Crazy old bat leaves $8bn to dogs.

[Paolo]

On the bright side, Helmsley's fortune will be disbursed into the economy faster than when she was alive (and when it was still amassing). Dog food and veterinary care just happens to be the first stop for those bucks.

[Darth Wong]

<snip shopworn arguments about dog intelligence not being real because it's related to social instincts>

Did it ever occur to you that human chidlren are also trained by "manipulating social instincts"? Does that mean our intelligence is fake too?

What you and most cat apologists fail to recognize is that social learning and awareness is actually a part of intelligence. In fact, it is a most critical part. If there are other intelligent species in the universe, you can bet that the most intelligent species on any given planet will also be a social species.

[Ohma]

Cat apologists?

[Darth Wong]

Cat apologists?

Yes. People who insist that cats are smarter than dogs even though they don't test that way. They make up stupid arguments like "they're just as smart, they just don't learn as easily". When humans are like that, we call them "retarded". Or they say that our definition of intelligence is unfair because it's "human-centric". Too fucking bad; we're the smartest and most successful species on the planet because of these "human-centric" learning methods.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Did it ever occur to you that human chidlren are also trained by "manipulating social instincts"? Does that mean our intelligence is fake too?

I'm sorry, what? Did I say something that came off as sounding like I claimed canine intelligence is 'fake'? If I interchanged the words 'intelligence' and 'instinct', I apologize for the confusion there.

What you and most cat apologists fail to recognize is that social learning and awareness is actually a part of intelligence. In fact, it is a most critical part.

I amend what I said earlier than: Social rewards and consequences based on human and canine social systems have no meaning to cats. I never claimed cats were not social creatures. Anyone whose dealt with cats knows that they are highly social creatures. This is easily evidenced by the fact that they are more than capable of communication, a purely social construct. Their social structure, though, is vastly different from humans and canines.

If there are other intelligent species in the universe, you can bet that the most intelligent species on any given planet will also be a social species.

Again, I never said that cats are not social creatures, merely that they do not follow the same basic social structures as primates and canines. It is entirely possible to display advanced learning and retention outside a pack/tribe social mentality, octopi are a good example of this.

And I am not a goddamn cat apologist. I never claimed that cats are more intelligent than dogs, merely that they are actually quite close to each other. In fact, by the standards we have currently set, I think they're a little below dogs, but by an insignificant margin.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, the width and breadth of human advancement are all possible because of our social pack behaviour. The great differentiating factor between us and other members of the primate family was our social communication.

I don't understand why so many people seek to minimize the importance of this when trying to understand the concept of intelligence. The great bulk of what we consider human intelligence is actually inherited social behaviour, as if society is a great organism with a collective memory and we are but components of it.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Yes. People who insist that cats are smarter than dogs even though they don't test that way.

Thank you for lumping me in that group though I never said any such thing.

They make up stupid arguments like "they're just as smart, they just don't learn as easily".

And I said that... when, exactly? I said their learning processes are fundamentally different. Adapt the education to meet what they'll respond to, rather than what a dog will respond to, and they learn.

Or they say that our definition of intelligence is unfair because it's "human-centric". Too fucking bad; we're the smartest and most successful species on the planet because of these "human-centric" learning methods.

Yes, humans are vastly more intelligent than cats. But that's not what's being debated here. Of the two species, cats and dogs, which one is the more successful species on the planet? Dogs have a similar learning method to humans, and that has certainly led to a great deal of success on their part. But cats are just as prevalent on this planet as dogs, both in the wild and in domesticated settings, and just like dogs, a large part of that is due to their ability to learn and adapt. While dogs, with the more complex social structures already in place, have the *potential* to become far more intelligent, they obviously have not reached a level of intelligence that allows them to easily edge out cats.

[Darth Wong]

And I said that... when, exactly? I said their learning processes are fundamentally different. Adapt the education to meet what they'll respond to, rather than what a dog will respond to, and they learn.

But not as quickly or easily, which is kind of how we define "retarded" among humans.

While dogs, with the more complex social structures already in place, have the *potential* to become far more intelligent, they obviously have not reached a level of intelligence that allows them to easily edge out cats.

Uh, yes they have, by joining with us. They're a symbiotic species with humans; treating them without that connection is silly.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I don't understand why so many people seek to minimize the importance of this when trying to understand the concept of intelligence. The great bulk of what we consider human intelligence is actually inherited social behaviour, as if society is a great organism with a collective memory and we are but components of it.

I don't deny that social intelligence is one of the biggest factors in determining intelligence, I already know that social behaviour, more than anything else, is what has led to the human dominance of the planet. But again, I'm not debating the intelligence of humans versus anything else. I'm debating the intelligence of cats versus dogs. The social intelligence that dogs have has not yet translated into success as a species that makes them the clear cut dominating predators in the wild, or in domestic settings, over cats.

To be clear, I believe that if things continue the way they are, either cats will evolve into much more complex social groups (it's already been evidenced in the communal groups of stray cats that collect in cities) to compete with dogs, or the dogs' greater potential for social intellectual advancement will cause them to become far more successful than cats.

[Buddha]

And I said that... when, exactly? I said their learning processes are fundamentally different. Adapt the education to meet what they'll respond to, rather than what a dog will respond to, and they learn.

But not as quickly or easily, which is kind of how we define "retarded" among humans.

While dogs, with the more complex social structures already in place, have the *potential* to become far more intelligent, they obviously have not reached a level of intelligence that allows them to easily edge out cats.

Uh, yes they have, by joining with us. They're a symbiotic species with humans; treating them without that connection is silly.

Is this debate merely to give a reason for the rich, stupid, more money than sense woman to leave her money to the dogs? In reality it doesn't make much difference had she left her money to the world's smartest pets, it is still a gross waste of money. It's a waste that makes one hate rich people.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

But not as quickly or easily, which is kind of how we define "retarded" among humans.

Untrue. The Thorndike puzzle-box experiments are evidence of this. With slight variation among individual cats, they have consistently been able to quickly figure out increasingly complex opening-mechanisms for the boxes they were in, and retain memory of these mechanism, in some cases, for years, allowing them to immediately escape multiple different boxes once they had learned the opening mechanism.

Uh, yes they have, by joining with us. They're a symbiotic species with humans; treating them without that connection is silly.

And yet cats exist in comparable numbers in and out of human social constructs, are not in any danger of going extinct any time soon, and owe a lot of this to their ability to learn and adapt. "They joined us, thus they are more successful" is a bit of a non-sequitar.

[Starglider]

Social skills aren't just directly useful in the sense that they allow animals to co-operate and (sometimes) learn from each other. Social skills also provide a crucial leg up on abstract thought. Primitive humans tend to anthropomorphise everything and treat mysterious events as the result of unseen intelligent actors for a reason; we have a lot of cognitive hardware that evolved for other-agent modeling. Evolution managed to adapt it surprisingly well for reasoning about a broad range of natural phenomena, and though it looks horribly naive from a scientific point of view, it's a huge step up from the very basic feature coarsening generalisations that higher animals can do.

Despite all those anime catgirls, dogs are way ahead of cats in the short list for uplift genetic engineering.

[Darth Wong]

Untrue. The Thorndike puzzle-box experiments are evidence of this. With slight variation among individual cats, they have consistently been able to quickly figure out increasingly complex opening-mechanisms for the boxes they were in, and retain memory of these mechanism, in some cases, for years, allowing them to immediately escape multiple different boxes once they had learned the opening mechanism.

How is that any different from your previous arguments? That kind of solitary puzzle-solving behaviour is not social learning, and social learning is where cats fall down.

Uh, yes they have, by joining with us. They're a symbiotic species with humans; treating them without that connection is silly.

And yet cats exist in comparable numbers in and out of human social constructs, are not in any danger of going extinct any time soon, and owe a lot of this to their ability to learn and adapt. "They joined us, thus they are more successful" is a bit of a non-sequitar.

Wow, you totally missed the point, didn't you? The point is that dogs and humans are actually symbiotic, therefore it is an error to think of them in isolation. It is also an error to try and measure their intelligence separately from their social abilities and tendencies, as if the latter is irrelevant to the former when it is most certainly not.

One could just as easily say that a human being is not smart because if you raise him in isolation, he'll be pretty useless. In fact, humans raised in isolation tend to develop severe problems.

[Starglider]

With slight variation among individual cats, they have consistently been able to quickly figure out increasingly complex opening-mechanisms for the boxes they were in,

This is either simple combinatorial search or slightly more impressive spatial reasoning. Regardless, you have mentioned a single thing that cats are able to do about as well as dogs. You have failed to address the vast range of things dogs do much better.

And yet cats exist in comparable numbers in and out of human social constructs, are not in any danger of going extinct any time soon, and owe a lot of this to their ability to learn and adapt.

No, they owe it to their ability to look nice. Cats are useful for precisely two things, pest control and companionship. Terriers are just as good as the former and frankly almost any dog is better at the later. The sole reason cats are still around is that plenty of humans are a) prepared to put form over function (at least in their personal opinion - I would say most sighthounds beat cats hands down on aesthetics) or b) unable to give their pet much attention.

[ArmorPierce]

I fail to understand how is it that people don't understand that intelligence is fostered in social animals because these animals have to be able to interact with each other. Communication with other humans in our social group is probably one of the major reasons of our brain development (we are able to communicate and plan with others and pass on information). I really don't know why people are so insistent that cat's are smarter. Stating that it's not fair because cat's are not social creatures don't cut it. If that's the case you can use the same argument for a human vs a cat.

To be clear, I believe that if things continue the way they are, either cats will evolve into much more complex social groups (it's already been evidenced in the communal groups of stray cats that collect in cities) to compete with dogs, or the dogs' greater potential for social intellectual advancement will cause them to become far more successful than cats.

They tolerate each other because they have easy access to food. There isn't much interaction to the degree of dogs or wolves.

And yet cats exist in comparable numbers in and out of human social constructs, are not in any danger of going extinct any time soon, and owe a lot of this to their ability to learn and adapt. "They joined us, thus they are more successful" is a bit of a non-sequitar.

So are cows and sheep. They are not here because they are smart. Cats are not with us as a member of the social group but more as animal that hangs around and carry on with their natural instincts which happens to be beneficial to us (hunting down rodents that would otherwise be eating our crop).

Is this debate merely to give a reason for the rich, stupid, more money than sense woman to leave her money to the dogs? In reality it doesn't make much difference had she left her money to the world's smartest pets, it is still a gross waste of money. It's a waste that makes one hate rich people.

Please read the thread before making a comment like this...

[Justforfun000]

Communication with other humans in our social group is probably one of the major reasons of our brain development (we are able to communicate and plan with others and pass on information). I really don't know why people are so insistent that cat's are smarter. Stating that it's not fair because cat's are not social creatures don't cut it. If that's the case you can use the same argument for a human vs a cat.

Actually..I just wanted to make an aside comment because I find this particular subject so relevant to a measurement of advancement.

There are many things you can point to that supposedly demonstrate our superiority as living entities. Works of art, grand structures, poetry, etc. etc.

But one thing I have personally maintained is the most advantageous ability we have developed as a yardstick for superiority is communication. Actually it's not even so much a specific human ability as just my take on things as to what is really the king shit. First radio, then television, then especially the internet....it's changed the world. It doesn't matter how powerful you are, how much money you have, how many people you have worshiping you....ultimately all of that is irrelevant if you do not have communication. Could Christianity exist without it? The writing down of ancient tales are the basis or 'Bible' if you will of the entire faith.

Nowadays the one thing regimes like theocratic Iran fear is communication. It's why they severely limit or ban all potential threats against their control.

Really, what is society in it's essence if not the actual representation of communicability between humans?

I think the real future lies in PR....

[His Divine Shadow]

I figured I should but in here and mention this documentary I saw called: The Ultimate Guide - House Cats, it was interesting piece and in one place even focused on this very subject by discussing a study done on the social intelligence of cats.

I also remember from an older documentary from the 1980s (PBS's Nature - Cats) that was quite interesting as it mentioned how cats can be trained.