Are Dogs smarter than Apes?

[Ken]

YouTube - Monkey Teasing A Dog http://youtube.com/watch?v=RWrLWw7lrMg

 

Dogs learn via positive reinforcement, always acting under the premise they may get a nice doggy treat for their efforts.

 

 

Sort of, but why is it necessary to talk about dogs "acting under the premise..."? All that is necessary is to describe the Antecedent conditons, the Behavior, and the Consequences to completely describe the event.

 

Note Lloyd Morgan's response to Anthropomorphism:

 

In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes, if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development. (Morgan 1903, p. 59)

 

In fact for all Apes and Man, as well as dogs, cats, rats, whales, dolphins, etc., all non-reflexive behavior is adequately described by the ABC description. The issue gets more complicated when specific anatomical differences are introduced - for example Chimpanzees can't vocalize speech but they can generate non-verbal communication that provides transfer of information to and from humans that is qualitatively at a higher order of sophistication than can any of the non-Anthropoids.

 

We should also keep in mind that the original meaning of Intelligence has grown and been distorted by improper usage. The term originally referred to the aptitude for acquiring new information (learning) in school age children. It has gone far beyond those limits and has acquired some metaphysical baggage as an existent "thing" rather than a potential for performance.

 

B)

[Theory5]

 

Apes, on the other hand, also have effective communication methods using facial cues, but not very human-like. For instance, chimps, smile in the human fashion, i.e. curling the mouth-ends upward, but in threat - as opposed to the friendly action implied by a human smile. This might sound rather funny, but when a human smiles at a chimp, the chimp will experience it as a rather explicit threat. The dog, however, won't - the dog "smiles" the same way. When observing a bunch of chimps in a zoo cage pounding each other and "smiling", they might not necessarily be playing - they are threatening each other.

 

Dogs might be seen as more intelligent, because we recognise their social cues (which they've picked up from us, after all, having been artificially inserted into their genepool by us pesky humans), and will find a smiling ape strange, when his next action is to attack.

 

I think dogs might be able to figure out basic context, in the animal kingdom the barring of the teeth (smiling) is a threat, dogs use it with each other as well as us when they are angry or protective, but they growl in addition to the barring of the teeth. So yea I think they have adopted some of our social cues. At the animal shelter where I volunteered over the summer there was a small dog that barred her teeth when she was happy, at first I thought she was being aggressive until i asked and was told she does that when she is happy.

 

Uhh back to the original thing, dogs and cats are smart enough to figure out that a certain pattern of noise means something. When we say "walk" they don't hear the words they hear the noise, but they don't understand the meaning of the word until they associate it with an actual walk. I think dogs can hear more than we can, so they can pick out a certain sound better than us because they hear more of the sound, not just what we hear. Thats why they can pick out a word from someone with an accent as opposed to someone with a different accent.

[HydrogenBond]

Since dogs were domesticated before apes, this shows they were more attuned to the human mind. Birds of a feather flock together. People tend to gather with those, with whom they have more in common. There was something dogs had in common with humans, which made them flock together until dogs become a part of the human family (literally). There was an easy communication link between the two species. Even a small child can link up with a dog. It may take a specialist to link with an ape, since they are not quite as bright in this particular way.

[JMJones0424]

Since dogs were domesticated before apes, this shows they were more attuned to the human mind.

 

How? Wouldn't it be more correct to say that because dogs were domesticated before apes, there has been a greater amount of time for us to influence the sub-species by artificially selecting those that more easily recognize and respond to our wishes? Can we be sure that the first domesticated dogs were truly more receptive than apes to human direction? Or could it be that they were viewed by our ancestors as more desireable to be domesticated than apes, regardless of how "attuned to the human mind" they were? Or, even still, it may not have been a function of intelligence or perceived usefullness on either species' part. Perhaps man domesticated dogs first because the first "proto-dogs" were intrinsically more bold than other scavengers when approaching human settlements to feed off of our rubbish.

 

While the spotted hyena is certainly not a wolf, the historic city of Harar, Ethiopia, is known for having "tamed" the local population of hyenas. It is believed this was done in earlier times to prevent predation on livestock and to dispose of rubbish, but now a small tourist industry has evolved around the nightly ritual of feeding the hyenas. This may be a more modern example of the mutually beneficial relationship that existed in a few populations of humans and wolves that led to their domestication, and over many thousands of years, to the modern dog.

[Ken]

Since dogs were domesticated before apes, this shows they were more attuned to the human mind. Birds of a feather flock together.

 

Would that make sheep, cows, and water buffalo, smarter than Apes?

 

What exactly is meant by "attuned to the human mind"? and how would you go about measuring it? I can't think of any possible answer that doesn't lead directly to vicious circularity.

 

 

People tend to gather with those, with whom they have more in common. There was something dogs had in common with humans, which made them flock together until dogs become a part of the human family (literally).

 

I can think of no living organism that could claim closer lives to humans than bed bugs... ;)

 

Seriously, it's hard to say this without it sounding pejorative but you are using what is called "naive observation" or (naturalistic observation). It's much less useful to talk about humans, or humans and other animals, having things in common than it is to talk about the functional relationships that exist between living organisms - broadly parasitic, symbiotic, or competitive.

 

Looked at in those terms, or applying them as filters, it seems apparent the social history of Ape interaction with humans lies in the form of competition for resources while the social history of dogs with humans emphasized the advantages of cooperation as a genetic selector.

 

There was an easy communication link between the two species. Even a small child can link up with a dog.

 

That's a very romantic notion but I think that it ignores real-world observation. A very hungry domesticated dog, or a feral dog, is very likely to "internalize" such a claimed link. :D

 

It may take a specialist to link with an ape, since they are not quite as bright in this particular way.

 

A "specialist" such as a parent? :P You might want to read of the experiences of W.N. Kellogg and his wife who raised a Chimp along side their infant son in the 1930s. Or the Hayes who did much the same thing in the 1950s. Or the Gardner's who had the clever insight to teach American Sign Language (Ameslan) to the Chimp Washoe. Or Penny Patterson who raised a female Gorilla from infancy and taught her Ameslan. Koko, the female Gorilla was later tested to a non-verbal IQ comparable to a 5 year old human child.

 

Washoe learned over 200 signs, used accurately and relevantly. He also generated novel signs in new situations. Koko developed a vocabulary of over 800 specific signs.

 

I think if you review the comments in this thread back to it's beginning, you would agree with me that most of the judgements are based on greater personal familiarity with dogs than Apes, not on any objective comparisons.

 

BTW, I had the pleasure of being a student in Dr. Kellogg's last course and I was invited to assist him in cataloging his extensive set of recordings of whale "songs", i.e., underwater vocalizations. I could put them in chronological order and organize lists, but I couldn't make head nor tail nor even flipper of their meanings. It was very tempting to anthropomorphize some of the "plaintive" wailing as cries for help.....

[HydrogenBond]

Let me give an example of the unique communication link and canine intelligence. If one had a herding dog, the owner can give his dog the command to gather the animals for the night. The dog understands the command and the will of his human owner, and like his second in command, the dog becomes a liaison to the animals, offering a communication link to animals out of his species, via barking and body language. The dog is his next in command, obeying the human order, implementing these orders to the grunts in the herd. But this action is not linear, rather the dogs has to make individual judgements in the field since the animals have their own mind and there are unknown variables.

[Ken]

Let me give an example of the unique communication link and canine intelligence. If one had a herding dog, the owner can give his dog the command to gather the animals for the night. The dog understands the command and the will of his human owner, and like his second in command, the dog becomes a liaison to the animals, offering a communication link to animals out of his species, via barking and body language. The dog is his next in command, obeying the human order, implementing these orders to the grunts in the herd. But this action is not linear, rather the dogs has to make individual judgements in the field since the animals have their own mind and there are unknown variables.

 

Can the dog carry on a conversation? Can it generate new words? Can it solve problems requiring manipulation of it's environment? Can it modify objects in it's environment to use them as tools or utilize them as weapons? B)

 

 

 

:P

[HydrogenBond]

Can the dog carry on a conversation? Can it generate new words? Can it solve problems requiring manipulation of it's environment? Can it modify objects in it's environment to use them as tools or utilize them as weapons?

 

Dogs don't have the physical tools to talk like humans. They don' t have hands to sign. But based on what they do have, they can do many things. Dogs are not limited to linear tasks, like pick the red star, but can be trained to do complex jobs for a living, which require individual judgements. The herding dog can be trained to do a complex task, which requires their own judgements. A guard dog job is in charge of security. Without electronic surveillance devices, he can react to even those who might be able to-pass man-made security. One can also teach him to detain or terminate. There are also tracking dogs jobs, since some can smell scents better than any modern tools and can used that talent to find lost children or can help security find contraband. There are also seeing-eye dog jobs, which can help a human maneuver even in the busy streets of NY. There are show dog jobs, who only job is to look pretty and walk with style, like a super model. There are dogs who often take on the job of a hero, who will sacrifice themselves for their owner. There are sled dog jobs, where dogs are chosen based on their athletic endurance. We have sport dog jobs, where their job is that of a professional athlete, such as world class sprinting.

[Ken]

Dogs don't have the physical tools to talk like humans. They don' t have hands to sign. But based on what they do have, they can do many things. Dogs are not limited to linear tasks, like pick the red star, but can be trained to do complex jobs for a living, which require individual judgements. The herding dog can be trained to do a complex task, which requires their own judgements. A guard dog job is in charge of security. Without electronic surveillance devices, he can react to even those who might be able to-pass man-made security. One can also teach him to detain or terminate. There are also tracking dogs jobs, since some can smell scents better than any modern tools and can used that talent to find lost children or can help security find contraband. There are also seeing-eye dog jobs, which can help a human maneuver even in the busy streets of NY. There are show dog jobs, who only job is to look pretty and walk with style, like a super model. There are dogs who often take on the job of a hero, who will sacrifice themselves for their owner. There are sled dog jobs, where dogs are chosen based on their athletic endurance. We have sport dog jobs, where their job is that of a professional athlete, such as world class sprinting.

 

Sorry, friend. Chimpanzees and Gorillas don't have "the physical tools to talk like humans" either, but they do have the capability of symbol manipulation which is the foundation of language.

 

While dogs are capable of quite complex behaviors they lack skills in symbol manipulation or the solution of problems which are outside the range of their physical and sensory capabilities.

 

Symbolic communication in the Apes is evidenced in a variety of very different situations. Look at the differences in methodology of the Gardners et al , Premack, and the Rumbaughs. Certainly the Rumbaugh approach is one that could be used with dogs, but as far as I'm aware there is no research in the literature that demonstrates canine success.

 

This is not a binary decision that dogs are "smart" or dogs are "dumb". The issue is one of relative cognitive capabilities. And the criteria are fairly arbitrary.

 

What makes a human superior to a dog or a Gorilla? It certainly isn't physical strength, nor is it better sensory discriminations. As humans we accept criteria that revolve around communication of complex symbol and concepts, sophistication of tool making, and skills in manipulating the physical environment. If we apply our criteria to other organisms then rank order the three groups I've referred to, then the ranking from highest to lowest is clearly Homo sapiens, the remaining Hominids (Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Orangutans), and at the bottom the Canidae.

 

That doesn't mean that I denigrate dogs, simply that my appraisal is objective and based on the criteria that humans assume as critical to human behavioral competencies.

[Qfwfq]

To be clever we would spell "are you going to take the D-O-G for a W-A-L-K?"

 

That only worked so long until he understood how to spell w-a-l-k. It really is amazing.

Goodness when I read that I couldn't help goin' googlin' for this old one:

 

 

It is a parody of a song by Tammy Wynnette in which it is the son that musn't understand the word d i v o r c e.

[Ken]

Goodness when I read that I couldn't help goin' googlin' for this old one:

 

 

It is a parody of a song by Tammy Wynnette in which it is the son that musn't understand the word d i v o r c e.

 

 

That's hilarious. Thanks.

 

But, it also reminded me of another video. I couldn't find the one that I initially wanted but this one makes the same point about good learning masquerading as intelligence.

 

 

How's that Lassie? :D

[HydrogenBond]

This creates a paradox. Dogs will not score high relative to symbol manipulation, yet how is that they can be trained to do complex jobs an ape can't do? A seeing eye dog not only has to understand obstacles but once up and running can figure out endless variations. The amount of training to get the dog up to steam will be much less than the ape. Maybe the difference is like the difference between book smarts and practical smarts.

[JMJones0424]

There is no paradox. Dogs are domesticated, apes are not. It should come as no surprise that it may be more difficult to train an ape to do a task than it is to train a dog to do the same task if they are both biologically capable of doing it. However, I am not familiar enough with apes to know if this is an accurate statement. Regardless, the ability to easily train a member of a species is not an accurate measure of intelligence, at least when most people use the word. If you define intelligence to be "how readily and reliably an individual species responds to our wishes," then clearly dogs would be more intelligent then most other animals. This is not usually what others refer to when using the word intelligence though.

 

I would like to see examples of dogs performing complex mental tasks, such as abstract problem solving, planning, and self-awareness, to place them on a comparative scale of animal intelligence. All of your examples so far have been more along the lines of learned behaviors and pattern recognition.

 

Do you have an example of some of the "endless variations" that guide dogs are capable of? I am not aware of any trainers that claim to be able to train dogs to be able to deal with uniquely new circumstances. Again, sight dogs are an example of a very well trained dog that reacts to situations using learned behaviours, not abstract problem solving.

[Qfwfq]

I would like to see examples of dogs performing complex mental tasks, such as abstract problem solving, planning, and self-awareness, to place them on a comparative scale of animal intelligence. All of your examples so far have been more along the lines of learned behaviors and pattern recognition.

 

Do you have an example of some of the "endless variations" that guide dogs are capable of? I am not aware of any trainers that claim to be able to train dogs to be able to deal with uniquely new circumstances. Again, sight dogs are an example of a very well trained dog that reacts to situations using learned behaviours, not abstract problem solving.

Gee, I've seen humans that are trainable for specific tasks but clueless in tackling a new problem. Even when it is some variant of famliar ones; in these cases they might just bang the usual square peg as hard as they can into the unfamliar round hole, instead of seeking a more appropriate peg.

 

I have no experience with any kind of ape and I imagine they are smart enough at figuring what they are interested in, but so are some dogs I've seen and heard of. Note also that spelling out words to avoid a dog understanding is not the same as getting the dog to obey a command, it means eluding the dog's spontaneous understanding, in short it means outsmarting it.

 

An acquaintance back when I was young told me about the dog they kept that was always trying to sneak out the gate and roam the streets. They weren't in the habit of locking the gate and one day the dog learned to work the handle. For a while they couldn't figure who was letting him out, when they got the game they started turning the key in the lock. So one day this guy saw the dog fiddling with the key, trying to turn it with his fore teeth. No doubt a chimp will learn at least as easily and also has the advantage of manual dexterity, but it doesn't have the pack instincts of cooperation and follow the leader, so it will learn what suits it and maybe just doesn't presume the human's cues to be toward its favour. Human societies are based on cooperation more than other apes.

[JMJones0424]

Note also that spelling out words to avoid a dog understanding is not the same as getting the dog to obey a command, it means eluding the dog's spontaneous understanding, in short it means outsmarting it.

 

And the longer the practice goes on, the higher the chances are that the dog will learn the pattern W A L K means the same as the pattern walk, if at least some of the time you grab his leash after saying it. I don't understand your point.

 

An acquaintance back when I was young told me about the dog they kept that was always trying to sneak out the gate and roam the streets. They weren't in the habit of locking the gate and one day the dog learned to work the handle. For a while they couldn't figure who was letting him out, when they got the game they started turning the key in the lock. So one day this guy saw the dog fiddling with the key, trying to turn it with his fore teeth.

 

While certainly possible that the dog happened upon the correct way to open the gate, I suspect that he observed his owner doing it a few times first. In a previous house I had a roommate whose dog could open all of the doors. (The door handles were the handicapped accessible kind with a pivoting lever rather than a knob that you turn.) He got in the habit of letting himself out to go to the bathroom, but if he tried the door and it was locked, he would bark to get someone to open it. All of this is interesting, but again, would it qualify as complex problem solving, or just good observational skills? Or is there really all that much of a difference between the two? Is creativity in problem solving almost uniquely human, so much so that including it in intelligence tests for animals is too exclusive?

 

No doubt a chimp will learn at least as easily and also has the advantage of manual dexterity, but it doesn't have the pack instincts of cooperation and follow the leader, so it will learn what suits it and maybe just doesn't presume the human's cues to be toward its favour. Human societies are based on cooperation more than other apes.

Sounds like neither of us know enough to comment on apes, but I remember watching a PBS program ("The Human Spark" hosted by Alan Alda, Episode 2 Chapter 5 starting at 37:27) in which two groups of chimps were isolated and observed. A device with two different ways of opening in order to access a treat was used as the test. An individual from group A was taught solution A and an individual from group B solution B. All of the chimps picked up how to operate the device from their respective trained members, but no chimp ever discovered the alternative solution.

 

Interestingly, in the same program, starting at 45:40, a young child, a chimp, a dog, and a wolf are tested using pointing. The chimps and wolves don't recognize the act as a direction, but dogs do. "Chimpanzes are our closest living relatives, but they don't live close to us."

[Qfwfq]

I don't understand your point.

Quite simply that the dog isn't being trained but simply watching its interests.

 

While certainly possible that the dog happened upon the correct way to open the gate,

I would hardly think so and I would almost suppose that he observed his owner doing it. Do you call the first case smarter than the second?

 

The smartest case is not happenstance but, rather, cogitating that since humans can do it, there must be a way and hence trying to figure it out. It couldn't grasp the mechanism, which isn't even outward visible, but you never know about a bit of empirical attempting. However, as they didn't think it necessary to prevent the dog from ever seeing the details, it is more likely the bugger payed attention until he spotted the trick. Call him imbecilic.

 

Is creativity in problem solving almost uniquely human,

As I already said, not all humans have it. I don't think it is so completely uniquely human either but it's one of those subtle issues and full of semantic ambiguity that I don't think is central.

 

An individual from group A was taught solution A and an individual from group B solution B. All of the chimps picked up how to operate the device from their respective trained members, but no chimp ever discovered the alternative solution.

Of course. Once each group had a satisfactory solution, why the f. would they have been looking for an alternative? To increase their scientific knowledge? :rolleyes:

 

A more interesting experiment would be for the device to have one very easy though not too obvious method and another that is much less handy, teach one group the latter way and leave the other group to its own devices.

 

Interestingly, in the same program, starting at 45:40, a young child, a chimp, a dog, and a wolf are tested using pointing. The chimps and wolves don't recognize the act as a direction, but dogs do. "Chimpanzes are our closest living relatives, but they don't live close to us."

I kinda mentioned the fact that we have thrived on cooperation. Same for wolves, they have the pack instinct, but they have paws and not hands. Dogs have been lengthily bred by humans in order to be useful; starting from the pack instinct, our ancestors forged them to be cooperative with us.

 

Has any of you read about why our eyes are so white around the iris? This doesn't go for all species and isn't true of the other apes.

[HydrogenBond]

One possible way to compare dog and ape intelligence might be practical intelligence versus book smarts. There are people who are very intelligent via learning, but not very practical. They can study how to fix the toilet but can't figure out how to use a pipe wrench. There are people who are very practical but may not be very educated.The dogs may not be as good at the book tests that we use for the apes, but makes up for this via their practical intelligence. I listed a number of jobs we can teach dogs. Maybe someone can list the subjects apes are good at. Some are good at linguistics; sign language.

 

I had a Doberman who had practical intelligence. She needed to be kenneled during vacation, so the lady who was holding the dog placed her in a cage with 8ft chain link fence. The dog figured out it could climbed up the fence placing its paws on the holes. It then jumped off the top, around the house and came back to my side. Since the cage had been in the back of the house, we figured maybe she pushed open the gate. So we put her back in, latched it better and walked out of her sight. She started to climb slowly and awkwardly up the side. I told her to get down, "stay", she did but with a whine, since she knew we were going to leave her there. I suppose that too is abstract thinking.

 

The relationship between humans and dogs, began long before there were books or alphabets. Before humans had any book smarts to teach the apes, humans had already formed a rapport with dogs because of their practical intelligence. Dogs were not a burden but earned their keep. Apes would have been considered a food animal.