Dogs with aggressive reputations

[TetRefine]

I agree, I watched a show on Nat. Geo about that. Chimpanzees and other primates divert their eyes from us, but a dog will meet eye contact. Even following our gaze to see what we're looking at, and etc. So they've made a bond with humans, definitely.

 

Did the show happen to be And Man Created Dog?

[Hylas]

As a kid, I was a dog person. I cried when the family dog I loved to bits died.

 

Growing up I slowly became more attached to cats. Recently though we've acquired a puppy... and he's just too friggin adorable. LOL

 

We named him Twitch, though we call him Twit because he acts like one. He's affectionate, but like all small dogs is extremely aggressive to strangers. He's a mongrel, though we still have to determine from what breeds (he was a gift as a puppy). Luckily, he's not as dangerous as a pitbull and he's kept leashed whenever someone visits the house, and he's never allowed out of the house unless supervised. He's not tiny though, just small.

 

 

That said, I am still a cat person. Dogs are quite stressful to raise.

 

They do not need a lot of the mollycoddling they're given, and they do not understand the concept of love, so don't think your dog does all that stuff to please you and gain a sense of self worth like a child or spouse would. They respond to their basic needs and instincts and are happy when their needs are met.

 

False as well. Dogs are social animals, like dolphins, orcas, monkeys, pigs (yes pigs have the same level of intelligence as dogs and they are social animals), elephants etc. They do form relationships and are frequently observed mourning. They will lick and comfort an injured member of the pack. They also have distinct personalities. This is from the fact that they come from social groups in the wild, empathic bonds are just as important to them as they are to us. Cats, in contrast are far less social. Most of the 'empathic' behavior in cats are more a case of wishful thinking from humans.

 

Nevertheless, I still don't like it when people treat their pets like children, haha.

[Gandalf]

Well I am at my partner's house for the last week. We live in a long distance relationship. His family are cat peeps and I was just telling him that four or five days is about all I can do with the cats. They are the only pets I have ever had that have to come in to poop. My last dog was a "little brown dog from the pound" aka pitbull. Sadie was the best trained and most affectionate dog I have ever had. when I went on my boat trip in 03 I took her to my ex wife in North Carolina where she disappeared. She was worst loss of my four years of living on my boat. I love going up to the tough looking kids with pitbulls and saying does your puppy sleep with you? Most often I get a shy smile back. 15 years ago when my sister died I inherited her son, daughter, and dobermann. That dog had been abused(kids too for that matter) and all of them were a piece of work but the dog was the only one I have truly been uncomfortable with. I finally asserted my alpha stuff and the dog lasted till disease took him but nearly not. I would like another dog but not sure I have it in me to train another plus I hope to be travelling more in my dotage.. Pax

[Krista]

Did the show happen to be And Man Created Dog?

 

Yes, it was.

[Forty-Two]

Out of curiosity: does the no-love rule only count for dog-human interactions or is it also apply to intra-canine relationships? Because in my experience dogs certainly grieve the loss of a longtime fellow companion, which would indicate at least strong affection.

 

(Also, isn't there serious scientific contention over what makes a creature 'self-aware'?)

 

Dogs do grieve the loss of a companion, that is for sure. I am not saying that dogs have no emotions whatsoever. They just are not as deep as people want to believe. Dogs do not experience or comprehend the loss of another dog or a person on the scale that we do. The dog is upset because his routine has been changed and a member of his pack is gone; being very social pack animals this is hard for them to adjust to. But it's not love or grief in the same way as a human would feel it. The dog cannot comprehend that his companion has been run over too early in his life or been put down because of liver failure and is not sad over the loss of a life, only over his own loss of comfort, familiarity, and safety.

 

A self aware animal in the terms I have used when speaking with animal behaviour psychologists is one that can recognize itself as a living, thinking being. The mirror test is a good one - if the animal can recognize itself in a mirror and knows that the reflection (or a picture) is a representation of itself, then it is self aware. Only dolphins and apes are self aware in these terms. This corresponds to the animal being able to anticipate its future self. A dog cannot think, "In two years from now I hope I get walks every day and I hope all my owners and pack mates are still alive to play with me." A dog can only think as far as, "I like having my owners and pack mates here with me now," or "I am unhappy because my owners and pack mates are not here right now."

 

That is false. Dogs are the only animals that will look humans straight into the eyes. That may seem insignificant, but it is anything but. Humans have a bond with dogs that we can only otherwise have with other humans. That eye contact causes dogs and humans alive to release oxytocin into the bloodstream, which creates the kind of bond that mothers and children have. It is very real and very mutual. Dogs love pleasing humans for that reason. Dogs also seem to form similar bonds with other animals. For example, if you raise a dog with goats, the dog will protect and love the goats, despite the fact that dogs could just as easily prey upon the goats instead.

 

The eye contact thing could very easily be true, I don't know, I'd have to research it, but everything you've said doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't matter how strong the bond created is, the dog still does not comprehend love on the scale that we do. The dog considers its owner its pack leader and responds to him/her and is loyal to him/her in the same way. The dog certainly enjoys the joy it gets from its owner's affection, but it does not think, "I love Billy so much because Billy is so good to me. I am so lucky I have Billy instead of a mean owner who beats me and puts me outside. If Billy died I could have a new nice owner, but I would always miss Billy and he will leave a hole in my heart." The dog is happy while Billy is nice to him. The dog is sad if it is alone because it has grown accustomed to Billy's company. If Billy dies the dog will grieve when his person is missing because his routine and symbols of safety have been disrupted, but once the dog is used to Billy's replacement, it will never sit and think back on Billy and mourn the loss of Billy. It is the same with your example with the goats. The dog has either been trained that hunting goats is bad, has no reason to hunt goats because it gets fed regularly, and/or has come to see the goats as part of its pack so it protects them and may find enjoyment from their company. The dog does not refrain from killing the goats because it loves them.

 

I agree, I watched a show on Nat. Geo about that. Chimpanzees and other primates divert their eyes from us, but a dog will meet eye contact. Even following our gaze to see what we're looking at, and etc. So they've made a bond with humans, definitely.

 

I am not contesting that dogs make bonds with humans. My point is that many people treat their dogs as if they have the full range of depth of human emotions, which they don't, and it is frustrating that many dogs are not trained properly or are accommodated in really ridiculous and annoying ways because of it .

 

I have made eye contact with an orangutan and let her put lipstick on my lips. There is no way that dogs are the only species to ever make eye contact with humans. It may be more frequent or meaningful with dogs, but certainly isn't exempt from the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

My dad is a huge fan of dogs so we've owned quite a few throughout my childhood. When I was younger, he bred and trained watch dogs, and I spent much of my early childhood surrounded by Pits Bulls, Rottweilers and Dobermans. I played with them all the time. Even dogs that were going to used as 'junk yard dogs'. My dad never restricted my playing with them. I've only ever seen one dog in my entire life suddenly 'turn vicious'. That was the only Chow we've ever owned. He growled at and bit my older brother when he was feeding him and then a few months later bit a neighbor kid while we were playing in our yard. My dad had the dog put down after that. I know the people down the road from me owned a Chow that was extremely mean. To the point where my mother wouldn't allow us to walk down the road in that direction, and the owners of the house left him there when they moved. I always felt sorry for that dog though, he didn't have ideal owners and I think that was his biggest problem. I've heard more horror stories of German Shepherds turning violent than any other animal. The wife of one of my dad's friends refuses to enter his yard unless his German Shepherd is restrained because she witnessed a German Shepherd literally eat the face off of her cousin when they were children. My sister's mother-in-law owns a German Shepherd who growls and snaps at everyone, even family members, and actually bit one of my nephews before he was even 2 years old. Why aren't more people afraid of German Shepherds?? Because usually it's not the breed, it's the dog and it's the owner. My sister's mother-in-law has never disciplined her dog for anything more than pooping on the carpet, even after if bit her toddler grandson.

 

...

Dogs don't have the reputation of being 'man's best friend' for nothing. Dogs may be bred for many different purposes, from hunting, to herding, as service animals, and as guards, and each breed has characteristics specific to it's purpose. However. one quality that is never bred out of dogs is their loyalty, their friendliness and playfulness. Breeders take great pains to maintain these qualities. Any dog can turn vicious through being neglected and abused, or through training. Unfortunately, the dogs with the reputation for being vicious are bred for strength, speed and intelligence and as such are trained by certain people to fight. This just completes the constant circle and reinforces stereotypes. But any type of dog can be made violent, from a Teacup Poodle to a Bull Mastiff, if it is raised to be that way.

 

I have no problem putting a dog down down if the dog has a poor quality of life or is guaranteed to hurt someone, but I think its really sad that there aren't enough facilities available, funding for them, or education centers to rehabilitate these dogs and to train PEOPLE how to raise a dog properly in the first place. I'd say it's almost always the owner's fault for allowing the dog to get mean or be in a position/emotional state to hurt someone or another animal.

 

Growing up I slowly became more attached to cats. Recently though we've acquired a puppy... and he's just too friggin adorable. LOL

...

False as well. Dogs are social animals, like dolphins, orcas, monkeys, pigs (yes pigs have the same level of intelligence as dogs and they are social animals), elephants etc. They do form relationships and are frequently observed mourning. They will lick and comfort an injured member of the pack. They also have distinct personalities. This is from the fact that they come from social groups in the wild, empathic bonds are just as important to them as they are to us. Cats, in contrast are far less social. Most of the 'empathic' behavior in cats are more a case of wishful thinking from humans.

 

Nevertheless, I still don't like it when people treat their pets like children, haha.

 

Dude, your puppy is adorable! I also believe dogs are more stressful to raise than cats. They need a lot more supervision and training.

 

When I say dogs do not need a lot of the mollycoddling they are given, I certainly don't mean they don't need attention or affection. Of course they do. They are social pack animals and it is obvious that they are happier when playing or when with people, dogs, or other animals they are friends with. Of course they form relationships - your dog can have a different attitude to every person or other dog in its life, and it's obvious when a dog doesn't like someone or another animal (they keep their distance, hold back their ears, tuck in their tail, etc). Of course they have distinct personalities, just like cats and horses and pigs and any other intelligent animal. They certainly show empathy to a greater degree than animals like cats, and I know that my cat only runs up to me and sleeps in my lap because she likes the heat, not because she likes spending time with me.

 

BUT, I still believe that a lot of people have wishful thinking for their explanations of dogs behaviours and anthropomorphize their dogs way too much. Just because Rover can pick up on Rex's pain because of the body language and whining Rex gives and just because Rover will lie down and help Rex lick his wounds doesn't mean Rover thinks, "Oh no, you're leg is injured and you are bleeding, that's bad because you won't be able to walk and well run for the next few days and I feel so sorry for you because if I were hurt I wouldn't like limping and would be very upset if I got an infection," the way a person would. Rover thinks, "I can tell you are in pain. You are sad. I will be sad with you." It's a different level of understanding. A dog will be happy when you praise it because it senses your happy emotions and enjoys your comforting touch. It does not become happy when you praise it due to feeling as though it is being a better dog than it was, nor does it gain a sense of self pride for being a good pet, which is what most people think when they baby talk, "Oh Rover, you're such a good boy, you love being a good boy for Momma, don't you?"

[Hylas]

BUT, I still believe that a lot of people have wishful thinking for their explanations of dogs behaviours and anthropomorphize their dogs way too much. Just because Rover can pick up on Rex's pain because of the body language and whining Rex gives and just because Rover will lie down and help Rex lick his wounds doesn't mean Rover thinks, "Oh no, you're leg is injured and you are bleeding, that's bad because you won't be able to walk and well run for the next few days and I feel so sorry for you because if I were hurt I wouldn't like limping and would be very upset if I got an infection," the way a person would. Rover thinks, "I can tell you are in pain. You are sad. I will be sad with you." It's a different level of understanding. A dog will be happy when you praise it because it senses your happy emotions and enjoys your comforting touch. It does not become happy when you praise it due to feeling as though it is being a better dog than it was, nor does it gain a sense of self pride for being a good pet, which is what most people think when they baby talk, "Oh Rover, you're such a good boy, you love being a good boy for Momma, don't you?"

 

Agreed. Hehe, it's actually one of my pet peeves when people anthropomorphize animals too much (no offense to dog lovers). I mean, yeah, we have our similarities, but animals don't think or understand the way humans do. They don't even sense it the way that we do.

[TetRefine]

Yes, it was.

 

I liked that show.

[Persinette]

Just because Rover can pick up on Rex's pain because of the body language and whining Rex gives and just because Rover will lie down and help Rex lick his wounds doesn't mean Rover thinks, "Oh no, you're leg is injured and you are bleeding, that's bad because you won't be able to walk and well run for the next few days and I feel so sorry for you because if I were hurt I wouldn't like limping and would be very upset if I got an infection," the way a person would. Rover thinks, "I can tell you are in pain. You are sad. I will be sad with you." It's a different level of understanding.

 

It looks to me like you're falsely conflating knowledge and/or a very narrow thought process with depth of understanding. In my experience 'you are hurting and I will hurt with you because you are hurt' is a very common human response to distress in a fellow human. Or possibly I'm just a freak?

[clumber]

they do not understand the concept of love

 

Dogs do grieve the loss of a companion, that is for sure.

 

...

 

I am not contesting that dogs make bonds with humans.

 

...

 

When I say dogs do not need a lot of the mollycoddling they are given, I certainly don't mean they don't need attention or affection.

 

 

If you were to backpeddle any faster, you may break some sort of speed record.

 

 

 

 

The dog is happy while Billy is nice to him. The dog is sad if it is alone because it has grown accustomed to Billy's company. If Billy dies the dog will grieve when his person is missing because his routine and symbols of safety have been disrupted, but once the dog is used to Billy's replacement, it will never sit and think back on Billy and mourn the loss of Billy.

 

 

Except this completely fails to hold up to my own experience of a dog I once owned called Jasper. This dog lived with my grandad for a few years but then moved to my dad's house in scotland. After 5 years of living in Scotland and never seeing my grandad's house, once when walking past it he was still determined to go inside. It was certainly no longer his home and no longer a part of his life but he remembered it and was visibly saddened to not go in.

 

He could also be easily made to feel first excited, then sad by calling out for Jack, his companion who had died a good long time before. Calling the name would make Jasper first excitedly search the house and then, his search having apparently found nothing, he would whine and lie down and be very clearly not happy. (For reference it would have probably been 6-7 years since Jasper had seen Jack and they had been companions for 5 years or so. Jasper lived a long time - he was about 16-17 when he died).

 

 

 

, "Oh no, you're leg is injured and you are bleeding, that's bad because you won't be able to walk and well run for the next few days and I feel so sorry for you because if I were hurt I wouldn't like limping and would be very upset if I got an infection," the way a person would. Rover thinks, "I can tell you are in pain. You are sad. I will be sad with you." It's a different level of understanding.

 

 

You know, the second one seems much more like a human reaction than the first one. The second reaction shows a clear emotional response to a companion's pain. The first option actually shows a rather calculating reaction. There is no emotional response in what you described, just a cold thought of 'I am supposed to help this person because I am bad if I don't'. That isn't an understanding of love or compassion, that's an awareness that love and compassion exist and a wish to emulate them as closely as possible.

 

 

On the whole, I would say that dogs do have quite some level of emotional awareness. They are very social creatures and, being descended from pack animals, a true feeling of compassion and love for other members of their pack is to be fully expected. (It should also be noted that what you described as a human's feelings are not compassion and love. Compassion is not selfish in its basis - that is why it []works[/i].)

 

The social aspects of a dog's heritage, combined with the reasons for their domestication, make them compassionate and caring creatures.

 

 

Martin

[Forty-Two]

If you were to backpeddle any faster, you may break some sort of speed record.

 

 

"Dogs do not understand the concept of love" does not conflict with the following statements, "Dogs do grieve the loss of a companion," "I am not contesting that dogs make bonds with humans," "When I say dogs do not need a lot of the mollycoddling they are given, I certainly don't mean they don't need attention or affection."

 

 

"Dogs do not understand the concept of love" means just that - dogs are incapable of comprehending the concept of love. They can not describe or contemplate it in any way and do not think about it in abstract terms. They can not contemplate their current relationships and make observations about them the way we do. Dogs feel emotion. They feel strong affection that people like to call love. Even if you could measure the emotions that they feel and make a definite proclamation that dogs feel love, it still does not mean that they understand how much that love means to a human. The dog cannot comprehend that it is making your life happier simply because it shows love for you.

 

Along the same lines, "mollycoddling" is not the same thing as "affection". Dogs need affection. They do not need mollycoddling.

 

Except this completely fails to hold up to my own experience of a dog I once owned called Jasper. This dog lived with my grandad for a few years but then moved to my dad's house in scotland. After 5 years of living in Scotland and never seeing my grandad's house, once when walking past it he was still determined to go inside. It was certainly no longer his home and no longer a part of his life but he remembered it and was visibly saddened to not go in.

 

He could also be easily made to feel first excited, then sad by calling out for Jack, his companion who had died a good long time before. Calling the name would make Jasper first excitedly search the house and then, his search having apparently found nothing, he would whine and lie down and be very clearly not happy. (For reference it would have probably been 6-7 years since Jasper had seen Jack and they had been companions for 5 years or so. Jasper lived a long time - he was about 16-17 when he died).

 

 

Your stories prove that your dog has a memory, not that he spent 5 years missing his old house or 6-7 years grieving. I'm not saying dogs completely forget their people or places, only that they don't carry the burden the way we do. I'm sure Jasper felt very strong emotions when he left and then again when he was reminded of the familiar place, but in the interim once he was used to his new home, I am certain he did not think the type of things a human would think such as, "Gee, I miss Scotland. I like this house, but the other house had better rooms. My route for my walk here is better at the start but the old one was better at the end," and such. It's when people ascribe those type of thoughts to the dog that I get frustrated.

 

You know, the second one seems much more like a human reaction than the first one. The second reaction shows a clear emotional response to a companion's pain. The first option actually shows a rather calculating reaction. There is no emotional response in what you described, just a cold thought of 'I am supposed to help this person because I am bad if I don't'. That isn't an understanding of love or compassion, that's an awareness that love and compassion exist and a wish to emulate them as closely as possible.

 

 

On the whole, I would say that dogs do have quite some level of emotional awareness. They are very social creatures and, being descended from pack animals, a true feeling of compassion and love for other members of their pack is to be fully expected. (It should also be noted that what you described as a human's feelings are not compassion and love. Compassion is not selfish in its basis - that is why it []works[/i].)

 

The social aspects of a dog's heritage, combined with the reasons for their domestication, make them compassionate and caring creatures.

 

 

Martin

 

Again, I am not contesting that dogs can be compassionate and caring. They just don't comprehend the emotions on the same level as us, they don't find the emotions nearly as meaningful as we do, they live much more "in the moment" than we do, and it is frustrating when people treat their dogs like children or make ridiculous accommodations for their dogs under the belief that the dog is reacting to a situation with the same level of emotion and understanding as a person would.