Here is my 2 cents worth: http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/dog.html

-ilan

On 22 Oct 2005 05:01:45 -0700, wrote:

Here is my 2 cents worth: http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/dog.html

Well done, informative, and worth far more than two cents. :-) Thanks for sharing.

I went to the AKC intelligence rating chart http://www.petrix.com/dogint/70-79.html to
look for my favorite breed, Chow Chows. I couldn't believe my eyes: they were rate 76 out
of 79! Well, I immediately realized the rating system is very seriously flawed. Chow Chows
are smart enough to know what they want and don't want. If your notions vary, you must
persuade them to rethink their views. That's not dumb: that's what makes them so adorable.
:-) Of course, that's just my two cents.

I think there's a book entitled something like "Dogs Are Smarter Than You Think", and I
firmly believe that.

A dog's life is too short; their only fault really.

In article ,
Michael A. Ball wrote:
That's not dumb: that's what makes them so adorable.

I agree, but it's unfortunately common to confuse
biddability with intelligence. People with more compliant
dogs like that.

However, I disagree that there are no meaningful differences
in intelligence between breeds. Not only does *my*
anecdotal experience suggest that there is a difference,
it's also the case that genetics plays a major role in
determining intelligence and that one of the requirements
for an established pure breed to be recognized by a kennel
club is a closed breed book.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

What we have here is a form of looting. -- Nobel laureate in
economics George Akerlof, on Bush economic policy

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article ,
Michael A. Ball wrote:
That's not dumb: that's what makes them so adorable.

I agree, but it's unfortunately common to confuse
biddability with intelligence.

Good point. In fact, my opinion of tests like the SAT's is
that the test does not consist of finding the best answer,
but in being able to think like the person who wrote the question.

In particular, the numerical sequence questions like 1, 4, 17, ?
are completely bogus, a real number theorist (like myself) will
not be able to "figure it out." Moreover, there is an actual
mathematical theory, Kolmogorov Complexity, which proves that
there is no method to solve these in general (if the formal
goal is to find the shortest formula which generates the
given sequence). I find this especially distasteful since
I'm convinced that the test writers are the kind of failed
dilettantes I abhor.

-ilan

wrote

Here is my 2 cents worth:
http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/dog.html

"the only eyewitness to the murders of Nicole Simpson and
Ron Goldman was her dog Kato (later Satchmo). Among the many
bizzare points brought up in the media frenzy was the
question of interrogating this witness"

Being outside the US I missed the OJ trial and its "media
frenzy" but, Huh? Interrogate a dog?

--
Bob

Kanyak's Doghouse
http://www.kanyak.com

In article .com,
wrote:
I find this especially distasteful since
I'm convinced that the test writers are the kind of failed
dilettantes I abhor.

Me too! I way prefer failed experts.

I don't see much value in ranking intelligence, except
perhaps as a status statistic and that's more about
perceived value than actual value. One of my dogs is just
plain dumb as a sack of hair, but she does her job
extraordinarily well and is exceptionally sweet, to boot.
She's a great sleddog and she's a great companion and pet.
Would she be a better dog if she weren't a slow learner?
No, not in any way that makes a real difference.

Back in the old days of Usenet it was considered a "score"
if you could manipulate someone into posting his SAT scores
or IQ score without explicitly asking for it. There's some
value, I suppose.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

What we have here is a form of looting. -- Nobel laureate in
economics George Akerlof, on Bush economic policy

Melinda Shore a écrit :

In article .com,
wrote:
I find this especially distasteful since
I'm convinced that the test writers are the kind of failed
dilettantes I abhor.

Me too! I way prefer failed experts.

I take that as a compliment, I think...

Back in the old days of Usenet it was considered a "score"
if you could manipulate someone into posting his SAT scores
or IQ score without explicitly asking for it. There's some
value, I suppose.

These days, the loser is the first one to bring up the Nazis.
Doh!

-ilan

(Melinda Shore) said in rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

I don't see much value in ranking intelligence, except
perhaps as a status statistic and that's more about
perceived value than actual value.

I kind of like Stanley Coren's ranking.

Rocky is a #42 which--as anyone who knows anything about
_Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_--is The Meaning of Life.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

"Michael A. Ball" wrote in message
...
On 22 Oct 2005 05:01:45 -0700, wrote:

Here is my 2 cents worth: http://cf.geocities.com/ilanpi/dog.html

Well done, informative, and worth far more than two cents. :-) Thanks for
sharing.

I went to the AKC intelligence rating chart
http://www.petrix.com/dogint/70-79.html to
look for my favorite breed, Chow Chows. I couldn't believe my eyes: they
were rate 76 out
of 79! Well, I immediately realized the rating system is very seriously
flawed. Chow Chows
are smart enough to know what they want and don't want. If your notions
vary, you must
persuade them to rethink their views. That's not dumb: that's what makes
them so adorable.
:-) Of course, that's just my two cents.

i agree on Chows, but i think they're just right on Borzoi. my neighbor has
two of them, and a four foot fence. they'll happily run up to me, put their
front legs over the fence for a tummy rub. they run back and forth along the
fence line all day long barking at everything. they live outside alone, the
life of kennel dogs, desperate for company.

and yet they NEVER jump that four foot fence.

they're beautiful, friendly, wonderful dogs.

but not too bright.

-kelly

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Michael A. Ball wrote:
That's not dumb: that's what makes them so adorable.

I agree, but it's unfortunately common to confuse
biddability with intelligence. People with more compliant
dogs like that.

i agree. my dogs are quite intelligent. they trick me into giving them
what they want on many occasions. they many not be great bird dogs or scent
hounds (when i had Lola with me to find Manu, she was more interested in
finding the left over blackberries on the vines), but they always get what
they want. and they usually give me what i want, if i find a creative way
to get it. :-)

my favorite is bedwarmer. that doesn't take much convincing, and it's oh so
convenient.

-kelly