Generalization

• 03-16-2008 12:05 PM

  ron2 Joined on 09-10-2007 far north central Texas Posts 9,819 Points 500

  Generalization Reply Contact Those of you who have known me for the past 2 + years will know that I am the first to admit when I am wrong or inaccurate. Or when I happen across a new insight. Let me do so, again. I have been fond of saying that dogs don't generalize as well as humans do or not in the same way. As if humans were the model of generalization to which we can compare other animals. That is not only anthrocentric, it is inaccurate. I came to this realization at a dinner party the other night. The friend's son who's previous girlfriend gave us Shadow has a new girlfriend and she has two children from a previous relationship. They are toddlers, a girl and a boy. The girl had one of our friend's trinkets and was banging it on the glass of the french door to the patio. Our friend's son, T, said "don't do that." So, she banged on the wood frame of the glass. "Don't do that." So, she moved to the main wood of the door. "Don't do that." So, she moved to the door jamb. That is, she didn't automatically, by way of being human, generalize the don't do it to not banging the object on anything. She only stopped on the particular target and instead picked another target. Some of the new moms might be able to back me up on this. I don't generalize every time, either. I got a speeding ticket in Melissa, Texas 7 years ago. I still watch my speed going through there. But I don't watch my speed as closely in other towns. I'm usually not more than 5 mph over anywhere. But in Melissa, I watch it like a hawk. Now, in that town, it is easy to get a speeding ticket. It's half of the town's annual budget, a primary source of their income. Anyway, though the direction of generalization might be different at times in man and dog, man is not necessarily better at generalization. And, if we can't always count on our fellow humans to generalize what we said, we shouldn't expect a dog to do so, either. But initially, I wanted to state that comparing a dog's generalization to a human's, which is important at least to note the differences, should also include the similarities at the risk of anthropromorphization and canipromorphization. And that humans are not necessarily the benchmark of generalizing abilities. I realize, too, that my post may include an inference or logical requirement that dogs have thinking abilities not totally unlike those of a human, or vice versa. Or that human's thinking abilities aren't as lofty as we might imagine. Such is the risk.   I'm sure I'll think of other stuff, later.     The way you treat your dog in this life determines your place in heaven. - chukchi proverb

  Post Points: 0

• 03-16-2008 12:52 PM

  In reply to ron2

  Angelique Joined on 10-04-2006 Posts 1,248 Points 200

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact What comes to mind regarding this topic is house training a dog to eliminate outside, rather than inside the house. If you simply interupt them when they start, and take them outside to finish - they seem to learn quickly if the interuption is also coupled with a lot of classical conditioning through repetition of "going" in the appropriate place, outside. Bladder relief is rewarding to a dog, IMO. However, if you are overly harsh in a "punishing" sense, the dog seems to equate the punishment with the act itself, not the where. This can lead to a dog hiding their eliminations in the house and even not wanting to "go" in front of you when taken outside. Knowing the difference between "what" one is doing as opposed to "where" one is doing it, seems to be a combination of both operant and classical conditioning combined with social direction, in the case of house training. Ack, I don't know if that made any sense at all! I've been sick and my brain is fuzzy!   "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" Albert Einstein "There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the bank looking stupid"

  Post Points: 0

• 03-16-2008 1:20 PM

  In reply to Angelique

  luvmyswissy Joined on 09-10-2007 Posts 1,540 Points 25

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact I came to this realization at a dinner party the other night. The friend's son who's previous girlfriend gave us Shadow has a new girlfriend and she has two children from a previous relationship. They are toddlers, a girl and a boy. The girl had one of our friend's trinkets and was banging it on the glass of the french door to the patio. Our friend's son, T, said "don't do that." So, she banged on the wood frame of the glass. "Don't do that." So, she moved to the main wood of the door. "Don't do that." So, she moved to the door jamb. That is, she didn't automatically, by way of being human, generalize the don't do it to not banging the object on anything. She only stopped on the particular target and instead picked another target. Some of the new moms might be able to back me up on this.   Being a mother of three and a grandma too this really has little to do with generalization.   This is more about the child's will to continue to do what they are enjoying and trying to following directions enough not to get into trouble.  When I tell Cody to pick up his room he often pick up the clothes up off the floor and moves them to his bed.  When I see this I say "Cody" where do those dirty clothes belong?  And then he moves them from the bed to the hamper.  Just trying to find the quickest way (in his little mind) to comply quickly without doing what is really asked.  Same with his toys in the livingroom he moves them to his bedroom but not their percpective places.  Why? becasue it takes to much effort and time away from soemthing else he was enjoying.

  Post Points: 0

• 03-16-2008 4:30 PM

  In reply to luvmyswissy

  ron2 Joined on 09-10-2007 far north central Texas Posts 9,819 Points 500

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact luvmyswissy: When I tell Cody to pick up his room he often pick up the clothes up off the floor and moves them to his bed.  When I see this I say "Cody" where do those dirty clothes belong?  And then he moves them from the bed to the hamper.  Just trying to find the quickest way (in his little mind) to comply quickly without doing what is really asked I don't see it as that far off the track. And I can see a dog as doing the same thing. Example, he learns recall at home. But in a livelier setting in public, he may still know what the recall means but it may not be as rewarding as something else. In either case, you are having to lead the dog or child to a generalization that is greater in scope. The child knows what pick up means. But does he or she know that what mean is pick up and put it in the hamper, two distinct actions combined into one chain? I think I can see the same with a dog. Recall at home and in public are to distinct actions but training is required to understand that you mean recall to you in any circumstance, just as clean up your room means pick up the clothes and put them in hamper. Or perhaps, generalization is the wrong word. Behavior chain and/or contextual chain is more appropriate. I want you to recall here and at the dog park, in the parking lot, whereever. The point I was trying to make is that, by commission or omission, humans don't necessarily generalize a behavior any more than dogs do. Which also, I think, means that dogs can generalize but, like kids, or even ourselves, not always the way we expect or want. And the motivation to generalize. As you pointed out, the child is doing the least amount of work in order to get to the activity he wants. Is not a dog doing something similar? At home, free of distractions, the dog wants the treat or frisbee. In public, the dog wants to go sniff that other dog, a reward competing with your attention. The dog would recall if it wasn't for this other reward going on. So, then, at least with dogs, you have to out-trump that other reward. Or use it as a reward for your desired action (Premack Principle.) You also have the added advantage of a common language between you and the child. As opposed to human language versus canine language. And perhaps this observation of mine became clear to me as a result of recent discussions on the mental superiority of humans over dogs. I saw this behavior in a human child and realized we aren't as lofty as some of us would like to imagine. And, if that's the case, are dogs that base, or of lower faculty? The way you treat your dog in this life determines your place in heaven. - chukchi proverb

  Post Points: 0

• 03-16-2008 4:55 PM

  In reply to ron2

  Chuffy Joined on 12-17-2006 UK Posts 5,498 Points 10

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact Ron, dogs are not great at generalising, but when they DO do it -  they do it WELL.  Usually TOO well.  "Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." (Pratchett, Jingo) "I used to look at [my dog] Smokey and think, 'If you were a little smarter you could tell me what you were thinking,' and he'd look at me like he was saying, 'If you were a little smarter, I wouldn't have to.'" - Fred Jungclaus

  Post Points: 0

• 03-16-2008 5:55 PM

  In reply to ron2

  GoldenAC Joined on 02-05-2007 Posts 240 Points 110

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact I am here to argue for a dog's ability to generalize.  I am reading a study published in "Animal Cognition" by Jozsef Topal in which he trained a Turv to "do as I do" in which a dog is trained the cue "do it" to copy the action of a human.  The dog did very well when the human perfornmed novel activities.  It seems like a huge statement of generalization for the dog to be able to generalize the idea of imitation, or the idea that a command means to imitate. As a personal example, my Selli and I compete in agility.  But, before we started training, I would walk alot with friends and their dogs and one was training in agility and would have her dog climb on a rock on the command "table."  Selli figured out that climbing on the rock was "table" and she would get a treat.  Selli has since generalized the idea of "table" to mean any raised surface that is not dirt and she can fit all four paws on.  This is something she has done on her own.  She keeps jumping on benches, picnic tables, stumps, logs and she gives me the "give me the treat now" look.  She knows that a dirt hill won't work and it won't work if she can't get all four paws on it (she doesn't give the look).  If it fits her criteria for a table, she will not get off the "table" until she gets a treat.  Like most things, I think dogs are good at generalizing if they believe it is in their self-interest (like it will get them treats).  But if they think it is not in their self-interest, they don't generalize well at all.

  Post Points: 0

• 03-16-2008 7:27 PM

  In reply to GoldenAC

  ron2 Joined on 09-10-2007 far north central Texas Posts 9,819 Points 500

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact GoldenAC: Like most things, I think dogs are good at generalizing if they believe it is in their self-interest (like it will get them treats).  But if they think it is not in their self-interest, they don't generalize well at all   Darn it, I wanted to say that and you beat me to it. It sounds like your dog not only generalized but engaged in a comparative or deductive reasoning. If I get on something like that rock, I will get a treat. If I jump on this other thing, I might get a treat (offering novel behaviors, sometimes even outside the normal behavior for the species or breed, as well as behaviors that dog has not offered before.) Generalizing in the sense of jumping on to anything elevated will get a treat and comparative and/or deductive in the idea that jumping on other elevated things might get a treat similar to the first objected landed upon. And how about the reason for the initial mimickry? How did she arrive at the notion that because this other dog did it and was rewarded, she too might be rewarded for doing the same or similar things? Could generalizing be related to the "want to" in a creature? Or even breed traits? Shadow's natural trait is to pull. I can walk him in heel through marking and reward training but I may have to do it in varying circumstances. Not because he can't generalize or remember what heel is but because his first "want to" is to pull. And he can pull anywhere, that he can generalize any time. Other times in a public setting, he may down himself, figuring that is going to get a treat (50 % chance). Without a cue. Is that not generalizing, though I have rewarded that behavior on command at other times? That is, while I vary the reward and frequency and location so that heeding my word is good because you just never know what fabulous reward is coming, isn't there some thinking going when the behavior is offered freely and without cue? I guess this goes to a greater depth of personality and individuality in dogs, as well. One dog heels well all the time because he/she has a naturally occuring affinity for walking close to his/her human and hardly needs training at all for that. A velcro dog. Another, while certainly affectionate of the human, just has to see that great big world out there and needs help in achieving heel. About a year or so ago, one member had a dog (something like a border collie, I think) and she wanted to train her dog to pull for skate-joring and or sled pulling. But the dog had been trained so well to walk in heel and I think may have had a natural talent for it based on breed and personality, that she was having a difficult time of it, even with luring. As opposed to if she owned a traditional sled dog breed in which case the opposite problem is the goal. Getting the dog to stop. So, could individual personality and breed traits factor into what a dog will or will not generalize?   The way you treat your dog in this life determines your place in heaven. - chukchi proverb

  Post Points: 0

• 03-17-2008 12:00 PM

  In reply to ron2

  Kim_MacMillan Joined on 11-21-2006 Eastern Canada Posts 1,105 Points 200

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact Who said humans generalize well? *G* I don't necessarily think so! I think the context of "dogs aren't great generalizers" was created as a reference that generalization in itself is a learned skill. In most beginning teachings, dogs tend to be quite poor generalizers. That is, just because they learned "sit" in the living room doesn't mean they'll do it at the dog show. I think that with experience, and more learning (and I think too that there is a developmental component here too), the more easily they come to generalize behaviours. I know for most things I've taught, Gaci and Shimmer are WONDERFUL generalizers - but this goes for good and bad. Generalizing is what really made Shimmer's fear of other dogs worse *G*. But for the most part they didn't fit the "start back at square one" criteria that is often mentioned. It just wasn't necessary. And I've thought about this before, and wondered why I wasn't experiencing what others said to have been. Part of it I thought was in fact due to the fact that clicker teaching utilizes a dog's brain in a different way than some other forms of teaching, that is, the dog is an active participant in learning and is actively using its brain. But not to be too optimistic, I also came up with the option that since I've started using clicker teaching, I tend to teach a lot more things, which means the dogs are exposed to a lot more learning situations, which means there is a lot more experience to generalize. I think it's a combination of things, though, and they all interact and the summation is that of a dog that generalizes pretty good. I do think there is a developmental component to it, in the before a certain age I don't thinks pups can physically generalize that well at all, simply due to immaturity and incomplete brain development. I think that, too, a pup that learns to generalize at a younger age will likely have an adulthood that is more easily generalized than dogs who don't have much generalizing experience as young'uns. I think too that there is a component of how important it is to the dog. And I think there is a component of the teaching style of the dog, and how active the dog is in its own learning. And often a lot of it is how much experience the dog has in performing behaviours in new environments, and how distracting the environment is. And that part of it too is not necessarily just generalizing the behaviour to a new environment, but in habituating to new environments to make behaviour performance more successful.

  Post Points: 0

• 03-17-2008 8:23 PM

  In reply to Kim_MacMillan

  ron2 Joined on 09-10-2007 far north central Texas Posts 9,819 Points 500	Re: Generalization Reply Contact Excellent post, Kim.   The way you treat your dog in this life determines your place in heaven. - chukchi proverb
  	Post Points: 0

• 03-17-2008 11:15 PM

  In reply to ron2

  Lee Charles Kelley Joined on 02-08-2008 Posts 198 Points 5

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact ron2: The girl had one of our friend's trinkets and was banging it on the glass of the french door to the patio. Our friend's son, T, said "don't do that." So, she banged on the wood frame of the glass. "Don't do that." So, she moved to the main wood of the door. "Don't do that." So, she moved to the door jamb. That is, she didn't automatically, by way of being human, generalize the don't do it to not banging the object on anything. She only stopped on the particular target and instead picked another target.   I wasn't there, but from your description I'm not sure that behavior you've described was the result of the little girl being incapable of generalizing, In fact, I agree with another poster. I think the girl may have been generalizing quite splendidly (if only in her mind and not in her behavior). She may have very well understood what the boy, T, meant for her not to do, but kept banging the toy on other surfaces because she was having fun and wasn't about to let him tell her what to do. "See? I've stopped banging on the glass! See? I've stopped banging on the frame!" If so this is an example of a remarkable, yet annoying, act of intelligence: she deliberately selected the one aspect of the behavior that she wanted to continue doing, and chose to do it on whatever surface was next after the boy told her not to do it there and it became a game to her. As for dogs, I'm not sure what you mean by generalization. Do you have a specific definition in mind? I will say you pointed out an important fact for dog trainers and owners, in that when a dog learns something at home, he usually has to be re-taught the same behavior in other locations until he supposedly "generalizes" the behavior. But I'm not sure that's the conceptual sort of generalizing the human brain seems inherently capable of. It seems to me that for dogs, it's more a matter of cross contextualization, which I think is just a form of pattern recognition, which dogs are geniuses at. Learning to sit on command at home, then on the street, then in the park, these things are just adding new contexts, or new pieces to the pattern. You put enough pieces together for the dog (it usually only takes a dog four repetitions to learn a new behavior, and only four contexts to put all the pieces together) and it can certainly seem like they're generalizing, which I think entails conceptual thinking (which dogs aren't capable of, or I should say that they show no signs of being able to think conceptually, and probably have no ability to do so). But I think it's important to draw the distinction between pattern recognition and the more conceptualized kind of thought that would b properly termed generalization. (And as I pointed out in another thread, even chess masters rely more on pattern recognition than logic, etc.) Given that context, you're absolutely right that dogs are better at pattern recognition than we are. In Animals in Translation, Temple Grandin says that the human mind is designed to put patterns into conceptual chunks, but the animal mind isn't; it's designed to look at the parts of the pattern and make connections that are most relevant to past emotional experiences. Hey, even the dog (mentioned in another post) who figured out that "table" meant a specific motor pattern, and produced that motor pattern no matter what surface she happened to do it on, is more a matter of pattern recognition (along with the sheer fun of doing the behavior), than it was of generalizing. And I still say that little girl was a genius; she knew immediately what the boy meant and did things the way she wanted to anyway. LCK  "Clicker training has not taught me a whole bunch, other than that people can get wrapped up in fads and catch phrases." Bob Bailey "If a lion could talk we would not be able to understand him." Wittegenstein. "If a lion could talk we would understand him perfectly, but we would learn very little about ordinary lions from him."Daniel C. Dennett "Dogs don't care who's alpha and who's not. Only emotionally dysfunctional owners and trainers do." Jack Field

  Post Points: 0

• 03-18-2008 3:59 AM

  In reply to Lee Charles Kelley

  corvus Joined on 08-02-2006 Australia (NSW) Posts 2,136 Points 80

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact It's funny you should bring up pattern recognition, because I was going to do the same thing, but felt it might be a bit off-topic. Maybe not so much. Pigeons, renowned for being a bit dim intellectually, are actually better at pattern recognition in certain contexts than humans, as evidenced by an academic that taught his pigeons to identify a pattern in sets of images and the image in the set that would yield food if pecked. Although really it went the other way, I guess. Anyway, the pigeons learnt to pick the tree in each set, and a particular colour in each set, and then, the shape with the largest surface area in each set. It was this last one that fooled most of the students in the academic's classes, but the pigeons aced with no troubles. Thinking about this one day while I was weighing batches of beetle pupae, I started a game with myself to make the task more interesting and started trying to guess which pupa in each batch was the heaviest. To my increasing astonishment, I was right almost every time, even when the difference was a matter of a tenth of a gram, or even less sometimes. I could never tell who was heaviest by holding them in my hands, but I could pick it by looking at them all together and deciding one seemed a little plumper than the others. Anyway, the point is, I expect different animals are good at whatever is useful to them. Horses are undoubtedly smart, but are creatures of the plains and useless in a maze. My herding breed dog is a natural master of the shortcut, in any situation, but it's a concept that seemed very difficult for our sighthound cross to get her mind around when we had her. Melissa's family: Penny - corgi, Kit - wild hare, Bonnie - rabbit, Kivi Tarro - Finnish Lapphund "She's always talking about her hare."

  Post Points: 0

• 03-18-2008 3:33 PM

  In reply to corvus

  mudpuppy Joined on 09-10-2007 Posts 5,492 Points 100

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact I think it's more that dogs have trouble grasping human language than that they can't generalize. So if you teach the dog to sit in the kitchen, at first the dog is very unclear on what the "cue" really is- does mom have to be standing next to the fridge with her head tilted sideways while wearing slippers before that weird noise means anything? The weird noise may actually sound different to the dog in different locations, too. Consider how easy it is to get a dog to generalize "whistle" = "come" in comparison to getting the dog to realize your verbal command means the same thing everywhere. Also consider my neighbor's dog, with whom I finally managed to discard my old habit of putting cues on behaviors too soon. So as a tiny puppy we'd mark and reward all sorts of spontaneous behaviors. And he'd offer these behaviors in many environments and get rewarded for them, and we then put some of these behaviors on cue, and he never had any problems "generalizing" the cues. Problems with being distracted in some environments, but's that a different problem.

  Post Points: 0

• 03-18-2008 7:16 PM

  In reply to Lee Charles Kelley

  GoldenAC Joined on 02-05-2007 Posts 240 Points 110

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact Lee Charles Kelley: ron2: The girl had one of our friend's trinkets and was banging it on the glass of the french door to the patio. Our friend's son, T, said "don't do that." So, she banged on the wood frame of the glass. "Don't do that." So, she moved to the main wood of the door. "Don't do that." So, she moved to the door jamb. That is, she didn't automatically, by way of being human, generalize the don't do it to not banging the object on anything. She only stopped on the particular target and instead picked another target.   I wasn't there, but from your description I'm not sure that behavior you've described was the result of the little girl being incapable of generalizing, In fact, I agree with another poster. I think the girl may have been generalizing quite splendidly (if only in her mind and not in her behavior). She may have very well understood what the boy, T, meant for her not to do, but kept banging the toy on other surfaces because she was having fun and wasn't about to let him tell her what to do. "See? I've stopped banging on the glass! See? I've stopped banging on the frame!" If so this is an example of a remarkable, yet annoying, act of intelligence: she deliberately selected the one aspect of the behavior that she wanted to continue doing, and chose to do it on whatever surface was next after the boy told her not to do it there and it became a game to her. I think when we believe dogs are not generalizing, they are doing the same thing the girl was.  A dog who is trained to sit in the kitchen, but may not sit outside, may know what the owner wants, but is splitting hairs as in "the human has never insisted on or treated me for sitting in this exact location, so I won't do it right now."  I don't see a great deal of difference.   As for dogs, I'm not sure what you mean by generalization. Do you have a specific definition in mind? I will say you pointed out an important fact for dog trainers and owners, in that when a dog learns something at home, he usually has to be re-taught the same behavior in other locations until he supposedly "generalizes" the behavior. But I'm not sure that's the conceptual sort of generalizing the human brain seems inherently capable of. It seems to me that for dogs, it's more a matter of cross contextualization, which I think is just a form of pattern recognition, which dogs are geniuses at. Learning to sit on command at home, then on the street, then in the park, these things are just adding new contexts, or new pieces to the pattern. You put enough pieces together for the dog (it usually only takes a dog four repetitions to learn a new behavior, and only four contexts to put all the pieces together) and it can certainly seem like they're generalizing, which I think entails conceptual thinking (which dogs aren't capable of, or I should say that they show no signs of being able to think conceptually, and probably have no ability to do so). But I think it's important to draw the distinction between pattern recognition and the more conceptualized kind of thought that would b properly termed generalization. (And as I pointed out in another thread, even chess masters rely more on pattern recognition than logic, etc.) I wish I had the full citation for the article I was reading, but it is at work, and I am at home, but it is from the most cutting edge group working on animal cognition today (the article is from 2005, I think).  It clearly shows that the dog was able to generalize, maybe not to the extent of humans, but it was much more than mere pattern recognition.  The dog had to generalize the idea of imitation in novel situations and conceptualize what the human was doing and act in a way that was similar, given the difference in the morphological difference between the human and dog.   Given that context, you're absolutely right that dogs are better at pattern recognition than we are. In Animals in Translation, Temple Grandin says that the human mind is designed to put patterns into conceptual chunks, but the animal mind isn't; it's designed to look at the parts of the pattern and make connections that are most relevant to past emotional experiences. Hey, even the dog (mentioned in another post) who figured out that "table" meant a specific motor pattern, and produced that motor pattern no matter what surface she happened to do it on, is more a matter of pattern recognition (along with the sheer fun of doing the behavior), than it was of generalizing. Selli's idea of table is not a motor pattern, which I would assume entails an act of jumping up onto surfaces.  She has an unique set of criteria for what a table is.  It has to be of a different material (not earth), elevated off the ground and large enough (or smooth enough) to get all four paws on.  Yes, she has a motor pattern memory of jumping on the table and asking for treats, but she has to evaluate the object and decide if they meet her generalized criteria of a "table" before she jumps up.   And I still say that little girl was a genius; she knew immediately what the boy meant and did things the way she wanted to anyway. LCK    I think motivation has a lot to do with ability or appearance of ability to generalize.

  Post Points: 0

• 03-18-2008 8:53 PM

  In reply to Lee Charles Kelley

  ron2 Joined on 09-10-2007 far north central Texas Posts 9,819 Points 500

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact Lee Charles Kelley: it's more a matter of cross contextualization And I have thought so, too. As I would say, sit at home is one behavior, sit in a store is another behavior. And you might be right about the toddler and just because her behavior didn't generalize on the first or second attempt is not proof of cognitive ability in dogs. The way I was raised, after you banged on the second thing, you got your butt whipped, which helped you to generalize not to bang on anything. So, perhaps, my expectations were high. She (the toddler) is not raised that way.   The way you treat your dog in this life determines your place in heaven. - chukchi proverb

  Post Points: 0

• 03-19-2008 11:45 AM

  In reply to GoldenAC

  Lee Charles Kelley Joined on 02-08-2008 Posts 198 Points 5

  Re: Generalization Reply Contact GoldenAC: "I wish I had the full citation for the article I was reading, but it is at work, and I am at home, but it is from the most cutting edge group working on animal cognition today (the article is from 2005, I think).  It clearly shows that the dog was able to generalize, maybe not to the extent of humans, but it was much more than mere pattern recognition.  The dog had to generalize the idea of imitation in novel situations and conceptualize what the human was doing and act in a way that was similar, given the difference in the morphological difference between the human and dog." You say "cutting edge," but these researchers have always struck me as more like teenage kids doing a high school science project. Every one of their "studies" have major flaws in them. The last supposedly proved that dogs can conceptualize, but all that happened was 8 dogs were taught that if they touched their nose to a screen when a photo of a dog was on it, they got a treat. If they touched their nose to the screen when they saw a photo of a tree, they didn't. Which proves nothing except that dogs are good at two things: pattern recognition, and getting treats. LCK  "Clicker training has not taught me a whole bunch, other than that people can get wrapped up in fads and catch phrases." Bob Bailey "If a lion could talk we would not be able to understand him." Wittegenstein. "If a lion could talk we would understand him perfectly, but we would learn very little about ordinary lions from him."Daniel C. Dennett "Dogs don't care who's alpha and who's not. Only emotionally dysfunctional owners and trainers do." Jack Field

  Post Points: 0