Also reminded - we had neighbors with 2 cats, an experienced and cynical large red one and a naive curious tabby. They spent a lot of time outdoor wandering around, and the tabby was always trying to get everywhere, very friendly, and the red one was always very suspicious about everything and very worried and watchful over the tabby. Unfortunately the tabby got killed by a car. The neighbors after some time took another cat. The red one never let the new cat to leave their patio. Getting to sit on the patio fence was the maximum she would let him, and on any attempt to get down outside of the fence she would firmly herd him back.
Dogs definitely know about the concept of "danger". Roaring fire, a raised stick, or loud noises. These are all things which doesn't cause immediate pain but they react to avoid them. It seems from the story Lenny includes in the things he want to avoid the ocean while Arthur doesn't. That sounds more like an individual difference than a genetic predisposition.
You don't need to speak a foreign language to have this concept.
I don't know what is your definition of "persuasion". If it involves the behaviour of standing in someone's way and bothering them until they turn back then we can agree that Lenny seems to have the concept despite not having a language.
We had an Old English Sheepdog called Bob who let kids climb trees but only up to a certain height. If you went higher Bob grabbed your ankle and gently pulled you back to the height he previously "let you". Otherwise you could do whatever you wanted to do on the tree and he didn't care. Otherwise never herded anyone ever.
My point is not the language. More that if a chinese coast guard would drag you out of the sea you wouldn't be saying "yeah the chinese have a strong herding reflex". You would say "this person doesn't want me to swim", or "this person thinks I'm in danger and I can't communicate that I'm not".
There is no inherent danger in those situations, yet the dogs prefer if everyone was together in a group. If that's not "herding", I might just not understand what herding really is.
I'm not dismissing herding behaviour. It is a thing. But genetics is simply not a good explanation for the story here. Here we have two dogs of the same breed (Arthur and Lenny). One lets their owner swim freely the other doesn't. The difference here is not genetics (they are the same berad), this in my opinion is a personality difference between the two dogs.
Which is why I'm starting my comment with "Idk if the "herding behaviour" is a useful way to think of this." Calling it "herding behaviour" doesn't explain the difference between the two labradors.
> Peak HN arrogance.
So lovely. Would you say that to my face closewith? I was nothing but polite to you and everyone else. I'm a human here you know. Can you treat me like one?
I do not claim any such thing. Simply that the difference in behaviour between two dogs of the same breed cannot be explained with genetics. Lenny and Arthur share a genetic background. They do not share the behaviour. There is some other difference between Lenny and Arthur (or between the two swimmers!) which drives the difference in the observed behaviours.
I'm not saying genetics is not a thing. It is simply not the right lens to inspect this situation here.
> And it is, indeed, peak HN arrogance to make that assumption.
Which I'm not making. In any of my comments. So we are good then. :)
Can be so many things.
To me this is an (unpopular) argument against the tabula rasa theory of humans.
If such a complex behaviour can be congenital, who knows what behaviours are congenital in humans.
We need to respect that we're all different. Equal, but different.
bite behind leg if multiple animals going towards X but animal A goes towards Y and biting will make A go towards X would be complex.
bite behind leg is simple and crude and by placing dog in right context produces complex and useful results.
I do not think a dog has to solve partial differential equations for me to be impressed and think that complex behaviours can be innate.
It is crucial to their survival. That's how they made it to this day in these numbers.
I sadly have to disagree as history tells us a different story, e.g.
"Back in the day, puppies without a ridge were either euthanized or culled at birth." https://healthyhomemadedogtreats.com/ridgeless-rhodesian-rid...
I learned that when I met such a dog the first time some years ago and the owner told me about this. And I would not bet that it actually is "history" nowadays.
I can see how this evolved. You sit near the humans, don't act aggressive, they give you food. You make puppies that follow the same plan. You give up the dead end profession of providing security. The parcel guy might also give you food, you never know!
What I don't get is how their other instinct evolved: "I must bring this tennis ball to master, and master must fulfill the social contract of launching it"
Sure, I can see how hunting for stuff makes you want to run over to something and pick it up. But what about the "throw the item 40m so I can run after it?" Why would that have a purpose? Why is the appetite for doing this insatiable, to the point where you are advised not to do it with small puppies who might hurt their hip development? Is it all just an extension of the juvenile stage, where play is important?
Labs have also become the dominant breed of dog through exceptional salesmanship. I bred my lab, and she had eight puppies. We advertised them, and not a single one of the families that came to see one decided against it. The mom would bring a puppy to the family, and as soon as they were holding a puppy, you could tell by the look in their eyes that they were sold. It's like she was saying "Hey, you look like nice people, buy my kid! He'll love you forever".
The puppies at that stage are already able to look deep in your eyes, and can already do the "oh hey, that's some interesting food you got there" look, and they already love a belly rub.
phito•3h ago
fsargent•3h ago
mieses•2h ago
anonym29•2h ago
mananaysiempre•1h ago
bbarnett•2h ago
This is the perfect way to start on human androids. Cut our teeth on this, perfect this, then use the same knowledge to build humanform robots. The patents we'll accrue make it worth it on its own!
Best part is you wouldn't NEED to take them for a walk. No need to clean up their leavings. And if you wanted that part of the experience, it could be fertilizer, clean, specifically designed to help the local plants. We could make a mint selling it, plus, we'd ensure no pesky odour.
Or even better, what the dog simulates as leavings, could be bird food or some such! Each packaged drop, would feed the local pigeons, self-cleanup!
And dog treats! We'd have them beg for treats, but their innards will only accept treats made, and licensed specifically for the dog. In fact, without our specific dog food, the animal will "wither" and die!
We'll make a killing!
Johnson, get the design team in here pronto!
(Applies to YC, 12 months later 'mieses' sees such creations in Walmart)
NOTE: the above was a Google project, but once it hit the shelves, and with record breaking sales, Google cancelled it for inexplicable reasons.
xeonmc•57m ago
secret-noun•1h ago
isoprophlex•21m ago
A worthy contender to "Eats shoots and leaves".
navigate8310•38m ago