(My intention is to post here on Wednesdays, but this is going to be a nutty week, so here goes.)
"That's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average." If you're a fan of Garrison Keillor and "A Prairie Home Companion" like I am, you've heard that wrap up to the "news" many times.
Based on recent reports about Dr. Stanley Coren, you may be convinced it's time to update that line to something like "That's the news from Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are at least as smart as the dogs."
Dr. Coren, author of How Dogs Think and The Intelligence of Dogs (among other titles) presented at the American Psychological Association's annual convention in Toronto this year and the headlines flew: "Your dog is as smart as your two year old," "Poodles may be smarter than two-year-olds," "Is your dog smarter than a two-year-old child?" and my personal favorite " DOGS 'ARE BRIGHT AS TODDLERS' " (emphasis theirs.)
Let's take a peek beyond the sensationalism and hyperbole and see what Dr.Coren really had to say. Unfortunately none of the articles point to any studies or video, but between the various articles and this very recent blog post on Dr. Coren's blog at Psychology Today, I think I have cut through the hype.
Dr. Coren categorizes intelligence into three "dimensions": instinctive, adaptive, and "working and obedience." He covers them in the blog entry linked above, so I will only cover them briefly here.
Instinctive intelligence refers to what a dog was bred for. Herding dogs were bred to herd, which requires instinctive abilities that are not taught. Similarly, retrievers fetch, hounds track, pointers sniff out birds. These abilities are not useful in comparing a dog's intelligence - she either has them or she does not.
Adaptive Intelligence is the dog's ability to learn for herself. Adapting to the environment, solving problems, and applying experience are what this "dimension" consists of. This is measurable between two dogs, whether they are of the same breed or not.
Working and Obedience Intelligence is probably what most people are thinking of when they discuss the relative intelligence of an individual dog: how "trainable" she is. In his blog Dr. Coren refers to the research he did for the Intelligence of Dogs, which this part of the breathless reporting concerning dogs and their less intelligent human toddlers is actually covering research done for a book published four years ago.
Dr. Coren's ranking of breeds by working and obedience intelligence is probably what he is best known for, at least in the "civilian" word. But all it really is a great headline material for a slow news day (and keep in mind, all 3 of my dogs are mixes from the top 10, so it's not sour grapes speaking here.) Even he admits it may be poor criteria for selecting a dog, since learning things quickly means that your dog may quickly learn a few things you don't want her to. I would add that of the bottom ten breeds, I have had quite a few representatives of eight in obedience classes and they all did fine.
Personally, I'm a little confused about the difference between adaptive and working/obedience. Learning what a human wants when she issues a given cue is, to a large degree, adapting to the environment, isn't it? Isn't there at least some overlap between these two "dimensions" of intelligence? I posted this question to Dr. Coren's blog.
Most of the articles also indicate that the "average dog" can understand about 165 words and count to 5. A few of the articles also refer to dogs showing an ability to deceive other dogs and people.
Dr. Coren discusses deception in both "How Dogs Think" and "The Intelligence of Dogs." Deception requires a very sophisticated level of thought. In order to deceive you, I don't just have to figure how to fool you - I have to somehow recognize that you have a mind and can see things differently than I, I.E. that you can be fooled. Dr. Coren discusses this in both books, and it's the discussions like this that make both books well worth reading.
The assertions regarding vocabularly are not a surprise to me at all. You may recall stories about Rico, a Border Collie in Germany with a 200+ word vocabulary that has been verified by a handful of researchers. Dr. Coren discusses Rico in The Intelligence of Dogs.
And, as you might have guessed, Dr. Coren also discusses counting in his book, although I think the examples he cites, such as the dog that retrieves multiple hunting lures, could be explained by the dog using scent or picking up cues from his handler. I'm not convinced dogs can count, but I'm not saying it's impossible either.
So, it appears that the big story a couple of weeks ago was not new data regarding the intelligence of dogs, but perhaps the relative lack on the part of toddlers? (Just kidding parents! I have a child of my own, and he was just awarded a full scholarship for fours years of undergrad, thank you very much.)
The real news I have seen regarding the intelligence of dogs is here, courtesy of Patricia McConnell. Dog's riding the subway between "home" and where they find food? There's an amazing example of adaptive learning.
What do you think?
- eric goebelbecker's blog
- login or register to post comments
- 782 reads
- back to the dog blog
- more by eric goebelbecker
Regarding Deception
Hi Eric,
First, a belated welcome! I've been enjoying your blogs. Always great to see pieces that are well-written and informative. :)
About deception, which is really also manipulation, I can attest to having seen that. My female GSD Soko was extremely bright. She was also extremely ball-obsessed (shocker, being a GSD, hmm). Mojo, my male GSD/rottie/malamute/wolf mix, was a big goofball and a bit of a bully at times. He'd take her ball, put it in the middle of the room, move away and lie down, and look at her like, "Go for it, make my day!" Of course Soko would never try that; she knew better. But time after time, here's what I saw: she'd prick up her ears as though she heard something outside. Then she'd run through the living room into the kitchen, and out the doggie door. Mojo would inevitably follow. Once they were both outside, she'd run back in and grab the ball. He fell for it every time.
I've heard it said that female dogs are more manipulative than males. It would be interesting to see a study. It would also be interesting to study the link between intelligence and the capacity for manipulation, as it seems likely that the two go together.
Nicole Wilde
Visit my blog Wilde About Dogs at http://wildewmn.wordpress.com
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/NicoleWilde
Books/DVDs for dog trainers and dog lovers www.phantompub.com
Thank you!
Thanks for the welcome! It's a real privilege to be here.
Buddha is the master of deception in my house. He loves to "fake out" Caffeine when they are chasing a ball together (which is a simple form of deception) and I have seen him lure other dogs away from toys in a way similar to your Soko.
I'm really curious about the counting and would love to figure out a way to test for the ability while eliminating other cues. I've seen evidence that even my Gage, who is a total blockhead (and I love him for it) and has terrible eyesight can count how many balls I throw before releasing him. But is that what's really going on or am I somehow cueing him?
Eric
Regarding Deception
I had a great laugh at your post Nicole! I have a female Rotti/Shep/Pit X and a male Border Collie Pit X and I recognized the behaviour you have mentioned (manipulation) as it happens in my home quite frequently. If Sirius my male is on the couch, which is normally her spot. Bella, my female will prick her ears, let out a little woof and run to the front window barking and sure enough Sirius falls for it and runs to see what's up! The second he arrives at the window with her she races back to the couch and leaps on to her resting spot. Mission accomplished!! Sirius will fall for this every single time....duffus! My husband and I get quite a kick out it!! Silly dogs!
Deception
I have a dog that does things like that too, her great favorite to do to houseguests is to take something that belongs to them (such as a shoe) while they are eating something. She lays down and pretends to chew it and when they try and take it back she runs outside and leaves it in the yard. By the time they get back inside their food is gone and she is laying in their spot on the couch.
I've heard it said that dogs have no ability to reason, I happen to think they can and I believe I've seen proof of it.
Reason: the ability to think, form judgments, draw conclusions, etc.
Reason: to think coherently and logically; draw inferences or conclusions from facts known or assumed
The statement: "I don't just have to figure how to fool you - I have to somehow recognize that you have a mind and can see things differently than I, I.E. that you can be fooled. " Really got me thinking about what would be required for a dog to be able to reason. They would have to be able to extrapolate information, look ahead at projected outcomes, weigh odds, make assumptions and recognise facts. Is this possible? A very simple example would be: the dog looks at the steak on the counter, then the door, then me, then the steak, then the most direct root along the floor from the steak to the door, then the distance from me to the door, then she looses complete interest in the steak and flops down dejectedly on the floor. It looks very much like she is judging speed, reaction time and distance to decide if she can make it past me with the steak or not, then decides she won't make it and gives up. Is it possible that she is really completing that though process?
Really got me thinking about
Really got me thinking about what would be required for a dog to be able to reason. They would have to be able to extrapolate information, look ahead at projected outcomes, weigh odds, make assumptions and recognise facts. Is this possible?
Totally unscientific answer? Yeah, I do. Watch a herding dog move a small group of sheep around a tree. I think what you list above is the easy part.
It's this part:
...to do to houseguests is to take something that belongs to them (such as a shoe) while they are eating something. She lays down and pretends to chew it and when they try and take it back she runs outside and leaves it in the yard. By the time they get back inside their food is gone and she is laying in their spot on the couch.
"If take this item outside the human will follow me. I will then run back in and steal something better." That's a big leap forward because it requires the dog predicting the human's actions.
Or does it? What if it happened once by chance and the dog simply learned it via what Coren calls "adaptive learning?"
Dog sees tasty leather glove and steals it. Drops it outside because she is scared by yelling humans. Runs inside and comes across slice of pizza that was carelessly left on low coffee table. Behavior chain is now seared into dog's memory....
Eric Goebelbecker
right
I'm wondering which it is (Adaptive learning or the ability to reasoning) so could you test it? It seems to me like Adaptive learning could be tested and proven but I don't see a way reasoning could be proven, or for that matter, disproven. How might a person test the theory?
Could you set up a situation that requires the ability to reason and put the dog into it without the chance for adaptive learning to take place beforehand? I think what interests me the most about this is that I have witnessed on a number of occasions dogs that make definate choices. Some are very clear (I'd rather eat a pepperoni stick than dogfood, thanks) and some seem very abstract. I'm interested in whether or not there is criteria the dog is using to make the choice; are they actually thinking it through? is it instinctual? learned? previously reinforced?
Right.
I don't see a way reasoning could be proven, or for that matter, disproven. How might a person test the theory?
I don't know that you can, so the principle of parsimony would apply. To continue with your example, it could simply be a matter of the dog having learned that when all (or a subset of) the humans are outside, running inside very quickly sometimes results in a successful run at table-surfing. That would probably be on a variable schedule of reinforcement, making it even more powerful. This completely removes the question of planning, in addition to eliminating a need to understand deception. (I'm not trying to be a party poop - I think dogs are capable of these things.)
I'm not sure how to construct a test. I'm an applications guy, not a researcher. :-) I think we run into a fundamental problem when trying to evaluate the mental capacities of a species: we have no way of "getting into their heads."
A lot of our preconceived notions about animals have been knocked down the past few years though. We have birds using tools (both sticks to gather honey and rocks to raise the water level in containers), dogs recognizing faces on computers and even dogs modeling other dogs, which just 6 years ago I was told didn't happen.
However some researchers did try to test problem solving skills in dogs and compared them to wolves, and the dogs did not do well at all. I think the PBS Nature special "Dogs of the World" covered the tests. (Nicole may be more familiar with this.)
Eric Goebelbecker
neat!
Neat! I'll see if I can find it on utube or something.
Research
Recently, while reading Patricia McConnell's <strong>For the Love of a Dog</strong>, (and if I understood correctly) she makes the case via research of the differences between human and canine brains. The human brain has "big grey cerebral hemispheres covered by cortex" which is the thinking and planning area. This is why the human brain is so large.
Ms. McConnell argues the case that there are other areas of the canine/human brains which are similar (limbic system) and therefore canines share similar emotions with human (ie Fear, shyness). Ms McConnell writes that the existing research shows canines do not have the same internal brain-driven dialogue that humans use for decision-making...canines see things as familiar and unfamiliar, and react accordingly.
It was a great read and I recommend it for a perspective that describes the brain in friendly terms.
Donna