I have the dog. . . .
For the science-minded among us, there’s a home scientific experiment that you might like to try. For it, you will need the following research materials:
4–6 little opaque cups with lids
1 piece of tasty dog food
1 baby about 1 year old
1 pet dog
1 domesticated wolf
(optional) 1 each bonobo, chimpanzee, gorilla and other great ape
Procedure: In a room where none of the animals are present put the piece of tasty dog food in one of the cups, cover it and line them up on a table. Admit one of the animals. Point to the cup containing the dog food. Observe the response of the animal.
In general, if the animal used in this trial is either the pet dog or the baby of about 1 year or more in age it will then attempt to open the cup. If successful in that effort, it will then eat the piece of dog food. If it is any other kind of animal, it will probably pay little or no attention to your signal but will sniff each of the cups, perhaps attempt to lick your face or simply wander around the room.
You will probably suppose from this behavior that the dog and the baby have inferred that you are calling attention to the one cup that contains a reward — the piece of dog food — for the subject animal and thus attempt to find out what that reward is, whereas none of the other animals will appear to draw that conclusion. At least, that is the conclusion reached by the team of ethologists led by Jozsef Topal at the Institute for Psychology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in Budapest.
Interestingly, no other kind of living creature displays this ability to interpret a human signal except for the domestic dog and the human baby, which begins to be able to solve the problem of interpreting this nonverbal human signal around its first birthday. The wolf is the closest relative to the domestic dog, but even a wolf that has been raised since birth in the company of human beings, as well as any of the great apes, the closest species to human beings, fails miserably at this task.
It is suggested that this innate quality of dogs is what has made them particularly easy to domesticate.
Adam Harvey says:
You might be interested in reading this National Geographic article about a generations-long experiment to domesticate the Russian Silver Fox. There’s some very interesting stuff in there about the genetics of domestication, including the dogs understanding human gestures.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/taming-wild-animals/ratliff-text
April 21, 2011, 7:55 amFarah Mendlesohn says:
Has it been tried with pigs? I saw pigs outperform a Jack Russell on computer tests in a programme called QED many years ago.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=100636§ioncode=26
April 21, 2011, 10:50 amMike says:
It’s not just that the domestic dog tracks where we point – they also exhibit “left gaze bias” with human faces; uniquely looking for emotional cues.
http://www.suite101.com/content/study-says-dogs-detect-emotions-on-human-faces-a75900
April 21, 2011, 12:16 pmBill Goodwin says:
The obvious argument is that (in the case of dogs) it was domestication that led to the behavior, rather than the reverse. Dogs that think like people are more useful to people, therefore preferentially selected. And understanding pointing makes for a good hunting companion. That said, the thought does occur that dogs are pack-hunters and known to point, themselves, so maybe the ability to abstract the motivations of other beings did, indeed, already operate at a high level.
My cats understand pointing. But cats have been up to a lot of evolving lately, most of which they conceal from us. Ask any polydactyl.
April 21, 2011, 1:50 pmStefan Jones says:
I think the “human behavior cue detection” came after domestication.
There’s an interesting updated theory on dog evolution and domestication.
The traditional story is that tribal people adopted wolf puppies and kept them around as pets, selecting (with a club?) which ones would and wouldn’t get to breed.
Problem: It is really hard to deal with wolf puppies, much less wolves. There’s a really narrow window in which a human can impress him or herself on a wolf pup.
The updated version: Neolithic villages were full of garbage. A reliable place for scavengers to nip in and eat. Some wolves adapted to scavenging there. Eventually they evolved to be a bit less cautious about being around humans . . . a crucial step. They became a “comensual” species, like the birds that hang out on rhino’s heads. Unlike fully wild wolves, they could be approached, and their young had a longer window in which to impress on other species.
Once this was established, humans could take the deliberate next step of domestication.
For more: “Dogs” by Lorna and Raymon Coppinger.
April 21, 2011, 1:59 pmJay Borcherding says:
I believe Stefan’s post is closest to the mark–early human garbage attracted wolves, and those wolves who tolerated human proximity better got a more reliable and plentiful food source. Wolves with diminishing flight responses became, over time, dogs: intelligent pack animals who find humans intensely interesting, including human nonverbal cues like facial expressions and pointing.
Sheep, goats, and horses are other pack animals which are accustomed to following a leader, a trait they transposed to human leaders in the process of being domesticated.
April 21, 2011, 4:34 pmDan Gollub says:
That scientific experiment suggests another one. Using human infants one year old or so, place a cookie in one of two cups. The cup with the cookie will be playing classical music. The cup without the reward will be playing heavy metal tunes or similar music. If the infants learn to expect rewards associated with classical music, will that affect their musical inclinations years later?
But what I mainly want to say in this email is that I’ve been working on a novel, and in one of the scenes a character uses a phrase from one of your 1968 editorials. The character has been attending a meeting of a revolutionary movement, and he says he believes in the right to oppose authority when authority seems in error, but– and then he expresses the specific things he finds wrong with that particular group’s goals and methods.
My girlfriend said that character is interesting and the readers would want to see more of him. The novel is already about 40,000 words in length when he appears, and it’s unclear to me how I might use him in any future scenes. But I’d be happy to send you that scene.
Dan Gollub
April 21, 2011, 4:35 pmMike says:
There’s a BBC documentary on The Secret Life of the Dog (which was re-shown on NPR under a different name, like many such documentaries) covering many of these experiments, including the Russian Silver Fox breeding program.
It’s all up on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJQdYG2WHoE
April 22, 2011, 4:16 amStefan Jones says:
Those tame foxes are utterly adorable, but I’ve read that they have some odd quirks, like compulsively hiding food and smelling really bad . . .
But I’d keep working on them. Foxes are as cute as buttons.
April 23, 2011, 12:13 amsteve davidson says:
This reminds me of another experiment: put one piece of dog food in a covered cup amongst many other (empty) covered cups.
Let a 1 year old baby, a wolf puppy, a dog puppy and a bear cub into the room.
Close the door.
Wait three days, open the door and see who or what has eaten the others.
Then base your estimates of intelligence on the results.
(This experiment can be completed in 1 day if you use adult animals.)
May 24, 2011, 4:33 am