How high does a dog's mental ability go?

 I put them on par with, say, a two year old. I don't know much about two year old children, though!

They don't have a theory of mind, but they can learn from watching others and copying, and they do seem to have a sense of humour. 

And something I can't help but notice, especially as it had been at the forefront of one discussion I had with something that would mostly seem unrelated to dogs. That is, the effect of the human and our selection criteria.

When we say a dog is emotional, are we using human emotions as the measuring stick by which to say that a dog is emotional? Some are saying that a dog is not cognizant to an appreciable degree because they lack the frontal lobe that we have and their language with each other does not sound like English or Ukrainian. And if a shared language between dogs is purely emotional, is emotional language enough to relay 3-D coordinates projected forward in time? I have seen that happen. With dogs.

Are dogs not capable of symbolic thought? If so, how does one explain the Dobie that would arrange toys in geometric shapes, as well as social patterns that made sense to a human, including an animal behaviorist who was initially sure that this could not happen because dogs are not cognizant, etc.?

I guess what I am asking is - how accurate is it to say whether dogs are cognizant or not by measuring against our estimation of our own cognition? I might seem a little copernican but is assuming that human cognition is the measuring stick a bit like saying the Sun revolves around the Earth? Or is it possible that other criteria might apply?

I think it's only natural to view other animals from our own point of reference. Yet each species has their own set of skills and gifts to enable them to survive in their natural environment.

I recently saw a special about the short term memory of chimps and how they surpass humans in this capacity. And, although they don't have the same vocal ability, their vocalizations do have meaning.

Much of social learning seems to require a bit of abstract thought. A "higher" social animal has to make the leap of seeing what happens to another member of their group, and then understand that what happens to another, can then also happen to them. In some ways it's like an indirect form of an OC concept. The animal doesn't have to personally experience a "reward" or "punishment" from their environment in these situations, in order to learn from it. I think social learning also involves simple mimicry. Then there is direct communication via some form of information exchange.

Humor seems to require a certain amount of abstract thought and "pretending". I've watched dogs use both the play bow and a little play bounce with their ears tucked back in mock "Ooo look!, I'm a startled little prey item - try and catch me!". This was discussed a bit in a role-playing thread we had awhile back.

I've watched Nick look at himself in a mirror. After first thinking it's another dog, he seems to realise it's just his own reflection. Do all dogs figure this out? I don't know.

My dogs understand my sarcastic tone of voice and behavior when I'm playing.

What exactly is "humor" to a dog, I wonder?

 It is wrong to say they do not have a "theory of mind."  The most that can be said is that they have not been shown to have a "theory of mind." 

I also agree that humans will always judge other species against humans, but like Ron states, we must always remember that those standards have little to do with the mental abilities of other species.  We expect them to prove themselves using techniques or communications that are like a foreign language to them. 

Furthermore comparing dogs to human two-year olds is also misleading since dogs have mental capabilities that humans, either at two or as adults will never have.  Think about their sense of smell and how they can use that sense to do things humans can't.  If you walked a two-year old into the woods and left them, I do not think they could find their way back home, but a dog can. 

It has been shown that dogs can learn by social learning, both learning from other dogs or humans.  They can use inferential logic although those skills can be screwed up by their dependence on human cues.  I believe that we will discover that dogs have more "higher" mental abilities once we create tests that are really suited to dogs. 

I was merely putting dogs in a context we understand. The same way we might say chimps are on a level with a 5 year old. Clearly they are very different and can do a lot of thing a 5 year old can't, but it gives us something to compare that we know and understand. Thus, I think of dogs to be on a level with a 2 year old. Except for Pyry, who is more like a 3 year old. Some dogs are above average. Pyry is too smart for his own good. I think it's interesting that he learnt that he can lick the BBQ plate but he has to wait until it's cool. He'll test it very carefully and if it's too hot, he comes back 5 minutes later and tries again. I've seen dogs given a hot sausage from the BBQ. It's too hot to eat and they never try it again. The sausage can be sitting on the ground nice and cool and they won't lick it because as far as they're concerned it's too hot to eat and will always be too hot to eat.

I think we can only measure by the human yard stick because it's the only measuring stick we really have at our disposal. 

Incidentally, octopus are able to learn by watching others and mimicking. I think that's pretty incredible for a squooshy marine critter with no backbone.

I often think that Penny thinks it's funny when she tries to sniff the butt of her greyhound friend and can't reach. She keeps trying and giving us all these looks as if she's trying to draw our attention to the fact that she can't even reach the dog's butt, but she looks quite happy as she keeps trying. It reminds me of small children when something strikes them as amusing and they want to share it.  

corvus

I often think that Penny thinks it's funny when she tries to sniff the butt of her greyhound friend and can't reach. She keeps trying and giving us all these looks as if she's trying to draw our attention to the fact that she can't even reach the dog's butt, but she looks quite happy as she keeps trying. It reminds me of small children when something strikes them as amusing and they want to share it.  

Doesn't that point toward a theory of mind? She realizes that you are thinking with a different mind and she wants to interject something from her mind in there...

I will throw the frisbee for Jaia and it lands in the tree. He stares at it. Looks at me. Looks back at it. Comes over to me, runs back to the tree and looks up.  Doesn't that indicate that he has the ability to recognize his own desire (me want frisbee) and to understand that that my desires may be different than his own?

FourIsCompany

I will throw the frisbee for Jaia and it lands in the tree. He stares at it. Looks at me. Looks back at it. Comes over to me, runs back to the tree and looks up.  Doesn't that indicate that he has the ability to recognize his own desire (me want frisbee) and to understand that that my desires may be different than his own?

I think so, even if we can only prove it anecdotally, while, at the same time, describing it in human terms. We may not be able to get away from the human view of things. Nor is that bad, I just want to recognize that limitation in our selection criteria. If someone could write what's going in dog language, we might not be able to understand it. We would still need our human frame of reference. An interspecies round of semantics, I suppose.

Which brings me to a point I make at times, at least in regard to physics. Newton's theories have some limitations, at least in some perspectives. Yet, for most of us in our workaday world, it is plenty accurate. In simile, I would suggest that, in the case of some or much dog behavior, it is easier for us to assume cognition and treat it that way, even if it is elemental "I want this, I don't want that" and it is easier to assume an important level of social ability on the part of the dog desiring to fit into our family or group than to say none of it exists. Many of us have assumed some cognition and reasoning ability in our dogs that we sometimes think mimicks our own. Having this viewpoint has not, in my estimation, detracted from our ability to train and interact with our dogs. The dog may not care whether you think he can think or not. He's glad to be with you. It's part of his "emotional well-being," and possibly part of his survival since being around humans usually means plentiful resources. In fact, I would say that humans are probably the only animals that are better at procuring resources than canids.

But back to topic. Even though I hope to stay away from the summation, in simile, that the sun revolves around the Earth, if we have no other reference, we certainly have to start with what we do know.  As for a human 2 year old, are they not capable of cognition? They certainly recognize a difference between themselves and the rest of the word. They form the thoughts of possession. This is my toy, those are my shoes. And, though they may not fully understand the displeasure in a parent's mood (do any of us ever really know another), they do know when someone else is upset. They can approach someone else for something they want, which would seem to imply a theory of mind, nearly exactly like Jaia cueing to get the frisbee out of the tree, or my dog looking at leash, harness, and door knob, in exactly that order to go outside. It doesn't matter if that chain got trained by accident. It is what he uses to communicate a need or desire, which could imply a theory of mind. He knows that only us humans can open the door. So, he cues items that are identified with being outside. Otherwise, he could just as well lick the tv remote if it was to be a blind need looking for an expression.

I also fear that the comparison to human toddlers may be somewhat inaccurate but necessary until something better comes along.

Nah, I don't think so.  A dog doesn't need to understand that you have a different mind and different wants to him to find a way to get you to do what he wants.

And I doubt wanting to interject something means anything other than the animal's world revolves around them. One time Kit's water bottle wasn't working and he waited until I was present and then got my attention by looking for affection, then went and tried to use the water bottle. When it didn't work he grunted and started biting at it, then he came back to me, then back to the water bottle, then just looked at me. He couldn't have tailored a fairly complex message to be understood by me better, really. I felt very stupid, because there's no way I could ever find a way to communicate with him so clearly no matter how much I wanted to. Just because he can devise a way to communicate in something pretty close to human, though, doesn't mean he understands that I have a different mind to him and see the world differently. He just knows what makes me respond in ways important to him.  

Ron, I agree with you that we have to be careful describing things in human terms, although that's the only frame of reference we have. Today, my husband said that he thinks Mia is feeling "insecure" because she's licking more. I told him that she may be feeling insecure, but we have to be careful to NOT treat her "insecurity" the same way we would treat insecurity in a person (with reassurance and attention). The way to treat what we call a dog's "insecurity" would be to give her something to do, IMO.

I don't like comparing a dog's mentality to children. I don't think there it's a good measure because of developmental stages. I think we can only guess at what's going on with a dog and by observation, learn how to communicate with them.  But I don't think a comparison to a child is in any way accurate.

corvus, I absolutely can do with my dogs, what your rabbit did with you. With gesture, words, timing, movements and energy (don't hit me!) I can get them to do things. I don't think that's a one-way street.

ron2

They can approach someone else for something they want, which would seem to imply a theory of mind, nearly exactly like Jaia cueing to get the frisbee out of the tree, or my dog looking at leash, harness, and door knob, in exactly that order to go outside. It doesn't matter if that chain got trained by accident. It is what he uses to communicate a need or desire, which could imply a theory of mind. He knows that only us humans can open the door. So, he cues items that are identified with being outside. Otherwise, he could just as well lick the tv remote if it was to be a blind need looking for an expression.

I disagree. Approaching someone for something you want does not, IMHO, mean a theory of mind. Again, take Kit. That hare has a special kind of intelligence, but he does not have a ToM. He can read intent in body language, but that doesn't mean he knows you have a different view of the world to him. He knows only that it means he will be chased, or he will be fed, or he can beg a raisin, or something bad is going to happen to him or whatever. It's all about him and what your behaviour means will happen to him. So he knows a dog that wants to make friends and a dog that wants to eat him and he responds accordingly. He reacts reacts reacts. He sees patterns in the behaviour of other animals and learns what they mean to him. That's all. Animals can learn to get things they want from other creatures without a ToM. A sea turtle will hang out at the rock where the cleaner fish live to get a cleaning, but that doesn't mean the turtle knows the fish gets something out of this as well. The turtle probably doesn't even understand that cleaner fish can do things the turtle can't. It just knows go to the rock, get a clean, feels good.

Ever seen a toddler talking on the phone? Someone asks them a question and they answer with a nod. Tell them the other person can't see a nod and they answer the next question with a nod anyway. That means they don't have a ToM. They think the person on the other end knows what they know. They can still know that Mum will give them something they want because they've learnt to ask and have received. That doesn't mean they understand why they have to ask.

FourIsCompany

corvus, I absolutely can do with my dogs, what your rabbit did with you. With gesture, words, timing, movements and energy (don't hit me!) I can get them to do things. I don't think that's a one-way street.

Oh, I meant with the hare. Dogs are MUCH better than he is at understanding humans. They have the big advantage of co-evolution and sociality. He's not a social animal and hares have no history with humans beyond being eaten by them. Which is kind of why I think this stuff doesn't prove a ToM. Because otherwise he would have one, and he's just not smart in that way, and there's no evolutionary need for him to be smart in that way. If he had a ToM, than pretty much every vertebrate on the planet (and plenty of inverts as well) would have one.

FourIsCompany

I will throw the frisbee for Jaia and it lands in the tree. He stares at it. Looks at me. Looks back at it. Comes over to me, runs back to the tree and looks up.  Doesn't that indicate that he has the ability to recognize his own desire (me want frisbee) and to understand that that my desires may be different than his own?

I think yes to the first part, no to the second part. He very much recognizes his own desire for the frisbee, and has figured out that he's got a good chance of getting it by repeatedly staring at what he wants and making eye contact with you, and running back and forth between you and the frisbee. It's worked before, it should work again - learned behavior.

But that doesn't necessarily equate to an awareness of YOUR desires, much less that he cares about them.

corvus

Approaching someone for something you want does not, IMHO, mean a theory of mind. Again, take Kit. That hare has a special kind of intelligence, but he does not have a ToM. He can read intent in body language, but that doesn't mean he knows you have a different view of the world to him. He knows only that it means he will be chased, or he will be fed, or he can beg a raisin, or something bad is going to happen to him or whatever. It's all about him and what your behaviour means will happen to him. So he knows a dog that wants to make friends and a dog that wants to eat him and he responds accordingly. He reacts reacts reacts. He sees patterns in the behaviour of other animals and learns what they mean to him. That's all. Animals can learn to get things they want from other creatures without a ToM. A sea turtle will hang out at the rock where the cleaner fish live to get a cleaning, but that doesn't mean the turtle knows the fish gets something out of this as well. The turtle probably doesn't even understand that cleaner fish can do things the turtle can't. It just knows go to the rock, get a clean, feels good.

Well said, that makes perfect sense. 

Perhaps, we should again define theory of mind so that we can agree on what you are saying is non-existant or not evidence by specific behavior on the part of the animal within limits of their physiology to attract your notice or concentration to a specific event or need.

Have we not defined ToM as the knowledge or opinion of a creature than another creature possesses an awareness separate from their own? That we can view the same thing and it might mean the same thing to us? Now, I could be cheeky and ask you or anyone to prove that ToM is not there.

In your example of the hare and the water supply, the hare has done specific things to bring to your attention the water problem. Have you noticed if the hare does the same thing with other animals such as the dogs? If he did that with all animals, I would be inclined to believe that he did not have ToM. But if he only does it with you, it is a communication directed specifically at you in terms you can understand. Understand enough to chide yourself for an oversight. Which, at face value, would seem that the hare is taking into account your sphere of understanding, to some degree, and acting in way commensurate with the physical abilities of a hare, to communicate a problem. Maybe I am saying that communication is a sign of ToM.

I don't disagree that the hare's awareness is certainly different than our own and there concerns are different than our own. I just don't see where that difference implies a lack of ToM. Then, again, I am not assuming that humans alone possess ToM or cognizance. That's due to a personal failing of mine.