RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

Thinking Animals

Jump to Latest
41 - 60 of 90 Posts
#41 ·
Thank you Dennis for sharing this information and your thoughts. I suspect there are many people who cannot fathom that an animal has the capacity to think - perhaps they think that rather than making the animal more worthy of our respect, they believe it lowers their own cognitive functions? And consider that historically animals were always considered to be 'less' than us humans, refusal to assign emotional or cognitive functions might make it easier to justify taking an animal's life or mistreat/abuse them -.

Certainly (I am a taxidermist, after all) I do not consider it 'wrong' to take an animal's life, but that life should be respected up until that point in which it is taken.

I'd be curious to see what BJ thinks of these videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auNa4jnq6Pw
 
#42 ·
Most people would agree that all human organs (liver, kidney, heart, lung, etc.) have analogous organs in other species. Those organs do not have identical capabilities. They vary according to the evolutionary pressures on the species but none have completely different capabilities. Hummingbird kidneys are capable of filtering the sugar out of the large volume of liquid (nectar) they eat. They have to get rid of most of the water they take in while kangaroo rats (who live in deserts) do the reverse. Kangaroo rats have kidneys and other adaptations that allow them to retain the miniscule amounts of water they take in. Nonetheless, they both have kidneys that essentially have the same function: filtering liquid to keep what they need and get rid of what they don't need.

To argue that a human brain is completely different that any other animal brain is to say the human brains suddenly (poof!) appeared fully capable of operating in a completely different manner than any other animal brain, even if all our other organs are similar to those in other species. [I suppose that if you are a strict creationist, that supposition is reasonable, but I'm not interested in getting into that argument on RTF. Or anywhere else, really.]

It makes more sense to me that, just as kangaroo rat kidneys do the same thing as our own kidneys but to the nth degree, that all the things our brains are capable of can be done, to some degree, in other animals. Humans generally have good spatial memories, but so do many animals. Humans have an outstanding ability to associate sounds and symbols with objects and actions, which is the basis of spoken and written language. That skill is poorly developed in most mammals and birds but exists to some primitive degree in many species. There is a reason why many birds have many different calls that convey different meanings to their fellow birds.

Humans brains are most distinct in their ability to solve problems by techniques other than trial and error (although we certainly use that technique often enough). But I can't believe that the ability to solve problems is unique to humans because it would mean that our brains were suddenly able to do something completely different than any other brains.

As for dogs, I've always been a little skeptical of their ability to learn subtle things by watching other dogs. Sure, when one dog sees another dog digging excitedly, the observer dog is pretty quick to conclude that the digging dog has found something interesting, like a rabbit. But can they learn more abstract or subtle concepts by watching?

I have a young (now 8 months) dog in training for obedience and an older (7.5 year old) dog with a UDX (a high obedience title). One of the obedience exercises in Utility is directed jumping. As part of that exercise the dog has to go across to the other side of the ring when sent. (This sounds like a very short blind retrieve but it's actually not; in a blind retrieve, the dog learns it is always being sent for something; in the go-out part of directed jumping, the dog soon learns that, in the ring, there will NEVER be anything out there and the ultimate purpose is to come back to the owner. It makes little sense to the dog and is one of the more difficult things to teach and often harder to maintain in a dog that has been shown in multiple trials.)

So, in this initial step of teaching the go-out to my young dog, I've been teaching him to go to a stanchion and tap it with his paw. My older dog was taught to go to the stanchion and touch it with her nose. Up until a month ago, I've been doing most of my training in the yard where the dog I'm working with is at least 30 feet away from the other dogs waiting in the wings. As the weather has gotten worse and the days shorter, I've moved the training indoors.

Puppy Pinyon had been making good progress on learning to go to the stanchion and paw at it. In my indoor training area, the dogs waiting their turn are only a few feet away from where I've set up a stanchion and gates. The first couple of times I worked with Pinyon, he pawed at the stanchion. One day, not long after I'd moved indoors, I was reviewing go-outs with older dog Maple. I sent her to stanchion several times, rewarding her for tapping the stanchion with her nose. Pinyon was watching intently from about 8 feet away. I finished with Maple and took him out. And (you can probably guess what's coming), he tapped the stanchion with his nose and seened confused when I kept insisting he paw at it.

I've seen dogs imitate other dogs in obvious behaviors (like a puppy watching an older dog retrieve in water), but Pinyon's chainge in behavior after watching Maple is the first time I've ever really thought that dogs might learn subtle behaviors by watching other dogs.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#43 ·
RetrieversONLINE said:
A short while ago, one thread here diverged into a discussion of whether dogs think. As a retired Wildlife Research Scientist, I knew that there was much research that showed dogs and many other species had superior (beyond their brain size) cognitive ability.

Tonight, I watched a Nature of Things documentary that discussed this very topic. I was surprised at how much has been learned in recent years. The documentary described research from whales to birds, to fish to reptiles to pigs and more that showed quite advanced thinking. Some of it involved problem-solving, memory, and decision making- that's what we ask out dogs to do all the time-make decisions. Frankly, I do not know how our dogs remember quads as well as they do! As they said, many species can remember better than humans! But it goes way beyond memory.

I was particularly impressed with a lizard experiment. A lizard watched a movie of another that had been trained to open a door to get food. The "popcorn" lizard quickly learned to do this after watching the movie!!

I have long known that wildlife watch others and learn some simple things but I did not know how valuable this really was for training retrievers. For several years I have been observing retrievers and their learning from watching other retrievers.

I use what I call a 3 x 3 method to transition dogs into cold blind retrieves. I document this in my 25 Essential Drills DVD as well as Retrievers ONLINE magazine articles. Basically, it is using sets of 3 walk around blinds, 3 cold blinds(3-peats- a term I coined thanks to Chicago Bulls!) and 3 repeated earlier blinds. The proportions depending on the dog and its progress.

I have now added to this a 3 X 3 Plus or 3 x 3[SUP]2[/SUP]procedure based on what I have seen from some young dogs. The additional to the 3 x 3 is to allow the learning younger dog to watch an advanced dog do a blind and then send the young dog for that blind. They do remarkably well especially if it is a 3-peat walk-around. It's just another technique to help what many find to be the biggest struggle-cold blinds with good attitude and understanding!

So my bottom-line is there is way more thinking going on that we recognize. And yet we must never forget that most of their consistent behaviour and response to command is developed through all the principles of learning theory including positive and negative reinforcement and punishment(Operant conditioning).

Conditioned responses and consistency in our interactions remains a key! But please remember that these dogs are smart thinkers! Smarter than some trainers!

Cheers
Click to expand...
Interesting Dennis, I would rather read/converse further on a Blog of your's ,than on here these days.
Regards.
 
#44 ·
So two dogs in the house, one older dog has a favorite spot on the couch, older dog comes in the room and younger dog is laying in older dogs spot. Older dog, walks over grabs a squeeky toy, mouths it, younger dog jumps down to see the toy and take it, older dog drops the toy and jumps up in the "special" spot. I say the older dog can "Think"!
Now the older dog is gone and new pup replaces the young dog, new pup takes young dogs favorite toy, young dog gets squeeky toy, mouths it, pup drops favorite toy...Young dog picks it up.... Dog learning from dog! Seems simple to me......
 
#46 ·
If I offended someone, then I apologized for my behavior. I forget at times that people are not the same.

I believe I can end this debate with one or two sentences.
You have conservatives and liberal folks each have their view.
It would be impossible for both folks to come to an mutual agreement…it is just the nature of the beast.

BJ
 
#50 · (Edited)
Dennis, an interesting and thought provoking post old lad.

Although I've now come to the end of training dogs, the whole 30 year process was one of learning more and understanding less. I never bottomed the "dog intelligence" thing. I had one Lab who's breeder said on parting "He'll be very clever". Thick as a box of bricks he was, but a lion hearted dog in harsh cover or a tideway, so he did for me.

What I learned was how to make the old saw "dogs do what works for them" work for me, but in doing that I could only make guesses as to the processes going on inside Fido. Yes, you can get a dog to grasp a concept by having another one do it first, and it's a useful technique. But what's going on? Is it what humans would call jealously, or could it be just the pack instinct of one dog following another, or maybe native curiosity, or just a chance to relieve boredom? Maybe an extrapolation from previous experience? What? We don't know.

I believe common or garden trainers like me do come to an understanding of how animals behave and learn, and how we can adjust them to do what we want, but we (well me anyway) are only at base camp when it comes to grasping the internal mechanisms at work; there's a fair old climb ahead yet. In other words, what we do is empirical, it works just fine, but the hows whys and wherefores ... not so much.

Having said that, although I come from a scientific background, nothing I knew of metallurgy or physical chemistry ever helped me one little bit in dog training! I think you guys with experience of neuroscience and the like have the drop on me. I find some of the behavioural studies are shall we say, somewhat impenetrable. I gained a fair working and practical knowledge of OC from the literature and teaching my self clicker, which was useful in other ways too, and some years ago Aussie was kind enough to give me the Bob Baily video set. Although I got a lot out of it, that was enough ... five hours of listening to a man in a terrible shirt. Anything beyond that was a bridge too far. ;-)

JDogger posted
Sounds like a Hegelian Dialectic to me
Click to expand...
Nah, them was the things like murderous sink plunger dustbins in Doctor Who, the Dialectics from planet Hegel.:D

Eug
 
#51 ·
Mine gets a late night snack.Stands in front of me and stare. If I don't get up she goes to to the door and asks to be let out. when I get to the door she goes to the kitchen. This seems pretty advanced thinking for a dog. I never reward her when she does this, but she keeps trying.
 
#52 ·
cripes said:
Mine gets a late night snack.Stands in front of me and stare. If I don't get up she goes to to the door and asks to be let out. when I get to the door she goes to the kitchen. This seems pretty advanced thinking for a dog. I never reward her when she does this, but she keeps trying.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It doesn't require neuroscience to recognize it either.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#53 ·
BJGatley said:
If I offended someone, then I apologized for my behavior. I forget at times that people are not the same.

I believe I can end this debate with one or two sentences.
You have conservatives and liberal folks each have their view.
It would be impossible for both folks to come to an mutual agreement…it is just the nature of the beast.

BJ
Click to expand...
We all try to make sense out of what we see, hear and do. We create a narrative, a story. We try to make things fit into that story. We become attached to that story for good or bad. If the story is that of a powerful group, it makes us powerful, or the opposite when that group falls out of favor. Ego is making an identity out of past successes. It is human nature to constantly categorize people into the haves and have nots, and the needs and the need nots. That is also the nature of the beast. Like I said I like to read popular non-fiction. What I write will enrage the ego of the scientist who puts themselves above the common laymen. Take it a step further and it applies to RTF.
 
#54 ·
Tobias said:
What you write reminds me very much of my dog. I have never had a dog that was able to think/make decisions quite like Toby. Yesterday we ran some walking singles with the requirement he run a blind before picking up the mark. One such blind was keyhole through a group of 7-8 round bales of hay - Toby tried skirting the bales and it took a couple of casts to get him through the slot. A couple of marks later, I had the mark thrown behind a group of round hay bales so that he would have to run through them (200+ yd mark, hay bales 120 yd away from the line). For the first 50 yds he took off like he was going to skirt the bales then corrected his line and ran perfectly straight to the mark (actually stepped on it and overran by 30 yd but came back quickly to pick it up)
Click to expand...


Coincidental thing is the dog I spoke about is named Toby also but he is black.
I some what disagree with the statement of the individual Marvin spoke of. In the dogs I have had or worked with the difference in success is what's between the ears. I have trained plenty of dogs that had lots of raw natural marking talent, drive and desire but it aint much good if they don't have the brains to use it. With that being said dogs as do we have many different levels of intelligence and use them in many different ways. The dog I spoke of would be totally useless as a trial dog but would be a great dog for Letterman's stupid pet tricks. Probably an environmental thing.
I also had a dog that wasn't much of a retriever but he would play a game of cat and mouse with a particular magpie that hung around the house. The dog always would leave just a few morsels of food in his bowl and the magpie learned if he was patient he would get a meal. This bird was also very smart! He would walk around behind the dog while he ate. The dog would turn towards the bird and the bird would just walk to the other side. The dog learned that he could not catch the bird but he would keep an eye on him. The dog would turn his head in between bites and the magpie would just pace back and forth behind him. One day I saw the dog try something different. He turned and chased the bird away the walked just around the corner of the house about 5 feet away and waited for the bird to return just peeking around the corner. The bird did return and the dog made an attempt to grab him but failed. They finally came to a mutual understanding. The bird waited and the dog ignored the bird but the dog started eating all of his food and the magpie had to look else where.
 
#55 ·
Do Dogs Think?
“Oh my gosh yes,” says Dr. Jill Sackman, a clinician in behavioral medicine and senior medical director of BluePearl Veterinary Partners’ Michigan hospitals. Dr. Sackman has a PhD in molecular and cellular biology. “They probably have the level of cognition of a three to five-year-old human.”

http://www.petmd.com/dog/behavior/dog-brain-facts-understanding-canine-cognition

I gave one example of a dog thinking in a previous thread. I will repeat this one little example . Sam watched me open the chain link kennel door and shut it . He thinks ?! he would like to escape and so Sam studies how I open the gate. I call it a horse shoe latch , but it is a drop fork latch .

When i would walk away from the kennel and go to the house Sam would Stand up on his hind legs Reach up to extend his leg up over his head and with his front foot up over his head he would push UP on the latch in order to open the gate. It was that easy for him. I did not teach him this and this was NOT a accident . It was by reasoning of some sort . At what age child could one figure this out on their own ? ( come on BJ ? what age child could have figured out how to get out of a dog kennel when shut in it ? )

How about Babe when she retrieved a duck down the Susquehanna river in strong current of over 400 yards . She got the duck then Swims to the shore bank ,runs up the shore line gets directly across from me and the island i am on , she is 80 yards across from me with very strong current between us . I call to her she looks up river I call to her she looks up river. She Runs up the river bank about 50 yards and jumps into very strong current and swims across the channel to me and lands AT- that is @ my feet . I am and was convinced and no one will ever convince me other wise that this dog understood current of river and she knew that in order for her to land at my feet on that 80 yards swim in strong current she must go up river or order to land at my feet. That is thinking to the next level ! I saw to many amazing things that dog did in life to think she could not think . By the way she was a fearless river dog and on top of it she was taught to come back on straight lines for hunt test work but on the river a dog has to think for them selves otherwise they might not survive high water exstream hunting. If a person has never hunted rivers like the Susquehanna river you can not understand what i am telling you.
 
Discussion starter · #56 ·
polmaise said:
Interesting Dennis, I would rather read/converse further on a Blog of your's ,than on here these days.
Regards.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
Alas, almost all blogs that allow comments suffer the agendas that we see here!. My Blog for 25 years was Retrievers ONLINE magazine.. You can still get some of my stuff at www.retrieversonline.com.

BUT I am always interested in good converse!

Cheers
 
Discussion starter · #57 ·
Colonel Blimp said:
Dennis, an interesting and thought provoking post old lad.

Although I've now come to the end of training dogs, the whole 30 year process was one of learning more and understanding less. I never bottomed the "dog intelligence" thing. I had one Lab who's breeder said on parting "He'll be very clever". Thick as a box of bricks he was, but a lion hearted dog in harsh cover or a tideway, so he did for me.

What I learned was how to make the old saw "dogs do what works for them" work for me, but in doing that I could only make guesses as to the processes going on inside Fido. Yes, you can get a dog to grasp a concept by having another one do it first, and it's a useful technique. But what's going on? Is it what humans would call jealously, or could it be just the pack instinct of one dog following another, or maybe native curiosity, or just a chance to relieve boredom? Maybe an extrapolation from previous experience? What? We don't know.

I believe common or garden trainers like me do come to an understanding of how animals behave and learn, and how we can adjust them to do what we want, but we (well me anyway) are only at base camp when it comes to grasping the internal mechanisms at work; there's a fair old climb ahead yet. In other words, what we do is empirical, it works just fine, but the hows whys and wherefores ... not so much.

Having said that, although I come from a scientific background, nothing I knew of metallurgy or physical chemistry ever helped me one little bit in dog training! I think you guys with experience of neuroscience and the like have the drop on me. I find some of the behavioural studies are shall we say, somewhat impenetrable. I gained a fair working and practical knowledge of OC from the literature and teaching my self clicker, which was useful in other ways too, and some years ago Aussie was kind enough to give me the Bob Baily video set. Although I got a lot out of it, that was enough ... five hours of listening to a man in a terrible shirt. Anything beyond that was a bridge too far. ;-)

JDogger postedNah, them was the things like murderous sink plunger dustbins in Doctor Who, the Dialectics from planet Hegel.:D

Eug
Click to expand...
Hey Eug!

Enjoyed your post and agree with your reflections on many counts. Much we don't understand even when we can achieve what we want with our dogs! But even Baily is worth trying to understand! How can one not try to find what's across the bridge?

Make it a quart!
 
#58 · (Edited)
I have never understood the position that animals cannot think, for me the only question is how great is their cognitive capacity.

My experience with dogs is limited to but a few, however I can say that the second and later young dogs had an easier time on transition work with an experienced dog demonstrating a blind drill before them. The mentoring dog also provided some relief to my aching muscles as it saved me additional walking whilst training alone, as sight blinds and memory blinds could be demonstrated by the more experienced dog while I stayed at line, rather than walking it. I for one am surprised at even the hint of resistance to the practice by those who train and may have more than one dog.
 
#59 · (Edited)
I've been thinking about this thread for quite some time. As a retired teacher, it is always amazing to read opinions about a skill, gift, trait , talent, etc. that
so few really think much about. Having trained people, horses and dogs......hasn't really focused much on determining their contrasting capacities to think. However,
it is very clear that much is done when training without understanding the impact of thinking skills and how they relate to performance.

The following is an anecdotal "fact" that dogs can think (or is it). I have a very smart, young dog. Show her something (correctly) a few times and it quickly becomes
part of her skill set. Yesterday, we were doing the second day of the "split casting drill". After nine bumpers were picked up, I walked back to the pile area and asked
her to "pick up" the (remaining) bumpers. She did this the other day after a two tiered wagon wheel in which she was very excited by the repetitive, short retrieves
and my continuous, animated praise. I would take them quickly, drop them noisily in the bucket and she would fly after another. "Picking up" the session was fast.

Fast forward to the recent, new drill and picking up the remaining bumpers was again a very "easy, conditioned do". She picked up two bumpers and returned them
to me on a front sit. Then I decided to have her place one in the bucket (which she had never done before). Sitting quickly in front of me I said "Drop" the bumper
in the bucket." She did just that. Walking back to the van all I was wondering about was "what just happened?"

Then I thought about this thread which led to "thinking". Pounce was taught long ago the skill of a "Remote Drop". When she sat in front of me with the bumper and I
said "DROP......the bumper in the bucket", she did what was expected from the previously conditioned command. There just happened to be a bucket in the right place.

My thinking on this is that it would be a fairly simple process to condition dropping a bumper into a bucket.......not positioned in the front sit position. It should
be noted that Pounce is well conditioned to be "manic" (excited) about drill retrieves.....which comes from the Hillmann conditioned response factor where everything
is FUN (exciting) and rewarding.

Having thought about and posting that anecdotal evidence of a smart dog and her thinking skills.....based mostly on show me once or twice and I can do
anything.......I found this link. After reading it, there appears to be at least a few areas where one might say dogs can think......but that not many.

Three questions come to mind. How difficult is it to teach conditioned responses? How long does it take to produce a conditioned response? Are conditioned responses
examples of thinking?

Had one litter of pups several years ago. All (but one) could figure out how to find the one opening in a fence. That one never did. Not all pups (or adults) are equal.

http://www.adprima.com/thinkskl.htm
 
#60 ·
Thank you for the post Mr. Voit. Always enjoy them, and Im always trying to learn!!
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
41 - 60 of 90 Posts
About this Discussion
89 Replies
38 Participants
Last post:
polmaise
RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF
posts
1.5M
members
36K
Since
2003
A forum community dedicated to retriever owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about breeding, training, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
General Retriever Training Forum Event Information AKC Field Trials Equipment, Gear & Miscellaneous Classifieds Training