Humanities desk
< February 8	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 9

Do puppies pretend to love you in order to mooch off your food supply?

--Pupoeddates (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to say; trying to determine the motives of animals is difficult. See anthropomorphism#Animals and even solipsism. According to this, as little as 90 minutes of contact with humans during the initial stages of puppyhood causes the animal to seek attention from people in some way. How that gets expressed is going to depend on the relationship. If certain behaviours get rewarded, it's natural for the dog to continue doing them (see dog training). But does that make the supposed love puppies express for you pretend? Dogs are social animals and clearly form strong bonds with their humans; is that bond 'fake' because it's supported by their innate desire to fit within a pack structure? I don't think words like 'pretend' even really apply. Matt Deres (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7

See Self-domestication, Convergent evolution between dogs and humans, and Commensal pathway of dog domestication. In short: no, we have no scientific reason to believe that dogs or puppies are generally engaging in Dishonest signals. Rather, the current view of self-domestication and commensal coevolution indicates that dog-human communication generally relies upon honest signaling, and perhaps reciprocal altruism. We have some studies on dog-human interactions, from the approach of ethology. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would require more intelligence than dogs have. Specifically, they would have to know that how they behave affects how you feel about them, which in turn controls whether you feed them. This type of mind game is beyond most animals. See theory of mind (lots of good sources are listed there). However, some animals have evolved to mimic knowing what others think. For example, tigers only attack prey from behind, which might be misinterpreted as them knowing that if the prey sees them it will be aware of the attack and fight back. But the simpler explanation is just that those which always attacked from behind were more successful and passed on those genes. See Occam's razor. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um. That's just speculation and the human exceptionalism fallacy. But it's nice when other people provide links to articles with scientific research, and StuRat helpfully informs them that he knows better than everyone who studies the issues. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of mind, to which StuRat linked, is quite helpful and relevant. You seem to have posted for no other reason than to bust his chops, Someguy. If he stepped on your puppy elsewhere, then take it up there. Otherwise don't attribute to him a claim here "that he knows better than everyone who studies the issues" that he didn't make. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, something that you wrote might be relevant, Medeis, if Stu's comment actually matched what's found at the linked article. Stu says, "This type of mind game is beyond most animals.". Quite a strong and confident statement, but the article he links gives only a brief discussion of ToM in animals, summarized as "an open question" and "controversial". Dogs are mentioned only in passing, and tigers not at all. No, this is just as I described, and quite typical of Stu's behavior. You can count of me to bust Stu's chops any time he frames his opinion as a fact, especially when sources already provided, and even the source he himself provides, disagree with him. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC) (Add: I suppose if you're being generous, it's true that this mind game is "beyond most animals", in the sense that most animals are worms and insects, but that doesn't appear to have been Stu's point. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

If you have a problem with Stu, bring it up where it belongs, which is not here. The rest does not interest me. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one really gives a damn whether it interests you, you are not the OP and did not raise an RD question so are completely irrelevant to this discussion. Most of what Someguy1221 said was entirely appropriate criticism of what StuRat said and sufficiently countered your suggestion that it was inappropriate for Someguy1221 to criticise StuRat's highly flawed answer. If it doesn't interest you why criticism of StuRat's responses was appropriate, then you shouldn't criticise the valid criticism. If StuRat is unable to read refs, they should simply link to them without commentary that is not supported by the refs. If StuRat is going to give commentary, then pointing out no refs have been provided for this commentary since the refs that were provided don't support it is highly appropriate on a reference desk. In other words, both of Someguys1221's responses have provided useful info to the question. While you may have provided some (unsourced) information below, your responses in this particular subthread have not helped in any way. Instead you made pointless criticism and when it was pointed out your criticism (instead of the criticism you were criticising) was invalid you stuck your fingers in your ears because "it didn't interest you" when the whole reason it came up was because you misleadingly claimed the original criticism was inappropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who? What? The OP is Pupoeddates, and you and Someguy are trolling with your irrelevant attacks on Stu. He and I rarely agree, but I have never found it necessary to launch a personal attack on him, or go off topic to prevent his giving relevant links in reasonable threads. But please do take this to some other forum. Just not here, because no one will read your off-topic ad hominems. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only one who seems to be trolling is you. Pointing out that a claim made on the reference desk, is not supported by the actual reference is obviously not trolling. If you genuinely think it's trolling to point out a claim made on the reference desk is isn't supported by the reference, this proves how far removed your behaviour is from what should be expected on the reference desk. Note that misrepresenting references in the encylopaedia is a serious problem that can easily lead to blocks. If you don't believe such nonsense, then yes, please stop trolling. Incidentally if you didn't read my response, then there's zero reason for you to reply, and also it's completely inappropriate for you to accuse me of trolling. If you did read it, then you've proven your claim isn't correct. So really I don't see the purpose of your last sentence. Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs and humans, (and horses and chimps and many other smart animals) are pack creatures with similar social structures in the wild state; packs of a few dozen members, affection and submission and so forth. Given the same brain organs and neurotransmitters are involved in these behaviors, there's prima facie evolutionary evidence the underlying phenomenon is the same, unless you want to argue theologically that either humans alone are ensouled, or cynically that puppies are scheming sociopaths. μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another relevant link is game theory, which involves making decisions based on how others will react to those decisions. You will find many sources there for further study, some of which are specific to animals. StuRat (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]