you is arguing that point.

Now, as for this:

Please link me the site that shows the study and it's [sic] review process and I'll concede that you could fine [sic] ONE study that says what you wanted it to say. Short of that, I'll stick with my assertion of the old canard.

First, a couple of corrections: One, I didn't find the study. As I noted previously, the reference to it was in the top post of the thread in which you made your erroneous claim. No searching required... Two, I have no burning desire to support the study's conclusions. Frankly, it's a matter of minor academic interest to me whether most, many, or any homophobes are “secretly” attracted to the same sex to one degree or another. It's interesting and useful research, no doubt, and shouldn't be ignored or dismissed out of hand. But I'm sure there are a number of factors that cause people like yourself to embrace ignorance and bigotry when it comes to issues of sex and variant sexuality, just as there are surely numerous causes for racism, sexism, and other irrational biases. I'm much more interested in working toward practical cures for such biases rather than sussing out causes – although of course I recognize that the two endeavors can be complementary.

As for the rest, here you are:

Weinstein, Netta; Ryan, William S.; DeHaan, Cody R.; Przybylski, Andrew K.; Legate, Nicole; Ryan, Richard M. 2012. Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4): 815-832.

That link will take you to a page where you can read the abstract and, if you choose, purchase the PDF version of the article. Sorry, like a lot of recently-published scientific literature, the article is not free to non-subscribers. But hey, it's not that expensive either. So if you're really intent on challenging the researchers' methodology and/or conclusions, the cost shouldn't be that much of an impediment. And if it is, most inter-library loan programs should be able to get a copy for you either at no charge or at a very nominal charge.

Also for your reference, here's a link to the publishing journal's home page: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. On it you can find information regarding the journal's review policies as well as the names of the folks on the editorial board. I expect someone would be happy to answer any particular questions you might have about their peer-review system.

So, there you go.

You know, if you had originally said what you appear to be saying now – that you simply don't believe the scientific evidence that's been produced to date – instead of carelessly and repeatedly claiming that NOT ONE peer-reviewed study existed, you might have saved us both some time and most likely kept this particular thread a lot cleaner.

Cheers.

 

[Havelock]

Some chimps use tools and the use of tools spans generations. The genomes of chimps and gorillas are ~98% identical with human genomes when it comes to the genes that encode the proteins that build biological bodies. It seems reasonable to speculate that some of the genes responsible for human intelligence are also shared by other primates (we are a primate).

In the case of dogs, there is reported to be a 5% similarity at the genomic level. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1207_051207_dog_genome.html



Frankly, that's confusing because individual canine genes are very similar to their human counterparts.

I compared the sequence of two genes (Mst1R, a cell surface receptor; KRas, a signaling protein) between humans and dogs. In the case of Mst1R, the genes were 84% identical over ~4300 base pairs between the two species. In the case of KRas, there was 66% identity over 566 base pairs. So, the claim that dogs and humans share 5% of their genomes is misleading when it comes to the similarity of the genes encoding proteins. It's more likely that the organization of the dog genome is dissimilar to the organization of the human genome.

I guess what I'm coming around to say is that at the level of genes encoding protein, dogs and humans are similar, and that some of the genes that determine human intelligence are present in dogs.

Humans domesticated dogs 15-20 thousand years ago, so the effect of domestication on dog breeding has to be considered. In the past, humans bred dogs for desirable traits -- maybe the most important trait being communication between humans and dogs.

Hi ARMCX1,

You're right, it pays to figure out what is meant by a particular genomic comparison. Coding for many specific genes is highly conserved across species. Clearly we're still figuring out what genetic changes are truly significant and how they affect specific phenotypic traits. It's fascinating.

Speaking of genetics, did you know there's genetic evidence to suggest that Canis lupus familiaris may have begun to diverge from Canis lupis as much as 100,000 years ago. Who knows? There are numerous hypotheses about how we might have co-evolved with dogs in various ways, how they might have given us the edge over other hominids, how they might have facilitated the development of agriculture and/or the domestication of other species, and so on. All highly speculative, of course, but quite interesting...

Anyway, yes, communication has clearly been a vital trait that has been selected for and there are numerous studies showing that dogs have an innate knack for understanding human communication, both verbal and non-verbal, that no other non-human species possesses so far as we know.

By the way, love your Armadillo repeats, very stylish...

Cheers.

 

[Havelock]

I was driving down the road and noticed an interesting fly-type of insect, with his/her 3/8" long wing, stuck in my windshield wiper. It wasn't smashed under the rubber part. It was just levered up into the metal parts, such that the only thing keeping him/her there, was the forward velocity of my car.

I HAD to pull off the road and let that insect loose. It may sound a little stupid - it WAS just an insect. Now I'm certainly not some sort of navel-contemplative new-ager, who could launch into some rambling treatise as to how insects have little brains, little feelings, and little families who care about them. BUT...I still felt compelled to pull over and let that godamned bug loose.

Heh... The occasional, unaccountable outburst of empathy is one of humanity's more redeeming traits, I think. We may yet have cause to be grateful of it before all's said and done.

Cheers.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Okay then, as near as I can tell from your rather terse responses, you seem to believe that any “reasoning capability” short of what the average human being possesses isn't worthy of the name. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, well, someone has to.

If that is indeed your position, then let's just say that it falls well outside the mainstream of current scientific thought on the matter. If you're comfortable with that then so be it. I'd argue that you're not really advancing the discussion, though, particularly as you seem to believe that your opinion is sufficient evidence in favor of whatever point you're trying to make. Again, no one has suggested that dogs possess exactly the same degree of “reasoning capability” as the average human being. Thus, continuing to point that out isn't really accomplishing anything. No one other than you is arguing that point.

Now, as for this:



Do you really believe I suggested anything of the sort? Really? I find that hard to believe.

Just to be clear, what I was suggesting is that your examples were rather poorly chosen, even though you only used them to make a specific point that no one is contesting.



First, a couple of corrections: One, I didn't find the study. As I noted previously, the reference to it was in the top post of the thread in which you made your erroneous claim. No searching required... Two, I have no burning desire to support the study's conclusions. Frankly, it's a matter of minor academic interest to me whether most, many, or any homophobes are “secretly” attracted to the same sex to one degree or another. It's interesting and useful research, no doubt, and shouldn't be ignored or dismissed out of hand. But I'm sure there are a number of factors that cause people like yourself to embrace ignorance and bigotry when it comes to issues of sex and variant sexuality, just as there are surely numerous causes for racism, sexism, and other irrational biases. I'm much more interested in working toward practical cures for such biases rather than sussing out causes – although of course I recognize that the two endeavors can be complementary.

As for the rest, here you are:

Weinstein, Netta; Ryan, William S.; DeHaan, Cody R.; Przybylski, Andrew K.; Legate, Nicole; Ryan, Richard M. 2012. Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4): 815-832.

That link will take you to a page where you can read the abstract and, if you choose, purchase the PDF version of the article. Sorry, like a lot of recently-published scientific literature, the article is not free to non-subscribers. But hey, it's not that expensive either. So if you're really intent on challenging the researchers' methodology and/or conclusions, the cost shouldn't be that much of an impediment. And if it is, most inter-library loan programs should be able to get a copy for you either at no charge or at a very nominal charge.

Also for your reference, here's a link to the publishing journal's home page: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. On it you can find information regarding the journal's review policies as well as the names of the folks on the editorial board. I expect someone would be happy to answer any particular questions you might have about their peer-review system.

So, there you go.

You know, if you had originally said what you appear to be saying now – that you simply don't believe the scientific evidence that's been produced to date – instead of carelessly and repeatedly claiming that NOT ONE peer-reviewed study existed, you might have saved us both some time and most likely kept this particular thread a lot cleaner.

Cheers.

My comments were on your examples, not mine.

And as to the study...I really don't care enough to pay $12.00 to see it. Also, your link (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/index.aspx) didn't detail their peer review process, but I'll take your word for it.

So, in the end, I am a man of my word...you have managed to find ONE (seemingly) peer reviewed study to say that Homophobes Might (may, could, its suggested) Be Hidden Homosexuals.

Again, I consider it an old canard ginned up by the homosexual community.

Lastly, I LOVE the spell checking....takes away the worry of having to do it myself.

I did say what I meant to say, by the way. As I was unaware that this 'peer reviewed' study even existed.

One more thing. I especially love this: But I'm sure there are a number of factors that cause people like yourself to embrace ignorance and bigotry when it comes to issues of sex and variant sexuality


I have never embraced ignorance or bigotry. Of course that's your fallback weapon when one disagree with your assertions...he/she is a bigot.

Cheers to you as well.

 

[888888]

You need not embrace it, you are it Corrupt!

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

You say you have "never embraced ignorance or bigotry", but yet you were the top poster who started a thread in the Politics forum on how there should be a completely separate organization for gay Boy Scouts, complete with numerous crude homosexuality jokes.

You are no more credible than a person who tells 'Pollack' jokes every day, protesting that he has nothing against Polish people.

 

[LeRoy_Was_Here]

Are you suggesting that dogs believe in Zeus?

No. I was suggesting that humans are HARDLY paragons of rationality and reason.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

I never said that there 'should' be anything. Perhaps you should re-read the posts.

What I said was why couldn't there be. There's a big difference.

And the merit badge stuff was funny. Lighten up.

 

[ARMCX1]

Havelock wrote: By the way, love your Armadillo repeats, very stylish...

You got it! lol

 

[fairsheet]

Hi ARMCX1,

You're right, it pays to figure out what is meant by a particular genomic comparison. Coding for many specific genes is highly conserved across species. Clearly we're still figuring out what genetic changes are truly significant and how they affect specific phenotypic traits. It's fascinating.

Speaking of genetics, did you know there's genetic evidence to suggest that Canis lupus familiaris may have begun to diverge from Canis lupis as much as 100,000 years ago. Who knows? There are numerous hypotheses about how we might have co-evolved with dogs in various ways, how they might have given us the edge over other hominids, how they might have facilitated the development of agriculture and/or the domestication of other species, and so on. All highly speculative, of course, but quite interesting...

Anyway, yes, communication has clearly been a vital trait that has been selected for and there are numerous studies showing that dogs have an innate knack for understanding human communication, both verbal and non-verbal, that no other non-human species possesses so far as we know.

By the way, love your Armadillo repeats, very stylish...

Cheers.

We westerners tend to place a higher value on dogs. In most my travels to generally poor environs - virtually around the world - I see plenty of dogs about and the people don't seem to mind them at all, but they don't make any effort to feed them, or pet them, and kicking a dog seems normal.

ANYWAY...That really wasn't where I was headed. I was going more to the fact that in these places where dogs exist on the periphery of humanity, they tend to look remarkably similar, is if they're all of a breed.

So....I was interested to finally learn quite recently, they they essentially ARE the same breed. It's called "Camp Dog". And sure..they aren't recognized by the AKC or anything, but they do tend to share the same DNA. AND..the people who study these things, hypothesize that the may be one of the oldest breeds.

 

[Havelock]

My comments were on your examples, not mine.

And as to the study...I really don't care enough to pay $12.00 to see it. Also, your link (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/index.aspx) didn't detail their peer review process, but I'll take your word for it.

So, in the end, I am a man of my word...you have managed to find ONE (seemingly) peer reviewed study to say that Homophobes Might (may, could, its suggested) Be Hidden Homosexuals.

Again, I consider it an old canard ginned up by the homosexual community.

Lastly, I LOVE the spell checking....takes away the worry of having to do it myself.

I did say what I meant to say, by the way. As I was unaware that this 'peer reviewed' study even existed.

One more thing. I especially love this: But I'm sure there are a number of factors that cause people like yourself to embrace ignorance and bigotry when it comes to issues of sex and variant sexuality


I have never embraced ignorance or bigotry. Of course that's your fallback weapon when one disagree with your assertions...he/she is a bigot.

Cheers to you as well.

Right, you wanted a citation and now that you have it you don't really have any particular issues that you can identify with the cited study. Having been given what you asked for – scientific evidence – you've none-the-less determined without even examining that evidence that you're not going to allow it to influence your opinion. Well, none of that surprises quite frankly...

For the record, I haven't asked you to take my word for anything in this thread. And I've offered no unsupported assertions save one – more on that in a moment – so I can't agree that we've merely traded opinions here and that you've responded tit for tat from the get go. It's just not true. I think I know why you felt moved to stop by nearly three days after this thread was originally posted to tell us that your dog licks his own anus and the reason is pretty far removed from any substantive thoughts about non-human cognition.

Of course if all you wanted to do was pop in to share your opinions and you didn't care to engage in a more substantive discussion about assumptions, evidence, and conclusions, that's certainly your prerogative. But let's not pretend that no one has offered anything more.

Now, the one opinion I've given more or less off the cuff is that you're somewhat ignorant and something of a bigot with respect to issues of sexuality in general and sexual variation in particular. That's a judgment and an observation. I'm not suggesting you're a bad person overall, mind you, just that you have some irrational biases that color your attitudes and you tend to embrace these biases rather than work to overcome them. Nothing particularly unusual about that – the same could be said about a lot of people.

You claim you're not biased. Fine. We could debate that issue, there's plenty of grist for the mill, but I'm fairly certain we're not going to settle that between us and I'm not particularly interested in trying to convince you or convict you. Your body of posts speaks for itself; everyone can judge your words and apparent attitudes for him or herself. I've drawn my conclusions; I'd be delighted to revise them if and when you give me cause. In the meantime, I'm glad the label bothers you. That feeling does you credit.

As for your contention that I've labeled you in an effort to shut you down or shut you up, you're wrong. I'm not suggesting that such tactics are never used, of course. We all know they are. But that's not what's happening here. If I'd actually attacked you for disagreeing with me in lieu of addressing specific issues, then you might have a valid point.

You say that throwing around accusations of bigotry is a “fall back weapon” deployed to counter opposition. For some that may be true. Then again, insisting that anyone who calls out bigotry is simply trying to “win” by browbeating his or her opponent is an all-purpose shield for a lot of folks too.

After all, every bigot thinks that the objects of his or her bigotry need to lighten up, face facts, grow a thicker skin, develop a sense of humor about themselves, and so on and so on. Every bigot defends his or her bigotry by claiming to be nothing more than realistic, clear-eyed, and willing to speak “truths” that others refuse to face for whatever reason. Nothing new there...

Time usually reveals the bigot's claims to be little more than self-serving justifications. So, time will tell, eh?

Cheers.

 

[Havelock]

We westerners tend to place a higher value on dogs. In most my travels to generally poor environs - virtually around the world - I see plenty of dogs about and the people don't seem to mind them at all, but they don't make any effort to feed them, or pet them, and kicking a dog seems normal.

ANYWAY...That really wasn't where I was headed. I was going more to the fact that in these places where dogs exist on the periphery of humanity, they tend to look remarkably similar, is if they're all of a breed.

So....I was interested to finally learn quite recently, they they essentially ARE the same breed. It's called "Camp Dog". And sure..they aren't recognized by the AKC or anything, but they do tend to share the same DNA. AND..the people who study these things, hypothesize that the may be one of the oldest breeds.

Yep, absent selective breeding there does seem to be a “default” dog that emerges fairly quickly. Not surprisingly, that animal looks like the semi-feral dogs one sees all over the world. It's interesting that some of the physical attributes we see in the “generic” dog are also seen in the foxes that have been bred since 1959 in Russia to be tolerant of being around humans. Traits such as a piebald coat, floppy ears, a curly tail...

One hypothesis about the domestication of dogs is that dogs began to diverge genetically from wolves all on their own as populations took to hanging around human encampments and scavenging food. It would be to their advantage to be less wary of humans. Only later, according to this hypothesis, did humans begin to adopt the animals, selectively breed them, and more systematically take advantage of their usefulness as guards, watchdogs, hunting companions, and so on. Some suggest that intensive selective breeding didn't occur until we began to grow crops and keep other domesticated animals and even though we kept company with dogs for tens of thousands of years before that, they were “paleo-dogs” that were morphologically very similar to wolves.

Chickens and eggs...

The genetic evidence is still uncertain, except that we're fairly sure that all our domesticated dogs descended from wolves that lived in Asia and/or the Middle East. It's also well accepted that cross breeding back with wolves took place at various times and places down through the years. As to when and how this all occurred, well, we'll likely never know for certain. Still, it's clear that our two species have been intertwined for a long, long time.

Cheers.