Babies understand dog-speak, BYU study finds
I found this interesting too...
Babies understand dog-speak, BYU study finds
Source: http://news.byu.edu/archive09-Jul-babybarking.aspx
----
Babies understand dog-speak, BYU study finds
Source: http://news.byu.edu/archive09-Jul-babybarking.aspx
----
Comments
This is not a very complex thought pattern, but bare with me...
So, based on that simple thought, I'd be willing to bet it's less of a socialization issue and more of a survival mechanism we've developed (via evolution) to focus our natural abilities on things that yield more results.
At one time, many believe, the canine-human relationship was a very important element in our ability to survive. So, those instincts that help infants "read" dogs, perhaps are hardwired in our nature, but since it's not an instinct we depend on in today's world it's suppressed in order to allow other instincts that we do depend on (now days) to become stronger.
That's just off the top of my head...
----
I think the ability to read animals may well be an instinctual thing we have. There was a time in our recent history where our population centers were smaller and our settlements were much more sparse. We survived with animals all around us, many of them predatory. The ability to discern a fearful vs. aggressive animal may have made the difference between returning home or ending up a meal for a bear, or wolf, etc.
So it's not a far stretch to see why we (may!) have those instincts. I just don't understand why they get suppressed. As in, not just unpracticed, but actually undone.
I disagree. :oP
Let's use a different instinct as an example other than hunting instinct. Let's look at a dog's social instinct(s). Dogs who were socialized well as puppies can still have their social skills badly damaged by not continuing to be socialized after they reach social maturity.
For example, if you take a puppy and socialize it very well up to the point of social maturity, and then alienate that dog from social contact after reaching social maturity for several years, the dog will not have retained *all* of the social skills instincts he/she may have learned during puppy-hood - therefore their social instincts will have become unusable/retarded/suppressed.
Or how about if you took that puppy and allowed him/her to continue to socialize but employed positive-punishment techniques that "altered" the way he/she used their social instincts (think punishing a dog for growling)?
I guess what I am asking is: What is the difference between a suppressed/retarded instinct vs. an instinct that hasn't been practiced enough to be usable? Both would create the same issues, no?
In my example(s) above, about socializing the puppy, what would be the difference in a pup who never learned to use his social instincts properly (never socialized) vs. a pup who was socialized but then aliened?
I'm not arguing that the instincts go away, or never exist at all, I'm just arguing that an instinct, whether practiced or not, can be retarded by environmental pressures while other instincts increase from environmental pressure.
----
I think the example of "social instincts" is a bad one because they are social skills, not instincts. They are learned, not practiced. In fact, anything social is by definition relating to the environment, and not intrinsic. We know that learning degrades (or is suppressed) if not used over time.
Let's skip social skills, and talk about the instinct to exist in a pack, or the instinct to desire social interaction. Even dogs with retarded social development due to poor socialization will generally still desire companionship. They may do a poor job of establishing relationships, or have very poor communication skills. But the underlying desire to be a part of a social unit doesn't go away, unless early social development is marred by negative experiences. In which case the learned social response to establishing relationships will be negative, and override the instinct to be a part of a social unit.
I guess the real question is not what effect lack of practice has on diminishing instinctual behavior, but what socialized responses override instinctual behavior to the point of diminishment? To bring it back to the baby example: It's not a lack of practice at reading dog behavior that leads us to do it poorly, it's some learned social response that overrides our instinct to interpret it correctly. Is it glamorized media frenzies over dog attacks? Is it misinformation like Cesar? Perhaps it's an oversimplification that occurs as part of our social learning process?
I gotta say a Brad/Dave debate is always pretty cool to read.
It's not a lack of practice at reading dog behavior that leads us to do it poorly, it's some learned social response that overrides our instinct to interpret it correctly
I have to agree with Dave on this one. I read your whole discussion, and both sides are correct in their assumptions as I see them, but this is what I see as the prime reason for human beings to not be able to read dogs and communicate well with them.
Instead of using our natural instincts, we have these voices in our heads that make us overthink situations.
-- I've had a hard time reading today, it's been strange. The first time I read your post it was totally different for me than the second time. Sorry. (maybe not the best day for me to debate something)
"I think the example of "social instincts" is a bad one because they are social skills, not instincts. They are learned, not practiced."
-- Then why do we see puppies at 3 weeks of age, having JUST opened their eyes, play-bowing to one another? They couldn't have learned this social behavior from each other, they couldn't see! I've never witnessed a mother dog play-bowing to a 2-3 week old puppy - that usually comes much later, like 6-8 weeks. So how did the puppies know that behavioral pattern (a pattern specific to social behavior - play) at such a young age?
"I guess the real question is not what effect lack of practice has on diminishing instinctual behavior, but what socialized responses override instinctual behavior to the point of diminishment? To bring it back to the baby example: It's not a lack of practice at reading dog behavior that leads us to do it poorly, it's some learned social response that overrides our instinct to interpret it correctly. Is it glamorized media frenzies over dog attacks? Is it misinformation like Cesar? Perhaps it's an oversimplification that occurs as part of our social learning process?"
-- Yea, I agree (with you and Tara), that is the real question. To borrow from Freud, it's our "ego" that gets in the way... Like when I'm snowboarding, I am GREAT if I'm not thinking about it, but as soon as I think about what I'm doing I screw something up (a trick, air, w/e). Perhaps it's the same with this instinct to read dogs, we over-analyze it?
LOL @*JackBurton*
----
"Then why do we see puppies at 3 weeks of age, having JUST opened their eyes, play-bowing to one another?"
-- I think the example of a play bow is an instinctual behavior (to drop the front while keeping the rear elevated) that is cultured into a social skill. That is, play bowing is something instinctual, just like barking or crying is. Human babies are born with the instinct to cry. Initially, crying serves a specific biological purpose (I don't recall exactly what it is, but to the best of my recollection it is something like clearing the lungs). It isn't until at least a few weeks into their development that they learn that crying can be a tool to communicate. My suspicion is that play bowing is something similar. At 2-3 weeks of age, puppies will play bow instinctually, but it takes a few weeks of socialization with littermates before it is learned as an invitation to play. A poorly socialized dog, or one that is separated from littermates too early hasn't lost the instinctual behavior of play bowing, but they never learn the cultured context for it.
Let's look at the play bow example in another context: negative socialization experiences. A dog that learns to use their instinctual play bow as a polite invitation to play, but has repeated negative consequences for it at some point in their development will end up with a cultured response that overrides their instinct. Instead of using a play bow which they have learned may lead to a fight, they may learn that a safer way to initiate play is to jump all over another dog. This effectively takes the instinctual behavior out of the dog's vocabulary.
"Perhaps it's the same with this instinct to read dogs, we over-analyze it?"
-- My interpretation is actually the opposite. Rather than overanalyze it, we tend to underanalyze dog communication signals. We ignore many of them, and group some of the more overt ones into "bad". Which actually makes me think about some social psychology research that indicates humans are constantly seeking cognitive shortcuts in the face of the ever-increasing stimuli we encounter on a daily basis. So rather than use our instinctual powers of observation on dog behavior, we cue on certain overt signals and cease to pay attention to the rest.
Funny though, I think this may just be the fact that many people are just more in the "it's all about me generation" to be sensitive to dogs or even other people. The ability to identify the emotion behind tone and unspoken cues may only be important if we are here for others, not the other way around.
----
Same idea with changing reactions to instinctual reading of behaviors. We have a subconscious reaction as children, at some point we are cultured to fear dogs, and eventually that reaction becomes the default, free from intentional thought. A cognitive shortcut, if you will, that gets introduced via conscious thought.