A scientific triumph

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/science/entering-gray-area-study-says-dogs-can-be-green-with-envy.html

 

 

“What can be shown is that dogs seem to want an owner’s attention when there is attention being given out,” she said. “This study confirms that.”

 

Jeez. Think the Nobel committee knows about this?

 

Donald McCaig

[teresaserrano]

Yeah, dog related "scientific" studies are sometimes oh-so-silly.

[Pippin's person]

I saw that yesterday too and was excited that another benchmark study has shown that there is more complex cognition in dogs (as in humans) than behaviorism (the dominant theoretical model for animal studies) has traditionally assumed.

Along similar lines this book, How dogs love us, (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/books/review/how-dogs-love-us-and-what-the-dog-knows.html?_r=0) takes a neuroscience angle. Fascinating read for the science involved (less for the "love" part which isn't really the focus)

[simba]

Sometimes you need studies that prove what 'everyone knows', for two reasons: someone else could have the 'common sense' view that 'of course that can't happen', or what 'everyone knows' might turn out to be wrong.

[Donald McCaig]

I get it. What was true is now certifiably, officially true.

 

Donald McCaig

[mum24dog]

When did the NYT become the go to source for the evaluation of scientific research?

 

As for "what everyone knows", well I don't choose attention seeking dogs; I prefer my dogs to be more independent and a little aloof. Only 2 out of the last 6 have fallen into the category that could be loosely termed "jealous", 1 collie mix that pretty much grew out of it and our BC. If I only had BCs then what I "know" would be different from what i would "know" if I only had the other 4.

 

it's science's job to challenge and test received wisdom. Sometimes it's validated, sometimes not. When it seems to be demonstrated to be correct that's when you hear the cries of "That was obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense". You don't hear so much when commonly held beliefs are overturned.

[GentleLake]

I used to scoff at John Pilley's saying he was taking his work with Chaser to the next level by trying to ascertain whether Chaser could put nouns and verbs together in different combinations depending on different contexts. I thought he should just go to a sheepdog trial and see border collies doing this in their practical work. . . .

 

Until I read his book (Pilley PhD, Dr. John W., Jr.: Chaser: Unlocking the Genius of the Dog Who Knows a Thousand Words). Therein he explained that he already knew Chaser and thousands of other border collies could do this (he's already been to trials and seen it, as well as having trained Chaser on sheep), but that in order for what he already knew to be true to be accepted by the scientific community he had to devise experiments that would be scientifically valid so that he could convince skeptics that this was indeed true.

 

As Rebecca Skloot says in her review of Gregory Burns' How Dogs Love Us: A Neuroscientist and His Adopted Dog Decode the Canine Brain (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/08/books/review/how-dogs-love-us-and-what-the-dog-knows.html?_r=0), "Though the results may seem obvious to dog lovers (that humans and dogs experience emotions similarly), they’re not a given for science."

 

That's why people do these studies that sometimes seem painfully obvious to dog people like us. They're not meant for us, but for the people who don't know.

[urge to herd]

^ THIS! True science has to be verified independently. Preaching to the choir doesn't prove anything. Scientific research and analysis does.

 

AND, science is about continual learning. New information comes in, new methodology is developed, and the results are adjusted. This is the opposite of 'I know because I know'.

 

Ruth and SuperGibbs

[Tess's Girl]

I saw that yesterday too and was excited that another benchmark study has shown that there is more complex cognition in dogs (as in humans) than behaviorism (the dominant theoretical model for animal studies) has traditionally assumed.

 

This.

 

During undergrad I got the opportunity to work in a dog comparative cognition lab for a semester. It was one of my favorite experiences of college.

 

I recently just finished the book The Genius of Dogs by Vanessa Woods and Brian Hare. It discusses Brian's studies and the whole realm of the study of dog cognition. It also had extensive notes about the various scientific studies. I loved it and would recommend it to everyone.

[Pippin's person]

I used to scoff at John Pilley's saying he was taking his work with Chaser to the next level by trying to ascertain whether Chaser could put nouns and verbs together in different combinations depending on different contexts. I thought he should just go to a sheepdog trial and see border collies doing this in their practical work. . . .

 

Until I read his book (Pilley PhD, Dr. John W., Jr.: Chaser: Unlocking the Genius of the Dog Who Knows a Thousand Words). Therein he explained that he already knew Chaser and thousands of other border collies could do this (he's already been to trials and seen it, as well as having trained Chaser on sheep), but that in order for what he already knew to be true to be accepted by the scientific community he had to devise experiments that would be scientifically valid so that he could convince skeptics that this was indeed true.

 

Just a quick follow-up on Chaser (I also really enjoyed that book, and the Genius of Dogs). It's important to clarify that the "syntax" she can do is not really like the syntax humans do (so it's not that dog's *do* understand human language--at least they don't as humans do). Still very cool and shows that humans and dogs probably share more of their cognitive architecture than was previously believed to be the case.

 

This is a good example of where common sense can lead us astray since many of us can come to believe that our dogs understand what we say to them (and they are brilliant at getting us to believe this is so). While they clearly understand many aspects of it (especially word meaning), there's not good evidence that they understand some of the grammatical complexities that are the hallmark of human language (dogs don't get verb tense, as an example. Which means they can't understand us promising a walk tomorrow.....)

[Sue R]

I think it's great when scientific studies validate what animal owners have known or suspected all along. What bothers me is that when there has been no scientific study done, and behaviorists (or others) scoff at what people with experience with animals believe they see in terms of behavior or other issues.

 

Just because something hasn't been "proven" doesn't make it any less real. It just means it hasn't been well-tested and proven or disproven yet. Oftentimes, what is "scientific fact" today is disproven or modified by better or more extensive studies or interpretation of the data tomorrow.

 

Scientific knowledge is constantly evolving, just as the knowledge and understanding of those involved with animals is also constantly evolving. Let's always hope that the knowledge of both sorts leads to better understanding, care, and treatment of animals.

[d112358]

As humans, we're intrinsically programmed to make causal inferences and strongly held beliefs can bias our perception of the world. The collection of anecdotes people keep in their brain and make judgments off of is most similar to a small-sample retrospective cohort study, which runs a higher risk of bias and unmeasured confounding than other study designs.

 

Scientists are paid to be professional skeptics. When scientists believe too hard in something, they can (sometimes unconsciously) bias their experiments and cast doubt on their results.

[Shetlander]

When did the NYT become the go to source for the evaluation of scientific research?

 

This story has run in quite a number of papers. Not just the NYT, which is a pretty good source for news. Since it wasn’t all that long ago that scientists refused to admit animals could think, let alone have emotions, I say good for these researchers.

 

As for "what everyone knows", well I don't choose attention seeking dogs; I prefer my dogs to be more independent and a little aloof. Only 2 out of the last 6 have fallen into the category that could be loosely termed "jealous", 1 collie mix that pretty much grew out of it and our BC. If I only had BCs then what I "know" would be different from what i would "know" if I only had the other 4.

 

All my dogs have shown varying degrees of jealousy. My Lhasas were most in your face about it, but even the sweet, gentle Shelties would insinuate their way in between another dog and the person petting them. I certainly don’t pick my dogs based on some perceived tendency or the hope they will hang on me. They just seem to “want in” when there is affection or attention being given. That seems like most dogs I have met. My Lhasa can be aloof with strangers, but despite his grumpy old man personality (which he had at 12 weeks old), he reasonably quickly makes friends and then, yes, wants all the attention for himself. In fact, the quickest way for him to make friends is to see some other dog getting attention from the heretofore stranger.

[CurlyQ]

My friend's golden is perhaps the most jealous dog I know. If I am over at her house petting another of her dogs, he comes and sits next to me, making these deep rumbling noises (not a growl/snarl, no other aggressive body language). If you ignore him, he barks incredibly loudly. If you continue to pay attention to the other dog he will literally try and sit on your lap.

 

He is almost positive he's an 80 lbs lap dog. (This might sound big for a golden, and he is a bit overweight, but he's also really tall compared to the little goldens you see nowadays.)