Slashdot Mirror


Oxford Scientists Say Dogs Are Smarter Than Cats

Velcroman1 writes "This again: scientists at Oxford University claim canines are smarter than felines. And the reason, according to the researchers, is that dogs are more social animals and therefore have bigger brains than the more solitary-inclined cats. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, charted the evolutionary history of various mammals' brains over 60 million years and found a link between the size of an animal's brain in relation to its body and how socially active it was."

15 of 716 comments (clear)

  1. This is gonna be worse than Vi or Emacs by wiredog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder what the "none of the above option" (MS Word equivalent) is gonna be?

  2. Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can easily make robots and computers do what you want. Does that make them smarter too?

    Likewise, I wonder how well you'd have been able to train Einstein to jump over fences and run through tubes on your command.

    Dogs are stupid lol.

  3. Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That was what I was wondering about. Cats have convinced us to keep them around and feed them without them having to do anything for us, that seems pretty smart. Whereas we seem to expect dogs to do tricks, work and reciprocate. Cats sort of get by just by being cute and not having to contribute anything else.

  4. Maybe, but... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...saying that dogs are smarter than cats is still a bit like arguing over the sprinting abilities of different species of garden snails. Depending on your personal preferences, both dogs and cats can be enjoyable pets, but no one gets either one for intellectual companionship.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  5. Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> Cats sort of get by just by being cute and not having to contribute anything else.

    I think we could all name a few co-workers who employ this same strategy.

  6. More Social = Intelligent? by SpryGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article seems to imply that being more social implies greater intelligence. I agree there is "social intelligence"... but let's be honest here. The smartest people I know tend to be rather asocial or even anti-social. And some of the MOST social people I know are, well, kinda stupid :-) Think nerd vs party girl.

    --

    - Spryguy
    There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  7. Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department by CCarrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can easily make robots and computers do what you want. Does that make them smarter too?

    Likewise, I wonder how well you'd have been able to train Einstein to jump over fences and run through tubes on your command.

    Dogs are stupid lol.

    Why was this modded troll? Other than that last comment (okay, that was a bit inflammatory, and not really justified) this AC brings up a good point.

    Ability or desire to follow orders <> intelligence

    --
    "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
  8. Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department by SpryGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always considered it thusly:

    If you take a human being of very low intelligence, and throw a stick and ask them to go get it for you, s/he'll trot off happily, pick it up, bring it back to you, and possibly drool in the process.

    If you take a very intelligent human being, and throw a stick and ask them to go get it for you, s/he'll look at you like you're daft, and get on with doing something else.

    Ergo: the difference between dogs and cats, and why I consider cats more intelligent :-)

    --

    - Spryguy
    There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  9. Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department by not+flu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So your premise is that doing nothing requires more intelligence than performing a task? Makes one wonder what your definition of intelligence is.

    Trainability requires intelligence, but it also requires motivation. Just because cats lack one of these doesn't mean they automatically have more of the other. I'm not claiming either side of the cat/dog intelligence debate but your reasoning is stupid.

  10. Re:Dogs made man. Was Re:Maybe, but... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, but so have cats. Cats, in fact, may have done as much for our species as dogs have. It's just been a lot less visible for much of our development.

    Cats moved into our agricultural fields and our food storage areas on their own (they self-domesticated) to hunt the vermin that were eating out food supplies. Cats have literally been protecting our most precious resource, but they've been doing quietly and generally aloof from human interaction. Sure, you can argue that cats are doing it because that's where the prey are, but aren't dogs benefiting from domestication the same way?

    And let's not forget that the vermin control has almost certainly done a lot to reduce the number of plagues humanity has endured. We remember the ones that the cats didn't stop, but there probably would have been more.

    So not to dismiss the contribution of canines to human development, but I think I wouldn't dismiss cats' contributions either. They're certainly of a similar magnitude, I believe.

  11. Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department by speroni · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's my motivation?

    For bacon I might get you a stick.

    For a paycheck I might flip your burgers, or design your nuclear plants. (depending on my intelligence and your paycheck)

    --
    Eschew Obfuscation
  12. Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department by DJRumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think an easier test of intelligence is to point at something. A dog will look where you're pointing. A cat just looks at your finger...

  13. Sherlock just stepped in shit. by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What I said was that intelligence was the ability to acquire knowledge and skills.

    Cats can be trained to do the same tricks dogs do; plus others - witness their employment in many a show.

    As an owner of many, many cats (currently eleven of them, 9 have their own 6000 cubic foot habitat, 2 others enjoy about 15000 cubic feet with the humans here) and many dogs, I would definitely say that there is a social difference, but that it is a difference we see on average -- there are exceptions for dogs, and exceptions for cats. I won't drop any anecdotes other than to say I've shared space with both gregarious cats and retiring dogs, though that is atypical.

    I *will* say that the social difference generally inherent to the species affects the behavior a great deal, but isn't a direct reflection on intelligence. These animals naturally approach the world differently; they have different tool sets. Cats are stealthy, predators that kill from ambush using great precision and skill and this is evident in how they comport themselves in play, social settings and so forth. Dogs are pack animals, very comfortable in groups under almost any circumstance, and this is also evident in how they behave. Cats do what they please and this is a very successful strategy for them; dogs work well with others.

    If you want to go by brain mass, well, lions and tigers, end of story. But I think that's pretty silly. It has to be about brain sophistication (ever try to teach a cow? But then look what a horse can learn...), and we don't really know how to measure that. There are numerous soft science tests/benchmarks, like an animal recognizing itself in a mirror (both dogs and cats can do this, to my certain knowledge) to demonstrate what psycho-babblers like to call a "sense of self", but again, they make certain assumptions that may very well not be valid - one thing I will also say with great certainty is that cats and dogs are not human-like; while both species may evidence every emotion we are familiar with (and again, I can vouch for this quite confidently), the balance of those emotions is different, the things that stimulate them are different, the durations are different, and the tendency to hold a "chip" is different, though absolutely present.

    Honestly, I don't think this question can be settled - or even successfully approached - with the technology and knowledge we currently possess. Personally, I suspect both species are a lot smarter than we think they are; we just don't care about the same things, and we're probably not measuring even close to the right things. That's strictly one fellow's opinion based on a lot of co-habitation.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  14. Dogs fit better with our model of intelligence by Johnny5000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The question of whether a dog is smarter than a cat or vice versa is largely irrelevant. The human definitions of intelligence (and more specifically, our culture's definitions of intelligence) might match up closer with one animal or the other, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

    Dogs are much more in tune with human behavior than cats are. They're better at reading body language, better at communicating with us, etc. Their social structure isn't exactly like that of humans, but it's closer to ours than a cat's is.

    Cats are better at being cats, dogs are better at being dogs. Dogs are probably slightly better at being humans, so we declare them to be smarter.

    --
    The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
  15. Re:Dogs made man. Was Re:Maybe, but... by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We remember the ones that the cats didn't stop, but there probably would have been more.

    Cats didn't stop the Black Death from massacring Europe because European Christians were demon-ridden idiots who thought that cats were servants of Satan, and should be killed.