Humanising Dogs

[Nekhbet]

dogs are the masters of body language. A dog socialisd properly with humans will have a clue in understanding you. I have worked with dogs that have been untouched before 8-10 weeks and their understanding of body language is extremely out. They pick up what little they can but again you do something they have not seen before and their first reaction was fear or confusion, occasionally totaly shutdown.

Funny for all these years of having dogs sleep in my bed and ending up consuming god knows how many kilos of dog hair that invariably ends up in my food, I dont get sick. OH is an asthmatic and doesnt have an issue and is in fact healther now then when I met him. Diet has a big part to play.

But for some people, nothing is too much for their beloved pet. I have friends who painted their walls brown because they claimed it was the colour their cats "liked". I know one woman who married and then divorced a man within a year because she said he put his labrador before her. "He let the dog sleep on the sofa and I couldn't stand it," she says. "I said it's me or the dog - and he chose the dog."

I think this article is a bit too out of context and over simplified. If my OH suddenly said 'its me or the dog' he would be out too. Is it because my dogs are on pedestals? No. But if someone is going to act lick such a control freak drama queen, you know it doesnt end there. So bye bye.

[corvus]

I largely mould my life around my animals. Not because I think they are people, just because I'm the one that cares for them and so if I don't make their welfare a priority it will be no one's priority and they will not be properly cared for. I do what I can do to make them as comfortable and happy as possible. That is my responsibility to them. I am not a perfect animal owner, but I try to pick animal companions that I will be able to accommodate so I don't have to make choices or let their welfare go by the wayside. That is exactly the reason why we only have four pets. We agreed that we didn't have the time to properly care for any more.

[mita]

I'd dare anyone to tell that soldier he's just done a bit of bad 'humanising' dogs.

He hasn't. He's described how humans & dogs find a bond in common. Which they've been doing since thousands of years BC.

He has, technically, but that doesn't diminish his relationship with the dog in the slightest in my view. Humanising is an integral part of the human-dog bond IMO. Yes, it can go too far, but let's not confuse "humanising" that has a detrimental effect on dogs and "humanising" that doesn't have a detrimental effect. As others have said, it's when dogs are attributed with reasoning powers beyond that which they are capable that humanising becomes a serious issue and something that we should work hard to avoid. My dog is not being "disobedient". He is not giving me the finger, he does not necessarily know the command, he probably doesn't know what he did wrong, he does not need a cupcake every day, he isn't trying to spite me, he is not angry with me because I left him alone all day, he is most likely not acting in third-order intentionality, he is unlikely to make a connection between two events that occurred more than 10 seconds apart, he doesn't lie and he's not trying to trick me or even train me. He just does what tends to work for him.

The principles of expecting 'reasoning powers beyond that which they are capable' refers as much to adults dealing with young children, as it does to dogs.

The point is that Darwin (& later, others) saw humans equally a part of the evolutionary world as dogs. Both reliant on social grouping for survival.

And both developing characteristics by which they could meet each others needs in a combined social group.

With humans using their language, metaphorically, to express their bonding. So it's understandable for a human to call a dog a 'friend'. Humans do the same thing to each other....when they use expressions like 'Honey' or 'Sugar' as 'bonding' terms. They're not humanising honey or sugar by doing so.

All of this does not say that humans & dogs are the same.

There's an irrefutable standard by which dogs & humans remain different. They're 2 different species. Can't produce fertile offspring!

Edited February 2, 2011 by mita

[Bjelkier]

I break all the rules. Mine eat off my fork, sleep on the bed, lay around on the lounge, get presents, have parties, wear clothes, refer to ourselves and "mummy and daddy". I call them my babies, kiss and cuddle them.

and couldn't give two shits what name people like to call it. I love them and they are all, happy and healthy.

x 1

[corvus]

The principles of expecting 'reasoning powers beyond that which they are capable' refers as much to adults dealing with young children, as it does to dogs.

But you wouldn't call it humanising then, would you.

With humans using their language, metaphorically, to express their bonding. So it's understandable for a human to call a dog a 'friend'. Humans do the same thing to each other....

I think we're arguing two different things. I don't think it is humanising a dog to call a dog your friend. You are describing the dog's relevance to you. I do think it's humanising to say a dog loves you, or loves working with you. As I explained, because we don't know that "love" is what the dog is feeling at all. We only know what "love" feels like to a person. Personally, I think it's a weak argument. Love is subjective to humans as well. Panksepp's argument with laughter in rats is if you know all the same neurotransmitters are involved in the same pathways, then it's legitimate to call it the same thing. But still, we are wary of it, because it means something specific to us about how humans feel and behave. To use such a term to describe how an animal feels and behaves still holds that uneasy risk that if you could ask a rat what it felt when it laughed it would be different to what a human would describe. Even if all the neurotransmitters and pathways and even the circumstances in which it is seen are the same between humans and other mammals, we could still argue that the way the other mammals perceive this state is not the same way we perceive it, because we can't deal with that risk at all. We can't find out for certain.

So what I'm arguing is that we relate to animals in a way that is uniquely human because we are humans. There is nothing wrong with that at all, and in fact I think it's important that we do. It gives us empathy for the animals in our care, and in the case of some domestic animals, we have actually selectively bred them to respond more strongly to our human way of relating to them. I think that is brilliant and fascinating and a little bit spooky. It also makes perfect sense. Our dogs wouldn't be the good companions they are if we had not been prone to humanising them. But the fact remains: we still do it everyday. It needn't be a universally bad thing.

[mita]

I think we're arguing two different things. I don't think it is humanising a dog to call a dog your friend. You are describing the dog's relevance to you. I do think it's humanising to say a dog loves you, or loves working with you. As I explained, because we don't know that "love" is what the dog is feeling at all. We only know what "love" feels like to a person. Personally, I think it's a weak argument. Love is subjective to humans as well. Panksepp's argument with laughter in rats is if you know all the same neurotransmitters are involved in the same pathways, then it's legitimate to call it the same thing. But still, we are wary of it, because it means something specific to us about how humans feel and behave. To use such a term to describe how an animal feels and behaves still holds that uneasy risk that if you could ask a rat what it felt when it laughed it would be different to what a human would describe. Even if all the neurotransmitters and pathways and even the circumstances in which it is seen are the same between humans and other mammals, we could still argue that the way the other mammals perceive this state is not the same way we perceive it, because we can't deal with that risk at all. We can't find out for certain.

I'm spanning 2 arguments. Experimental science has quite rightly been cautious about making pronouncements about identification & attribution of mental states in animals. But the same is true for what is coming out of neuroscience re humans. Researchers invariably caution about making a leap from specific findings to actual behaviours of human beings.

Which leaves us, a great deal in the action research of everyday life, using behavioral observations as cues. Bonding can be observed & benefits like stress lowering & blood pressure lowering can even be measured.

We do that with infants & very young children, given they do not yet have language labels to describe their mental states. Most importantly, because humans are social animals (& need to be so, to survive), 'guesses' about mental states are placed in the context of relating (or bonding).

Not surprising we do the same thing with dogs, who've adapted to living with humans, for mutual benefits.

The language we label external signs of hypothesized mental states, is fluid & can't be subject to strict scientific definition. For example, a baby showing 'enthusiasm' when mother enters the room....we're likely to attribute that, with our value of bonding, to 'love'. We may do the same for dogs....who show 'enthusiasm' when their owner appears or when taken out to do a 'job' they clearly enjoy.

There's a huge difference between the observer as a scientist taking notes....& the individual in everyday life. One's working in a value-free context..., the other is in a context where values provide fuel for behaviour (& where the pesky evolutionary psychologists have all sorts of theories, note theories).

[corvus]

There's a huge difference between the observer as a scientist taking notes....& the individual in everyday life. One's working in a value-free context..., the other is in a context where values provide fuel for behaviour (& where the pesky evolutionary psychologists have all sorts of theories, note theories).

Quite true. Which is why I would argue that humanising dogs doesn't necessarily diminish the relationship in the slightest and probably enhances it more than anything. I expect I am being confusing by insisting on calling something what it is even when it's not important that it be called that for the purposes of the discussion. There is a huge difference between a scientist and a casual observer, but that's not to say the scientific definition shouldn't hold for the casual observer as well, whether they know it or not. What do you think?

[WoofnHoof]

It is a fine line but one which I think needs to be found because I'm a bit over the constant Skinner references as if that is the be all and end all of animal cognition! Behaviour should be one aspect of animal cognition not the entire spectrum, animals do have thoughts and feelings and while they are simpler and less complex than our own they still need to be acknowledged and understood, as much as they can be anyway. My fear is that people get so hung up on this 'push button' concept of behavioural training that they forget that there is a mind driving that behaviour and like our own minds they don't all work the same way or think the same things.

Curious - Do you think that extreme Behaviorism is detrimental to dogs? What happens if someone doesn't acknowledge the individual personality, motivation, arousal, and emotional state of a dog, but bases all their interactions with the dog on operant conditioning? Is that just as bad or worse than humanising them in a detrimental way?

Can't respond in depth my lunch break isnt that long lol! But yes I do think that extreme behaviorism has the potential to be very harmful. My example is with horses because behaviorism is the latest 'fad' to take over the horse world and you would be familiar with Andrew McLean's work re training of horses, these theories are quite sound in and of themselves and in a controlled situation, the problem then occurs when you take the animal out of the controlled situation and expect the same results. This can result in an extremely stressed horse as it's behaviour becomes less predictable as extra stresses and stimuli are added to the environment. Not to mention the experiences the animal has had in the past which will shape the behaviour as well, the emotional states and temperament of the animal must be taken into account, not just the blanket application of behavioral principles, most experienced horse people recognize this but like dogs you get people following a certain trainer or method without flexibility

Bubonic plague??? OMG that really is clutching at straws, I'd be very interested to see this list of 100+ serious illnesses, I'd put money on 99.9% of them not being zoonotic diseases at all but just random diseases more associated with poor hygiene in general. It would be funny if it weren't so indicative of the general public's ignorance of basic microbiology and increasingly irrational fear of 'germs'.

Better go kick the dog off the bed so I don't get the black plague...

Patricia McConnell was talking about that study on her blog. She said let's not confuse correlation with causation. The study is about correlations alone. If there's plague around, you probably shouldn't sleep with a cat that has fleas is what it comes down to.

Yeah but it does annoy me when articles feed people's ignorance, we know that if the plague hasn't appeared in your region since the dark ages you're probably not going to get it from having the cat on your bed, but a lot of people will read that and think 'ZOMG cats carry the plague!!!' you know how it goes.

[mita]

There's a huge difference between the observer as a scientist taking notes....& the individual in everyday life. One's working in a value-free context..., the other is in a context where values provide fuel for behaviour (& where the pesky evolutionary psychologists have all sorts of theories, note theories).

Quite true. Which is why I would argue that humanising dogs doesn't necessarily diminish the relationship in the slightest and probably enhances it more than anything. I expect I am being confusing by insisting on calling something what it is even when it's not important that it be called that for the purposes of the discussion. There is a huge difference between a scientist and a casual observer, but that's not to say the scientific definition shouldn't hold for the casual observer as well, whether they know it or not. What do you think?

Agree, corvus.

I specially agree with your comment about trying to talk about something....from 2 perspectives at once.

From someone mindful of the boundaries of science & from what people generally experience in everyday life.

Especially when it involves people & behaviour. We can talk about studies that might shed some light....but when it comes to what happens in everyday life, there's more variables there, than we can know of (much less control!). Gawd, add dogs & their behaviour to the mix, and it gets more complex. :D

And you're right....boy, do terms matter. The language of science avoids words like 'love', like the plague. It has to keep to terms that most would agree that they can observe & measure. But 'love' has deep meaning for people in everyday life....& the enthusiastic behaviour of dogs leads people to suppose dogs 'love', too.

A way of sorting this thro', came from a scientist I respect. He said just because something can't be measured by experimental science, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist & isn't awfully important in making life rich. He mentioned 'love' in his list.

So I think we can just say....Look, this is as far as science presently can take that issue. But we don't live our lives according to exact science....& This is what meaning it has for us.

I thought your first reply to me covered both...neatly, in the two paragraphs. Like first, how inexact our knowledge is about dogs' mental states ...but, second, we've developed a 'meaning' between us & dogs where we've been quite free with the words we use. Like 'love'.

[Aidan3]

The language of science avoids words like 'love', like the plague.

I don't know, we study love and relationships quite thoroughly from a scientific perspective in psychology. No field-work assignments though It's probably better defined than "intelligence", but less well defined than "personality".

[corvus]

Can't respond in depth my lunch break isnt that long lol! But yes I do think that extreme behaviorism has the potential to be very harmful. My example is with horses because behaviorism is the latest 'fad' to take over the horse world and you would be familiar with Andrew McLean's work re training of horses, these theories are quite sound in and of themselves and in a controlled situation, the problem then occurs when you take the animal out of the controlled situation and expect the same results. This can result in an extremely stressed horse as it's behaviour becomes less predictable as extra stresses and stimuli are added to the environment. Not to mention the experiences the animal has had in the past which will shape the behaviour as well, the emotional states and temperament of the animal must be taken into account, not just the blanket application of behavioral principles, most experienced horse people recognize this but like dogs you get people following a certain trainer or method without flexibility

I guess my thought is that if in doubt, one can always fall back on whether the behaviour is increasing or decreasing in frequency or staying the same. To me, that is quite a powerfully simple and useful tool and a litmus test for whatever I have decided to do with my animal to affect their behaviour. I can figure out very quickly if it's working or not. I would be quite happy if people approached life in general with their dogs in that way. I figure if I were going to get someone to follow just one piece of advice that would be it. At least then they know when their blanket application of behavioural principles isn't working and can maybe think outside the square for an alternative. Or get professional help, perhaps. But that's in my ideal world. I tend to start with arousal and emotional state and classical conditioning and then work through to learning theory because quite frankly it is the most effective approach I have found. Sometimes I jump forward to OC if it seems like the way to go. I'm yet to find a simple way to explain that to anyone! I think they're on their own.

Yeah but it does annoy me when articles feed people's ignorance, we know that if the plague hasn't appeared in your region since the dark ages you're probably not going to get it from having the cat on your bed, but a lot of people will read that and think 'ZOMG cats carry the plague!!!' you know how it goes.

Me too. I think it's quite irresponsible, but that's the media for you. :

[coogie]

When OH and I first met and when we were first married he would sometimes say to me "come and have a cuddle with your old man" if he wanted a hug,about six months ago we were out on the back patio and I was lighting mozzie candles with my back to him when I heard him say it,I thought how sweet he hasn't said that for a few years - I turned round smiling only to see he was talking to the dog. He would firmly deny that he talks to them other than to issue "commands"

That is gold. Did you pretend to be really offended?

Yes indeed Raz,I dine out on it to this day! I do have to say that I am actually really pleased that he loves the dogs,he can be a workaholic and walking them everyday has given him a real interest outside of his work. He is happy,the dogs are happy - so I am happy. I couldn't care less if he anthropomorphises them to be honest. He has been good about sticking to the rules with specific discipline issues like not barging at the door,scrounging for food,on lead manners etc. Some of the things we allow them to do (sleep on their beds in our room for example) are more to do with their health and vet bills than spoiling,it is the only room with aircon.

Loving reading all the articles and opinions.

[WoofnHoof]

I guess my thought is that if in doubt, one can always fall back on whether the behaviour is increasing or decreasing in frequency or staying the same. To me, that is quite a powerfully simple and useful tool and a litmus test for whatever I have decided to do with my animal to affect their behaviour. I can figure out very quickly if it's working or not. I would be quite happy if people approached life in general with their dogs in that way. I figure if I were going to get someone to follow just one piece of advice that would be it. At least then they know when their blanket application of behavioural principles isn't working and can maybe think outside the square for an alternative. Or get professional help, perhaps. But that's in my ideal world. I tend to start with arousal and emotional state and classical conditioning and then work through to learning theory because quite frankly it is the most effective approach I have found. Sometimes I jump forward to OC if it seems like the way to go. I'm yet to find a simple way to explain that to anyone! I think they're on their own.

Yes and in many ways that would be the case, especially with most breeds of dog which generally look to their humans for guidance anyway, my experience is with horses and I find that it's dangerous to attribute them with too much intelligence and it's dangerous to treat them as little more than machines that you can train to do this or that, inevitably confounding behaviours will occur and that's when people lose the plot. My perspective may be different because I deal with prey animals but I also find similarities with the husky, like horses he doesn't have a lot to motivate him to be obedient, unlike horses negative reinforcement is largely ineffective, positive reinforcement is extremely unreliable in his case because a treat that has great value one day may have next to no value another day. It's hard to apply behavioural principles to inconsistent behaviour!

[all creatures]

Just a quickie:

"The principles of expecting 'reasoning powers beyond that which they are capable' refers as much to adults dealing with young children, as it does to dogs."

I love this comment, myself. So true.. and significant.

[Swanbrook]

I never thought of it much before but when at home or alone with my dogs i treat them like a dog but when in conversation with other people about my dogs i do refer to them being like my children so as to express how important they are to me. Just like my children. They are dependent on me!

[Aidan3]

If I'm guilty of anything, it's caninising my humans. If I really want my daughter to do something, I'll use non-verbal cues, there's nothing to debate with those.

[corvus]

If I'm guilty of anything, it's caninising my humans. If I really want my daughter to do something, I'll use non-verbal cues, there's nothing to debate with those.

I'll remember that one.

[raz]

If I'm guilty of anything, it's caninising my humans. If I really want my daughter to do something, I'll use non-verbal cues, there's nothing to debate with those.

Sit Drop Stay!

Edited February 2, 2011 by raz

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

If I'm guilty of anything, it's caninising my humans. If I really want my daughter to do something, I'll use non-verbal cues, there's nothing to debate with those.

yes i have a look that makes all children behave. my daughter is grown now and will gleefully tell tales of what that look does even to strange children who are behaving badly in public....and i never utter a word

it is a gift

[Aidan3]

Sometimes I whistle, it works. I don't know another way.