- Status
Sheba was like that, although not Siamese. She never did learn how to be a real cat, bless her. She had a massive vocabulary though, it's just that nobody could ever work out what she was trying to say.
Now I have two clever cats and the world's stupidest dog.
Here's what I think. We tend to project our own idea of human-like behavior onto other creatures and end up explaining their behavior in our own terms, thinking they are acting certain way because they are so much like us. We forget their internal cognitive world is largely inaccessible to us.
A theory of intelligence HAS to include non human animals, such as dogs and cats. But I wouldn't go as far as to assume they can "understand" symbolism in the level we do, which requires shared models of the world with multiple levels of abstraction. And this is coming from the guy who argues WE are also animals.
A theory of intelligence HAS to include non human animals, such as dogs and cats. But I wouldn't go as far as to assume they can "understand" symbolism in the level we do, which requires shared models of the world with multiple levels of abstraction. And this is coming from the guy who argues WE are also animals.
Agreed on all counts. But if you judge a dog or cat's intelligence by their own standards, then there are definitely variations. Not just breed-related, although that may play a part in it, but between individuals.
My first three cats all came from similar backgrounds, all born feral but friendly towards humans, all adopted at around 3 months and then lived indoors for the rest of their lives. Two of them became competent cats - they could hunt insects and small reptiles that wandered into the house, they could play-fight with each other, fight in earnest when needed, they were capable of reasoning to a certain extent (if Sheba runs behind the TV, I can block her exit by going round to the other side) and understood cause and effect (If I scratch the sofa I'll get a water spray in my face). Sheba couldn't do any of that.
Gwyn's problems are more breed-specific, and fall more into human definitions of intelligence, although the ability to learn is probably useful for any higher-intelligence animal. There's a measure based on how many repetitions it takes before a dog learns how to do something. The top learners (mainly the various sheepdog breeds and, for some reason, poodles) can pick it up in under five repetitions. Average is around 30 repetitions. A shih-tzu typically takes 80-100 and is one of the slowest breeds around.
It's not all that surprising to see poodles on a list of intelligent dogs (Stanley Coren ranks them behind only border collies): standard poodles were originally retrievers and working dogs; they are (or were) put to work where initiative, discipline, and the ability to learn are selected for.
Coren ("The Intelligence of Dogs") divides intelligence into instinctive (inbred behavior), adaptive (problem solving), and obedience (following training) components. The problem is that he then relies exclusively on the obedience component.
By any measure, though, border collies and standard poodles are in a class by themselves, especially when it comes to taking the initiative and solving problems -- as well as getting into really big trouble if they aren't given enough to do.
A lot of dogs that score low on these intelligence scales are not stupid but stubborn. Basenjis are an example: they know what they are there to do, and you're not going to tell them otherwise. Shih Tzus, on the other hand, may just be airheads.
Coren ("The Intelligence of Dogs") divides intelligence into instinctive (inbred behavior), adaptive (problem solving), and obedience (following training) components. The problem is that he then relies exclusively on the obedience component.
By any measure, though, border collies and standard poodles are in a class by themselves, especially when it comes to taking the initiative and solving problems -- as well as getting into really big trouble if they aren't given enough to do.
A lot of dogs that score low on these intelligence scales are not stupid but stubborn. Basenjis are an example: they know what they are there to do, and you're not going to tell them otherwise. Shih Tzus, on the other hand, may just be airheads.
Last edited:
Growing up with different types of dogs I fully agree that they are (for the most part) very intelligent creatures. My current dog (a labrador) still surprises me, and I've had dogs in one way or another for my whole life.
But my point was more related to how we explain complex behavior. It is clear they learn and have problem solving skills (reward-based and associative learning could be understood, in a simplified way, as discovering and applying a rule of inference or reasoning). But I think it is funny when we say a certain creature acts human-like or is particularly insightful because they display instinctual behavior that we immediately understand in terms of pride, deceit, mockery, etc.
Apes are on a different level though. There *are* studies about deceit and in general so called "machiavellian intelligence" (deceit, alliances, rules) in apes, ranging from chimpanzees to human beings (of course).
But my point was more related to how we explain complex behavior. It is clear they learn and have problem solving skills (reward-based and associative learning could be understood, in a simplified way, as discovering and applying a rule of inference or reasoning). But I think it is funny when we say a certain creature acts human-like or is particularly insightful because they display instinctual behavior that we immediately understand in terms of pride, deceit, mockery, etc.
Apes are on a different level though. There *are* studies about deceit and in general so called "machiavellian intelligence" (deceit, alliances, rules) in apes, ranging from chimpanzees to human beings (of course).
Last edited:
Agree with that. Did you see the recent study on cats where they'd come up with a way of confirming what every cat owner already knew, that cats aren't difficult to train because they're stupid, but because they choose to ignore it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...never-evolved-to-care-says-study-8966580.html
(I have a recording on my phone of a cat meowing. If I've lost the cats somewhere in the house and need to find them, I just play that)
And then of course there's the mirror test, which came up in another thread some time ago and is DEFINITELY flawed as far as many species are concerned.
Volsung - half the time, I'd consider it instinctive or reward-based/associative learning in humans too. The three year old who learns he can get his own way if he throws a tantrum in public is definitely doing just that. While we may be capable of a depth of reasoning that other species don't have, the animal is definitely still in there.
Yeah, it's the other way around with cats: cats domesticated themselves, as the article notes, and they train their "masters". The way cats are facultatively social -- on their terms, when they want to be -- is fascinating. Naturalists in Africa have even had African wildcats just move in with them and make themselves at home, including doing domestic cat things like sitting on your work when they want attention.
Last edited:
Yeah she's a spotted bengal. That was a piece of chicken.
The study forget to mention that the ogs are social animals with a strong hierarchical structure. They need an alpha figure in his pack and if they haven't they take it themselves.
The hierarchical structure of the cats is not so marked in their genes as his solitary nature makes it less necessary ..
The lack of an alpha figure who follow unbalanced emotional state of the dog. A cat without alpha figure has is still-life unchanged. That's why a dog should be educated from childhood with dedication. A cat needs little educational attention when compared with a dog.
And that's why a cat won't recognize his "owner" as the same way a dog do it. The cat does not need to prove his submission so clearly to keep his status.
The hierarchical structure of the cats is not so marked in their genes as his solitary nature makes it less necessary ..
The lack of an alpha figure who follow unbalanced emotional state of the dog. A cat without alpha figure has is still-life unchanged. That's why a dog should be educated from childhood with dedication. A cat needs little educational attention when compared with a dog.
And that's why a cat won't recognize his "owner" as the same way a dog do it. The cat does not need to prove his submission so clearly to keep his status.
Last edited:
Since everyone is posting pictures of their pets (and I promised @wichat that I'd show her my cats), here are mine:
I have two cats, Bruce (siamese) and Harvey (spotted silver tabby):
Bruce was a stray cat, found him as a kitten in my yard a couple of years back. He was anemic, had a wound around his mouth and a piece of his tail was missing. But as you can see he's all big and strong now! Harvey I got from one of my cousins about a year ago so Bruce would have some company.
Yes, they're named after Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent.
And I also have two dogs! Tommy (husky) and Blacky (mixed breed):
Blacky's picture is a bit old, he's way bigger now. Tommy was a Christmas present for my dad (he adores huskies) and Blacky is a stray dog we found at the side of the road.
I have two cats, Bruce (siamese) and Harvey (spotted silver tabby):
Yes, they're named after Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent.
And I also have two dogs! Tommy (husky) and Blacky (mixed breed):
I want to hear another @Blothulfur story. It's been a while, the people are hungry!
- Status