Domestication Dumbs Down Dogs

[Mumsie]

I have two JRT's, 12 y.o (Tammy) is very smart, makes her games up, she particularly likes to take a golf ball upstairs, accross the verandah and drop it on the pergola roof and watch it roll down into the back yard, she then runs down stairs, into the back yard, finds the ball and goes again. She will come and give a small noise to get my attention and then take me to the cupboard where her coats are if she is cold. The 4 y.o JRT (Boags) tends to look to the older dog to solve the problem or to us, he has worked out if she is in the bean bag he wants he will run to the front door and bark, she will quickly follow and he runs back and gets into the nice warm bean bag.

Tammy also likes to bury golf balls in blankets or the bean bags and then flips the blanket or bean bag and the ball richochets all over the place.

Another game until we took them away was to get 3 marbles in her mouth, jump up on the lounge and lay them out in a row, she would then nudge them one at a time off the lounge to see how far they would roll. She would then pick them all up and start the game again. We got tired of retrieiving marbles from under the furniture and they hurt like mad when you tread on them in bare feet in the dark!

Neither dog has had formal training, just basic sit, down, wait to eat, come when called etc.

[Aidan]

Another interesting, related story:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/09/2...better.primates

[Are You Serious Jo]

From memory, the problems presented to dogs and wolves during the experiments are unsolvable no matter how many times they try. Our pets don't have the same situation, lots of the time they can work through a problem using various behaviours, so you won't see them turning back to look for help.

[corvus]

Those JRTs are clever!

Erik has been known to use stairs and ramps to build up momentum for slamming into Kivi. We don't have many stairs in this place but there is a short flight in my parents' house. The first time he stayed there he climbed to the top of the stairs, then ran down and crunched into Kivi at the bottom. Then he turned around and climbed to the top and did it again, only faster. On the third or fourth go Kivi got tired of being rammed and finally moved, putting an end to that game.

I still don't think Erik is a brilliant problem-solver, though. He tries a lot of things out and is pretty creative and very persistent. I don't know whether creativity and problem-solving especially go hand-in-hand. I guess the best problem-solvers are creative, but in this case we're talking about problems that don't require a great deal of creativity, just a higher level of cognition.

[spottychick]

I also agree.

In regards to problem solving in domestic dogs - I think it is (like everything) a combination of nature/nurture. Some dogs are more likely to try things and others are happy to let the world happen to them. But some of this has to do with training. Lots of suppressioin work/traditional obedience work will make dogs less likely to try new things, and shaping encourages trying new things.

I am teaching my dogs to walk backwards, purely shaping the behaviour in a narrow corridor I made against a fence. Kaos picked it up almost right away, in the first session (though I may have started teaching this to him a long time ago, but certainly haven't done work on it in years). He is drivey and I have done a lot of shaping with him, he is happy to offer behaviours. Zoe and Diesel haven't yet figured out what I want. They both want to offer either targeting behaviours or a drop. Zoe is drivey but I only started shaping with her later in her life and she is not as good at offering behaviours at the beginning. She is great once she figures out what you want though. Diesel has less drive and is also less inclined to try things in general, temperamentally different to the others. He also wants to give me a close front when I try this - shows what I practice the most with him

That's interesting. I'd never heard of "shaping" before I came here and read through posts about the TOT programme. It makes so much sense to me tho and I think I've been doing it by accident for years.

Apart from some early training of one dog when she was a puppy none of my dogs get trained at "obedience" classes or whatever but all of them have been incredibly well behaved and smart (well mostly well behaved LOL). I've never really cared about having a dog that is "obedient" enough to worry about training. I wanted dogs who are well-behaved and social. ANd somehow or another I seem to achieve that.

I know, for example, that when I take dogs for a walk or run next to my bike off-lead I talk to them, so if we start turning left I'll say "Go left guys" or whatever and often they're already going left so I'm giving them the name for something they are already doing. "Go left" eventually becomes something I can ask them to do at any time and they will. I think that was shaping (am I right??) and it's great to know what it is and why it works. I'm keen to know more about it tho. Might give that walking backwards gig a go LOL

I can't thank people in this forum enough for that valuable information.

[Nekhbet]

But see, the thing is I don't think they do know to look to humans to solve their problems for any particular reason. They do it because they are hard-wired to do it.

dogs are with people the moment they are born, we mould them to be companion animals. We touch them, talk to them, they smell us all the time, then we feed them, socialise them etc. We take over the role of their mother - sort of like hand rearing baby birds who then become more bonded to their human then to other birds and lose some wild bird traits. I can tell you I have seen dogs untouched by humans until 8 weeks and they act completely differently to your normal puppy. WOlf pups again are not raised with human contact, they are not TAUGHT to be reliant on people for everything. THose dogs and pups not raised around people did not immediately rely on the owner, they worked things out for themselves, and you could see the detatchment. They went to the owner for a treat like a dispenser, yet they were just so independent.

I think if you want a valid study raise some domestic dogs out with wolves and see if they fare any better. Or raise some wolves/dingoes in a domestic litter from birth (one pup per litter so there is no chance of copying one another) and see what happens then. You cannot just say that it is purely genetic the effects that have been measured.

[Jigsaw]

But see, the thing is I don't think they do know to look to humans to solve their problems for any particular reason. They do it because they are hard-wired to do it.

dogs are with people the moment they are born, we mould them to be companion animals. We touch them, talk to them, they smell us all the time, then we feed them, socialise them etc. We take over the role of their mother - sort of like hand rearing baby birds who then become more bonded to their human then to other birds and lose some wild bird traits. I can tell you I have seen dogs untouched by humans until 8 weeks and they act completely differently to your normal puppy. WOlf pups again are not raised with human contact, they are not TAUGHT to be reliant on people for everything. THose dogs and pups not raised around people did not immediately rely on the owner, they worked things out for themselves, and you could see the detatchment. They went to the owner for a treat like a dispenser, yet they were just so independent.

I think if you want a valid study raise some domestic dogs out with wolves and see if they fare any better. Or raise some wolves/dingoes in a domestic litter from birth (one pup per litter so there is no chance of copying one another) and see what happens then. You cannot just say that it is purely genetic the effects that have been measured.

I agree with Nekhbet. I don't think there is an innate desire in dogs to look to humans to solve problems for them, I think this is probably a learned behaviour as Nekhbet described we take over the role of their mother. This is why the first 8 weeks of a pup's life are so important. Early neurological stimulation is thought to improve performance of dogs in competitive situations.

If you think that dogs looking to humans to solve their problems is because they are hard-wired to do it how has this happened? I don't think it's genetically programmed into them, which to say it's innate or hard-wired I would think it would be.

[BJean]

Here's a nice report on a journal article about how dogs' problem solving skills compare to Dingoes'.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/201...tm#artBookmarks

I love this because for ages I wanted my hare in dog form. It took a while for me to realise that a lot of the things my hare can do that I love so much and find so amazing are things he can only do because he's a wild animal. He is not a smart animal the way a dog is smart, but I've often said he has a kind of animal genius to him when it comes to problem solving. For a not very bright, solitary prey animal it blows me away what he can do. Erik is one of the smartest dogs I've met, but when he has a problem he looks for a human to solve it for him. Or he just defaults to thwacking it with his paw and jabbing it with his nose. If he pokes and thwacks enough, usually something will happen sooner or later. Kivi is not a problem solver. He has no motivation for it. Life just happens to him. If he stares at it long enough someone will probably come and sort it out for him.

I know there was a study done on the problem solving skills of different breeds. I seem to remember the Basenjis and Beagles kicked ass over the working breeds when it came to working out problems without human help.

How does your breed go with problem solving?

Edited for heinous grammar.

Actually Anatolians/Kangals one of the more primitive LGDs, are very good problem solvers, their constant querying and analytical mind however does make them unlikely stars at dog obedience, paricularly strong working lines.

[BJean]

But see, the thing is I don't think they do know to look to humans to solve their problems for any particular reason. They do it because they are hard-wired to do it.

dogs are with people the moment they are born, we mould them to be companion animals. We touch them, talk to them, they smell us all the time, then we feed them, socialise them etc. We take over the role of their mother - sort of like hand rearing baby birds who then become more bonded to their human then to other birds and lose some wild bird traits. I can tell you I have seen dogs untouched by humans until 8 weeks and they act completely differently to your normal puppy. WOlf pups again are not raised with human contact, they are not TAUGHT to be reliant on people for everything. THose dogs and pups not raised around people did not immediately rely on the owner, they worked things out for themselves, and you could see the detatchment. They went to the owner for a treat like a dispenser, yet they were just so independent.

I think if you want a valid study raise some domestic dogs out with wolves and see if they fare any better. Or raise some wolves/dingoes in a domestic litter from birth (one pup per litter so there is no chance of copying one another) and see what happens then. You cannot just say that it is purely genetic the effects that have been measured.

I agree with Nekhbet. I don't think there is an innate desire in dogs to look to humans to solve problems for them, I think this is probably a learned behaviour as Nekhbet described we take over the role of their mother. This is why the first 8 weeks of a pup's life are so important. Early neurological stimulation is thought to improve performance of dogs in competitive situations.

If you think that dogs looking to humans to solve their problems is because they are hard-wired to do it how has this happened? I don't think it's genetically programmed into them, which to say it's innate or hard-wired I would think it would be.

I wouldn't call it looking to humans to solve their problems but I think some breeds are more people orientated than others.

CAO has a developmental history more entwined with humans than their Turksih counterpart, Anatolian/Kangal;

I think CAO look to people more, ie have more emotional capacity/inclination, than ASD.

[corvus]

I think if you want a valid study raise some domestic dogs out with wolves and see if they fare any better. Or raise some wolves/dingoes in a domestic litter from birth (one pup per litter so there is no chance of copying one another) and see what happens then. You cannot just say that it is purely genetic the effects that have been measured.

I do believe the study with the wolf cubs vs puppies did have hand-raised wolf cubs in it. Well, I think there has been a few. This one is the one I was thinking of:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...157066edf268788

[corvus]

Here's another similar one:

http://scienceonline.org/cgi/content/abstr...i;298/5598/1634

[corvus]

And this one shows that fox kits selectively bred for 45 years for fearless and non-aggressive behaviour towards humans match dog puppies in their ability to read human communicative gestures, and are better at it than fox kits that haven't been selectively bred.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/retrie...960982205000928

[dognurse]

oooh fantastic article! i wonder if the same can be said for cats? feral vs owned?

i did a similar experiment with my two dogs, both german shep cross breeds. we were walking and they went through a bike shed at a school and didnt realise they couldnt get out the end. one dog, the shep x american staffy wasnt phased and simply went back to where she got in. The other dog, shep x miscellaneous, possibly dingo, just looked at me for help and starting crying! the wierd thing is the shep x miscellaneous (6yr male) is very smart, quick thinking and obedient, whereas the german shep x amstaff (2yrs old female) is naughty and disobedient and a slow learner. it was a suprising shock and made me realise that the male maybe isnt smarter, he is probably just more respectful and eager to please, whereas the naughtiness in the female could really be her stuborness and ability to think outside the box, and to think for herself and not rely on my instruction? in the wild i would definetly assume that she would survive the longest, but by god i wish she would just listening to me sometimes! i dont think there is anything wrong with a dog who dotes and sucks up to his master lol! makes life a whole lot easier

[Jigsaw]

I think if you want a valid study raise some domestic dogs out with wolves and see if they fare any better. Or raise some wolves/dingoes in a domestic litter from birth (one pup per litter so there is no chance of copying one another) and see what happens then. You cannot just say that it is purely genetic the effects that have been measured.

I do believe the study with the wolf cubs vs puppies did have hand-raised wolf cubs in it. Well, I think there has been a few. This one is the one I was thinking of:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...157066edf268788

Not sure if this is the exact study that Ray Coppinger referred to last night in a telecourse I did but he was quite disparging of a comparitive study done along these lines by Hungarians!

[Mrs Rusty Bucket]

I think that clicker training and shaping encourages a dog to think and problem solve.

I think I've kind of undone some of the initiative in my dog but she's really really quick on some things.

Like for a long time it was really difficult to get her back on lead at the end of a walk - especially if she was tired enough to have what I call brain fade, but I could catch, treat and release as much as I liked for the first thirty minutes, and after that it would get harder and harder.

Each trick I tried to catch her would work only once. A few that would work on some dogs, like going in the bike cage at school, never worked, she could see that was a trap from the outset.

There are a few tricks now that she knows but accepts because she likes the reward - eg going up stairs onto balconies. The stairs are narrow, and it's hard for her to go down them enough I can always catch her on the stairs, but she goes up, because she likes the view. Go figure.

She's extremely good at getting treats out of balls and hiding places. And she's got me well trained - like when to open the back door for her, and when she wants a play - and what with - not that I always reward that. And she's worked out how to cadge treats, and who has some, anywhere we go. And she's currently working on pocket raiding (kleenex - yum, why do I bother with beef chips?).

as far as the maze mentioned, there are partial fences around some of the ovals I go to. Frosty knows how to go around these, or where the holes are to go through. I watch other dogs who are there just as often as she is, completely unable to get "go round", and stay on the wrong side of the fence nearest where they want to go. In an ultimate problem solve / desperate act, my dog has been known to go *over* the fence and that was before I started agility training with her.

Then again, she's part ACD and ACD are part dingo.

I think there is a lot of problem solving that is encouraged or squashed in a domestic dog, especially a well fed one.

[corvus]

Not sure if this is the exact study that Ray Coppinger referred to last night in a telecourse I did but he was quite disparging of a comparitive study done along these lines by Hungarians!

I haven't read it, so I'm not sure. I thought it was that group that did it, though, so I looked again and found this paper:

A Simple Reason for a Big Difference

Ádám Miklósi*, 1, , Enikö Kubinyi1, József Topál2, Márta Gácsi2, Zsófia Virányi1 and Vilmos Csányi1

1 Department of Ethology, Eötvös University, Budapest, Pázmány P. 1c, 1117, Hungary

2 Comparative Ethology Research Group, Eötvös University, Budapest, Pázmány P. 1c, 1117, Hungary

Correspondence: Ádám Miklósi

Abstract

* The present investigations were undertaken to compare interspecific communicative abilities of dogs and wolves, which were socialized to humans at comparable levels. The first study demonstrated that socialized wolves were able to locate the place of hidden food indicated by the touching and, to some extent, pointing cues provided by the familiar human experimenter, but their performance remained inferior to that of dogs. In the second study, we have found that, after undergoing training to solve a simple manipulation task, dogs that are faced with an insoluble version of the same problem look/gaze at the human, while socialized wolves do not. Based on these observations, we suggest that the key difference between dog and wolf behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's face. Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has lead to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization.

That looks like the one I was thinking of. This goup in Hungary have been criticised and especially by Coppinger. But then, Coppinger has been criticised by a lot of scientists as well. That's not to say the Coppingers' theory on dog domesitication doesn't have a lot of merit, though. I think maybe Ray Coppinger's missing the point with his criticisms of Csanyi's group... if I understand correctly. I was under the impression that he thought they were setting up experiments to prove a point, which was that dogs are very smart. IMO, it doesn't really make any difference in this particular case. They were testing whether socialised dogs and socialised wolves behave the same way towards humans when faced with an unsolvable problem and the answer was no, they don't. Dogs look back at humans more.

I guess it's worth considering that this idea of dogs being able to understand human communications better than wolves doesn't sit well with the Coppingers' pariah dog theory of dog evolution. I find most of the Csanyi group's papers to be pretty sound and with convincing conclusions, but maybe that's just me.

[Jigsaw]

That sounds like the right one Corvus, he said something along the lines of "wolves don't look back". He stated he disproved their study very easily! Vilmos Csanyi's book "If Dog's Could Talk" is based on his personal observations of his own dogs interspersed with various studies. I found a few of his observations a little on the whacky side! I think Coppinger tends to more or less play it straight down the line on a scientific basis. There is always going to be conflict in studies, whether it be the topic or the content, I guess it's part of what pushes us on to discuss and learn more.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Jigsaw

[WoofnHoof]

It's interesting and possibly relates to some of the stuff I've read in the past in relation to the dog-wolf differences, makes me wonder if the cognition is also related to the level of neotonisation that has occured in the various breeds. It would make sense if it did it's fairly common knowledge that the so called 'ancient' breeds are the ones which share the most DNA and the most wolfish behaivoural traits and of course they are very much the problem solving independent thinking types, which I personally believe is almost an oppositional trait to biddability which would correlate strongly with looking to humans for direction since the two rarely manifest strongly together in any one breed (at least as far as I can tell).

I don't think one type can be called 'dumber' than the other both traits are desirable for very different reasons and while the more biddable dog may not be able to solve a complex problem his ability to read human direction so well is a talent and an intelligence in and of itself.

[haylz27]

Thanks for an interesting article.

I'm off to read the other ones people posted as well.

[corvus]

I don't think one type can be called 'dumber' than the other both traits are desirable for very different reasons and while the more biddable dog may not be able to solve a complex problem his ability to read human direction so well is a talent and an intelligence in and of itself.

So true.

Whenever I have watched wolves interacting with each other on documentaries, or seen photos, I've always been struck by the complexity of their body language compared to dogs. It seems to me that there are layers of subtlety that just don't exist in dogs. Or at least, they don't seem to exist in most dogs, even the very well socialised ones. At around the time I was thinking this, it occurred to me that my hare was talking "baby-talk" to me because it was the only thing I was capable of understanding. He had taken to using really obvious, exaggerated body language whenever he wanted something. So then I get to talking to this Canaan Dog breeder and I was asking how they get along with other dogs. They have a reputation for dog aggression. She said most are never going to be social butterflies, but the problem is often that they "whisper", meaning they use very subtle signals and other dogs rarely notice and then get nailed because they didn't back off. That really struck a chord with me, and I wondered if the average dog speaks "baby" wolf, and the traits we see in natural breeds like dog aggression, territoriality, and whispering are traits of a dog grown up?