Slashdot Mirror


Dog Trained on 200-Word Vocabulary

An anonymous reader writes "The Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany is reporting in Science Magazine today on an example of successful human to non-human communication: Rico, a collie trained on a vocabulary of 200 words. Their conclusion is that 'brain structures that support this kind of learning are not unique to humans...[Rico has a] retrieval rate comparable to the performance of three-year-old toddlers'. In case you ever wondered if your dog understands what you are saying, Rico 'can learn the names of unfamiliar toys after just one exposure to the new word-toy combination.'"

31 of 532 comments (clear)

  1. how about... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Get me a beer you damn dog!"

    I'd buy THAT dog for a Dollar!

    --
    1. Re:how about... by Barryke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just great.

      Forget outsourcing to India.

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
  2. It's about time. by lordmoose · · Score: 5, Funny

    If those damn dogs wanna live in our country, let them learn OUR language.

    1. Re:It's about time. by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 4, Funny

      DEYTUKARRJUUBS!

    2. Re:It's about time. by sevensharpnine · · Score: 5, Funny

      Agreed! If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for my dog!

      --
      "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
  3. If Only... by Doc+Squidly · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...we could teach our High School students as well.

    --
    I think I think, therefore I think I am.
  4. Natural selection by bizpile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would make sense that the dogs that could understand their masters best would be the one that would be bred and thus their genes would be passed on. So maybe it's natural selection.

  5. Does the language matter? by geek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For instance it's no break through that dogs understand commands, seeing eye dogs have been doing this for decades, but does the language used make a difference? For instance I assume these dogs were trained in German, would French, Spanish or something like Arabic work better? Can a "dog langauge" be made that works better for them, perhaps allowing a 400 word vocab or more?

    Last I heard the average human had a vocab of around 2500 words or less. Raising an animals higher could lead to full fledged conversations rather than just an instructional command oriented relationship.

    1. Re:Does the language matter? by garcia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Last I heard the average human had a vocab of around 2500 words or less.

      From an article that I read on this exact topic (the dog that is) a few days ago it claimed that the average high-schooler graduating has a 60,000 word vocabulary. A quick search on news.google.com found:

      But Lori Markson of the University of California at Berkeley stressed that children develop a diverse and extensive language base. A 5-year-old child knows 7,000 to 8,000 words and what they represent. An average adult knows 60,000 words. Educated adults may know upwards of 100,000 words. Most of these words are learned after a single exposure, said Markson, who collaborated with Bloom on a study of fast-mapping in children.

    2. Re:Does the language matter? by egomaniac · · Score: 4, Informative

      And don't forget, those that speak two languages have roughly double the vocabulary of someone that speaks only one

      I don't buy that. I live in a very racially diverse area, and have a number of friends and acquaintences who learned English as a second language.

      The age at which they learned English varies from early childhood to adolescence, but one thing they have in common is that their vocabulary in either language is not as good as a native speaker's. These are my friends, so don't take this as some sort of insult to people who speak English as a second language -- this is something they freely admit.

      In general, their conversational vocabularies are perfect, just as large as a native speaker's. But there are a tremendous number of words, often obscure or technical, that they know in one language but not the other. A Chinese friend of mine, for instance, told me that she has a lot of trouble talking to her Chinese-speaking friends about computers, because she only knows the technical terms in English. And Chinese is her native language. I would guess that I know as many English words as she knows of English and Chinese put together. Judging from what I have seen, I would guess that that is pretty representative of the average bilingual person.

      Obviously some bilingual speakers will have an average vocabulary in each language (and therefore double the average single-language speaker's), just as some people who only speak one language have double the average person's vocabulary. But I don't believe that that is the general case -- people can only remember so many words, and branching off into another language doesn't magically make your memory bigger.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    3. Re:Does the language matter? by MochaMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The age at which they learned English varies from early childhood to adolescence, but one thing they have in common is that their vocabulary in either language is not as good as a native speaker's.

      Apparently you've never been to Montreal. I'm not a Montrealer, but I do speak both official languages essentially flawlessly -- or as flawlessly as a "native" speaker could be expected to speak. Although I grew up in western Canada, which is primarily anglophone, I've spoken both English and French my entire life, and to this day, I turn my radio dial to both English and French stations, watch both English and French TV, and read novels and websites in both languages.

      A number of people in this country worried about the same old-wives tale you've just inferred -- that programmes like French Immersion would cause students' English to suffer. In fact, the opposite turns out the be the case; French Immersion students have tended to do better in their English courses than non-French Immersion students.

      Of course, an interesting point is that English and French share some common linguistic history, hence an understanding of French can be very helpful in understanding the etymology of English words and so on. I wonder if the same stats would hold true for students who were bilingual in English-Japanese, for example. That said, I'll admit that I actually spent this afternoon talking to a Japanese guy who immigrated to Canada at age 18 and spoke English fluently enough that I had thought he'd been born here until he told me where he was from.

      While I was able to go from zero Spanish to fluent conversational Spanish in about a year of living in Mexico (mostly due to its common roots with French), it has taken six years of study for me to attain the same level of confidence with my Japanese. I also speak a little Slovak. I have less trouble with Slovak than Japanese, but certainly more than with the Romance languages.

      I would argue that if a bilingual (or trilingual) speaker does not have an average vocabulary in each language he speaks, it is not through some inate limitation of the human mind, but due solely to his environment. Very few of us live in an environment where we *need* to be bilingual, and hence we tend to favour one language over the others. In cities such as Montreal, where you essentially have a 50/50 split of anglophones and francophones, you'll find a great many people who are fluent in both languages at a level where you'd be hard pressed to determine which language was their "native" language.

    4. Re:Does the language matter? by delphi125 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your guesses don't make much sense. To prove this, lets say your Chinese friend knows all the common words in both languages, technical/scientific words only in English, and cultural/arts words only in Chinese. For you to know as many words would require a whole new category of words to catch up with all those doubled common words.

      A friend of mine who learned Japanese was complemented - even before he was good - on the size of his vocabulary. The reason for this is that, not knowing which symbols to learn, he learned them all - including the rare ones. I don't know enough about Chinese or Japanese to tell you more about that though.

      Back to size of vocabulary within a language - there is a major difference between active and passive vocabulary. Add homonyms and proper names and the issue becomes even more confusing. Take the words 'homonym', 'bar', 'Reagan' and 'London'. Homonym is in my English active vocabulary, but I wouldn't know it in any other language I speak (despite being fluent in another and able to communicate in a couple more). I can think a lot of meanings for bar, ranging from chocolate to law - can the dog deal with that? These can be hard for new students of a language to deal with too - especially when they use the wrong one! Reagan - or any name - is a word too. And London becomes Londres in French, so there is no guarantee that you know all proper names you know in all languages you speak.

      Learning a word doesn't take a lot of memory. It is learning the meaning which takes the real memory, and then associating it with the word, and keeping the association - which means using the word at least occasionally.

      So for sake of argument I may have a very slight reduction in my 'uncommon' english vocabulary, because I don't live in an english-speaking country. As it happens, I have a much larger rare vocabulary (though much of it is passive), but we shall ignore that and say I have 95% of normal vocabulary in English. By your logic, because me memory is limited - I could only know 5% of my second language's average vocabulary. I would estimate it as closer to 80%.

      My numbers and odds are picked out of the air in the following:

      The first 100 words are essential and anybody claiming to speak the language at all will know them all (100%).

      The next 1000 words are common and anybody claiming to be fluent will know almost all of these (99%)

      The next 10,000 words are uncommon and fluent speakers will know quite a lot of them (90%). Bilinguals may know a little less than expected here.

      The next 100,000 words are rare and fluent native speakers will - on average - know 50% of them. Relatively fluent learners will know less - perhaps as little as 10%.

      All other words are very rare or jargon.

      So the main area of opportunity for increasing the total size of your vocabulary is in the rare area. But this is where the words you rarely need are (unsurprisingly!) Whereas learning the common and uncommon words in a second language is easy if you are using that language quite a lot too.

      Now I grew up in the country of my second language, but never suffered at the hands of their educational establishment. Nevertheless, I am fluent with the exception of some idioms - I know all the words, but not the expression. However, I do admit to not knowing as many rare terms. After all, all my technical reading and study has been in English. However, there are some rare terms which I actually don't know in English - cooking ingredients, for example.

      So lets say I know the first 10,000 in each language, but 'only' 45,000 and 15,000 rare words. The 5000 I lose from English I instead know in the other language, and there is an overlap of 10,000 which I know in both. So I know the same number of concepts as the average monolingual person, at the 'cost' of 20,000 vocabulary spaces. But if I hadn't learned that other language, it wouldn't make my English vocabulary 20,000 words richer.

      Ah well, that was a lot of stating the obvious.

  6. (border) collies are _way_ too smart by BlueLines · · Score: 4, Interesting

    my ex-gf and i had a border collie for over a year. by the end, she (the collie) had a vocabulary of well over 100 words. she knew the difference between the ocean, the lake, and the river. she knew what the "purple squeaky ball" was. her favorite word though was "treat".

    a current friend of mine also has a border collie. he is trained to turn off the tv, shut the tv cabinet door, and turn the lights off when his owner falls asleep at night.

    i think most border collies are smarter than a lot of people i deal with on a daily basis at work.

    --
    --BlueLines "The cost of living hasn't affected it's popularity." -anonymous
    1. Re:(border) collies are _way_ too smart by winwar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wow, so much ignorance in one post, where to start...

      Border collies are AKC's 139th breed. Because it is a relatively new AKC recognized breed, "AKC will accept accept dogs registered with the American Border Collie Association (ABC), the American International Border Collie (AIBC), and the North American Sheepdog Society (NASD)." (AKC web site) It is currently in open registration (see web site for details-but requires the dog to have a pedigree, submit pictures etc.).

      Some more info: Date entered into Regular Classes: October 1, 1995. The Border Collie was recognized by the AKC for inclusion in the Miscellaneous Class in 1955. (AKC web site)

      If you scroll down a little more on the same page you will note a breed standard. In short, the breed IS ALREADY STANDARDIZED. Any inbreeding is not the fault of the AKC. It is the fault of clueless and/or idiotic and/or greedy owners generally fueled by the desire to make a quick buck of the popularity of a breed (indirectly aided and abetted by an ignorant public-such as you). Inbreeding is a FAULT. Good (ethical) owners/breeders take great pains to avoid inbreeding as it can permanently damage a breed's genetic diversity and introduce genetic disorders that are extremely difficult to overcome (probably what you think you are referring to...)

  7. Re:Bzzt. Try again by cos(x) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This dog actually seems to be understanding quite a bit of what he is going on. It's not just a matter of finding an object he has learned to associate with a particular sound. There was a show on tele earlier today about this dog and they showed an experiment that went something like this:

    The dog has a collection of roughly 200 toys, each of which he knows by name. When told a toy's name, he'll go and fetch the toy. That's not really impressive, that's what most dogs do. Now comes the cool part though. They added a new toy - one the dog had never seen before. The toy was added to the collection while the dog wasn't in the room, so he didn't see the toy being added. Then they told him to get this new toy. Simply by telling him the new toy's name, which he had never heard before of course. Now, the dog went to his toy room. He found all the old toys and the new one. Since none of his old toys matched the name he had been told, he figured that they what they meant must have been this new toy he just discovered.

    This is really the reasoning part. You don't need to tell the dog what the toy's name is - the dog will figure it out himself. If you tell him to look for something he's never heard of, he will have a look around and if there's something new and unusual, he will guess that's what you meant. Isn't that sort of the way humans learn? At least it's certainly not the way dogs are normally trained.

  8. Re:Bzzt. Try again by kfg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Somebody took an Underdog Super Irony Pill today.

    KFG

  9. Re:no big surprise to Border Collie owners by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not to mention, a border collie learns to keep its own ass clean much more rapidly than a human.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Here is a partial list of words by DeadBugs · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bark
    Rough
    Bow Wow
    Grrrr
    Whimper
    Whine
    Howl
    Roof

    --
    http://www.kubuntu.org/
  11. Koko by Edward+Teach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This seems more impressive.
    koko.org

    --

    Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.

  12. Re:Bzzt. Try again by Izago909 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no such thing as a sentient non-homosapien.

    Prove it. When's the last time an ape told you he wasn't sentient? There are many ways to determine if an animal is intelligent. One is being self aware. Only larger primates and dolphins can recognize themselves in a mirror. Another aspect is knowing of ones' lifespan. Only humans and a few primates are aware of our own demise. I believe one famous gorilla, Coco, had a sign language vocabulary of a couple thousand words and phrases. She also cried when her pet cat died and began asking about her own death when comforted by her trainer.

    And what do you mean by "There may be varying levels of intelligence among the animals, but no animal can reason, they can only react to their surroundings as dictated by their instincts." What do you mean by reason? I've seen competitions between hunting dogs to retrieve a marker at the end of a field full of fallen trees and large puddles. The winner was not always the fastest runner or best swimmer, but the one that could navigate the best route with no help from its' handler.

    And many animals can do more than react based on instinct. Many higher order animals are capable of using basic tools (like a long curved stick to get ants out of a nest). Some parrots have been tested by setting a piece of fruit at the top of a clear cylinder and several traps between the fruit and exit. In a matter of minutes they learned how to get the fruit out by sliding, rotating, moving, and removing blocks of wood in the proper order. Surely that goes beyond basic instinct. Does learning and problem solving not indicate some level of intelligence?

    By what standard do you judge intelligence? Many people who post on Slashdot would not pass my test, but that gorilla does. Does something have to act like humans do, pursuing a more efficient means to destroy yheir species, before it is recognized? Does it have to communicate through spoken word?

  13. Re:Bzzt. Try again by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is really the reasoning part. You don't need to tell the dog what the toy's name is - the dog will figure it out himself. If you tell him to look for something he's never heard of, he will have a look around and if there's something new and unusual, he will guess that's what you meant. Isn't that sort of the way humans learn? At least it's certainly not the way dogs are normally trained.

    I didn't know that they did it this way. I am not as impressed as I was before. The dog is going to realize which one is out of place just by the smell of the toy which obviously doesn't fit w/the rest. Trained dogs sniff out stuff that they recognize all the time. What's so different about them picking the one thing that is different?

  14. Re:Bzzt. Try again by Decaff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no such thing as a sentient non-homosapien. There may be varying levels of intelligence among the animals, but no animal can reason, they can only react to their surroundings as dictated by their instincts.

    This is simply wrong. The higher apes show clear evidence of reason, as do many dogs, elephants, cetaceans, and even some birds - the parrots and corvidae. Many of these animals demonstrate something called 'theory of mind' - they can put themselves in the place of others, figure out what those others are thinking, and practice deception. Its easy to show that apes and dolphins can recognise themselves in mirrors, indicating a sense of self-awareness. Even octopuses and squids can relate to each other in complex ways and communicate.

    A good demonstration that things are not instinct is because many of these behaviours can be learned and passed on as a form of culture. This is shown in apes, with food-washing, bathing and tool-making. There is recent evidence that such cultural patterns may be present in birds, with some crows learning how to design and use simple tools to get at food.

  15. My dog talks too by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here is an example conversation:

    Me: "What's on top of the house?"

    Dog: "Roof!"

    Me: "Who's the most famous baseball player?"

    Dog: "Ruth!"

    Me: "How does sand-paper feel?"

    Dog: "Rough!"

    3 out 3!

  16. This is bullshit by jjhlk · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is bullshit, according to Geoffrey Pullum, professor of linguistics at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

    Screw paraphrasing: " The trained object-fetching behavior of Rico, the border collie that this German research is talking about, has nothing at all to do with understanding language. The behavior is comparable to what you would have shown if you demonstrated that you had trained your goldfish to swim to a given object in its tank when you showed it a card with a given letter of the Greek alphabet. By all means attempt that too, if you think it would be interesting science. But don't bring it to me for my approval under a headline saying Research Shows Goldfish Can Read Greek, that's all! Unless you actually enjoy seeing the veins standing out in my neck as I hurl some more defenseless chairs and coffee tables and goldfish tanks around the room. "

    His post is available here. And for those geeks interested in language, check out the Language Log.

  17. Why not just teach them Java? by michaeldot · · Score: 5, Funny

    public void fetch(Object what)
    {
    if (what == newspaper)
    newspaper.ripToShreds();
    else
    what.drenchWithDrool();
    }

    public void annoyNeighbour(int nightsPerWeek)
    {
    if ( nightsPerWeek < 7 )
    nightsPerWeek = 7;

    self.bark();
    self.scratchFence();
    self.rattleGate();
    self.bark();
    }

    public void walkOnFootpath(Boolean leashed)
    {
    if ( ! leashed)
    self.chaseChildren();

    self.crap();
    }

    (In case you hadn't noticed, I don't like dogs much! Fido can take his 200 word vocabulary and go play in the traffic.)

  18. Re:Bzzt. Try again by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Chimps and other apes do sometimes fashion tools, which is to say they do more than pick up a rock... they actively shape a twig or branch to do what they want.

    But the most impressive, was a crow that bent wire into a hook, to form a tool. Weird, eh?

    As for being self-ware, recognizing yourself in a mirror... how useful is that as an indicator? I mean, pick some insect with compound eyes, a bee perhaps. Magically make it intelligent, could it recognize itself? What about some species that is naturally blind?

    Also, I believe you people want to use the word sapient, not sentient. I would guess that there isn't a mammal in existence, that isn't sentient to an extent. Forgive me from borrowing from scifi, but Data (Star Trek) was argued to not be sentient, even though he was clearly intelligent. Sentience would be the ability to love, empathize, and lots of other things that are difficult to define.

    Another interesting note on animal intelligence... anyone ever bothered to read up on octopi? These things can also solve problems if the reward is food, and they can learn to do so, simply by watching another octopus solve it. What's more, they have been known to climb out of aquariums entirely, across a floor, and into another to eat fish that they see.

    Mostly, various religions have ingrained (maybe reinforced) the human tendency to discount any "lesser" animal as worthwhile. In modern times, that tends to amount to discounting their intelligence. I'm not about to stake my life on my cat scoring 190 on an IQ test, but it just seems right to think of her as a person. That tends to be difficult for those who can only assign value to an animal.

    And lastly, in this mostly random rant of mine, I pose this question. If human intelligence can vary so greatly, from the barely more than vegetable, up to the ubergenius... why is it so hard to believe the same might be true of animals. And if they were already close to the lowest end of human intelligence, might not the occassional animal ubergenius be comparable to an average person? We might very well stumble across some dolphin that tells us to go fuck ourselves. (though how it will flip us the accompaning finger will frustrate it to no end).

  19. Let's start with your own ignorance... by Baldrson · · Score: 4, Informative
    From BorderCollie.org:

    Furthermore, the best, and indeed the only way to fix a set of alleles within a breed is through inbreeding....

    7. The Standard

    The existing Border Collie is not a breed without a standard. It has a very specific standard, by which dogs without registration papers and pedigrees can be Registered on Merit if they can demonstrate their herding ability to satisfy this standard. Whatever appearance standard is designed by the AKC and its chosen Breed Club (should it eventually designate one), it will not be the same standard to which the breed currently strives; it will therefore, by definition and unavoidably not be the same breed of dogs.

    Even though the initial registration will come from the existing breed, the next generation of "showdogs" will have been bred under a different set of selective rules, and will already be at least philosophically different. After three years, when the AKC closes its books and no longer allows dogs of the original breed to be used for breeding, the AKC breed will have become a separate entity, no matter what its name!

    This already happened at least once, when the "Lassie" collie was created. The working sheepdogs used to be called "collies." They became "Border Collies" to distinguish them from the developing show breed. At the time of separation, there was no real distinction; anyone can tell the two breeds apart now.

    All of this is quite apart from the possibility of a standard being chosen which is simply inconsistent with the demands of the shepherding life. This may be in the written standard or in the fashions of judges who know nothing about these physical demands. This has already happened to some of the breeds (Labrador retrievers, for instance, are currently too heavy and short-legged to be of much use in the field; Siberian huskies tend to be showring winners with legs too short to run properly and with fluffy coats that cannot shed snow and ice; bearded collies look nothing like their ancestors, and have coats which obscure their vision, and collect burrs and mud). There has been some call for the USBCC to become the breed club so that we could set the standard and thereby avoid the problems of inappropriate physical traits being used. Unfortunately, although the problem will be made worse by the "wrong" standard, it is the existence of a physical appearance standard, and not its details, that is the danger. The currently proposed standard is flexible enough to appear to cover many of our dogs. In practice, however, an appearance standard, however broad it may seem, will subject the breed to all the problems listed above.

    Although there is a popular belief that a dog that looks like his father (or mother) will work like his father (or mother) this is simply not necessarily true. Because of recombination of genes, it is no more likely that the pup with his father's markings is going to behave more like his father than the pup with completely different markings. If we were to set the show standard to duplicate in every detail the appearance of the latest International Supreme Champion, this would no more guarantee us a working breed than any other conformation standard. If we don't choose the pups that work like the latest Champion, we are not selecting the right genetic blend from the many possible combinations.

    8. What Is A Breed?

    As was stated in the USBCC Spring Newsletter:

    "To a geneticist, a breed is simply this: a population of animals whose breeding is controlled and outcrossing limited, so that genetic selection can be exercised on it. . . . A population is simply a subgroup of the whole species of dog, Canis familiaris. Controlled breeding and limited outcrossing make it possible to select . . . for whatever genetic traits the organized breeders decide on. Organized breeders is almost a necessary part of the definition; one breeder cannot produce enough dogs to truly create a breed, and a lot of breed

  20. Mirrors and being self aware. by arevos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Prove it. When's the last time an ape told you he wasn't sentient? There are many ways to determine if an animal is intelligent. One is being self aware. Only larger primates and dolphins can recognize themselves in a mirror. Another aspect is knowing of ones' lifespan. Only humans and a few primates are aware of our own demise.

    I don't think the mirror-test is an accurate refleciton (no pun intended) of whether an animal is self aware. All a mirror shows is that the animal is aware of its body. And it wouldn't really be too hard to program a robot that could recognise itself in a mirror. Would that make it self aware? Nope. Because your self, your id, is considerably different to your body.

    There is no current test for self-awareness. Now, I can tell that I am self aware, because I have a distinct concept of "self". I really can't be sure of anyone else, but I can assume that since others of my species exibit similar behaviour to me, I can reasonably assume that they possess the same trait of self-awareness that I do.

    Dolphins and gorillas... Well, I'm not too convinced. They're intelligent, but I don't quite think that they're quite there; the evidence availiable doesn't make a good case, in my opinion. Though I'll admit that this is mainly due to no-one having inventing a convincing self-awareness test, yet.

    Problem solving doesn't show an animal is self-aware. Recognising physical objects does not, either. I'm not entirely sure what does, however. Speech helps, of course. It could be that certain language patterns can only arise with self-awareness. It could be that a self-awareness is related to some effect on the quantum level, that cannot be replicated by a Turing Machine. There is some evidence to believe that a Turing Machine cannot represent a self-aware entity.

    To be honest, we have such a crude definition of "self", that we'd need to figure out precisely what we mean when we talk about sentience, before we can start to think up tests for it.

    Perhaps that will prove to be the greatest scientific challenge of our race.

  21. Pullum is being too harsh. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The study is clearly aimed at arguing that the process psycholinguists call lexical access (which laypeople would probably call "remembering words") does not require innate structure specific to the human species.

    In fact, if you know just a bit about contemporary research in child language you can pick up the hints in the AP article Pullum links about how it ties in:

    The dog seemingly understood that because he knew the names of all the other toys, the new one must be the one with the unfamiliar name. "Apparently he was able to link the novel word to the novel item based on exclusion learning, either because he knew that the familiar items already had names or because they were not novel," said the researchers, led by Julia Fischer of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig.
    This is reminiscent of some of the work of Eve Clark-- which Geoff can't be excused not to know.
  22. Re:Still a big difference by egomaniac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    here's still a big difference between working for years to teach an animal something that most human toddlers pick up almost accidentally from exposure...and getting an animal to reason about things like religion, philosophy, infinity, the possible existance of the soul, calculus, etc..

    The first dog that teachs another dog a language...I might be impressed...the first dog that teaches words to a human child, I'll be a bit more impressed.

    The first dolphin that can solve a linear algebra problem or contemplate the age of the universe...*that* will impress me

    this doesn't. just glorified animal tricks


    Ten thousand years ago your ancestors hadn't even come up with an idea as simple as the wheel, let alone linear algebra or calculus.

    The really scary thing is that those were genetically modern humans, every bit as smart as you or me, except that they didn't have access to the education that we do. If you had had their education -- if you had been raised by cavemen -- the concept of the wheel would likely be completely beyond you. If you had to move a heavy object, it would simply never occur to you that you could do something other than drag or carry it. If it's too big to drag or carry, it stays put.

    It took tens of thousands of generations for humans to make those first simple steps -- fire, the wheel, agriculture. So you might want to think about that when considering just how much difference there really is between you and a really smart animal.

    Hint: it's probably not as much as you like to think.

    --
    ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
  23. Re:Bzzt. Try again by TheMCP · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Another aspect is knowing of ones' lifespan. Only humans and a few primates are aware of our own demise.
    My first border collie knew she was old and sick. She selected her own replacement, taught him some tricks, and then once she saw he was doing okay with me, she died.

    He lived until he was old and sick, and then I went off to college and he chose to commit suicide.

    They understand that they can die, and they can choose when they're ready to go.

    Look, I lived with border collies for 18 years. They weren't my pets, they were family. After 18 years of watching them, I believe they're not only as smart as people, but that part of the reason some people have problems with their border collies is that the dog is smarter than they are.

    The thing is, there are two factors which prevent most people from understanding how smart they really are: one is that they can't talk (although mine tried and startled a few people by croaking out a kind of "hello" they don't really have the right vocal equipment) and the other is that they don't have the same priorities as people do: people worry about going to school and earning money and paying for the next vacation... border collies worry about making sure their family is happy and well, and they see you as their family.