Jean Donaldson article - Dogs in Canada - Jan. 2008

[Eileen Stein]

They do, however, have one proto-theory of mind module, as brilliantly described by Bekoff in a crafty piece of research where dogs were seen to selectively deliver play meta-signals more often when other dogs were attending, thus suggesting awareness of another's attention.

 

If there is one thing that I wouldn't have thought you'd need a study to prove, it's that dogs are aware of another's attention on them.

 

In other words, it was unbearable for people to consider that they might be bumped down in importance or (gasp) temporarily irrelevant to an untrained dog (or a solid object to which leashes were attached) when a door to the great outdoors was opened. I often think the implications of "no desire to please" are even worse in terms of bruising our narcissism. Does anybody else wonder about this?

 

Personally, I readily recognize, to paraphrase Donald McCaig, that my dogs inhabit an entire world that I am not a part of in addition to the one we share. So no, the thought that they might have no desire to please is not bruising to my narcissism. It just contradicts what I see. I also never accepted the idea that dogs' running out the door first is related to dominance because that too is inconsistent with what I see. And if the "crafty piece of research" you reference above had found that dogs have no awareness of other dogs' attention being on them, I would not have accepted it either, because it also contradicts what I see, even though it would have had no implications for my narcissism.

 

But I can see where attributing a reason like that (i.e., mired in narcissism) to people who say that dogs have a desire to please would tend to discredit what they're saying.

[Eileen Stein]

The idea that there might be a whole slew of different reasons - many of which have nothing directly to do with the dog owner/handler - was brand new. When I explained that the dog might be frightened, excited, that he might just be acting on impulse, that it might feel enjoyable to the dog, the dog might not like the other dog, etc. these were very clearly new ideas to most of them.

 

Just out of curiosity,

 

(1) When they said, "The dog wants to be dominant," did you understand them to mean dominant over the person holding the leash, or dominant over the other dog?

 

(2) Were they resistant to the reasons you suggested?

[Root Beer]

Just out of curiosity,

 

(1) When they said, "The dog wants to be dominant," did you understand them to mean dominant over the person holding the leash, or dominant over the other dog?

 

Either/or/both. It seemed that some students were thinking of the dog being dominant over them, and others were thinking that the dog must want to be dominant over the other dog. And I got the very clear impression that some of them really hadn't thought it through and were attributing the behavior to "dominance" because that's what they had heard over and over in the mainstream.

 

(2) Were they resistant to the reasons you suggested?

 

No, quite the opposite. There were comments that those possibilities made a lot of sense and we had a fantastic discussion. They were very open to new ways of thinking - both about their dogs, and about training strategies - particularly for problem behaviors. (For clarity - by "new ways of thinking" I mean "new to them".)

[HighDesertSpice]

Could you explain why you think "an understanding of 'right' and 'wrong'" is related to "an innate desire to please"? ....

 

'No time as of yet to read all of the responses....

 

'Seems to me that when humans talk about "desire to please", when taken to the logical end, we are referring to acts that ultimately have no payoff for us. Whatsoever. They are sacrificial--self denying. I would love to think that there are dogs in this world with this capability....but am not yet convinced.

 

Once you start trying to claim that dogs work for this "inner glow" that we emanate to them, you are back to talking about reinforcements, rewards.

 

This is NOT the same as saying that dogs are NOT empathetic, can express gratitude, et al.

[Lenajo]

reading fast here, not much time today after the weekend.

 

Jean all canine/pet professionals have varying audiences they speak to, but in the end we have to act in professional standards in the best interest of all dogs. "If the herding people don't hear me say it" doesn't make it ok. You've apologized, and I accept that, lets leave it at that.

 

Now, In general, the idea of inate desire to please still hold my vote. I think perhaps where the grey area applies and frustrates the scientific by it's immeasurabilty in precise terms, is that some dogs have more or less, and if the desire is not stimulated appropriately young it will fade or dissapear. Also the level of ability to respond to stimulation in that area would be genetically driven as well. Is it not the same in children? After all, we are all born selfish need oriented little things, then as we are brought up the "inate desire to please" stuff that makes us compatible to society is fostered and encouraged. Some children don't have the genetics for that...hence sociopaths...and others have it effectively squashed....also sociopath. I use "sociopath" lightly here...as we all know there are a lot of degrees of this. The base of what I am saying is they do not fit into society because the cannot, or will not (because of upbringing in A culture, when will live in B culture, abuse, neglect etc) adapt.

 

To take it back to dogs....a genetic potential to want to "fit in" to the pack needs, followed by the genetic potential to adapt behavior to fit those needs, then the environmental stimulation that is used to adapt the dog...and then we have the results. Would that not fit the dogs progression in human society? I think so. Those that wanted to adapt, those that could adapt...who sought to "please" the human pack needs and as a result get their own needs met. Just like humans... And it's not black and white with us either. We can desire to please our "pack" and survive (i.e. please the boss so we have money for food) and still find immense pleasure in the details of our work for no more reason than it is.

 

Being one of the last of the breeds bred solely for purpose, I think it is easier to see this with the BC than with the more convoluted genetics of breeds bred for multiple, and often no, purpose at all.

[Eileen Stein]

And I got the very clear impression that some of them really hadn't thought it through and were attributing the behavior to "dominance" because that's what they had heard over and over in the mainstream.

 

Thanks, Kristine. That's exactly what I thought when I read your account. They want to come up with an answer, and they keep hearing about this dominance stuff, and so . . .

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

No time as of yet to read all of the responses....

 

Seems to me that when humans talk about "desire to please", when taken to the logical end, we are referring to acts that ultimately have no payoff for us. Whatsoever. They are sacrificial--self denying. I would love to think that there are dogs in this world with this capability....but am not yet convinced.

 

Well, okay, but why do you think a sacrificial act necessarily has anything to do with "an understanding of 'right' and 'wrong'"? I'm sure there are mothers who have sacrificed themselves for their children, or a friend for a friend, or a soldier for a buddy, without engaging in a reasoned moral calculus. If I buy my sister those pretty gloves that would look so nice with her new coat out of a desire to please her, I don't think there's any "understanding of 'right' and 'wrong'" involved. And of course some acts that one might do to please another (a dog sitting on command, perhaps) cost so little to do that "sacrificial" seems a bit strong to describe them.

 

Once you start trying to claim that dogs work for this "inner glow" that we emanate to them, you are back to talking about reinforcements, rewards.

 

I have no problem with that. You can speculate that dogs have a desire to please because they get the reward of feeling an inner glow that we emanate when they do, if you want. The point is that that's ALL they get. They'll do it only for that. But I do believe, as Lenajo wrote, that their desire to please will fade or disappear if they never get to exercise it, and that's why I wish people would just try utilizing that desire to please in their training sometimes, without pre-empting it with the treats and toys. If nurtured, it grows.

 

This is NOT the same as saying that dogs are NOT empathetic, can express gratitude, et al.

 

Interesting. Do you think that dogs express gratitude?

[JohnLloydJones]

Interesting. Do you think that dogs express gratitude?

We need to be careful not to read too much into behaviors, but I do see actions that appear show that a dog wants to say "thank you". Let me use an example I see at the dog park. We frequently meet two young aussies; Red and Rusty. They are fun sisters and play and run with Senneca, so I share Senneca's ice water with them. Rusty always breaks off drinking and gives me a couple of licks before continuing (Red does so too, but less often).

[Lenajo]

This reminds me of the legendary comment by the late Johnny Wilson, when he was asked why he did not pet or treat his great Peg that worked by him day and day on the hill.

 

I quote loosely..his softly smiled response: "do you not think that Peg knows what I think of her?"

 

Hardly a romantic man, or an anthromorphising type, just a deeply honest shepherd. Does anyone not think Peg knew? That she needed words, or treats, or that she did not feel pride in his pride?

 

It's amazing what we can learn from humble dogmen.

[HighDesertSpice]

Some folks have already summed up my thoughts, but let me give it one more go:

 

Well, okay, but why do you think a sacrificial act necessarily has anything to do with "an understanding of 'right' and 'wrong'"?

I'm sure there are mothers who have sacrificed themselves for their children, or a friend for a friend, or a soldier for a buddy, without engaging in a reasoned moral calculus. If I buy my sister those pretty gloves that would look so nice with her new coat out of a desire to please her, I don't think there's any "understanding of 'right' and 'wrong'" involved. And of course some acts that one might do to please another (a dog sitting on command, perhaps) cost so little to do that "sacrificial" seems a bit strong to describe them.

 

"Necessarily" in this case is your term, not mine. Life does at times throw us scenarios where making the "right" decision comes at a high cost, and so does entail a bit of mental...not "calculating"--but a counting the the cost. Yes, "sacrificial" is too strong to characterize dogs & general training, but I haven't yet bought into the paradigm/template that dogs only or primarily "work for praise / desire to please". I'm not entirely discounting it, but I"m also very convinced that dogs do work for tangible rewards.

 

.... You can speculate that dogs have a desire to please because they get the reward of feeling an inner glow that we emanate when they do, if you want. The point is that that's ALL they get. They'll do it only for that. But I do believe, as Lenajo wrote, that their desire to please will fade or disappear if they never get to exercise it, and that's why I wish people would just try utilizing that desire to please in their training sometimes, without pre-empting it with the treats and toys. If nurtured, it grows.

 

SO way back a few pages in this thread, I voiced that I agree with the premise that Jean D. stated in her book: roughly that "desire for praise" has not been operationally defined". To look at that another way, I'd like to pose this "use case":

3 year old, fixed male bc; goes to his 3rd home (not counting the two other short term rejections--for a total now of 4). He has an unusual set of behaviors: Has obviously gone through some sort of obedience training--evidence: jumps out of persons way, always stands parallel, won't take food or toys from person's hand, has a beautiful sit AND YET sidles up close to person, presses in, waits for a few pats/strokes, then growls, bares fangs, growls harder. Seemingly timed as if to trick human into this deceptive little dance. He has no dependable recall or down. Could be photo-shopped into Patricia McConnell's "Cautious Canine" booklet cover. No tail wags, fearful expression, and very aggressive "play" style. Has a history of escalating fights with other males; potentially a bitey boy. Dog pants heavily after 5 minutes of anything--grooming, walking on/off leash, sitting in house, et al. 'Failed' his instinct test, but otherwise demonstrates some prey drive for stock.

 

What does a "works for praise/desire to please" framework recommend for turning such a dog around?

 

Interesting. Do you think that dogs express gratitude?

 

I can't really give it a concrete description other than pointing to the dog's facial expression and their affectionate reponse, but honestly, i just like the idea. And I must say, I really do like the idea.

 

Thanks for listening

[stockdogranch]

Do you think that dogs express gratitude?

 

I do, indeed. Example: a young (2 year old) dog that was owned by my ex, had excellent breeding (Dodie's Soot), but for whatever lame reason, the ex (not an ex at that time) had done and was doing nothing work-wise with this dog. He was training (on sheep) all of his other dogs, but pretty much left this one to hang out in the house or the backyard all the time. I was looking for another dog to work, and felt sorry for him, and one day asked if I could take him out and work him. The minute we got outside and started to work sheep, this dog very clearly said, "thank you." As plainly as if I could literally hear him. I trained him up, he became my #1 trial dog and best bud for a number of years, and in what was probably the best move of his life, the ex one day had the papers transferred to my name. Same dog many years later: I had a young bitch who just really had a chip on her shoulder (primarily with the older, ruling "queen" of the house), and who would take really cheap shots at the old guy--while the old guy slept peacefully, she'd walk past and take a snipe at his nose. Anyway, I finally realized she needed to go and sold her. Five days after she got on the plane, when he was sure she was gone for good, he came up and put his head on my lap (which he had not done for over a year or so--"mad" at me for keeping the evil one here?), and, again, very clearly said "thank you."

 

And, no, I don't think I'm anthropomorphising...

A

[Chesney's Girl]

I do, indeed. Example: a young (2 year old) dog that was owned by my ex, had excellent breeding (Dodie's Soot), but for whatever lame reason, the ex (not an ex at that time) had done and was doing nothing work-wise with this dog. He was training (on sheep) all of his other dogs, but pretty much left this one to hang out in the house or the backyard all the time. I was looking for another dog to work, and felt sorry for him, and one day asked if I could take him out and work him. The minute we got outside and started to work sheep, this dog very clearly said, "thank you." As plainly as if I could literally hear him. I trained him up, he became my #1 trial dog and best bud for a number of years, and in what was probably the best move of his life, the ex one day had the papers transferred to my name. Same dog many years later: I had a young bitch who just really had a chip on her shoulder (primarily with the older, ruling "queen" of the house), and who would take really cheap shots at the old guy--while the old guy slept peacefully, she'd walk past and take a snipe at his nose. Anyway, I finally realized she needed to go and sold her. Five days after she got on the plane, when he was sure she was gone for good, he came up and put his head on my lap (which he had not done for over a year or so--"mad" at me for keeping the evil one here?), and, again, very clearly said "thank you."

 

And, no, I don't think I'm anthropomorphising...

A

 

Awww Saber!

[Pipedream Farm]

It seems to me that many dog behavioral theories start with the premise that being a canine and genetically similar to the wolf also means that the dog has similar behavioral genetics as the wolf.

 

Harvard Anthropologist Brian Hare's journey into canine cognition began with a study of human development. "I was interested in how humans develop cognitive skills,' he told National Geographic News.. "What is it that allows us read social cues and understand communicative gestures?"

 

Seemingly simple cognitive tasks like following the gaze of another human or responding to pointing and other gestures are easily taken for granted. But Hare explains that such skills precipitate a domino effect that enables humans to learn many things about the world.

 

To determine if other animals shared such important abilities, Hare tested a close human relative—the chimpanzee. He alternately placed food in one of two identical cups, but unlike the infamous 'shell game,' he attempted to help the animals locate the food by tapping, pointing to, or simply gazing at the correct cup. The result? "The great apes are really good at lots of other things, but in this type of cooperation and communication exercise they really struggled," he said.

 

But almost by accident another test subject appeared. "I said hey, I bet my dog can do this," Hare recalled. "It's the same reaction many people would have. It was not a surprise to anybody but scientists."

 

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) performed exceptionally well at the same tests that stymied the chimps. But the question was why, and why did most other animals struggle?

 

Special Abilities May Have Genetic Roots

 

The most obvious answer is that dogs live and interact with humans and are simply conditioned through human exposure. But subsequent tests cast doubt on the theory.

 

"We tested puppies," Hare said. "We tested litter-reared pups who had very, very little exposure to humans and compared the results to age-matched pups that had lived in families since birth and were taking obedience classes. There was no difference."

 

Another possible explanation is that canids naturally have such abilities, which developed from pack hunting or their own social structure. That theory was put to the test by the dog's closest relative—the wolf (Canis lupus). Many scientists believe that all dogs originated from a population of wolves that lived in China between 40,000 and 15,000 years ago.

 

Ádám Miklósi led a group of researchers at Eötvös University in Budapest, Hungary who conducted the "shell game" tests on wolves. The test wolves were raised by humans and socialized to a comparable level as their dog counterparts. But although they could follow some signals, the wolves could not perform to the level of dogs. Miklósi's test also included an important second step. He presented the animals with an unsolvable problem—a bowl of food that was impossible to access. The team found that while wolves continued to work at the unsolvable problem for long periods, dogs quickly looked at the humans for help.

 

"Based on these observations, we suggest that the key difference between dog and wolf behavior is the dogs' ability to look at the human's face," Miklósi summarized in Current Biology. "Since looking behavior has an important function in initializing and maintaining communicative interaction in human communication systems, we suppose that by positive feedback processes (both evolutionary and ontogenetically) the readiness of dogs to look at the human face has led to complex forms of dog-human communication that cannot be achieved in wolves even after extended socialization."

 

 

Fox Study Poses Tantalizing Questions

 

In 1959, the late Dimitri Balyaev and his colleagues began domesticating foxes. Since that time a population of foxes has been selectively bred on one factor alone their behaviour towards humans. Foxes who approached humans at a seven-month-old trial meeting were allowed to breed, while others who appeared afraid or aggressive were disqualified. After 20 generations the population began showing many signs of domestication, such as approaching humans and even wagging their tails and barking at the approach of a human. The animals are currently domesticated enough to serve as house pets.

 

But the selection has affected more than behaviour. The foxes, like many domestic animals, began to exhibit curly tails, floppy ears, and smaller tooth and bone size though none of these were selection criteria.

 

Could cognition be a breeding by-product like these physical changes? Hare hopes to explore the question by testing the foxes.

 

"The critical thing is that they did not select for cognition, only for niceness," he explained. "I have no idea how dogs became dogs; There are stories but not hard facts. But I know exactly how these foxes became they way that they are. So those kind of test results could help us figure out is it that you must have selection for intelligence to be smart, or could it result from selection on other factors like behavior towards humans?" "Just as you have accidental byproducts like curly tails and floppy ears, could you become smarter as an accidental byproduct of selection on niceness?"

 

Source: How Did Dogs Become Adept at Playing to Humans?

 

These studies would suggest that using the behavior of wolves as a means to understand how a dog is genetically predisposed to behave is problematic at best and likely incorrect; the behavioral theories that use wolf behavior as the starting point could easily be wrong and therefore myths.

 

Mark

[JohnLloydJones]

It seems to me that many dog behavioral theories start with the premise that being a canine and genetically similar to the wolf also means that the dog has similar behavioral genetics as the wolf.

 

It's a good starting point, but as you and the article you linked to point out, dogs have developed certain quite distinct characteristics. I would guess that when those Asian wolves first saw humans and saw them hunting, they gradually began to figure out ways. Likewise, those humans slowly began to figure out that the wolves (proto-dogs) had abilities that were useful. Bit by bit we have learned each other; learned how to use each other; learned how to adapt their social skills across the species boundary. The result is a strange but wonderful relationship.

[Eileen Stein]

I just wanted to say that personally, I do think that dogs express gratitude. I have had experiences similar (and exactly the same, in fact) to the example John Lloyd Jones gave a couple of days ago. The only reason I asked the question is that I think a desire to please and a desire to thank, while not the same, are somewhat similar.

[Tranquilis]

It's a good starting point, but as you and the article you linked to point out, dogs have developed certain quite distinct characteristics. I would guess that when those Asian wolves first saw humans and saw them hunting, they gradually began to figure out ways.

Be aware that the wolf/dog split almost certainly preceded the human/dog relationship. Genetic mapping indicates that wolves and dogs diverged some 100 to 120 thousand years ago.

 

The oldest evidence of human/canine interaction is merely some 14 thousand years ago, with canine/human co-burials in what is today central Germany. Presumably, when the first wild dogs partnered with humans, there was already a distinct division between the wolf and the dog. Some thousand years before the provable human/canine link, the canine population is believed to have passed though a genetic bottleneck of some three bitches somewhere in Asia - Again, drawing on genetic mapping. That alone argues that the domestic dog is substantially and significantly isolated from its wolf forbears. That, by extension, supports the thought that using wolf behavioral models on dogs is a chancy proposition.

 

In fact, even if humans *were* involved in the genetic separation of dogs and wolves, a hundred thousand years is a long, long time - Wolf models really don't apply, and dog models need to be developed. Fortunately, there are populations of wild dogs for study - Which HAVE been studied - so it shouldn't be exceedingly difficult to establish a similar understanding.

[HighDesertSpice]

Let me just say.... I think a desire to please and a desire to thank, while not the same, are somewhat similar.

 

Cool.

[JohnLloydJones]

Be aware that the wolf/dog split almost certainly preceded the human/dog relationship. Genetic mapping indicates that wolves and dogs diverged some 100 to 120 thousand years ago.

I am aware of the research that dates the split to over a hundred thousand years back (I have seen figures up to 140 thousand yrs as the suggested split). Between then and the appearance of modern dogs these proto-dogs certainly diverged from other wolves. I fancy that there would have been a period when packs of these animals acquired groups of humans as a resource. This would have been a period when a loose hunting collaboration could have developed. The appearance of anatomically modern dogs would have been the culmination of a slow process of (mutual) adaption.

[Tranquilis]

I fancy that there would have been a period when packs of these animals acquired groups of humans as a resource. This would have been a period when a loose hunting collaboration could have developed. The appearance of anatomically modern dogs would have been the culmination of a slow process of (mutual) adaption.

Perhaps, but there's no sound foundation for such speculation. Indeed, other than the canine/human co-burrials some 14000 years back, the next solid evidence for canine/human cooperation is a mere 7000 years ago, from cave drawings, by which point dogs were long set in their anatomically modern form.

 

Purely speculation, but I would say that the genetic bottleneck at -15000 years is where you'll find the final form set - It's unlikely that much diversity survived that throttling point, which pre-dates all evidence of human/canine cooperation. Granted that dogs are enormously plastic in their appearance, and can cross-breed with wild canids, I think it's safe to say that instinctive canine behavior can be traced back to that point.

 

IOW dogs are dogs, and wolves are wolves, and one cannot attribute the behaviors of one to the other without specific study of both to find the points of similarity and of divergence. As of this point, I'm unaware that any such comparitive study has been conducted in a scientific fashion, so am suspicious of any attmpts to connect the two. Yes, I see *simliarities,* but the devil is in the details, and *similarities* leave a lot of details unadressed.