[mak10]

"noz92" said:

Obviously we surpass them eventually, but for that time, they are more intelligent than us.

so if we can develop a drug that can increase the life-span of the average dog to that of the average man.. can it then surpass us by its 7x intelligence?? just a thought...

-mak10

[Mokele]

Quote

Intelligence and smartness (if that's even a word) arn't the same thing. Since dogs mature seven times faster than we do, then it's only natrual that at a certain time, the dog's IQ would be 7x what a baby of the same age has.

Wrong. IQ cannot be used in cross-species comparisons like that. IQ is a measure within a group of the deviation from an average. Thus, that a dog performs actions before a human child is meanginless, becuase the averages for the species are so different.

By your logic, a baby lizard is more intelligent than any baby mammal, as it has an effective IQ of infinity: Mental age of an adult of the species / chronological age of 0 (fresh out of the egg).

IQ doesn't even measure accurately across races of humans. Why would you think it would work across species?

Mokele

[5614]

Quote

so if we can develop a drug that can increase the life-span of the average dog to that of the average man.. can it then surpass us by its 7x intelligence?? just a thought...

unlikely, its mental capacity is reached by the end of its current life.... if it lived longer, maybe it could learn more "tricks" but i dont think it'd be cleverer.

[ecoli]

Quote

so if we can develop a drug that can increase the life-span of the average dog to that of the average man.. can it then surpass us by its 7x intelligence?? just a thought...

It's not the life span that gives a dog the time to learn, it's the capacity to learn. Dogs have smaller cerebrums then humans, and thus are less capable of intellectual thought (although I wouldn't consider them dumb by any means)

[Jake712]

Not only do they have smaller cerebrums, but I'm pretty sure they also have larger cerebellums. While the cerebrum is used for ration thought or reasoning, the cerebellum is for habitual activities such as walking and driving which require very little thinking once a person has done it long enough. Therefore, the fact that a dog learns to sit when he hears "sit" before a human could learn something similar is because of the different constructions of our brains. This makes us more capable of reasoning and problem solving while a dog must rely on his instincts.

[[Tycho?]]

Quote

Are dogs smarter than humans?

Let's assume that you buy a brand new puppy. Within a month (if you're good), you can have that puppy listening to and understanding simple commands, such as "sit" and "come here". But with a human child, who's aproximatly a year old, they still can't understand basic commands. If you tell him/her to walk over here (if they're able to walk yet), they just sit there and stare at you, while a dog would walk over there (usually, assuming you trained it right).

It's obvious that puppies are smarter than babies. But adults on the other hand, are (we think) smarter than adult dogs.

Its obvious that dogs develop more quickly than humans.

[boxhead]

Are dogs smarter than humans? question has no weight at all. those commands are for brain wash and conditioning and actually puppy dont understand those commands. it is as simple as the programming.

[MadScientist]

boxhead said:

Are dogs smarter than humans? question has no weight at all. those commands are for brain wash and conditioning and actually puppy dont understand those commands. it is as simple as the programming.

Speaking of programming, when a dog brings you its lead or sits by the door crying to go out, isn't that a case of the dog programming you?? The tail wagging the dog.. ;)

[boxhead]

any way it is " PROGRAMMING"

[Kelton]

A dog's ability to sit when given the cue "sit" is no different than my ability to type or think the very words that I am typing as I sit here. I suppose you could say that it is "programming", but it is just as appropriate to say "learning".
Based upon the dog's exposure to his environment (over the course of his cute little life), he has learned to 'sit' on cue in certain circumstances.
Similary, based upon my own exposure to to my environment (over the course of my life time), I have learned to think the thoughts that I tend to think and type the words that I am typing under certain circumstances.

So long as I am reinforced for thinking/typing these things, I will continue to do so. If the reinforcement ceases, then I will lose this way of thinking and typing over the course of time. The dog will lose this manner of 'sitting on cue' if he is no longer reinforced as well.

Anyway, I do agree that dogs are 'dumber' than people....of course. In fact, I think most people over-estimate the intelligence of dogs by a huge margin, and I am a major dog lover. The word 'intelligence' is another topic for discussion, so I am admittedly using the word loosely at the moment.

Kelton

[The Nacho]

When you give a dog a command over and over again, the dog doen't "know" what you're saying, they just know the sound. Just like, if, instead of teaching your dog "sit", you teach him "oogleys". Then whenever you say "oogleys" he will sit. That's how you can teach a dog any language.

[Kelton]

Your use of the word "know" should be defined. "knowing" is not a technical term, but rather, a word used to indicate that a person can do something. We don't know if a person or dog "knows" something until we see them do it.

A person can demonstrate they "know" something by actually responding appropriately at the appropriate time. The same thing goes for dogs (and fish and parrots etc.).

Sometimes people infer some sort of special process when they say "know". Further, the implication is that "knowing" is some sort of human specific trait. If a dog "sits" when told to sit, then we can say that the dog knows when to sit. If a boy can say "6" when I ask him "how old are you?", then we can say the boy "knows" when to say "6".

Can the dog discuss the matters relating to "sitting on cue"?...probably not. The dog does not have the capacity to develop the verbal behavior necessary for such a feat (they certainly don't have the physiological structures to do so among other things). Talking is a seperate issue and sometimes people like to muddy the behaviors of talking with words like "knowing".

I am a behavior analyst, and this is just one of the very many area of departure we have when compared to traditional psychology. I would say that we should be catagorized under the study of biology, but that's a seperate issue!

[Hellbender]

Are dogs smarter than humans?

Intelligence is all relative. Dogs are smarter than us about a lot of things, but they are things that our species (in the state of simply not being a dog and under entirely different selective pressures) can't measure or don't consider a sign of human intelligence. Dogs evolved to be a lot of things, and the main thing is being a pet for humans, as well as the standard traits inherited from their "smarter" wolf ancestors. But I love dogs just the way the are, anthropomorphic congnitive abilities or none.

[Baldur]

Any discussion of intelligence, dogs, and humans, should include something about neoteny.

Neoteny is a process in Evolution in which infantile traits are expanded. Dogs and Humans are both neotenous, though humans are much more so.

What this means is that both dogs and humans have a greater plasticity of mind than their forebears, and humans especially can keep learning things throughout their lives. Other animals may start out with superior instincts, sort of plug-and-play, but humans (and dogs to a much lesser extent) are able to improve their knowledge for years and years. You might say most animals have more ROM, and humans more writable and re-writable memory.

For an interesting article on neoteny, see:

http://www.davidbrin...nyarticle1.html



Baldur

[JHAQ]

According to Richard Dawkins - An Ancestors Tale , our 26th million great grand parent 85 million years ago was the common ancestor to both dogs & us ( also mammalian carnivora in general ) . The book is a great read -------