Luke Ford

Link: The structure of cognitive abilities in dogs is similar to that found in people.

– Dogs that solved problems more quickly were also more accurate.
– Dogs’ cognitive abilities can be tested quickly, like those of people.
– Bigger individual differences studies on dog cognition will contribute to cognitive epidemiology.

Abstract

Hundreds of studies have shown that, in people, cognitive abilities overlap yielding an underlying ‘g’ factor, which explains much of the variance. We assessed individual differences in cognitive abilities in 68 border collies to determine the structure of intelligence in dogs. We administered four configurations of a detour test and repeated trials of two choice tasks (point-following and quantity-discrimination). We used confirmatory factor analysis to test alternative models explaining test performance. The best-fitting model was a hierarchical model with three lower-order factors for the detour time, choice time, and choice score and a higher order factor; these accounted jointly for 68% of the variance in task scores. The higher order factor alone accounted for 17% of the variance. Dogs that quickly completed the detour tasks also tended to score highly on the choice tasks; this could be explained by a general intelligence factor. Learning about g in non human species is an essential component of developing a complete theory of g; this is feasible because testing cognitive abilities in other species does not depend on ecologically relevant tests. Discovering the place of g among fitness-bearing traits in other species will constitute a major advance in understanding the evolution of intelligence.

…Although we cannot calculate empirically the impact of range-restriction (of intelligence) on our results we surmise that our sample of farm dogs is somewhat analogous to a human university student population because farm dogs at the low tail of the intelligence distribution are more likely to be given away as companion animals.

Comments to Steve Sailer:

* We’re on our third dog, an Australian Shepherd, after owning a pair of beagles. The Aussie is supposed to be a very intelligent breed but our beagles were clever enough when they wanted to be. The biggest difference between the breeds we’ve noted is that the Aussie is very attuned to and eager to please her people and can be trusted with the run of the house when we’re home. Our beagles spent 15+ years penned into our kitchen/family room because they’d like as not pee on the carpet out of spite when you weren’t looking and sometimes even if you were. The Aussie is very observant and figured out that when I blow dry my hair (not a daily occurrence) I’m usually heading out without her and I’ll find her sitting in her crate when I reach the bottom of the stairs.

* I had a white dog who was dumb but could run like a grey hound, an aloof black dog who knew it all and dominated the white one. I had a brown one who was mid level intelligent but was all dog, she protected me, killed groundhogs in the fields and followed me everywhere. My latest version of dog is too smart for her own good.
The one thing I would say is intelligence in dogs might help them if they were alone on their own resources, scrabbling to survive while stealing a haunch of that dead deer from the wolfpack. But occasionally intelligence can be counterproductive for dogs due to the human factor in their environment . Got to keep the human happy…right? If you are a really smart dog and want your own way(like a lot of Border Collies), your stubbornness will be interpreted as bullheaded stupidity and its off to the pound for you. Generally there are more humans who reward slavish obedience than freedom of choice.

* Its always fascinated me that, if you discuss ‘breed’, people readily acknowledge that, amongst dogs, there is a wide variety in behavior and that it is innate to the breed not the species. OTOH if you then suggest that there are human ‘breeds’ with similar variation in behavior etc they will argue with you and, of course, claim that is racist.

Years ago, I was amazed when I took my city born and raised Irish Setter to the woods where he could run free. He had never been to the woods before but when he came upon some quail hidden in the brush he froze and assumed a ‘pointing’ stance to alert me that there was ‘game’ in the brush. You may not be able to ‘teach an old dog new tricks’ but it seems some breeds never forget the tricks their ancestors learned.

* Harpending and Cochran note in The 10,000 Year Explosion that Border Collies can master a task after five repetitions and repeat it accurately 95% of the time, in contrast to a poor Bassett Hound who requires over a hundred repetitions and rarely repeats the task correctly.

Kinda reminds me of Black Autumn students.

* I have read recently that research in dog intelligence is still growing. But it was practically nonexistent before 1990s. Everybody who had a dog knew how intelligent dogs were but scientists just kept talking about the instinct and were dismissive. Then in 1990s dog mania started among yuppies (why?) and there were countless stories and references about dogs in the New Yorker for instance. I remember then thinking that perhaps Jews overcame their prejudice against dogs and finally discovered white people’s joy of having a dog. Now I wonder whether this scientific interest in dogs and money that pay for the research stems from this Jewish neophytic fascination with dogs. In the future, if there is one, when muslims begin to have dogs it will be a sure sign they are assimilating into our culture. Dogs make as human.

* I’ve only seen one person deny that some breeds are smarter than others. It was when someone used the argument that races of people might vary in intelligence just as breeds of dogs do. The PC believer then denied that dog breeds varied in intelligence.

Curiouser and curiouser.

* That is because the dog breed analogy with human races is so perfectly apt and so perfectly self-evident that it has to be met with strident dismissal when anyone makes the obvious comparison.

Deep down, PC people know their beliefs are hollow nonsense, but their very beings are defined by those beliefs, so they will deny whatever it takes.

* Animals are pretty interesting in that they demonstrate how large an effect can result from a rather small difference in intelligence.

We have two cats that are sisters, so they can’t be that far apart in intelligence. Yet one is noticeably smarter than the other one, in ways that could potentially have real-world implications. For example, the smarter one has apparently figured out how doors work, although she can’t open one herself. If she wants to get through a door she starts trying to jump up and grab the knob to turn it. She can’t get enough of a grip to actually turn it, but she clearly understands the basic principle. If the knob had a more grippable design, she’d be able to open doors by herself. She demonstrates problem solving skills in other ways, but that’s the most striking example.

Like I said, this is a cat. They’re not smart to begin with, and if she’s smarter than her sister, it can’t be by much. But just that tiny amount would probably pay huge dividends in the wild.

* A more inclusive, diverse, and vibrant breed of dog would be Collies Without Borders.

* It has been argued (correctly, IMO) that a large, active brain is a very expensive piece of biological apparatus to feed and maintain. The animal has to have a significant return on survival (of the species, not the individual) to justify the investment.

Rabbits survive by procreation (r/K), their niche is to provide lunch for predators which they do quite well with the brain they have. Sharks are apex predators and would quickly eliminate their prey and competitors if any better at what they do – then experience a population collapse for lack of prey.

It remains to be seen, but my money is on a human population collapse. As an old cartoon said, “War is nature’s way!”