Dogs as Smart as 2-yr-old Kids

When I saw the Live Science article about dogs being as smart as 2-year-old kids I knew that if there were any talk of ranking, my beloved greyhounds would be at the less-desirable end of the list (not from personal experience, but from reputation), and I also knew that there would be a whiff of speciesism. Why? Because when you compare two species, or rather a nonhuman animal species to the human animal, the humans almost always come out on top. The point is to show how much another species is like us, but of course never as good as we are, at whatever the measurement is. And of course, the definition of whatever is being measured--in this case intelligence--is our version of intelligence. We define intelligence as what we have, and then compare other species, to see how much they are like us. It's a no-win for the other species, but it's also a compliment as they have some of the great stuff we've got that makes us . . . us.

First we define intelligence in terms of language and the number of words someone knows. Then we go to math, and then we go to socializing and problem solving.

"While dogs ranked with the 2-year-olds in language, they would trump a 3- or 4-year-old in basic arithmetic . . . In terms of social smarts, our drooling furballs fare even better. . . . The social life of dogs is much more complex, much more like human teenagers at that stage, interested in who is moving up in the pack and who is sleeping with who and that sort of thing. . . . We all want insight into how our furry companions think, and we want to understand [their] silly, quirky and apparently irrational behaviors . . . . Their stunning flashes of brilliance and creativity are reminders that they may not be Einsteins but are sure closer to humans than we thought."

The upshot is that the "smartest" dogs are the most recently-developed breeds as we bred them to be responsive to us, unlike the older breeds, such as greyhounds and other hounds whose skills are said to be the result of "instinctive intelligence." That last part is interesting. The way greyhounds, for instance, have been bred and trained takes advantage of their natural talent and instinct, but you could say the same thing about the border collie (number one on the list). One has just been bred and trained to be around people (socially), while the other hasn't.

So we train dogs to be around us and responsive to us and then label that smart (because they have become more like us in ways we can understand), while the behaviors we understand less/cannot decode because they are less like behaviors we exhibit get overlooked and/or called "instinct." 

Now, I'm just unpacking what has occurred here. If the assessment that dogs have a certain level of intelligence or are like us results in them being treated better as pets or people wanting to profit from them less, great.

Do you think this helps dogs? It certainly might cause a spike in orders for border collies and the other dogs on top of the list, but does it help dogs?

 

Comments

[stevetshirt]

...Ahhhh yes Mary, good read. But, where does it say it's now ok to eat them? ;) (sarcastic)

[ARPhilo]

Hmmm, does it help? I don't know. I would say that, although you are right on about the speciesism, it's nice to have these stats around. Animals are as "smart" as kids. So, if you wouldn't beat, test on, starve, neglect, breed, orphan, etc a kid, then you should not do it to a dog.

I think what irks me more is that there are rarely studies that show how intelligent animals like rats are... They only pick the animals that are already in the companionship circle. Imagine what would happen to science and "pest" control if people had to face that rats were much like dogs...

Anyways, nice analysis.

[Morganna]

I think it is good for dogs. Isn't your point, always, that dogs (and other animals) are like us? You, and other people like you, are thinking in terms of the animals being like us just because they are sentient, too. But most people don't think in terms of feeling compassion towards other sentient beings just because that's what's right. But thinking that a dog is like a two year old, well, that's different. Most people aren't cruel to two year olds, so they might think twice about being cruel to a dog if they think of it like a human two year old. (There are exceptions, of course, who would be cruel to a human two year old, but I don't think there's much anyone could say to prevent them being cruel, to humans, dogs, or anyone else. Something else is needed for them than just comparing dogs to human toddlers. But I think that's beyond the scope of this discussion.)

[Kristen]

Karen Dawn wrote about this in her book with Elephants and the X mirror test. I think elephants really don't care if they have an X on their forehead and it definitely doens't mean they are less intelligent because they aren't vain.

I am against tests that compare animals intelligence on human scales, but most humans or humancentric and therefore sometimes need to see that we aren't the only intelligent beings on this planet through tests they would approve of.