Can you guess what Jeffery Moussaieff Masson is going to say?
His first book on animal emotions was really good. I liked his book on dog emotions, even if I felt it turned them into an “angels without wings” caricature.
Whatever issues I have with Masson, I have bigger issues with Katz.
And I have even bigger issues with Budiansky, who makes this same claim but in a much cruder fashion.
Jonah Goldberg (with whom I’ve never agreed in my entire life) actually tore this argument apart nicely.
This idea that dogs are manipulative social parasites isn’t new. Mao actually tried to do something about it during the Cultural Revolution–killl all the pet dogs.
If people couldn’t be dissuaded from keeping dogs under the threat of Maoist terror, I seriously doubt that this relationship is between host and parasite.
It is something deeper.
And there are examples of people needing dogs to do thing. Those peoples who live polar regions need them. Those who herd reindeer certainly need them. I don’t think we would have been able to domesticate sheep and goats without dogs.
It’s just really easy to say dogs are parasites. It’s an old argument, and one that is pretty easily refuted.
I don’t know if dogs love us, but I sure love dogs.
And that should be all that matters.
I expected something important from you on Budiansky, all I got was a lousy link to Amazon.com.
So what’s your beef?
Basically, it’s the same as Bekoff and Masson. If dogs are really that way, then we should do what Mao wanted to do.
Here’s Michael W. Fox’s review: http://www.twobitdog.com/DrFox/Revisiting-Truth-About-Dogs
The real critique of Budiansky (and Coppinger– to an extent): http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/s/275/science/coevolution03.pdf
If you read Coppinger, he does all he can to distance himself from Budiansky. They are both using the same theory, but he’s not going to make the parasite claim. In fact, Coppinger openly attacks the parasite theory.
Well… I’ve chosen to live permanently with types of dogs that are rather self pleasing. So, for me, its hard to quantify what a dog’s love is, and if it is the same as I would define the love I feel for them.
I did foster a basset hound for 8 months that seemed to love me the way I did him. Letting him be adopted was, and remains, the most horrible thing I ever did to myself. After letting him go, I understood what people meant when they say “he’s my heart dog”. This dog was my heart dog. He was selfless in his show of affection, expecting nothing in return. And he was a victim of serious physical abuse in his first 8 months of life, but he still trusted humans… each time he saw a new one, I believe he thought “OMG there’s MORE! YESSSS”. He was amazing. He taught me that dogs CAN love, and do so with their entire being. Selflessly.
But – I do believe humans are quite anthropomorphic about it. As Masson points out, we two species have been together long enough to be able to get a handle on the other. But, we are still different species with a serious language barrier. In this reason, and for the example I live with day to day – I say that it is possible for dogs to feel what we express to them in regards to love – and perhaps they reciprocate it out of necessity and devotion. They have to know what makes us easier to live with (read : happy) and do so because it is then easier to live in this unnatural arrangement, in house, with humans.
I can’t completely disagree with the social parasite understanding (was it in Merle’s Door that Ted mentions the Tibetan Mastiff that “used” him?) but I believe dogs, being predisposed to humans, hold the ability to reciprocate the affection (or at least mimic it).
If I think about this too long I’ll get frustrated, simply put – I have no idea, but I love them and truly that is enough for me!
I think Jonah Goldberg had the answer.
Jonah Goldberg was right. I can’t believe I just typed that!
I’ve been around hunting spitz type dogs before (Norwegian elkhounds), and they are different from golden retrievers. However, even these super independent dogs bond very closely with people. Konrad Lorenz loved this sort of dog– the wolfish spitz from the northern parts of Eurasia. He believed these were directly derived from wolves, while the others were derived from jackals. Trust me, your shibas love you! They may not be demonstrative about it. Lorenz loved this chow cross because it was undemonstrative.
But love is not the same as obedience.
People are always confounding the two. That’s why some people think that a dog should only learn commands that are rewarded by praise. I’m not one of them.
Oh I completely agree, love does not equal obedience! In fact, love doesn’t always equal affection. But I do think all dogs can demonstrate devotion, or loyalty to a degree – of this I am sure.
My male (rescue) shiba inu taught me about trust, and how it supersedes love. His demonstrations of devotion (and affection!) are so subtle, that if you miss it to repair your ego for being “unloved by the dog I feed, walk, and pay the vet for” you’ll miss it. I love him for teaching me that!
Have you noticed any differences with your shibas and your new foster dog?
Because Buckley is part bichon, well, he may have some of the water dog temperament, which is really, really concerned with what you think about him.
A bichon is a small dog derived from the poodle-water dog-retriever family. If you look at a bichon frise and a Portuguese water dog, they look very similar. They are just different colors and sizes.
I’m not entirely sure he is concerned withwhat I think about him.
But he is more outwardly affectionate.
Though he’s intelligent, he’s not as easy to train as my shiba inu (who learn things rapidly) but he’s more easily swayed into repeating the desired action/command, shibas are not. As in, he’s definitely food and praise motivated.
He is definitely concerned with what the shibas think about him, they (shibas) have their own club and tend to shut me out at times but I can always call Buckley to me.
So yeah… you have a point.
I suspect as an adult I will get more glimpses of his concern for what I think about him. I’ve yet to get ‘mad’ at him, so I’m sure he’s never felt that emotion, so maybe he’s not concerned, for there is no reason to be?
Bichon = poodle + barbet, right? I know nothing about barbets!
http://americanbarbet.com/blog/
I’m pretty sure I’ve read that Katz book. If it’s the one I’m thinking of correctly, my impression was that he was overstating things to create a little controversy to sell more books. You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to argue that view that dogs are purely manipulating us.
Animal behavior as a science is still struggling out of the dark ages of the Victorian era. It wasn’t that long ago that many thought animals don’t even feel pain (heck, some people thought human babies didn’t feel pain! If it can’t speak, it doesn’t feel). There’s still a lot of reluctance to admit that humans aren’t the only mammals with high-functioning brains that feel emotion. You get a lot of goal post switching and redefining of terms to suit an agenda. See also ‘language’.
I wouldn’t want to define love, but my dog and I have some kind of close relationship. It’s just not logical to think that natural selection would give one large-brained mammal true emotion and another an advanced form of mimicry of the same thing.
That’s what I get from Katz, but it’s not a new controversy.
Budiansky takes Coppinger’s self-domestication theory, and then he goes one more– the dog becomes the parasite. Just as the mother cuckoo lays her eggs in the other song bird’s nest, dogs are tricking us into carrying for them!
If that doesn’t violate Morgan’s Canon, I don’t know what does.
Budiansky makes you angry when you read it, especially if you’re not sold on the dominance theory.
Coppinger is vehemently anti-dominance if you read him closely.
Budiansky feels that dogs will become aggressive if you’re too weak, which sounds a lot like someone else.
Aristotle espoused the belief that until an infant laughed for the first time, it wasn’t a real human being with a soul (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/02/22).
And I believe my dogs love me as much as they’re capable of the emotion. It may not be on the same ‘level’ as a human’s love, but I don’t mind. =P
A lot of this reminds me of the debates over Alex the Parrot; there is a lot of resistance to the idea of animals being capable of behaviors once thought of as purely human.
Yes. Especially because Alex was a bird and not a mammal.
How could a bird be like us?
these intellegence tests are always “gamed” to set an impossible standard: how much like a HUMAN can the particular animal think. Cyborgsuzy has it: Goal post switching is the right term. Most animals are exceptionally smart about being the particular animal they are. If dogs were testing us, they’d be amazed at how “stupid” we are not to be able to distinguish molecule-level scents.
Not “parasitism”, but symbiosis. Both parties benefit.
Did Man “choose” the dog? More likely, the dog made the choice to enter into this relationship. (sometimes I wonder what they were thinking!)
I’m on that same of M.R.S. above – the bilateral benefit relationship.
And what comes to love and hate, it’s a evolutionary deep-rooted, that if you’re too loving and give yourself away, others will 100% sure take benefit from that. Even the nicest dog knows that.
The following is a Bob Dylan song. And dontu say “blaa”. I may’ve understood the metaphoras wrong, but it could be a song about the mysterious love of a (black water) dog. Well, couldn’t it?
Ol’ black Bascom, don’t break no mirrors
Cold black water dog, make no tears
You say you love me with what may be love
Don’t you remember makin’ baby love?
Got your steam drill built and you’re lookin’ for some kid
To get it to work for you like your nine-pound hammer did
But I know that you know that I know that you show
Something is tearing up your mind.
Tell me, momma,
Tell me, momma,
Tell me, momma, what is it?
What’s wrong with you this time?
Hey, John, come and get me some candy goods
Shucks, it sure feels like it’s in the woods
Spend some time on your January trips
You got tombstone moose up and your brave-yard whips
If you’re anxious to find out when your friendship’s gonna end
Come on, baby, I’m your friend!
And I know that you know that I know that you show
Something is tearing up your mind.
Tell me, momma…
Tell me, momma, what is it?
What’s wrong with you this time?
Ohh, we bone the editor, can’t get read
But his painted sled, instead it’s a bed
Yes, I see you on your window ledge
But I can’t tell just how far away you are from the edge
And, anyway, you’re just gonna make people jump and roar
Whatcha wanna go and do that for?
For I know that you know that I know that you know
Something is tearing up your mind.
Ah, tell me, momma…
Tell me, momma, what is it?
What’s wrong with you this time?