Notes from "If Dogs Could Talk" by Vilmos Csanyi (translated by Richard E. Quandt)
Written by a Hungarian ethologist, this book was pretty charming, probably in part because of the way it was translated, and because of the wonderful anecdotes about the professor's own dogs, Flip and Jerry. The book reiterated and expanded upon the information that I've come across so far in the documentary-style films about dogs and other literature, and did so in a, I think, fairly scientific and critical approach, admitting any biases or shortcomings while sharing both studies and anecdotes (and making a clear distinction).
He begins by talking about the pecularities of working with dogs - namely that though the subjects are easy to find (because they live in our homes rather than in a remote jungle in Cameroon), they are also very difficult to study because they don't act the same way in a laboratory setting (or raised in a lab) and are "difficult to observe" in the home-setting. Their natural environment
is with humans. It goes back to this similar problem discussed in the animal intelligence reader as one of the fundamental problems of animal study -- there is always the possibility that the researcher or human being is inadvertantly influencing the animal's behavior (Clever Hans!) but at the same time, and this is especially true for dogs, therein lies a major part of their intelligence -- their ability take cues and directions from humans. Furthermore, dogs are highly influenced by their environments and upbringing. He says that dogs have almost as much individual variation in behavior as humans do -- as opposed to wild animals which exhibit much more uniform behaviors within a species (having to do with breed differences, environment, and their ability to learn and develop habits).
He spends the first chapter describing the qualities of the last wild ancestor of the dog -- the wolf, as a baseline for understanding how the dog is markedly different. He explains that they have large brains which developed due to their complicated coordinated hunting efforts and social living (optimally, 5-8 in a pack). Living in a pack presents a constant fight for dominance, with social roles up for grabs depending on displays of aggression and violence. Wolves are intensely competitive, Csanyi says. Members are kicked out when they are too old or unsuitable, alpha males and alpha females have certain privileges and mating responsibilities. Wolves keep track of their territories with scent markers, covering sometimes 116 square miles over a period of three weeks. (11) It is suggested that wolves keep a complex cognitive map in their minds based on these markings, because observers note that they frequently use shortcuts to return to a particular area.
He says that bonding is very important for the wolf pack, and one of the ways wolves bond is through play (even as adults). They play with wolves of the same rank as them, using the same initiations of play as dogs use. He says that sometimes the lower-ranking individuals will get the alpha male to agree to hunt if he isn't so inclined by involving him in a game, and that the alpha male, when lower-ranking individuals don't want to go hunting, with entice them with a stick or a game before setting out "in a determined manner."
He also talks about other forms of social behavior, which includes tail-wagging (which I sometimes see as not happening in the adult stage of wild animals, but definitely seems to happen in wolves), greetings or contact such as licking, touching, and grabbing the cheeks, and sniffing the scent glands of the butt. He says that when a member of the pack returns, "the returning animal will attempt to touch the leader with its nose even from a distance, lick it, and take its cheeks in its mouth." (19). Apparently, wolves also have a huge range of vocal sounds, including barking (more like yips, he says) and tooth clacking. For further clarification on the barking thing (which some people say is a juvenile trait, he says "adult dogs bark in the manner of wolf cubs, although a more composed manner." 39)
Wolves are described as extremely independent, with good problem solving skills and coordination. They are able to learn things, but their older, instinctual impulses will always win if their is a conflict between something learned and their innate desires (which is unlike dogs, or humans, who are able to self-regulate). This is particularly apparent in "tame" wolves, which he describes as behaving very gentle towards its master but then taking advantage of any weakness it can to advance its place in the pack (such as a story of a man who developed a limp and was suddenly attacked by his wolf after 4 years of living together because he showed signs of weakness. 22).
He makes an important point here, as well, about wolves' fear of humans ("Pups are positively afraid of humans carrying objects" 22 for instance :)). He says that all wolves, except for those in the polar regions, who are overall more gentle with each other as well, exhibit fear of humans. He points out that this is probably understandable given that we have exterminated them for so long. But he says
"This probably has been accompanied by some natural selection: the surviving wolves are the descendents of timid, mistrustful individuals that tended to avoid humans." 22 Which is perfectly in line with the idea that the predecessors to dogs were those wolves with low-flight distance.
130,000 - 150,000 - Humans emerge. For whatever reason humans ended up forming groups, this clearly affected their brains in that they needed to coordinate efforts (leading to language) and that they needed to be able to conceive of what was going on in another person's mind -- to know the motivations or feelings of another person so that they can judge . . . who is trustworthy? Who is good at hunting? etc. (he says) Empathy. Humans were predators as well, living in groups of 40 - 50, moving around with little contact with other groups of humans. They likely occupied and hunted much of the same territory as wolves, but probably didn't come into conflict very often because "humans were quite rare and there was plentiful prey for both." (28)
How did they become dogs? -- talking about "mutual advantages"
Advantages for wolves
The author suggests that some of the "lone wolves", ejected from the pack, may have begun to follow humans around as they moved to eat their leftovers. With the development of tools, humans were "more efficient" hunters and ended up throwing food away, which was happily devoured by an animal that could no longer take down large prey on their own. This is a little different than Ray Coppinger's idea that wolves began to approach humans once humans settled in more permanent camps. But the same idea.
Dogs today get shelter, steady source of food, medical care, and of course companionship. (41)
Advantages for humans
- Clean-up of waste: according to the author, food scraps would bring around vultures or hyenas, which were "more obnoxious table companions" so having a wolf around to get rid of it meant keeping dangerous or annoying animals out of their area
- Bodily clean-up: "Dogs have the habit, regarded as disgusting today, of eating human feces and gladly licking everything, not only a frying pan or plate, but fannies, posteriors, or even the genitals of menstruating women. In absence of an adequate water supply, these 'services' could be quite valuable."
- If you ran out of food, you could always eat the dog.
- Fur, once skinned, was good for clothing
- Live wolves provide body heat at night: "A whole band of naked humans could sleep in warmth if they had enough wolves avialable." 30 This also reminds me of the homeless people in Rome, who almost always had a dog with them, who would definitely have been useful as protection and warmth, I remember thinking. Also, some held little baskets for begging so way to go. He gives an example of the fact that, even today, aboriginees in Australia sleep with dingoes at night for warmth, even though they don't name them or tolerate them much during the day. Apparently, there was a photo taken of this by an anthropologist whose flash scared the dingoes away for several days. I want to find this photo! I had no luck so far.
- Alerting humans to predators: Wolves can hear and smell much better than people.
- Alerting humans to prey: again, better senses, not to mention probably a lot faster.
- Later, shepherding: Once wolves were tamed, a bit later, humans started to trap and herd sheep/goats, etc. and the natural instinct of wolves to ambush prey would have been something that they could select for and hone in, creating herding dogs that would refrain from killing the sheep/goats.
List of additional uses of dogs today
- Seeing Eye dogs
- Drug-, bomb-sniffing dogs
- Search and rescue dogs
- Brazilian Indians use them to warn them of poisonous snakes
- Messenger dogs during WWII
- Watchdogs
- Family/companion dogs
- Sensing dogs for seizures
- Cancer-detecting dogs
- Therapy dogs
So, amazing idea
". . . the dog is not just like one of many other animals, but rather a creature of humans, an artificial animal, which has been shaped in its behavior and appearance by human desires. It is not unimaginable--and I hope that someday we shall be able to prove this -- that the parallel evolution of humans and dogs changed not only the latter. It is noteworthy that the beginnings of the domestication of dogs and the appearance of
homo sapiens occurred roughly at the same time. It is not too much of a leap for a biologist to imagine that in the early phases of domestication, human groups that accepted wolves in their midst gained competitive advantages with respect to others, and if this is true, humans' genetic makeup also had to change through domestication. it is possible that the issue here is one of joint development or co-evolution, and it would be an exciting task to look for proof of this, if indeed such proof exists. It is possible that we are the descendants of early humans who had a liking for dogs or a penchant for maintaining emotional ties with dogs, and that our behavioral framework was so modified that we have an innate need to have contact with dogs." (42)
"Older people exposed to therapy dogs are less prone to depression, their blood circulation improves, and their life span demonstrably lengthens." 41
On Belyaev's foxes
Csanyi theorizes that the foxes' "ability to recognize animals of their own species has become weakened as a result of the selective breeding, which makes them tame. . . " (39)
Mentions "classic work on canine behavior and genetics by Scott and Fuller" . . . maybe I should look at that.
On the characteristics of dogs
Mentioned before, dogs have this ability to self-regulate. Wild animals can't stop themselves.
Dogs follow rules (much like wolves)
"Dog's cerebral cortex is about 30% smaller than that of the wolf." (39)
"With well-designed experiments we can even show that puppies are attracted more powerfully to humans than to members of their own species." p. 54 -- talking about the innate characterstic of dogs to long for humans. (54) This relates to the for some reason slightly unsettling idea that keeps coming up for me about the strangeness of MAKING something to love you. Like, we enjoy their affection and love and desire for us, but that love is strange because they are designed to love us. Like little machines that we programmed to be affectionate to humans, but what does that say about love? We are programmed by evolution to love each other too, I suppose, so maybe it's not all the different (the whole enterprise is suspect, not just the love of a dog for a person, if we may use the word "love") but I still find something strange about this. Like a god that made people to worship him.
"The emotional states and signaling of pity, sorrow, and bereavement are again unknown among animals, with the possible exception of elephants and chimpanzees. Only humans, who have highly developed behavioral forms for helping and caring for others, reveal these states." and further "A special role is played by sympathy and empathy. In essence, empathy is the edoption of the emotional state of another person. . . When we feel sympathy, we feel sadness and compassion toward a person who is in trouble, without adopting the emotional state ourselves. Only humans are characterized by these two emotions, which have an important role in activating helping behavior." 60 (Obviously after hearing the Franz de Waal lecture, this whole paragraph is pretty questionable :) but it is another of these "only humans" statements.
61 On feelings -- he points out that, in many cases, animals don't show their feelings because it would indicate weakness, and in societies based on competition and advantage, its much better not to let others know if you feel . . . sad, ill, depressed, whatever. But, he reminds us, this doesn't mean they don't HAVE emotions. It just wouldn't be advantageous to show them.
62 He mentions, as arguments for the existence of feelings, something that Singer and countless others invoke -- the biological simiarlitiy between animals and humans. "Comparative evolutionary studies reveal the similarity of human and mammalian brain structures, and it is practically impossible on the basis of these studies that their identical or highly similar neurobiological and biochemical mechanisms should ahve brought forth different emotional states." 62
Tells a story about an elephant orphanage in Kenya that strives to raise wild elephants to return to the wild, meaning "five to six years of meticulous care" and a "permanent caretaker" . . . usually young male unversity graduates who basically spend every minute with the elephants. "During sleep, the elephant periodically touches the guardian with its trunk to make sure that he is still there, and if it does not find him, it panics and begins to search for him." 64. He also tells a story about one elephant that returned in a panic like a year after she was set free, scared the staff, smashing things, and then found her guardian, "felt him with its trunk all over, embraced him with its trunk gently" and then left. :)
88 He talks about rules and how there are unstated rules, even in human culture, which is more like what the wolves or dogs might obey, and then more complicated "explicity stated rules" that can "only come into being with the development of language" . . . explains how unwritten rules are simple "conflict reduction" strategies. He also points out the limitations of rules for animals, and I as I interpret it, having something to do with being able to self regulate. He actually cites Frans de Waal talking about chimpanzees and how, though individuals can be successfully taught rules (avoid some types of behavior), they don't hold up in a large group and that at some point, they will "satisfy their sexual urges, by force if necessary" or obtain food at all costs, unlike humans who might "go hungry before stealing from a store" etc.
He then goes on to talk about a study using Basenjis and Shelties to illustrate the genetic influence on rule-following behavior and self-restraint. David Freedman looked at "the extent to which dogs could internalize a rule they had been taught, that is, obey it even if there was no threat of punishment." Plates of meet, puppies were punished if they ate them, then people left the room. Basenji's ate it, shelties "did not touch it" (90)
STUDY on p. 95 THAT MIGHT BE GOOD TO REINACT? LOOK AT IT. copy it down.
114 - he says that "alternating dominant behavior" was a trait previously only observed in humans, but studies and anecdotes show that dogs are quite able to switch roles easily between who is dominant and who is subordinate (his examples relate to seeing eye dogs and when they follow the master and when they insist upon their way.)
Some clarification on "Exchange of Information" . . . so, this relates to language and communication. "Providing information occurs among animals as well, but it might not be the best terminology to call this information exchange. Birds use calls that signal the prescence of danger, but the simplest explanation for that is that when they see a predator, they become scared and call involuntarily. The hypothesis of intentionality on the part of the animal requires proof. Even if we succeed in finding such a proof, we have not necessarily shown that the animal has tken into account the mental state of the other, but the usefullness of the intention is evident anyway." and he goes on to give an example of a child that asks for a chocolate bar, gets it sometimes and sometimes doesn't, cries and then gets it, and determines that crying will "produce a chocolate bar" and this is the simplest explanation . . .
119 Talks about "gaze" and following eye contact. He says that dogs, unlike wolves, seek out eye contact and follow it, but that paradoxically, monkeys don't do that (sometimes attributed to them not being 'smart') but the author points out that many breeds of dogs, like humans, have whites in their eyes, while monkeys' eyes are uniformly one color, meaning that it is easy to tell which way a human (or dog) is looking, but much more difficult to see where a monkey is looking. He says this was probably advantageous for monekys not to give away what they are looking at, but for humans it's been a vital communication strategy, and he thinks dogs picked up on this. They do, indeed, seek eye contact and look where humans are looking.
162 He further talks about communication, and explains why a dog "approaching its master and giving it a push with its nose" is "genuine communication" because it reveals the intention of getting our attention (they make eye-contact and then do something or ask for something or just want you to pet them) whereas other kinds of "communication" in the animal world, even very specific conveyors of information like the vervet monkey, whose vocalizations can convey differences in the kind of predator that is approaching (like "is flying, has four legs, is snakelike"), are not strictly communication, but rather "regulator behaviors" (which I'm not sure if I understand). But he says that communication means intending to affect the mental state of the other person, and its also important that recipient intends to pay attention to the communication. Again, not sure if I understand all the distinctions.
164 He gives a brief history of language studies in apes, saying that "Washoe had learned and activiely used more than one hundred signs" which reminds me of those sections in the back of children's books which show "words to know" I'd like to see a list. :)
164 continuing to 165 Talks about Gardner and Gardner teaching simplified ASL to Washoe -- and the Premack teaching sign language to Sara. "In two years, Washoe had learned and actively used more than 100 signs." Which reminds me that I should make a book with the "words to know" portion in the back consisting of Washoe's signs.
"Let us briefly assess the results. The aptitude for language consists of several components. Among these, the most important is that the user of language be capable of symbolic representation--that is to say, have the ability to internalize the linguistic signs for objects, phenomena, and relationships. Chimpanzees are able to learn a few hundred signs, among them nouns, adjectives, relationships--such as "if . . . then" "same, " "different" -- as well as negation. It is essential that the sign not simply reflect association, since even lower animals are able to learn signs by association. We can speak of genuine symbolic representation only if the sign symbolizes the object, the action, or the concept. A good portion of the experiments with chimpanzees' language learning is concerned with discovering the extent to which a learned sign is actually a symbol.
An analysis of the properties of objects is helpful here. Premack's chimpanzee, Sara, was willing to regard a rectangular, blue pice o paper as red and round if the paper denoted an apple. This is to say, the rectangular blue paper evoked in her brain the true internal "representation" of an apple. The sign thus mobilizes in the animal's rain not the response that corresponds to the immediate sensory observation, but one that corresponds to the properties of the object that is being symbolized. Thus the use of signs among chimpanzees goes beyond purely associative learning and involved more complicated symbolic learning.
. . . Researchers have also proved that under suitable experimental conditions chipanzees are able and willing to use signs to ask each other for objects."
He goes on to say that chimpanzees are much more limited in other ways, though, including their inability to learn syntax or the proper order of words, and the fact that they "rarely create new combinations or signs"
He does, though, make mention of sea lion and dolphin studies which show syntax capabilities, and that bonobos learn sign language "spontaneously and without much practice" and can learn English words just by hearing them.
166 - example of a dog experiment that might be somewhat contradictory -- teaching us something about animals but arguably making the animal very bored or uncomfortable. RE-READ IT OR COPY IT DOWN?
180 - Experiment dealing with objects as symbols with dogs. Anthony Doka "worked with a small, three-month old puli and his experiment is noted for two things. The first was object-based communication. My friend Tony carved a few pieces of wood into different shapes, which became a vocabulary. There was a piece of wood that connoted asking for something, one for inviting play, and one for going out; there were other pieces of wood that corresponded to particular persons or to certain other objects. The puppy quickly learned the meaning of the pieces of wood and readily brought the appropriate piece for asking for something. . . We had examined the connection between eleven different objects and their corresponding signs. This association was studied in two ways: either the puppy had to select among the pieces of wood the right one that corresponded to a particular object, or, from among a set of objects, he had to select the one that corresponded to a particular piece of wood. Successful identification hovered between 40 percent and 70 percent, while the corresponding percentage in the case of random selection would have been less than 10 percent." Later . . . 182 "One important factor that made us abandon the experiment with the shaped pieces of wood was the need to have them available at all times, so that the dog could select the appropriate one. Unfortunately, Jerry started to chew the wood and we were unable to break him of this habit. In a few days, we had no more shaped pieces of wood." :) (This, after he tried it with his own dogs)
196 "The nervous system of even a snail is able to recognize the connection between a reward and an immediately preceding tiny change in itself or in its environment. This ability to make associations, which every animal has, and is an extremely simple learning process that does not require any kind of conscious insight or though." I forget -- is that what is happening when we talk about the people with amnesia that learn to avoid the doctor's handshake?
198 "People throughout the ages have held many different beliefs about the intelligence of animals. In antiquity, people believed as a rule that animals were just as intelligent as humans, but just could not speak. According to the ideology of Christianity, the difference between animals and humans in the immortality of the soul: humans have one, but animals do not." And goes on to explain that Darwin can be credited with laying out the continuity of species, showing that no one giant leap occurs between humans and other species. . .
200 Something mentioned in the cognitive ethology text which is restated here is the rule of Morgan's Canon ("principle of parsimony") . . . "To this day, this has been universally accepted in the behavioral sciences dealing with animals. . . which states that the explanation of behavior must not posit a higher degree of intelligence when a lower degree is sufficient." simplest possible explanation.
And then a reminder of behaviorism and B.F. Skinner -- "The fundamental preposition of behaviorism was that all animal behavior is essentially a response to environmental stimuli. However, the behavior of animals is decisively influenced by its past experiences; hence the most important thing in the study of animal behavior is the analysis of learning mechanisms that were (erroneously) believed to be identical in all species." They basically said animals were complicated machines that could learn from past experiences through classical conditioning (mentions Pavlov here. . . which is one of our most famous dog subjects ever, yeah?) . . . creating conditioned reflexes, and that "It followed that if one knew precisely the history of rewards and punishments in the past, one could predict the animal's future behavior."
He goes on to say that the result of this position (and Morgan's canon, I think) meant that attributing ideas such as "wanted" or "felt" or "desired" to animals (these kinds of states) was unacceptable 202 "According to well-known gossip in the profession, a certain professional journal did not want to accept for publication the first article written by Jane Goodall, who subsequently became the famed chimpanzee researcher, because she gave the chimpanzees individual names and referred to them with pronouns usually reserved for persons--he or she rather than it. The article was nevertheless published."
(Later, on 204, he does admit that "Earlier researchers who based their theories on little stories and anecdotes were roundly criticized, but the current view--as shown by the broadly accepted work of Konrad Lorenz and Jane Goodall -- that the the individual observations of trained researchers are acceptable as scientific proof if the theories based on them fit well within the rest of our knowledge."
This reminds me that the reason science rejects "sympathetic" or emotional characterization of animals is very complex, but it remains that these views are very antithethical to science throughout its history and even today.
204 He mentions the following, on deception, which I think is interesting little node of info that I'd like to know more about. "For example, two primate researchers collected several hundred anecdotes from colleagues working on monkeys, which conclusively prove that these animals are capable of deceiving their mates." (The study is cited as "Whiten, A. and R.W. Byrne, "The St. Andrews Catalog of Tactical Deception in Primates," St. Andrews Psychological reports, No. 10, 1986, pp. 1-47. For their use of anecdotes and the reaction of numerous researchers, see Whiten, A. and R.W. Byrne, "Tactical Deception in Primates," Behavioral and Brain Sciences, II (1998).)
On Alex
205 the author talks about Alex and says that the experiments showed Alex could "meaningfully learn more than one hundred English words" and "In one experiment, which was seen on television, a tray holding twenty-three different objects was placed in front of Alex. The objects had different shapes and colors and were made of various materials. The experimenter would pick up an object, say a red wooden triangle, and then ask," What is this?" Alex would reply immediately, "Triangle." What is its color? " would be the next quesiton. "REd." "What is is made from?" the experimenter would ask. Alex would then peck at the object a bit and then say "wood." So, I can think about this in terms of my project in the champaign space. hmmm. He immediately follows this boring statistically relevant study with a few interesting anecdotes about how he used to freak out when Irene left for awhile, but now they show him a piece of paper with the number of squares on it as days she was going to be gone, with a smiley face on the last day, and then show it to him everyday while crossing out the square, and he's fine now. :) Anyway, that makes me think that I should make my sesame street video of Alex also have one that's like a Bert and Ernie sort of narrative one. :)
209 He then goes on to talk about mazes, how they have been particularly "fashionable" at times, how certain animals are totally not predisposed to do well in mazes (birds) and how some animals, like rats, really are. He says that ants can also navigate mazes just as well and sometimes faster than rats, but what is interesting about rats is that, if you reverse the maze, the rats can navigate is backwards on the first try, while ants need "just as much trial and error" to re-learn it. To them, it's a different maze. He continues to talk about the ability to create dynamic mental maps, or models, of one's environment, and poses the interesting idea of how these models would differ for various animals in regards to what information is actually important to them. 215 "The neurons in the predator's brain construct a representation of the environment that contains only the most essential information. The is why we regard it as a model and not as a photograph or a geographic map; the representation is a simpler system in which events occur analogously to the much more complicated real system of which the mental representation is a model." He later describes the specifics of what a wolf might have in it's mental model, such as places to vaoid and dangers, behairo of prey and pack members, rank order, impact of previous fights/events, etc." 216 "The models constructed in the brains of the most highly developed primates probably contain not only their behavioral rules, but they themselves appear in them."
Again, with all this interesting idea of representation. I love representation and I love that some artwork is concerned with it. :)
So he talks a lot about language in this section of the book, and just to pause for a moment, I think that, though my idea of who or what is capable of language or some linguistic abilities might have broadened and I certainly don't think that humans are the only ones who "have language" exclusively . . . I am further convinced that language itself opened an astonishing array of doors that could not have been opened otherwise. Hmmm.
Anyway, on 223 he gives an example of the difference between associative learning / learning of signs and signals and real language. He talks about foxes, and how, for them, rustling leaves or a squeak of a mouse can signal food just as much as actually seeing a mouse signals food. But that some signals or associations are learned and some are much deeper. They did a study with isolated fox pups conditioned to associate a musical tone with a snack. They learn it quickly but if they stop being consistent, the foxes forget. But if they associate the snack with a real mouse squeak sound, the "foxes will never forget." I particularly like his description of this. "The experimenters played the recording of the mouse squeak four thousand times without giving the fox the food reward, and the poor fox pricked up its ear at the sound till the bitter end.After four thousand trials, the experimenters gave up because humans are frail." :) I'm actually not really clear what that whole paragraph meant, but I love the end. :)
225 Anyway, I think he goes on to sort of explain that by saying that words are not SIGNALS but are symbols . . . so rather than a direct and consistent linkage between a signal and it's signified object . . . words are "part of a system that contains many other elements that influence the function of a particular signal. Words have meaning."
He goes on to say why symbols are different than mere signals, and uses the example of the fact that children can learn over 1000 words per year many of which are only heard once, without tons of reinforcement (which is indicative of association) because the words are part of a system. So a word that previously meant "edible" can be changed to "avoid this poison food" by its' context . . . And also an important distinction is that we can conjure up these words (recall them) "without any external stimulus." That seems pretty huge to me.
236 "Humans are generally inclined to regard behavior as intelligent if it promotes the maintanence of existence in their own environment. This naive view underlies the misery in animals psychology laboratories of tens of thousands of rats, pigeons, and monkeys that are used in experiments for comparing their intelligence with ours."
A note about Gallup mirror test and chimps
238 "Many scholars do not accept this experiment as proving the existence of the concept of the self, but rather think it probably that the chimpanzee somehow confounds the primary representation based on the image with its own movements. According to these scholars, this does not prove the chimpanzees have a secondary representation of themselves that is not subordinated to the primary representation, and which would assist them to think about themselves and their own mental states."
238 - 239 He relays an interesting study with chimpanzees that shows that they are good with "casual connections, but are much less so when dealing with time." In the study, 4 chimps are show a person putting an apple in one opqaue container and a bananna in another. After 2 mins of diversion passed, the chimps watched the person eat the apple or banana. One of the four chimps would "consistently go to the container that still had fruit in it" Then there was a variation where the containers could only be opened with a lot of effort/time. But the person started eating the fruit immediately. He says that a 3 or 4 year old child would understand right away that it must be a 3rd piece of fruit because not enough time had passed for the person to be eating one in the containers, but the chimpanzees couldn't figure this out. Hmmm.
And now another interesting rat study involving mazes . . . and learning. So, rats were put in a maze where they had to make choices at each of 4 points about going through a gate on the left or the right. Over time, the average performance of the group got better, but the individual rats did not follow this pattern. As it turned out, the rats seems to be trying out different ideas about what the solution was . . . so they would do all right hand gates, then all left gates, and once they found the right one, they'd stick to it. But even the ones that got it right the first time would still try other options and then return to the correct one later. "This shows that it is not exclusively the reward that influences the animal's behavior in the course of learning." 245
Deception
250 - he also talks further about deception in animals and how numerous studies show that apes (both in natural and laboratory settings) show the intent to deceive. He also talks about birds that give an alarm call for a predator to get the bigger birds to go away and leave them with the food . .. which is significant because it not only shows an intent to decieve but also "instead of formulating in its brain a representation of reality, it is capable of formulating a representation of a nonexistent thing" . . . which might not really be true in this case, I think, but is shown in some of these experiments that he talks about earlier.
251 - A distressing anecdote about bees. "In some experiments, resaerchers manipulated the behavior of scout bees and thus sent the members of the bee family artifically latered information concerning plentiful food suplies. In one experiment, the scout bees reported that food was presetn at the shore of a lake not far from the haive, and indeed the experimenters ahd placed a plate of honey in a boat tied up there. After receiving this intelligence, the members of the hive started out for the indicated place and began to carry the honey back to the hive. In the next experient, the scout ees were manipulated to report to the haive that they honey was in the middle of the lake, and for the sake of verisimilitude, the boat with theplate of honey was anchored there. To the researcher's astonishment, the bees recieving this information
did not even start out toward the indicated place. In other words, the bees are able to comprehend that there can be no flowers in the middle of a lake. Their one-milligram brains understand this and they behave accordingly."
Pretend games
258 "Pretend games and the child's early stage theory of mind appear rougly at the same age." He uses the example of a child pretending a banana is phone, noting that both the primary representation of it as fruit and a secondary represtation of it as a phone are possible at the same time. In the simplest form, the child is the actor, pretending to do something like take a bite of food. The second stage is where the child can pretend that something else, like a doll, is accepting their action, like they feed it. And in a more advanced stage, the doll can be pretended to be feeding itself. He then talks about the role of pretend games in animals . . .
259 "Andrew Whiten and Richard W. Byrne of the University of St. Andrews have pointed out that the connection between the theory of mind and pretend games noted among children is also supported by dada obtained from observing apes. For example, Kanzi, a bonobo, once imitated the act of eating, as if it were consuming a nonexistent fruit, and while doing, it was spitting out nonexistent seeds, and even indicated that they were 'bad.' Koko, a gorilla, once pressed a rubber tube to its nose and indicated with sign language, "Koko is an elephant." But this kind of play is not observed in monkeys.
There is something that I THINK was mentioned in the book somewhere, but which I apparently didn't note . . . that is discussed in an NPR article called
Babies And Dogs Make The Same Classic Mistake regarding hiding a toy (very related to but not the same as that classic hiding toy thing I talk about a million times elsewhere). (I say it is surely in this book because the research was done by dam Miklosi of Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, Hungary, which is a colleague of the author).
"In their experiment, wolves were generally not misled by what they had seen humans do before, according to a report in Science. They'd make a beeline for the right hiding place.
But dogs would act like a 10-month-old baby, going to screen A even though they'd just seen someone put the toy behind screen B."
The Human Influence
Miklosi think this means that dogs interpret the situation as a learning situation and choose to trust what the human is communicating rather than what they see with their own eyes.
So fascinating! Difference between wild wolves and dogs . . .
On dogs and mirrors
Apparently, only very young dogs even show interest in the mirror, and after that, cannot be bothered by it. 264 "We also found that small dogs quickly figure out the reversal of the physical world in a mirror image. To wit, if they are looking in a mirror, and somebody hands them something behind their backs, they do not run toward the mirror, but turn around quickly, which is another poof of good physical intelligence." He reminds us that negative results in the mirror don't really tell us anything, and makes the point that really only animals that are interested in themselves or their appearance would primp in front of a mirror anyway (and clearly dogs don't mind being dirty or shaggy :)) "It is probable that we shall not be able to exhibit self-consciousness in dogs with mirror experiments. Unfortunately, we know of no other method for proving self-consciousness, although researchers are hard at work on this." 266
266 His next point I think is very interesting, regarding rituals and culture. He earlier notes that a big difference between humans and animals is our capacity for culture itself - to have
shared thoughts and language (as is said elsewhere that having a language creates a culture . . . like deaf culture, for instance) . . . which I wonder exactly depending on whose definition of culture we use for that. . . but anyway. He talks about how certain "elements of human cultural intelligence--although perhaps not the most important ones--can be identified in dogs to a greater or lesser degree. cases in point are personal rituals and a sense of time . . . "
"Personal rituals play an important role in human life. If we analyze this particular behavioral form from the point of view of understanding the mind, we might think that rituals were used in ancient times as a tool to galvanize the mind and activate the memory. As a matter of fact, as many anthropological studies have argued, rituals aided the comprehension of the notion of time. It is generally believed that if an animal is safe and its stomach is full, it will be in a state of rest, or at least it will give no sign that its mind is active, with the exception of the not very demanding task of staying alert for potential danger. In contrast, the human mind-- at least in its present sate--is almost continually active in the waking state. The mind is much assisted in this by personal rituals and well-learned rules. I believe that ti is a characteristic of the mind of dogs that they can think only about something that we activate in their minds: a ball a leash,a few words, and the dog's mind goes to work full steam. If everybody is busy withs something else, the dog lies down, snoozes, and its mind just flickers at its lowest setting. I believe that dogs have taken the first step toward a more enduring wakefulness, and this is underscored by the fact that they easily learn rituals, because the elements of rituals assist in the activation of the mind." Jacob says "like a pilot light" -- which makes me want to do a sculpture of a dog with a pilot light in its head. :)
His Summary
He continues on to basically summarize various capacities of the dog mind, including isolated examples of "teaching behavior" of transferirng rules to younger dogs, which is much less than what is seen in humans (probably because of language) . . . And that, in terms of communication, dogs ask for and give information. "The most important and perhaps least well-known fact is that dogs
ask questions and accept answers. This attribute is quite exceptional in the animal world and it is evident that it developed only as a result of artificial evolution and domestication." 267 On deception "It remains to be seen whether dogs ever tell lies." In terms of theory of mind, he points to studies that show dogs are able to think about the beliefs of humans (knowing whether its master put his own cane somewhere or whether someone hid it from them, for instance, and responding accordingly) but notes that this needs further study. In terms of signs an symbols, he says he doesn't think it is an all or nothing thing, and that dogs can easily learn signs and may have the capacity to "endow some of them with the properties of symbols." 271 In terms of language, he says that he believes "dogs understand language as signals for action" or that they essentially think in verbs --- this means "chase" or "play" etc. and that nouns don't mean much to them.
And he ends with this phrase "Humans created dogs in a cheerful spirit and in their own likeness." In our own likeness. :)
And then I have to say that I liked everything in this book until I read the authors random collection of notes regarding breeding (advocating some kind of hybrid breeding program like with corn and soybeans), permitting breeding soley on visual characteristics, the idea of breeding "talking dogs" etc. I didn't really like that part at all. But otherwise overall a really interesting book.
Here are a few potentially useful sources of information that I could look into:
- Bekoff, M., "Social Communication in Canids: Evidence of for the Evolution of Stereotyped Mammalian Display" in Science, 197 (1997), 1097-99 (comparison of play in dogs, wolves, and coyotes)
- Book on wolves "The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species" by D. Mech.
- Coppingers wrote a book called "Dogs"
- "When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals" by Masson and McCarthy
- "The Education of Koko" F. Patterson -- New York: Owl Books 1981
- "Speaking of Apes" by T.A. Sebeok
OK. I also want to make one little note that supports this previously mentioned idea of dogs influencing the evolution of humans from another book that I tried to read concurrently, and failed to get past the only little chapter that talked about this topic. Anyway, here it is:
Quote from "The Modern Dog" by Stanley Coren (which I as yet haven't made it through all of) about evolution and influence on human groups:
(16) "When animals live in close association with each other, their communities act as if each has a phenotype. Like an individual's phenotype, this community phenotype is the collection of all its attributes. Natural selection (the mechanism of evolution) actaully works on phenotypes, since those are the characteristics that affect survival. Theoretically this means that when two species live together, there is the possibility that the community can evolve, and all the species that live in that community can begin a process of co-evolution." and he talks about how this very thing is the way that dogs played a role in human evolution.
Left off on page 33 of "The Modern Dog" because I had to return it to the library, but I should get it again. It's full of very interesting anecodtes that definitely might prove interesting for future projects.
