What pet owner didn't already know this?

[billydkid]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-emotions.html

I know the cool thing to believe is that pet owners anthropomorphize their pets and certainly to some degree we certainly do, but we also know our pets a capable of fairly complex emotions. I have seen dogs practice deceit and display guilt and shame as well as empathy. My beloved golden retriever used to deliberately pretend not to be able to pick up the frisbee from the ground just to force me to walk over and the minute I got within ten feet he would pick it up effortlessly and run away. I have seen my sister's beagle go and look around the corner to see where my sister was before doing something she knew was naughty. And jealousy - good lord, it's news that dogs get jealous???

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by billydkid

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-emotions.html

I know the cool thing to believe is that pet owners anthropomorphize their pets and certainly to some degree we certainly do, but we also know our pets a capable of fairly complex emotions. I have seen dogs practice deceit and display guilt and shame as well as empathy. My beloved golden retriever used to deliberately pretend not to be able to pick up the frisbee from the ground just to force me to walk over and the minute I got within ten feet he would pick it up effortlessly and run away. I have seen my sister's beagle go and look around the corner to see where my sister was before doing something she knew was naughty. And jealousy - good lord, it's news that dogs get jealous???

I think it is over interpretation of evidence, and the anthropomorphization of dogs. Which are very social creatures, the dog probably took it as a dominance gesture and didn't want to submit.

BTW I like your new ink.

[Careyp74]

Well, I think that we may have known this before, but we also knew that homeopathy works because of similar anecdotal evidence, or that there are UFO's. I am not arguing that these studies are important, but they are quite informative. I think it is great that the scientific community is looking into these things that we "know" already, to validate or discredit them.

I wonder if they took dominance and pack theory into account when they did this study. I couldn't understand dogs at all until I learned about these things. I always attributed their actions to other more human qualities.

That being said, my lab mix, who snapped at my fiancee yesterday when she got close to his bone, has been in a guilty mood ever since. As soon as it happened he had that "Oh, my, I can't believe I just did that, do you forgive me" demeanor. He didn't leave her alone until she pet him and told him he was a good boy.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by OP's Link

... 'We are learning that dogs, horses, and perhaps many other species are far more emotionally complex than we ever realised.

'They can suffer simple forms of many emotions we once thought only primates could experience,' he told the Times.

<snip>

Until recently, it was believed that most animals only experienced primary emotions such as anger, anxiety and surprise.

But the new research suggests that dogs and some other animals can experience so-called secondary emotions such as embarrassment, jealousy, empathy or guilt.

But the new research suggests that dogs and some other animals can experience so-called secondary emotions such as embarrassment, jealousy, empathy or guilt.

The dog study is the latest into several species, including cows, horses, cats and sheep, which have shown that animals are far more self-aware than previously realised.

In another recent study, Dr Friederike Range, of the University of Vienna’s neurobiology department, said dogs felt jealous when unfairly treated compared with other dogs.

I think it’s surprising that the original scientific belief was that animals experience primary but not secondary emotions instead of “we don’t know” – since apparently there hasn’t been any studies in this area before.

Their findings don’t surprise me at all. That said, I think animals are more affected by hierarchies than we are. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they require simpler and more definitive hierarchies than we do.

I eventually learned to respect my two cats’ “pecking order”. While I very much want to treat them “fairly”, I've learned that respecting their hierarchy means that they get along better, and that the fighting stops almost entirely. They still fight a little sometimes, but now its more for play instead of for "real".

(This article said that other species were studied also – including cats – so this isn’t a derail. )

[CriticalThanking]

I didn't read the link but did hear a summary on the radio. We already knew about jealousy/fairness in some primates. The question was whether or not it applied to dogs, and to what extent. A main difference (all from memory of the report) was that most of the dogs only cared that they got a treat when others did. The primates studied had very strong reactions when the "value" of the treat given was unequal.

CT

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I think it is over interpretation of evidence, and the anthropomorphization of dogs.

Possibly

Originally Posted by Kaylee

I think it’s surprising that the original scientific belief was that animals experience primary but not secondary emotions instead of “we don’t know” – since apparently there hasn’t been any studies in this area before.

Their findings don’t surprise me at all. That said, I think animals are more affected by hierarchies than we are. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they require simpler and more definitive hierarchies than we do.

Well, to what extent are humans affected by heirarchies?

Originally Posted by CriticalThanking

We already knew about jealousy/fairness in some primates. The question was whether or not it applied to dogs, and to what extent.

You know, with more and more studies, I'm coming to the personal belief that the wrong thinking was our starting point! We believed that we were so damned different than animals. There have always been cautions, "not to anthropomorphize." I'll go all Jane Goodall and suggest that we've made more important discoveries looking for similarities than differences.

The differences between humans and various animals seem to be differences in degree (sometimes vast), rather than in kind...

[CriticalThanking]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

You know, with more and more studies, I'm coming to the personal belief that the wrong thinking was our starting point! We believed that we were so damned different than animals. There have always been cautions, "not to anthropomorphize." I'll go all Jane Goodall and suggest that we've made more important discoveries looking for similarities than differences.

The differences between humans and various animals seem to be differences in degree (sometimes vast), rather than in kind...

It was Goodall's research that led to this famous comment:

Quote:

Our species was defined as "Man the Tool Maker." That ability was thought to separate us from other animals more than any other characteristic. When Louis Leakey received an excited telegram from Jane describing her discoveries he made his now famous response: "Now we must redefine tool, redefine Man, or accept chimpanzees as humans."

CT

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by CriticalThanking

I didn't read the link but did hear a summary on the radio. We already knew about jealousy/fairness in some primates. The question was whether or not it applied to dogs, and to what extent. A main difference (all from memory of the report) was that most of the dogs only cared that they got a treat when others did. The primates studied had very strong reactions when the "value" of the treat given was unequal.

CT

I found that my cats' want similar accommodations for lack of a better word (blankets, crates to rest in, etc.) and similar toys. They don't like to share. They have pretty much divied up the toys between themselves and won't share them -- with the exception of milk caps. Milk caps appear to be fair game -- but then on the other hand maybe they had staked out different milks caps and I just can't tell the difference. For their other favorite kind of toys, furry mice, its much better to make sure that there are at least two of those kind around at all times. In addition, the older male cat has staked out two spots in the apt. that are "his" only. He stomps all over the female cat when she ventures into those areas.

I first learned this when I got a 2nd cat (a female cat that for long boring reasons I wasn't able to keep) at about the same time I got my kitten. The kitten was still young so I still had a small box set up with blankets and a hot water bottle. The 2nd cat got insanely jealous. Even though the box was too small for her to use, she wouldn't let the kitten use it either. After I got her a larger box of her own, she relented and let the kitten use her box.

[Harpyja]

I remember something my Medical Terminology professor taught us in class concerning associations in reference in dis/organized thought. He broke up the associative process into three simple "steps," which he explained as such.

* Conscious perception of an object - The object is consciously perceived by the subject. Simply put, the object is seen or detected by the senses with an acknowledgment to the existence of the object. Note that conscious perception does not only include sense of sight - perception also applies to other methods of detecting stimulus as well.

* Differentiation between objects - The object is differentiated between other objects in varying degrees of sophistication. The ability to differentiate between two objects could be as simple an as ant differentiating between objects as "food" and "non-food," "enemy" and "ally." It is this reason that we are able to recognize individuals.

* Applying advanced significance to a differentiated object - The object is not simply differentiated between other objects - meaning is applied to it. For example, if I see a cross I recognize it not only as a wooden shape, but also as the major religious symbol of Christianity and as a primitive method of torture and execution.

These three levels are examples of an integrated system, meaning that multiple sections of the brain are responsible for its function.

Here is an example to illustrate the above.

Say I am walking down the hall, my head buried in a book, and I run into someone. I became aware of the existence of this person once I bump into them. I gather myself and look across from me to see who I exactly bumped into. I recognize him immediately - male, Hispanic, with long wavy black hair, an unmistakable, tired-looking round face, and amber-colored eyes. I recognize him immediately as an old friend of mine - I am able to differentiate him from the other people passing by us. My body physically reacts - my eyes widen, my heart beats at a slightly faster rate, and I feel my diaphragm tightening. I have a soft spot for the boy - he was a musician and a member of my school's drum line, and we had a falling out but I love him dearly. I consider him to be one of the closest friends I ever had. I am able to apply meaning to who he is.

I believe what we are looking at in the case of animals is the expression of emotion guided by organized thought. It is not doubted that some domestic animals have been able to display emotions - but are they capable of feeling emotions such as jealously, which require association and meaning?

The dog obviously is conscious of the environment around him. He is aware that the other dog is being given identical commands, and receives a food reward. The dog is aware that the same individual is issuing commands toward him as well, but when the dog obeys the command he does not receive the food reward. The dog applies meaning to the treat - the treat is a reward given as a result of obeying the command. If the dog did not, the entire concept of dog training would not work - the dog would be unable to associate the reward with completing the action, and as such could not be conditioned. After obeying a series of commands, in which he receives nothing but the other dog receives a food reward, the dog refuses to obey the command and displays physical cues of aversion, nervousness and possibly subservience.

But is this as a result of jealousy? First, we need to know several things. Prior to the experiment, was the dog receiving treats every time it obeyed the command in order to train it, and it not receiving treats resulted in a lack of motivation to preform the command?

(Be back in a couple hours to continue my musings)

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

Well, to what extent are humans affected by heirarchies?

Well I strongly prefer to avoid hierarchies, but they do seem to be an unavoidable part of life in most scenarios. I often notice that when a new person comes along or I join a new group (whatever kind of group it is -- social, work, even rare extended family reunions) -- there's a period where people are feeling each other out and, it seems to me, figuring out their "ranks".

But I don't think that hierarchies are as strict in most human societies as they are among many animal groups. But I could be wrong and perhaps I'm too blind to see what most affects me.

Quote:

The differences between humans and various animals seem to be differences in degree (sometimes vast), rather than in kind...

I agree.

FWIW, these are some of the biggest difference I see between cats and people.

1) Opposable thumbs. After I adopted my kitten it seemed to me that for a while she often tried to do what I was doing but gave up because of lack of thumbs. If she had them -- I think that she would be a lot smarter today. I sincerely think that her mental potential was directly reduced in some areas because her body isn't flexible in that way.*

2) None of my cats ever try to be proactive instead of reactive. I think that is the main reason why most breeds of cats won't play fetch. They just can't seem to get it into their furry little skulls that they can have some impact and affect what goes on in their own lives. They want to chase the ball -- but it seems to be impossible to get the idea across to them that there are small actions they could take to keep the game going longer. I know that there are exceptions - but all in all -- I think most cats tend to be reactive and almost never proactive. Well, my cats are pretty good at letting me know when they think its dinner time -- but that's about it.

3) Their long term memory seems to be inferior to most people's.

4) They seem to have more inherited vs. learned behaviors, compared to people.



* There's a cat toy where you can hide a small toy mouse or something similar in a box with holes. The cat has to try to get it out. When she was a kitten, on her own, she figured out how to drop the mouse back in the box so the game could continue. For some reason I put the game away for a few months and forgot about it. Later when she was older I took the game out again. She had lost the ability to keep the game going. When she got the toy out -- she would never put it back in again. I may be anthromorphizing -- but it seemed to me that she was frustrated and wanted the game to continue. But somehow she had lost the ability to be able to do what she could do when she was younger. I've no way of proving it but I think the the lack of opposable thumbs affected her ability to be proactive and as a result that part of her brain got rewired in ways that her body could allow her to excel in -- smelling odors, getting along with the other cat, hunting for bugs and flies (when they are around), etc.

[bruto]

Speaking of dogs, this little video has been showing up on the web. I wouldn't mind having a friend like this one!

http://presurfer.blogspot.com/2008/1...unded-dog.html

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I think it is over interpretation of evidence, and the anthropomorphization of dogs. Which are very social creatures, the dog probably took it as a dominance gesture and didn't want to submit.

Now replace dog with human and you see that those same arguments can be used on humans.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by bruto

Speaking of dogs, this little video has been showing up on the web. I wouldn't mind having a friend like this one!

http://presurfer.blogspot.com/2008/1...unded-dog.html

Neither would I! I wonder if both dogs belonged to the same "pack"? Either way, it's a great story!

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by Kaylee

I agree.

FWIW, these are some of the biggest difference I see between cats and people.

1) Opposable thumbs.

2) None of my cats ever try to be proactive instead of reactive.

3) Their long term memory seems to be inferior to most people's.

4) They seem to have more inherited vs. learned behaviors, compared to people.

It's important to note that I'm not minimizing any differences. There is much to learn. A creature whose sense of smell, but not sight, is better than another's, will necessarily have a different way of reacting to the world.

However, since there is also difference amongst individuals of a species, those differences do not seem sufficient to label a different kind. After all that we have learned, and just starting to glean how much we have yet to learn, only the most willfully blind could possible continue to assert that we are not animals ourselves.

ETA: on heirarchies... for how much of human civilization (time wise) have various peoples around the world lived under some variant of a feudal system?

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Jimbo07

It's important to note that I'm not minimizing any differences. There is much to learn. A creature whose sense of smell, but not sight, is better than another's, will necessarily have a different way of reacting to the world.

However, since there is also difference amongst individuals of a species, those differences do not seem sufficient to label a different kind. After all that we have learned, and just starting to glean how much we have yet to learn, only the most willfully blind could possible continue to assert that we are not animals ourselves.

ETA: on heirarchies... for how much of human civilization (time wise) have various peoples around the world lived under some variant of a feudal system?

Of course there are many differences between cats (and the other species listed in the study) and people. The differences I listed in post #10 are just the ones that for whatever reason I find that I keep musing on when I'm taking a break and observing my cats' shenanigans.

Anyway to attempt to get back to the OP, I never doubted that cats and dogs have secondary emotions in addition to the primary ones. And as bruto pointed out some of them even demonstrate empathy! (One of my cats does also.) Our sensory perceptions and the way we mentally process things seem to vary much more and I find that intrigueing.

Re heirarchies -- humans have lived under a wide range of them from practically none to various caste systems. Animal heirarchies don't vary so much within each species. A wolf pack in Wyoming is going to be organized pretty much the same way as one in Canada. So its probably safe to conclude that human hierarchies have less of a innate biological component to them and more of a sociological one, and that its the reverse for many animal species.

[luchog]

It's very hard not to anthropomorphize certain animal behaviours, particularly the really complex ones; and especially in a dog who was a serious drama queen.

The dog was a big Rottweiler, and very intelligent. If anyone in the family was out in the yard, say working on a car, and not paying enough attention to him, he had a few techniques for garnering more. First, he'd walk up and try to "help" (play with the cool toys you were playing with). If that didn't work, he'd "talk" at us (a sort of low-pitched petulant-sounding noise strongly reminiscent of a human whinging about something). If that didn't get the desired result, he's lie down on the ground in the most forlorn and abused-looking possible way, with his front legs stretched out in front of him, and his chin flat on the ground; while watching our every movement with his eyes. If we then got up to go to a different part of the yard, he'd get up and follow, and flop down into his "poor neglected me" pose again.

It usually worked to get him some attention, so he used it at every opportunity. It was interesting to watch the complex series and types of behaviours he could string together to get his desired attention.