The Genius of Dogs is intended as a fun yet comprehensive review of the published scientific literature relevant to understanding dog cognition. In the last ten years there has been an explosion of scientific research and discovery around dog cognition, and this work had not yet been reviewed in a popular book. Dognition is of course largely based on ideas and work reviewed in The Genius of Dogs.
The book explains how a cognitive approach allowed for the discovery of dog genius as well as an appreciation for the limits of dogs’ abilities. We used this new knowledge to propose a cognitive approach to training dogs
(see Chapter 10 of The Genius of Dogs). We’ve received a number of thoughtful responses to our proposal. I wanted to write this post to clarify how I think a cognitive approach to training complements the positive training techniques already in use today.
Based on our review of the published literature, we conclude that dogs are remarkable relative to other animals in terms of their ability to use information from humans in solving problems they otherwise cannot solve. In the social domain dogs have a gift. However, at the same time a cognitive approach has revealed ways in which dogs are unremarkable. In comparison with a variety of other species, it appears dogs are below average when it comes to understanding physical reasoning or learning things on their own. In our chapters on training we use this new scientific knowledge to suggest ways that trainers might harness the genius of dogs while working around a dog’s cognitive limitations. The goal of this cognitive approach would be to make current training techniques even more effective than they already are.
A number of questions have been raised about our cognitive approach to training, which I have attempted to address below:
Why do you not discuss the work of some very accomplished trainers and scientists?
Some readers have inquired about the perceived exclusion of trainers and researchers who have written on animal learning that we do not cover in the book. One example is Dr. Karen Pryor, who has written a number of wonderful popular books about positive dog training. In the case of Dr. Pryor – for whom we have tremendous respect — we have been unable to find peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals on her work with dogs. Another example raised was Dr. Andy Lattal, who has many publications on animal learning but no peer-reviewed papers on dog learning. In making choices about the scope of the book, we decided to limit our treatment to peer-reviewed scientific literature on dog cognition. This means we did not address certain topics absent from the scientific literature, even if we have much respect for people we did not cover. Hopefully our review will inspire research into a whole host of areas where currently there are gaping holes in the scientific literature.
What are the behaviorism tenets you reject in the book?
There are several central tenets of behaviorism (based on B. F. Skinner’s work) that we reject in The Genius of Dogs. They are as follows:
- Behavior is dictated by nothing more than a series of stimulus-response mechanisms.
- In reaction to consistent stimulus, the response should become stronger over time.
- All animals and humans are uniform in the way they learn.
- All behavior can be predicted and controlled, and therefore the inner workings of the mind (thoughts, memories and emotions) are irrelevant.
We reject these because of the overwhelming scientific evidence showing that each of these tenets is false. Many readers and scientists may not agree with everything we conclude in the book. From my perspective, that’s a good thing; scientific disagreement is healthy and facilitates progress. However, with regard to rejecting the tenets above, we actually perceive little controversy in the cognitive literature on this point.
By rejecting the tenets of behaviorism, are you rejecting operant and classical conditioning?
While we reject behaviorism’s central tenets, we in no way mean to suggest that operant and classical conditioning are not well-established learning mechanisms. Learning theories integrating operant and classical conditioning are alive and well today.
The distinction we are making is that these forms of associative learning are one among dozens of types of intelligence – not the only type of intelligence that matters, as hypothesized by Skinner. A cognitive approach embraces associative learning and all other forms of intelligence including memory, communication, cunning, empathy, and inferential reasoning (to name a few).
Our assumption is that positive training techniques teach dogs new behaviors through more flexible mechanisms than operant and classical conditioning. This is not to suggest that dog trainers are not doing a great job using current training techniques — it is only to suggest that the cognitive mechanism by which dogs are learning is different than what Skinner would have predicted in his day.
Dogs are responding to current training techniques because they understand our communicative intent in some contexts, are motivated to remember what we show them, and understand how we are reacting to their behavior. Dogs are not always just learning blindly through trial and error — they are cognitive, like all other animals.
Why is a cognitive approach exciting?
This cognitive perspective helps reveal the genius of dogs and their remarkable social skills, allowing them to rapidly learn from us instead of relying solely on less flexible operant and classical conditioning mechanisms (which by definition require slow trial-and-error learning).
That is why we at Dognition are so excited about providing people with the ability to assess their dog’s cognition across these key dimensions. While Skinner argued that we could understand animal behavior without understanding the animal mind, a cognitive approach assumes we cannot understand animals without a comprehensive understanding of how their minds work.
I hope I have helped clarify some of our ideas, and that it will lead to even more constructive discussion on the subject. Thanks so much for reading.
Thank you for inviting us to reflect on what we know (or think we know) and to imagine how we might enrich our communication with dogs by being open to the range of their emotions and abilities. If it’s not letting the cat out of the bag sooner than you’d like, would you give an example of what a Dognition-informed positive training plan or session would look like?
@Barbara ShumannfangHi Barbara, thanks for taking the time to read this post. We’ve been working hard on our Dognition Trainer Program, and you can sign up here to check out the first stage of the curriculem: https://www.dognition.com/portal/trainer_apply The next stage will draw from scientific findings, including what we’re learning with Dognition, to make training more effective and cognitive science-based. Eventually, we’ll have input from some of the world’s top trainers, top scientists, and hundreds of thousands of dogs to create training protocols that are individually tailored to each dog and its cognitive style. We’re really excited, and we’re on our way, so we encourage you to jump on board!
Hello,
I am currently reading your book, and have really enjoyed it. I know I need to finish it, and this likely won’t happen until the NCAA basketball tournament is over, but wanted to know if there is an option for people to participate in your “dognition” training without being a professional dog trainer. I have three dogs, and would like to be able to assess each one’s cognitive capabilities. They have not been formally trained in the past, because I have always felt that training systems were teaching dogs how to be “little people”. Yours is the first book that addresses what I see as the unique potential of dogs to make us better people. I would appreciate your recommendaitons for those of us who are dog lovers, but not necessarily dog professionals.
Regards, Bill Zimmer
Eaton Rapids, MI, U.S.A
Bill Zimmer Hi Bill! We wholeheartedly believe that dogs make us better people — we’re glad you agree. The Dognition Trainer Program is only available to part-time and full-time trainers, but the Dognition Experience is available to all dogs and their people: https://www.dognition.com/ Enjoy the rest of the book, and if you register for Dognition, please let us know how you like it!
Dognition Bill Zimmer thanks for responding…the first reading is done, and now getting into the research. Thanks for you and your wife’s hard work!
Regards, Bill
PS: Love Duke, but gotta be a spartan this Thursday! (My son goes to MSU!)
I’m having a problem with a sentence in the book: “Basenjis were trained to touch their nose to a cone in response to either a click and a food reward, or just a food reward.” P. 239. My clicker-training friends would say, “The author doesn’t understand clicker training. The dog doesn’t touch the cone IN RESPONSE to a click; rather the click follows the response.” This may sound like splitting hairs to you, because I know what you mean. But it could leave you open to criticism. I wish it had been worded differently. Or, am I confused?
dogwomanHey, in the book we say that the dogs were trained to touch their nose to a cone in response to a clicker and reward – we just meant these two things were paired and did not mean to indicate the sequence of events…but you are correct that the click does follow the “correct response”
the abstract cited said:
“Upon meeting pre-determined criteria, dogs progressed through: (1) training trials, wherein correct responses were followed immediately with a click plus food (clicker group) or food alone (control group)…”
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/applan/article/PIIS0168159107001402/abstract
@brian dogwoman Gotcha. Thanks so much for the speedy reply.
Do dogs have a sense of fairness? I was listening to an NPR story about chimps and bonobos. These animals definitely had a sense of fairness. A slice of cucumber was not as desirable as a grape, and anger resulted when one animal measured its food vs another animal’s and found it lacking. Now, I know that when I give both my dogs a chewie, they look carefully at each other’s treat. Are they comparing their treats to see if I was fair, or are they just plotting how to get it away? I wonder if anyone has done research on this.
dogwoman That’s a great question! As it happens, in The Genius of Dogs, Brian and Vanessa wrote about a study was done on this very topic: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/12/08/0810957105.abstract Dogs were essentially “paid” for giving their paw. After measuring the rate and speed they gave paw without a treat, two dogs were sat next to each other and asked in turn to give their paws. One dog was was given a better treat than the other, so the dog who was “paid less” eventually started giving his paw more reluctantly and slower. This finding raises the possibility that dogs can indeed sense fairness. Or at least be averse to inequality.
OK, it’s me again. Have been reading Reaching the Animal Mind by Karen Pryor. After looking at the research of LeDoux and Holland, she seems to assert that a click is processed differently in the brain from a verbal command, and that it is in fact, better (as in faster learning, longer retention). Hm. Seems that in Genius of Dogs Brian said there wasn’t any research to support this type of assertion. Can you tell I am struggling with this?? 🙂 I tend to think clickers are useful in some situations and that they do make us better trainers. Would love to have this squabble settled, although it won’t really change how I train. Clickers are only one tool in my toolbox.
dogwoman It’s awesome how interested you are in this topic.
I have no doubt Karen Pryor was correct in her research – we have the greatest respect for her as a trainer and we have no doubt that clickers work. The only point we were trying to make is that we could only find one experiment in the literature, and that experiment seemed to say there was no difference. However, this doesn’t mean clickers don’t work – we just need more research on how and why they work:)
I’m not familiar with the research of LeDoux and Holland – I’d have to look at their papers to see.
The fun about science is that some squabbles are never settled – instead, they spur on further research and investigation! perhaps you could do an experiment of your own and see what you find!!
Greetings This blog prompts me to share a dognition story about Aengus, a Gordon Setter with not only strong opinions about human/canine relations but exceptional cognitive abilities. Aengus hated swimming. An early puppy trauma in which he attempted to take the short cut between two floats at ninety degrees from each other led to trouble. The corner had been filled in with seaweed and looked like a solid surface. He stepped onto the seaweed and down, down, down he went until I yanked him back to the surface. He came up looking like a seal which prompted a chuckle from me, big mistake! Later as an adolescent I tossed him into the water to reassure myself that he could in fact swim as we spent a lot of time together in boats. This did not help his disinclination to swimming to say the least.
We frequently walked along the beach which he loved to do, but he just couldn’t make sense of the idiocy of the labs retrieving tennis balls in the water. He would stand in the surf barking at the fools swimming in the waves. I’m sure it was not compassion on his part! After a while he developed a game in response to his concern, what ever it was, envy? He would steal tennis balls from the labs whenever a dry opportunity presented itself. Pretty straight forward dognition, right? But then after numerous embarrassing moments of returning balls to the chagrined labs Aengus invented a new game. He would take the balls and hide them. If he saw that I had seen the location he would immediately retrieve it and find a new location which I could not see. This behavior was then generalized to all tennis balls such that wherever we went, he had a stash. Given his extraordinary skills as a gun dog and my disinterest in hunting we found the compromise of a lot of outdoor exploration in the woods, on the beach, open fields, etc. You get the picture.
Given the variety of sites we walked I was regularly amazed at how good his memory for relocating tennis balls had become. Trotting out the recovered ball for a toss or two before hiding it again in a new location hidden from me. It could be as much as six weeks or months before we would return to a particular site, and bang there he was with the prize.
What research is there on dog’s memory? I can still hear him barking at the foolishness of labs.
Hi Brian,
I’m struggling to understand how you decided that these were the ‘tenets of behaviorism’:
“- Behavior is dictated by nothing more than a series of stimulus-response mechanisms
– In reaction to consistent stimulus, the response should become stronger over time.
-All animals and humans are uniform in the way they learn.
-All behavior can be predicted and controlled, and therefore the inner workings of the mind (thoughts, memories and emotions) are irrelevant.”
Not only is it incompatible with the original claims made by Skinner and his radical behaviorism (the dominant approach to behaviorism since 1920/30), but it’s incompatible with how modern behaviorists view it.
The first point, for example, is blatantly false. Radical behaviorism is an active rejection of stimulus-response psychology and that was one of the major features of Skinner’s work. The second point seems to be true as a general statement but is by no means true as an absolute statement – how else could we account for things like satiation?
The third point again could be true as a vague statement, in that there are certainly consistencies in the learning mechanisms underpinning the behavior of humans and animals, but it makes no sense to claim that they are “uniform”. There are obviously individual and species-specific differences between individuals and this, again, is a central tenet in behaviorism – i.e. the fact that not all individuals learn the exact same way, especially not when they come from different species.
The fourth point is particularly confusing given that radical behaviorism was termed “radical” precisely because it emphasised the importance of the role of thoughts, memories, and emotions in causing behaviors.
If these are the reasons for rejecting behaviorism in dog training, then it seems that the position is based on a strange strawman and not how things actually are. Chomsky made a similar mistake when he tried to criticise radical behaviorism for being blank slatist, black box, stimulus-response psychology, etc, when obviously none of those claims are true.
I thoroughly enjoyed the book, thank you both for putting it together.
I
wondered while reading the section on spatial orientation what you
might say about the Moscow subway dogs – the story has been going around
in the dog world for several years now
http://www.socialphy.com/posts/off-topic/13644/Moscow-Subway_s-Stray-Dogs.html
Also,
I often wonder about the methodological limitations of using food
rewards. Many dogs – do you know which breed groups in particular have this tendency? – aren’t well motivated
by food rewards. In their cost-benefit analysis, a little bit of cheese or whatever doesn’t
make the grade compared to, for example, taking the opportunity to
hightail it out of a stressful testing situation. You must have seen this in other species too.
This is a
significant
and unacknowledged failing of all canine “intelligence tests” – so far.
If you could solve it you’d win a lot more followers. Think back to how
you modified your experiment for
the wild Russian foxes and be careful you’re not just measuring food
motivation.