http://newstrain.com/2008/12/08/is-your-dog-jealous/
I think dogs aren't very intelligent!

"Becky44" wrote in message
...

I think dogs aren't very intelligent!

I think they're smarter than some people. HTH WTF God bless and BBQ!

--
Shelly
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

"Becky44" wrote in message
...
http://newstrain.com/2008/12/08/is-your-dog-jealous/
I think dogs aren't very intelligent!

The article on the link you gave doesn't give much detail of the study and
how those involved reached their conclusion. Perhaps they're the ones that
aren't very intelligent.
Alison

Becky44 wrote:
http://newstrain.com/2008/12/08/is-your-dog-jealous/
I think dogs aren't very intelligent!

News reports of this study have been misleading. It did not
address the intelligence of dogs; it addressed their ability to
perceive inequities in rewards for behavior.

Diddy, you've mentioned Tuck's sense of fairness before - how do
you think he would react?

Here's the abstract:

The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs

Abstract

One crucial element for the evolution of cooperation may be the
sensitivity to others' efforts and payoffs compared with one's
own costs and gains. Inequity aversion is thought to be the
driving force behind unselfish motivated punishment in humans
constituting a powerful device for the enforcement of
cooperation. Recent research indicates that non-human primates
refuse to participate in cooperative problem-solving tasks if
they witness a conspecific obtaining a more attractive reward for
the same effort. However, little is known about non-primate
species, although inequity aversion may also be expected in other
cooperative species. Here, we investigated whether domestic dogs
show sensitivity toward the inequity of rewards received for
giving the paw to an experimenter on command in pairs of dogs. We
found differences in dogs tested without food reward in the
presence of a rewarded partner compared with both a baseline
condition (both partners rewarded) and an asocial control
situation (no reward, no partner), indicating that the presence
of a rewarded partner matters. Furthermore, we showed that it was
not the presence of the second dog but the fact that the partner
received the food that was responsible for the change in the
subjects' behavior. In contrast to primate studies, dogs did not
react to differences in the quality of food or effort. Our
results suggest that species other than primates show at least a
primitive version of inequity aversion, which may be a precursor
of a more sophisticated sensitivity to efforts and payoffs of
joint interactions.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...57105.abstract

FurPaw

--
Why do people who embrace Social Darwinism object to teaching the
theory of evolution?

To reply, unleash the dog.

Becky44 wrote:
http://newstrain.com/2008/12/08/is-your-dog-jealous/
I think dogs aren't very intelligent!

And here's a fairly intelligent write up of the experiment in lay
language, from Science News. It has some snapshots of how the
dogs were tested.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene..._unfair_treats
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6366zg

FurPaw

--
Why do people who embrace Social Darwinism object to teaching the
theory of evolution?

To reply, unleash the dog.

On 2008-12-10 10:22:23 -0500, FurPaw said:

It has some snapshots of how the dogs were tested.

Priceless!

In article ,
FurPaw wrote:

News reports of this study have been misleading. It did not
address the intelligence of dogs; it addressed their ability to
perceive inequities in rewards for behavior.

Ouch, that's a horrible measure of intelligence. If anything, it's a
measure of the lack of rational thinking in humans and primates. If the
rewarded is judged adequate, why should the subject care if someone else
is rewarded more?

Steven Fisher wrote:
In article ,
FurPaw wrote:

News reports of this study have been misleading. It did not
address the intelligence of dogs; it addressed their ability to
perceive inequities in rewards for behavior.

Ouch, that's a horrible measure of intelligence. If anything, it's a
measure of the lack of rational thinking in humans and primates. If the
rewarded is judged adequate, why should the subject care if someone else
is rewarded more?

According to the Science News report, the dogs didn't change
their behavior when they got breadcrumbs and the other dog got
meat as a reward. But they did stop responding when the other
dog got a reward and they got none. To determine if this was
simply extinction of a unrewarded response, the researchers
compared the unrewarded behavior when the dogs were alone with
when the dogs saw another dog get rewarded. The dogs made fewer
unrewarded responses when another dog was getting rewarded.

And they weren't attempting to measure intelligence, as far as I
could tell.

FurPaw

--
Why do people who embrace Social Darwinism object to teaching the
theory of evolution?

To reply, unleash the dog.

On 2008-12-11 09:11:41 -0500, FurPaw said:

The dogs made fewer unrewarded responses when another dog was getting rewarded.

And they weren't attempting to measure intelligence, as far as I could tell.

I'm not sure how to interpret this.

Is the dog wondering what it was doing incorrectly if it was not being
rewarded?