[HN Gopher] Dogs distinguish human intentional and unintentional...
___________________________________________________________________
Dogs distinguish human intentional and unintentional action
Author : sam345
Score : 266 points
Date : 2021-09-05 10:36 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| anshumankmr wrote:
| I notice this in cats too. There is a stray cat I feed from time
| to time. When I try to pet her, she does not appreciate it by
| often trying to scratch me. On the other hand, I stepped on her
| paw once and she did nothing. Of course, this is anecdotal
| evidence.
| shimonabi wrote:
| Can confirm.
|
| When my dog was a puppy, he ran around my feet like crazy and I
| accidentally stepped on his paws a couple of times. He was not
| mad at me at all, he just learned to keep some distance when
| going for a walk.
| amelius wrote:
| Do dogs do intentional things with their feet other than
| walking/running? Perhaps they projected this onto you.
| sharatvir wrote:
| My dog often uses his "hands" to get our attention or to
| ask for doors to be opened.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Mine would paw for attention or use it to paw/scratch open
| a door, shake or "high-five" on command.
|
| And of course, nearly every dog uses them to scratch their
| own itches.
| prova_modena wrote:
| I used to live with a dog who really, really loved to be
| petted. He would hop up next to you on the couch while you
| were reading a book, on a laptop/phone etc and very
| deliberately hook your forearm with his "wrist" (not sure
| the right term, first major leg joint above the paw) and
| pull your hand/arm towards him for pets. Cute the first few
| times but he was so persistent and deliberate about it, it
| became a little annoying!
| elliekelly wrote:
| My dog knows how to ring poochiebells with his paw to be
| let out.[1] I also know a dog who will frequently use her
| paw to lower the phone in your hand or shut the lid of your
| laptop as if to say "pay attention to me, not this".
|
| [1]https://www.amazon.com/PoochieBells-Original-
| Handcrafted-Col...
| shimonabi wrote:
| I have the exact same ones (for each floor). :)
| clairity wrote:
| after training me over some weeks, my dog now paws at me
| to give her belly scratches (and reassurance in general).
| =)
| db48x wrote:
| Of course. My sister's dog is small and careful not to get
| stepped on, but when she wants attention (which is often),
| she steps on people's toes to get it.
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Also I did not intentionally step on her paw.
| [deleted]
| howlin wrote:
| > When I try to pet her, she does not appreciate it by often
| trying to scratch me.
|
| Animals will often misinterpret an attempt to pet with an
| attempt to grab. It helps a lot to attempt to pet with the back
| of your hand rather than your palm and fingers.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Works with people to. Touch someones back with the back of
| your hand as you slide through a crowd and people often don't
| even notice.
| NHQ wrote:
| _Unintentionally drops food on the floor._
| snikeris wrote:
| Dogs were the original AI. Human technologies that understand us
| and do our bidding.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| No, other humans were and still are.
| jlushbough wrote:
| Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being
| kicked. "Early Forms of Liability," Lecture I from The Common
| Law. (1909).
|
| Oliver Wendell Holmes
| raffraffraff wrote:
| Reminds me of a funny post on Reddit a while back. Some guy
| said that he got up in the middle of the night for a drink of
| water, didn't put the light on, and accidentally kicked his dog
| who was asleep in the kitchen. He said "my dog thinks I got up
| in the middle of the night to kick him".
| DanielVZ wrote:
| Many pet owners have seen this behaviour, and what I find note
| worthy too is that that trauma can be easily detected when the
| animal doesn't react according to intention.
|
| Anecdotically, I adopted a mistreated dog this year. He's a
| really good boy, and shows the exact same behaviour the paper
| states regarding accidental interactions in general. But if you
| are for example brooming and slightly touch him, he immediately
| hides and may even piss himself. It seems to me that he was
| beaten up with some kind of stick when he was just a puppy. Poor
| boy :(
| mod wrote:
| I had a dog with similar traits-- fearful and would piss
| herself, scared of brooms and loud noises, scared of people
| walking directly towards her--and I know for certain she was
| never mistreated by a human. She was the runt of the litter,
| for whatever that's worth.
|
| Anyhow, I don't always think these behaviors are the result of
| tragic circumstances, even if they often are.
| agumonkey wrote:
| How has he been with you ? do you see improvement in his well
| being ?
|
| take care
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Mmmm, my dad was a veterinarian and me being a dog trainer (
| well, for 4 dogs of our own where I learned a lot from where I
| trained my dogs), so i got to a lot of my dad's clients to help
| out with their new/adopted dogs that behave frightened.
|
| It's weird that your dog still has the same behavior after one
| year with "his own family".
|
| I think playing with a dog has a lot of "accidental" touches
| that should make him accessible to those actions.
|
| I also don't think it was a stick, since my own abused dog was
| afraid of sticks in particular. As long as we had one it was
| okay and he didn't care ( since we played with it). But if
| someone unfamiliar would try that, he would become aggressive (
| happened one time many years after, when an older guy with a
| walking stick came over and wanted to silence/move the dog with
| his cane. Luckily I was nearby and heard the sound immediately
| )
| puddingforears wrote:
| We adopted a border collie around 1.5 years old two years ago
| with this same behavior. He was completely paranoid and would
| piss everywhere if you touched him in certain places or came
| close too quickly. He really would turn into a shaking blob of
| jello around strangers, and would lose his shit around any of
| our Asian man friends or even around them in public, he'd void
| his bladder and back away barking and snarling.
|
| Took a while for him to get comfortable and after giving him a
| lot of positive reinforcement and space he's become the most
| extroverted love bug I've ever met. He regularly smashes up
| against me when I'm on the couch and at the most inconvenient
| times because he's got the grace of an unsupported blob of
| ballistics gel, but what I love most about his growth over the
| last two years is that now he'll even try to put his nose under
| unsuspecting pedestrian's hands on walks! Even if they're Asian
| men!
|
| He only pees now when he knows he's in trouble
| meristohm wrote:
| What does it mean to be in trouble, for your dog?
| Stratoscope wrote:
| Going only by the headline, I don't know why this would be a
| surprise to anyone who has lived with dogs or cats.
|
| I have hurt some of our four-legged family members - kicking them
| because I didn't see them, or stepping on their tail - and the
| very first thing they always want to know is if I did it on
| purpose or by accident.
|
| I wonder why this would even be the subject of research? And if
| it were, how could you possibly conduct an ethical experiment
| around it?
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Because of this:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism
| Stratoscope wrote:
| OK, I will challenge you on this.
|
| How many dogs and cats have you personally lived with?
|
| Have you ever hurt them, intentionally or by mistake?
|
| Did their response change based on whether you reassured them
| that it was an accident, or making it clear you really meant
| to hurt them?
|
| And honestly, I have to say I am a bit offended by being
| accused of anthropomophism.
|
| I am not attributing "human traits, emotions, or intentions
| to non-human entities" like the dogs and cats I've lived
| with.
|
| I am doing my best to understand their dog and cat emotions.
| They are not human emotions, they are dog and cat emotions.
| You can't deny that they are emotional creatures, and it is
| my job as their caregiver and protector to understand them
| and meet them where they are.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I've always had pets. I currently have two Siamese cats.
| I've accidentally stepped on them, but never intentionally
| hurt them. All of that is beside my point, though.
|
| What you're saying is clearly correct. The OP's post
| supports this. I was simply telling you why studies like
| these are necessary: because things that can seem very real
| can be a case of cognitive bias. A scientist's job is to
| gather evidence to reveal whether what we perceive is real
| or illusion.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| So how would a scientist prove conclusively that other
| humans are conscious and self-aware and not just very
| advanced automata that behave in ways which mimic
| consciousness and self-awareness?
|
| No matter how much data you collect, when you're
| assessing behaviour there's always a subjective
| interpretation of how behaviours differ and what they
| mean in context.
|
| Experiments like these simply disguise and hide the
| subjectivity.
|
| _Questions of subjective experience are absolutely
| unprovable scientifically._
|
| You can collect correlations between stimuli and
| responses, but when you're done you have a table of
| correlations between stimuli and responses - and that's
| all.
|
| In practice we assume that our own states correlate with
| behaviours, and this also applies to other humans in a
| straightforward way. (It often doesn't, but it's a nice
| thing to believe.) From there it's an easy step to making
| the same mapping for certain animals, albeit with more of
| a stretch.
|
| But this is all unprovable, even as a hypothesis. All you
| can say objectively is that stimuli either match or don't
| match expected behaviours.
|
| That's all that's ever on the table.
| avianlyric wrote:
| Anecdotes are still anecdotes regardless of how many you
| have.
|
| For data you need to actually measure a response in a
| controlled environment. Making sure you record both the
| interesting, and non-interesting, responses so you can
| compare them.
|
| Humans have a very strong natural tendency to only remember
| and evaluate interesting responses. Causing us to vastly
| overestimate the frequency of interesting outcomes. That
| paired with our brains strong desire to pattern match,
| means we're terrible at making accurate observations on a
| day-to-day basis.
|
| Hence scientists do experiments like this to discover what
| aspects of our intuition are accurate, and what parts are
| inaccurate.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Your comment made me realize that I should maybe not react when
| I kick the cat by accident.
|
| I stop and tell her get how sorry I am, which did not make much
| sense and probably confuses the cat even more. Same with a dog
| (when I had one).
|
| Thanks for the interesting comment about something I never have
| a deeper thought to.
| elliekelly wrote:
| I think there is a fair bit of evidence that animals console
| each other and "reconcile" after they've hurt one another. I
| definitely think dogs and cats understand you're trying to
| communicate you're sorry. Or maybe at least that you aren't
| angry with them.
|
| At any rate, we humans have been "apologizing" to our pets
| like this forever. It's almost instinctual to us. So I don't
| think it's a confusing experience for pets. It would probably
| more confusing for your pet if you were to suddenly stop this
| behavior.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| > _I stop and tell her get how sorry I am, which did not make
| much sense and probably confuses the cat even more._
|
| Thanks for giving this some thought. Really, it does make
| sense to your dog or cat.
|
| When cats play, they often will hurt each other a bit as they
| tumble and play. Same with dogs. Just watch their behavior
| afterward.
|
| If they really meant to hurt each other, the attack will
| continue. If it was an accident, they will stop, smell each
| others' butts, see if everyone was OK, and then either take a
| rest or get back to playing.
|
| Two of our cats love to toss and tumble every night. If you
| didn't know, you might think they were fighting. But they are
| best of friends and love to play like that.
|
| I suppose this is the bottom line (quite literally): if you
| kick your cat, smell her butt!
|
| No, seriously, you don't need to do that. Cats and dogs have
| an amazing talent for reading human emotions. So just
| reassure her that you didn't mean to do it. A little head
| scratch, pet her, and she will get the message.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| > Really, it does make sense to your dog or cat.
|
| What I meant is that it may be better to just continue
| walking after having stepped on them as if nothing
| happened, rather than making the event special.
|
| I have more experience with children than with cats so this
| may be the reason (when my children fell and hurt
| themselves (in the "usual way"), they would look around to
| check how parents react. If we did as if nothing happened
| or just casually acknowledged the accident, they would
| usually go ahead with what they were doing. Running to them
| with "poor baby!" was the worst thing to do (in our case at
| least))
| pxc wrote:
| > I have more experience with children than with cats so
| this may be the reason (when my children fell and hurt
| themselves (in the "usual way"), they would look around
| to check how parents react. If we did as if nothing
| happened or just casually acknowledged the accident, they
| would usually go ahead with what they were doing. Running
| to them with "poor baby!" was the worst thing to do (in
| our case at least))
|
| Dogs are like this, too. This is how a lot of owners end
| up reinforcing fear and fear-related aggression: cooing
| and fawning when their dog is shaking with fear,
| growling, or barking.
|
| I've had dogs who are smaller than most cats. When I step
| on a paw, I do apologize and I do check on the critter,
| but I try to keep it low-drama so as not to feed into all
| that.
|
| I just pick them up and gently squeeze each paw with
| gradually increasing firmness, while I watch to gauge the
| reactions. This lets me know whether he's actually hurt
| or the yelping was more anticipatory (like a 'watch
| out!') and if the former, which paw it was and a little
| bit about how bad it is. Then I give them a quick and
| cheerful apology and I pet them or throw a toy to chase
| or something like that.
|
| If you want I can try to find some more authoritative
| resources on this, but basically your intuitions and the
| analogy from your kids are right on afaik.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| Are these animals responding to the emotion of your apology and
| chagrin and being soothed or did they recognize your intent?
|
| What experiments did you do to figure that out difference?
| Stratoscope wrote:
| Do you seriously think I am going to _experiment_ with
| kicking my dogs and cats or stepping on their tails, for the
| sake of science?
|
| I love the dogs and cats that I have the privilege of living
| with. So no, I'm not going to do that.
|
| Update: sorry I took some offense at your comment. Basically,
| I don't think this is a matter of science. Our dogs and cats
| are living, emotional creatures.
|
| As their human, it is my intuition and interaction with them
| that best teaches me how to provide them with a loving and
| happy home.
| avianlyric wrote:
| Or you could just do what these scientists did, and test
| whether or not dogs were capable of recognising intent in
| scenarios that don't involve harming them.
|
| Not sure why you would need to harm to test if they could
| understand intent.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| So you love your pets and treat them kindly and with
| affection, yet you are assuming that your pets behaviour
| when you do accidentally hurt them is due to an unproven
| ability to discern that it was an accident rather than
| simply learned behaviour that you are not a threat and,
| rather, a boon?
|
| Assumption is not science.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Or you could just watch cats and dogs for a while to see
| how clearly they understand the difference between
| friendly play, territorial grandstanding, and all-out war
| without needing accredited scientific legitimisation.
|
| Superficial casuistry isn't science either.
| trimble_tromble wrote:
| In science, we cannot cite our intuition or anecdotal
| experience as firm and reliable evidence for any phenomenon.
| One outgrowth of this is that good science is not just about
| investigating something that is likely to be surprising, it is
| about checking our intuitions in a more systematic and
| structured manner.
| nabla9 wrote:
| It's published in Scientific Reports, so I don't think the study
| is very significant or high quality.
| thih9 wrote:
| I'm reminded of service dogs that are trained to ignore or oppose
| commands that would put their human in danger.
|
| E.g. when given a command to cross a street in front of a driving
| car, the dog is trained to push the human the other way.
|
| I guess this is mostly about paying attention to surroundings.
| Part of me hopes there's a little of "my human made a mistake in
| assesing the safety of this action" there too.
| MeteorMarc wrote:
| On the other hand, if you fake throwing a stick, a dog may run
| many times before it becomes suspicious.
| edgyquant wrote:
| Depends on the dog. I was able to do that to my dog a few times
| when she was young but now days if she doesn't see or hear it
| she doesn't move.
| culopatin wrote:
| That is intentional action. Unintentional I think would be
| stepping on their paws by accident vs intentionally stomping on
| their paws while looking at them.
| timbit42 wrote:
| My papillon becomes suspicious after the first fake throw.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Our non-breed (as in pre-breeds like a dingo) dog is like you
| get the stick.
| spacedcowboy wrote:
| Similarly, my Newfie will look at the stick flying past, then
| look at me with that expression that big dogs can do... "why
| did you just do that, human ?", then sit down, preferably in
| the snow.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| How do the dogs know if an action is intentional or
| unintentional? Is it from the emotions, e.g. when someone
| intentionally withholds a reward they look angry, but when they
| unintentionally withhold a reward they look surprised and sad?
|
| Dogs are very emotional and can read human emotion. I can tell if
| my dog is happy, excited, bored, relaxed, angry, upset, scared,
| or confused. Similarly my dog can tell if someone likes them,
| doesn't like them, is sad, angry, and maybe other emotions.
| hinkley wrote:
| Dogs understand apology as well. If you bonk them and then give
| them scratches they bounce back. If you bonk them and don't
| they can get upset about it.
|
| It seems that puppy body language has built-in preemptive
| apologies. All that snout licking and booking is basically,
| "I'm sorry I'm a PITA but look how cute I am!"
| phire wrote:
| I think the evidence from the various studies along these lines
| is pointing towards dogs legitimately having empathy.
|
| And an empathy that is strongly compatible with humans.
|
| We aren't just talking about understanding feelings. Empathy
| includes the ability to see and understand a situation from
| another person's mental and physical point of view.
|
| Previous studies have shown that dogs can understand a human
| pointing at an object, and even mentally shift their
| perspective to understand what the human is pointing at from a
| completely different direction.
|
| The implication of this study is that dogs are genuinely
| putting themselves in the human's point of view and
| understanding that the result was not what the human intended
| and failed due to clumsiness.
| frankzander wrote:
| maybe because a certain action differs from usual patterns. to
| me this is the most logical explanation.
| postalrat wrote:
| People may assume an action is unintentional but they still
| check by looking at the person who made the action. Other
| social animals probably have the same behavior.
| johnasmith wrote:
| They compared across breeds ("51 dogs of various breeds", 9 of
| which were pugs or 'small' [1]), but some breeds are... dumb as
| hell. I'm skeptical the statement holds across all breeds. My
| friend's pug will run full speed into a wall for no apparent
| reason, hardly the most perceptive of creatures.
|
| 1. https://static-
| content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs415...
| Razengan wrote:
| I'm pretty sure my cat could recognize frowns and understand that
| it meant someone was angry.
| [deleted]
| sdze wrote:
| I noticed that with my prior dog that when I accidentally dropped
| his ball he did not try to catch and retrieve it but only when it
| was clear that it is playfully intended.
| vimy wrote:
| Is this why dogs and cats are generally tolerant of babies
| pulling at their ears and whatnot?
| exolymph wrote:
| They understand neoteny / youth, which is pretty cool!
| summm wrote:
| Sometimes. In other cases, especially when the toddler cries,
| the dog recognizes that cry as typical for prey and mauls or
| kills the toddler.
| datameta wrote:
| I think that to a certain extent they recognize the cub-like
| behavior of human babies and act accordingly.
| imbnwa wrote:
| Kittens and puppies do the same exact annoying shit to their
| bodies as human equivalents as well, not to mention
| babies/toddlers smell distinct from adults/adolescents, even
| to humans (or maybe just me).
| einarfd wrote:
| That would be the baby schema effect. A lot of animals, us
| included, has infants with similar traits. These traits is then
| something that these animals recognize and influence their
| behavior. This is why we find babies, kittens, lambs and
| puppies cute. In cat and dogs this shows up as higher tolerance
| for bad behavior.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| About 10 years ago my wife and I got two recues. A female
| greyhound and a male lurcher (who basically looked like a
| greyhound). My wife used to try to get our dogs to howl, because
| she thought it was funny. It turned into something they would do
| on command. Anyway, about 8 years ago my wife discovered the song
| "Werewolves of London" by Warren Zevon. At the appropriate parts
| of the song, she would command our dogs to "sing", and they'd
| both howl. Yes, hilarious. Anyway, about 7 years ago the
| greyhound got osteosarcoma, a painful bone cancer, and we had to
| put her to sleep. The lurcher was extremely lonely, so we rescued
| another greyhound. My wife didn't put the Werewolves song on
| again, because it made her feel sad. Fast forward about a year,
| and we're both in the house doing whatever, and I put on a
| playlist, not realising the song was in it. As soon as the first
| bar of the song played, the lurcher jumped up onto the armchair
| at our front window, frantically looking into the park out front,
| howled, and ran around the house "searching", presumably for
| Pasha. Tears, obviously. But also the realisation that a dog can
| recognise _a song_ , years after last hearing it, in a sea of
| thousands of other songs. And within the first few seconds of it
| playing. Honestly, I was astonished.
| codecutter wrote:
| Beautiful story.
|
| _I want my children to have a dog Or may be two or three They
| 'll learn from them more easily Than they will learn from me. A
| dog will teach them how to love, And have no grudge or hate I'm
| not so good at that myself But a dog will do it straight I want
| my children to have a dog, To be their pal and friend So they
| may learn that friendship Is faithful to the end. There never
| yet has been a dog That learned to double cross Nor catered to
| you when you won Then dropped you when you lost._
| g_langenderfer wrote:
| my interest in animals has waned as I've aged.
|
| I believe this is because I didn't know how to win another
| thing's affection. A dog just gives it to you.
| Unconditionally.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| Thank you. I stupidly tried to read this to my wife just now
| and ended up a blubbering wreck, because all of those dogs
| are now gone. The lurcher died of cancer 2 years ago, and
| Lily, the lovely old greyhound we got as his companion, died
| 2 months ago (14 years old, so no complaints)
|
| We're getting two rescues next month. Greyhounds again.
| devchix wrote:
| We've had 3 greyhounds, all died of cancer, two of bone
| cancer. Seems to be the curse of the greyhounds. It's
| lovely that you'll be adopting again. Tracks in the US have
| mostly closed, the waiting list for retired racers are
| long. UK and Ireland still have many retired racers, but
| the cost to transport them to the US is quite prohibitive.
| I quite envy you, and wish you much love with your new
| darlings.
|
| My most previous greyhound would play bite, which indicates
| to me he knew what a real bite does. On occasions I have
| said "ow ow" he would stop immediately and looked at me
| with surprise. I have also stepped on him or otherwise
| jostled him by accident, and I immediately and profusely
| said "sorry, sorry", and he would lick my hand as if he
| understood it was a mistake. Am I anthropomorphising the
| behavior? I've never doubted that dogs could differentiate
| what is intentional and unintentional.
| deergomoo wrote:
| That's a lovely poem. Any idea where it's from? Googling
| brings up only this comment, and a scan of a dog training
| club newsletter from 1995 with no attribution.
| vitus wrote:
| From slightly more googling:
|
| https://books.google.com/books?id=qQeGw2mIy9kC&pg=PA22&lpg=
| P...
| Wistar wrote:
| Nowhere near as moving a story but, back when my spouse used a
| Windows laptop, every night she'd logout from Windows and the
| little signature Windows sign out tune would play, and then
| she'd call our two dogs to their crates for the night. Over
| time, our two dogs, upon hearing the Windows log off sound,
| would immediately jump up and go to their crates.
|
| I bought her a Mac, and the Windows sound ritual ceased.
|
| A couple of years later, I found a youtube video compilation of
| every Windows signature sound and I played it. Despite it being
| the middle of the afternoon, the moment that specific log out
| tune played, the two dogs leapt up and went to their crates.
| arrow7000 wrote:
| This was an emotional rollercoaster. But thank you for sharing.
| sizzle wrote:
| After growing up and loving dogs all my life I don't think I
| can have another. The end tail is just too sad seeing them
| deteriorate and eventually be put to rest and it just guts me
| so badly. 10ish years is simply not long enough of a lifespan
| and it feels cruel growing so attached then having to say
| goodbye to a family member again and again like deja vu after
| the 3rd dog I had and loved (German Shepards and Pitbull
| rescue)
|
| Rest In Peace my old best friends, you'll never be forgotten.
| tenaciousDaniel wrote:
| I never miss an opportunity to share this eulogy I found a
| few years back, written way back in the 19th century:
| https://www.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/MDH/EulogyoftheDog.pdf
| sizzle wrote:
| This is beautiful, thanks for sharing.
| sojournerc wrote:
| My mom used to say watching a dog's life is like seeing a
| condensed version of our own journeys. Through infancy and
| adolescence into old age.
|
| You're right to say it's hard, but so is life. The
| companionship is worth the grief for me.
| [deleted]
| Klonoar wrote:
| Beautiful story.
|
| I inadvertently trained my dog to recognize Frozen Creek by
| Circa Survive. Years later all it takes to calm him down is to
| play the opening to that song. I attribute it to a day or two
| where I had the album on repeatedly and and he wasn't feeling
| well - pretty sure he just ate something he shouldn't have -
| and he'd come lay in my lap and sleep.
| tartoran wrote:
| That's a bittersweet but beautiful story. I love dogs, they're
| smarter than many give them credit. And adopting rescues is the
| nicest thing dog lovers can do
| beckman466 wrote:
| The base perspective of these types of 'discoveries' always seems
| to come with an underlying belief or assertion that our natural
| world is incapable and dumb. Why do these scientists assume the
| worst as a starting point?
|
| What makes these types of discoveries become headlines? I don't
| get it.
| nightcracker wrote:
| Experimental science is all based around ruling out the null
| hypothesis. For that it needs to be _falsifiable_.
|
| The hypothesis 'the dog can differentiate between A and B' is
| very hard to falsify. Because the dog _could_ differentiate,
| but choose to not act. You would need a fairly complete
| understanding of the dogs mental workings, and scanners to
| study them.
|
| On the other hand, 'the dog _can 't_ differentiate between A
| and B' is much easier to falsify. If you repeat an experiment a
| sufficient amount of times and the dog consistently has
| different behavior between A and B, you can rule this null
| hypothesis out.
|
| That is the real reason we always 'assume the worst'. Because
| 'assume the worst' is the easiest to scientifically rule out.
|
| EDIT: I would suggest this video by Veritasium, which also
| touches on this, at a very fundamental level:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo.
| Arech wrote:
| That's an excellent explanation!
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| One of the reasons is that for many centuries the Western
| thought was deeply influenced by Christian thought as formed
| mainly by Thomas Aquinas. According to him, animals are devoid
| of "the life of reason" with all consequences (basically, we
| can do what we want with them). It turned out, animals can
| feel, can be happy and unhappy, and can understand much more
| than we had imagined. This not a result of our intuition, but
| years of research. Nevertheless, the harm has been done, and
| animals have been cruelly abused because of the underlying
| belief that they don't feel (or, even if they do, it is
| ethically neutral). It's 2021 and there are several companies
| still testing their products on cosmetics, for example. At
| least natural fur is not a thing anymore.
| tzs wrote:
| On the other hand, in medieval and early modern Europe non-
| wild animals that did bad things were often given full trials
| with a judge, jury, prosecutor, defense [1]. That seems to
| suggest a view that animals were more than just unreasoning
| beasts.
|
| [1] https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/02/medieval-animal-
| tri...
| foldr wrote:
| It's worth noting that Aquinas was using 'reason' in a quite
| narrow and specific sense (very roughly, the ability to think
| about things as such via concepts). His position was not
| inconsistent with dogs having emotions or various forms of
| what we'd call intelligence.
| mackrevinack wrote:
| it also doesnt help that on page 1 of the most popular
| religion it basically says that humans have dominion over all
| the animals on earth, or some sort of slosh to that effect
| raffraffraff wrote:
| I suppose because until you actually show that something is the
| case, experimentally, it's just guess work either way. The
| world is full of different kinds of people. You, for instance,
| obviously see dogs as intelligent mammals. But there's also the
| person who buys a puppy for their 8 year old, and sees it as a
| fluffy clockwork toy that eats and shits. Not only do they not
| bother to wonder if it's sentient or intelligent, they actively
| suppress those thoughts because they are inconvenient thoughts.
| Those thoughts mean you have to care how the thing 'feels'.
| glanard_frugner wrote:
| people didn't even think animals felt pain until the 1980s
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_animals#History
| _game_of_life wrote:
| No... That's not true. You're off by over one hundred years
| for the Western world. The UK passed the Cruelty to Animals
| act in 1876
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruelty_to_Animals_Act,_1876
|
| The act states that:
|
| > "Researchers would be prosecuted for cruelty, unless they
| conformed to its provisions, which required that an
| experiment involving the infliction of pain upon animals to
| only be conducted when "the proposed experiments are
| absolutely necessary for the due instruction of the persons
| [so they may go on to use the instruction] to save or prolong
| human life"
|
| It also contains punishments for not giving animals
| anesthestia, which is a ridiculous waste of resources if
| "people didn't even think animals felt pain until the 1980s."
| klyrs wrote:
| Similar timeline on babies. But I think it's important to
| distinguish "scientists" from "people" in this case. My mom
| witnessed my brother's circumcision, on the day of his birth.
| She knew without a doubt that he was in immense pain, which
| the doctor flatly denied. Similarly, people who work with
| animals have known that they feel pain since time immemorial.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain_in_babies
| glanard_frugner wrote:
| > As recently as 1999, it was commonly stated that babies
| could not feel pain until they were a year old,
|
| how would it even be possible to reach that conclusion?
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Dogma needed it to be true so it was true.
| ajuc wrote:
| This is one of these things that most people who deal with
| animals (so - almost everybody) knew for millenia but
| philosophers debated over cause it's interesting and you can
| show off how smart you are and quote classics.
|
| You will have a very hard time taming an animal if you think
| it feels no pain.
| oftenwrong wrote:
| The first three sentences of the abstract contradict your
| comment; the scientists started with a question, not an
| assumption.
|
| >When dogs interact with humans, they often show appropriate
| reactions to human intentional action. But it is unclear from
| these everyday observations whether the dogs simply respond to
| the action outcomes or whether they are able to discriminate
| between different categories of actions. Are dogs able to
| distinguish intentional human actions from unintentional ones,
| even when the action outcomes are the same?
|
| It is newsworthy because new evidence has been found.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| What part of the scientific method would you have them invoke
| to start from the assertion that the natural world is very
| intelligent while crafting experiments?
|
| When I accidentally stepped on my dogs paw as a teen, the dog
| looked hurt and disappointed. The same dog barked at my sister
| when she tried to stick a pencil up his nose.
|
| Did the dog differentiate the scenarios based on intent or did
| it recognize my apologetic behaviour as non threatening? Or was
| it because my interactions with the dog were almost always
| positive while my sisters were not? Or simply because a pencil
| up the nose might have hurt a lot? Or because it was a hunting
| dog and we had hunted together multiple times? Was the dog
| actually disappointed in me or had they evolved to fake that by
| adjusting their eyebrows to this situation? Or did I project
| that emotion?
| pxc wrote:
| > Did the dog differentiate the scenarios based on intent or
| did it recognize my apologetic behaviour as non threatening?
|
| Apologetic behavior is a pretty good post-facto signal of
| intent! Humans also rely on it with each other. So I'm not
| sure that relying on sort of secondary signals like that is a
| real problem for the theory that dogs can read and care about
| human intent.
| [deleted]
| cirgue wrote:
| They're not assuming that the natural world is stupid. They're
| doing what good scientists do, which is to not take for granted
| that human interpretations of the world are universal/true/even
| make any kind of sense from the social standpoint of other
| mammals.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Human exceptionalism is deeply ingrained in most people: We
| aren't animals after all.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| We _are_ exceptional in quite a few areas. Our communication
| skills are unmatched anywhere in the animal kingdom and even
| the best animals fail at anything higher than primary school
| math. We also constantly see animals failing to adapt to the
| modern world with things like cars, screens and sometimes
| even glass.
|
| So I do think it's newsworthy that animals are able to parse
| complex human action and intent.
| postalrat wrote:
| Humans are good at human things. I think the mistake is
| equating human things to exceptionalism or intelligence.
| true_religion wrote:
| I agree. We can all be exceptional in our own ways.
|
| Sharks are exceptionally good at maintaining their
| species (self cloning for large animals is amazing). Dogs
| (and wolves) have exceptional senses of smell. The hearts
| of most bird species are exceptionally better than those
| of mere mammals.
|
| However, when it comes to the characteristics where we
| think humans are exceptional, I'll only allow another
| animal to take the top spot if they start an argument.
|
| To date, no animal has even started the argument... much
| less won it.
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Humans are literally animals.
| pjc50 wrote:
| The commenter's point was, I think, sarcastic; the average
| member of the public thinks of themselves as qualitively
| different from animals, and indeed our ethical systems are
| built around that.
| loa_in_ wrote:
| Science is based on these kind of assumptions. "Assume
| nothing."
|
| It's a game of stepping stones. It does however say a lot about
| the state of today's science - that is - how far we've come. We
| haven't come very far.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| But, like the parent said, the scientists aren't assuming
| nothing, they're assuming the natural world is dumb.
|
| Edit: I'm not sure why this is so controversial. The essence
| is: every experiment starts with an assumption.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Really? Because it seems to me that they suspected the
| opposite - that animals are intelligent - and they designed
| an experiment to attempt to prove it.
| avianlyric wrote:
| What other assumption can you start with?
|
| Assuming the natural world is dumb is simple, consistent,
| and easy to explain.
|
| If you start with the assumption the natural world is
| "smart", what does that even mean? Does it mean that we
| should assume dog can do calculus, but choose not to? Or
| that dogs are capable of complex communication, but also
| choose not to?
|
| Saying the natural world is "smart" is a pretty meaningless
| statement. How smart is "smart", everyone will have a
| different opinion, so you can't use it as the basis for
| discovery or discussion.
|
| However everyone understands what the natural world being
| dumb means. From there you can start the journey of proving
| step-by-step where the smarts are.
| nerbert wrote:
| I don't think that the assumption is that the natural
| world is dumb. The scientific discovery process aims to
| highlight new insights to help us make a better and
| useful description of the world. Implying that the
| starting point is "dumb" is incorrect. The starting point
| is a blank page, that will be filled by the research,
| whatever they find out.
| avianlyric wrote:
| I understand what your trying to say. But I don't agree
| with words you've used.
|
| We don't assume nothing, that's clearly not true. A basic
| assumption we make is that the natural world is capable
| of perceiving us and responding to our actions.
|
| The question we're normally testing is how complex the
| process between perception and response is. As general
| rule we assume that process is extremely simple ("dumb"),
| and work to understand how complex ("smart") it actually
| is.
|
| For example, in this paper the scientists didn't start by
| proving the dogs were capable of observing the humans and
| responding to their actions. That was a given. What was
| tested was how complex the dogs perception and decision
| making process was.
|
| Using words like "dumb" and "smart" are extremely crude.
| But it's the words used by GP and OP.
| Majestic121 wrote:
| It's the opposite : you assume that the natural world is
| smart, but they don't assume anything, they just test the
| hypothesis that dogs are smart, and in this way validate
| part of your assumption.
|
| I think it's a better way to deal with things, as your
| assumption might not hold scrutiny very well : what is
| natural world ? Are worms part of it ? What about rocks ?
| Can we deduce from there that worms and rocks are able to
| distinguish intentional from non intentional actions ?
| hutzlibu wrote:
| If you have ever written a game KI or something alike:
|
| the most simple algorithms (few lines of code) can
| perceive the observer into thinking there is advanced KI
| at work.
|
| Same might be the case with natural intelligence.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| What does KI mean?
| lwkl wrote:
| It means AI in German (Kunstliche Intelligenz).
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I never made that art / artificial connection before, but
| in retrospect it's obvious.
| Rexxar wrote:
| The first sentence of the abstract is "When dogs interact
| with humans, they often show appropriate reactions to human
| intentional action. But it is unclear from these everyday
| observations whether the dogs simply respond to the action
| outcomes or whether they are able to discriminate between
| different categories of actions"
|
| They don't assume they are dumb, they just don't assume
| anything, as they should.
| juanani wrote:
| It's called projecting. They are dumb, so they assume the
| outside world is dumb. Imagine if we had intelligent people
| in science today..
| titzer wrote:
| But it isn't "assume nothing", because it's just a different
| assumption. Science doesn't treat each new human person as if
| they were not conscious. Science works off reasonable
| inferences _all the time_. We reasonably assume that a full-
| looking bag is full, that big objects are heavy, that snakes
| are dangerous.
|
| I think it _is_ reasonable to assume that domesticated
| animals are at least _somewhat_ intelligent. After all, they
| convinced us to shelter, protect and feed them!
| whatshisface wrote:
| There is an even simpler answer to your question than the
| ones other, very good, comments are pointing out. All of
| the scientists who unquestioningly believed that dogs could
| tell the difference didn't do this study. All of the
| scientists who unquestioningly believed dogs couldn't,
| didn't do this study. All studies are done by whichever
| members of the scientist population don't believe the
| affirmative or the negative.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| I don't think this is right either.
|
| All studies are done by scientists who are desperate to
| get published and have their work referenced.
|
| Even a cursory glance at that corner of funny-cute-etc-
| animals YouTube videos will convince that animals,
| especially mammals, have at least very complex internal
| and social lives.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| This study isn't treating dogs as if they were not
| conscious or intelligent.
|
| It's isolating a particular aspect of intelligence to
| determine if it exists in a particular fashion. In this
| case, the question of if and how dogs are aware of human
| agency. This is a _very_ interesting question.
|
| The exact same falsifying process is used with studies
| about humans. Using these processes we've significantly
| changed our understanding of human cognition in the last
| century so it seems like it's working!
|
| No one's suggesting that dogs or people aren't intelligent.
| The question is exactly how this intelligence functions,
| because there are many ways to reach a particular
| conclusion.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Because of Descartes, who felt animals were just meat machines
| lacking consciousness, a bundle of reflexes as it were.
|
| This longish essay is a good introduction to the philosophical
| history behind your question:
| https://philosophynow.org/issues/108/Descartes_versus_Cudwor...
| OGforces wrote:
| The experiment design doesn't convince me of the headline.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-05 23:00 UTC)