Learning from Real Dogs

Beyond WordsI read a lot of academic studies of dogs. My students often enjoy dissecting these studies and figuring out better ways to investigate the same questions. Oftentimes, their ideas come from their extensive observation of real dogs doing real dog things — with other dogs.

Researcher and writer Carl Safina makes this point convincingly and with regard to many more species than dogs. His wonderful book on animal communication and thought, Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel, gently skewers academics for some of absurdly human-centered studies and the equally absurd conclusions drawn from those studies. One example is the researchers who concluded that chimps lack theory of mind because they failed to understand that a photo of a man shivering next to an unplugged heater meant that the chimps should select a photo of a man next to a working heater. Huh?

Safina offers several definitions for theory of mind drawn from real studies. My favorite is the one that claims that theory of mind is the ability “to read the minds of others.” Hmmm. All the humans I know would fail that test. A good definition is “knowing that another can have thoughts that differ from yours.”

In Beyond Words, Safina describes many, many observations — his own and those of other respected ethologists — of non-humans showing that they meet this definition; the evidence, he says, is “blinding” (his emphasis). His discussion of the “mirror test” prompted my public apology to my dog, Jana. Safina also makes the valid point that studying how dogs (or chimps, dolphins, or any other species) are like humans is irrelevant; they exist as themselves and are better at reading, understanding, and interacting with members of their own species in ways that enhance their survival than at behaving like humans. So true. But I’d argue that for dogs, being able to read and understand humans is as important as understanding fellow dogs. And for people, understanding how dogs communicate with and understand fellow dogs is essential to our learning to understand dogs.

Safina pokes fun at a researcher who gathered and analyzed video of dogs playing for two years before reaching the somewhat obvious conclusion that when a dog wants to invite another dog to play, he behaves differently if the other dog is facing away from him: He tries to get that dog’s attention before offering a play bow. The dog either barks or uses his paw to attract the other dog’s attention. Dogs don’t play bow to other dogs’ rear ends. Amazing.

It’s only one example, but understanding these simple (and, arguably, obvious) points about how dogs communicate could improve humans’ communication with dogs: Get the dog’s attention and rely heavily on body language, rather than words.

Countless humans, at dog parks all over the world, try to get their dogs to do something (usually stop playing) by barking out orders at them from a distance of several feet while the dog is not only facing away from them but actively engaged in playing with other dogs. Humans do this when their dogs are chasing a toy or a squirrel, too. Verbal instruction is such a human-centered way to communicate to begin with … and it’s particularly ineffective if the dog (or person) isn’t paying attention.

The examples are myriad, but the point is the same: If we spend more time watching how dogs interact with each other and studying their communication, we’ll learn far more than if we focus on human-created, human-centered studies conducted in contrived environments.

About Pam Hogle

Pam Hogle is a freelance writer and editor who focuses on dogs. Her Thinking Dog Blog (www.thinkingdogblog.com) looks at how dogs think and learn and encourages readers to challenge their dogs' minds as they improve their relationships with those dogs. Pam also teaches at the Bergin University of Canine Studies in Rohnert Park, California, an accredited university that focuses on the human-canine partnership. She lives in Petaluma, California with two thinking golden retrievers, Jana and Cali.
This entry was posted in Animal Behavior, Training and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Learning from Real Dogs

  1. It’s easy to make fun of the simplistic designs and conclusions of animal cognition research, but researchers have been forced to take a ridiculously narrow scope by the rigors of the scientific method, and the criticisms of their peers – every research lives in dread of failing the “Clever Hans test”. To scientifically demonstrate something requires enough data points to be statistically valid, hence the saying, “the plural of anecdotes is not data“. It’s important to note that without the adequate data, a scientist can not prove that an animal has a capability or understanding – but a good scientist would not then draw the conclusion that this proves that it does not.

    So of course those of us who know dogs and other animals should continue to make our own observations and trust our experience; but don’t make assumptions without definitive proof – or we might be just as mistaken as the owner who assumes that a dog “knows he’s done something wrong” from the appeasement/”guilty” look they see so often.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>