5 ms·

I'm going to guess that the "fetch" reflex may have its roots in wolves chasing after bones humans around a campfire may have tossed to sate the wolves' appetit

I'm going to guess that the "fetch" reflex may have its roots in wolves chasing after bones humans around a campfire may have tossed to sate the wolves' appetites and keep them at bay. Maybe bringing the bones back was a way of "nicely" letting humans know that more bones would be appreciated/required to keep living. You often see wolves circle around humans around a fire in movies and books. Maybe it's a symbiotic relationship like a remora/shark, or even parasitic like an oxpicker/large mammal. *edit - Some people are very liberal with downvotes, especially for lighthearted conjecture that is not obviously wrong or intellectually misleading. Got any better ideas?

heyitsguay 7y ago
You're probably being downvoted for telling a just so story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story . It's a particularly pernicious trap when trying to understand behavior and evolution!
- briefcomment 7y ago
  That makes sense.
  - FriendlyNormie 7y ago
    No, it doesn’t. Your comment was fine. If your comment was a “just-so story” then the first two paragraphs of the linked article are also a “just-so story”. I see no evidence that the scientists were using guaranteed purebreed wolves, if there even is such a thing alive today. During the evolution of dogs, surely wolves in general were constantly having their gene pools contaminated by genes from stray dogs. That could easily explain why some wolf pups would exhibit traces of dog-specific behavior. Oops, and now I’ve just told a “just-so story”. Maybe it’s safer if we turn off our brains and never comment again.
    - briefcomment 7y ago
      I meant it makes sense as a reason for why people are downvoting. I don't think it makes sense as a way of thinking about things. And I certainly won't stop commenting because some people find it disagreeable/distracting.
    - Haga 7y ago
      Leave knowledge hunting and gathering to the experts, after all they brought us fusion. With greatexpertise seems to corelate great Stagnation. just look at all recent greater discoveries. All minor subfield deemed unworthy to mine by those completed, who with brute force incrementally fortify theire fields.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I’d never heard about this before, so I read the Wikipedia article. > Academics such as David Barash say that the term just-so story [...] is simply a derogatory term for a hypothesis. I’m inclined to agree with Barash. Conjecture should not be confused for fact. However, conjecture is also necessary for discovery.
  - justaguyonline 7y ago
    A Just-So story cannot be a hypothesis since a good hypothesis must be testable for actual science to be done later. In contrast, a Just-So story will never be followed up on and simply exists to supply an easy to digest explaination for a phenomena. An explanatory meme so to speak. Hence their comparison to fairy tales via titles like "How the Tiger got it's Stripes"
    - Bartweiss 7y ago
      Exactly. When I see just-so story used as a criticism, it's almost always because something isn't falsifiable, and more specifically, it's usually an argument from ignorance. The explanation slots into a space we don't know much about and defends itself with "it's possible and it makes sense", but its strengths are almost always narrative rather than factual. Like Kipling's actual Just-So Stories, they're interesting and memorable, but very dissimilar to the histories we actually know. (As far as why this specific example qualifies, it's basically impossible to falsify the story, yet it's badly out of sync with what we do know. "Wolves circling the campfire" show up in books and movies, not in real life; even absent modern tools, wolf attacks on humans are rare and reliably come from desperation attacks on isolated people, exactly the wrong circumstances for this story. Keeping predators at bay by offering food that won't sate them is the exact opposite of how things generally work; it's the equivalent of tossing out chum to stop sharks from attacking. And we have a pretty good model of how canine domestication in general began - it does involve bone and meat scraps, but scavenged from waste, and with wolves scaring away other predators, not spontaneous cooperation.)
- FriendlyNormie 7y ago
  I really hope “just-so story” isn’t going to be the new thought-terminating cliché we see everywhere.
  - rzzzt 7y ago
    Slippery slope fallacy!
  - posterboy 7y ago
    The just-so story is itself thought-terminating, insofar it presents a conjecture as that's just what it is (it's just so), without asking the right questions to connect to.
    - vonmoltke 7y ago
      The story itself is not the thought-terminating cliche, labelling it as such (especially with no attempt to engage or correct the poster of it) is.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
bitexploder 7y ago
This is essentially an important skill for hunting animals. Some trainers call it “prey drive” or “chase instinct”. It’s all about their need to hunt and catch prey. Bringing back is a way to repeat the game, which is rewarding. Pretty sure that is the “understood” reason for this behavior.
- briefcomment 7y ago
  Oh, cool! The article doesn't mention anything like a prey drive, and seems to assume fetching is just a way of playfully interacting with humans. Seems like an oversight.
INTPenis 7y ago
I'd say it's much simpler than that. In nature things don't fly across the ground unless they're alive, prey. So a ball or stick flying/rolling across the ground mostly immitates a small prey animal. I believe that is what our training is nurturing. I have a jack russel and she is genetically predisposed to hunting after small things.
- briefcomment 7y ago
  That makes sense. Why would a wolf pup bring it back though? I wouldn't be surprised if wolves that brought back food/bones thrown by humans were then given more food, making those wolves a bit better off, fostering that trait.

heyitsguay 7y ago

You're probably being downvoted for telling a just so story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story . It's a particularly pernicious trap when trying to understand behavior and evolution!

briefcomment 7y ago
That makes sense.
- FriendlyNormie 7y ago
  No, it doesn’t. Your comment was fine. If your comment was a “just-so story” then the first two paragraphs of the linked article are also a “just-so story”. I see no evidence that the scientists were using guaranteed purebreed wolves, if there even is such a thing alive today. During the evolution of dogs, surely wolves in general were constantly having their gene pools contaminated by genes from stray dogs. That could easily explain why some wolf pups would exhibit traces of dog-specific behavior. Oops, and now I’ve just told a “just-so story”. Maybe it’s safer if we turn off our brains and never comment again.
  - briefcomment 7y ago
    I meant it makes sense as a reason for why people are downvoting. I don't think it makes sense as a way of thinking about things. And I certainly won't stop commenting because some people find it disagreeable/distracting.
  - Haga 7y ago
    Leave knowledge hunting and gathering to the experts, after all they brought us fusion. With greatexpertise seems to corelate great Stagnation. just look at all recent greater discoveries. All minor subfield deemed unworthy to mine by those completed, who with brute force incrementally fortify theire fields.
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
I’d never heard about this before, so I read the Wikipedia article. > Academics such as David Barash say that the term just-so story [...] is simply a derogatory term for a hypothesis. I’m inclined to agree with Barash. Conjecture should not be confused for fact. However, conjecture is also necessary for discovery.
- justaguyonline 7y ago
  A Just-So story cannot be a hypothesis since a good hypothesis must be testable for actual science to be done later. In contrast, a Just-So story will never be followed up on and simply exists to supply an easy to digest explaination for a phenomena. An explanatory meme so to speak. Hence their comparison to fairy tales via titles like "How the Tiger got it's Stripes"
  - Bartweiss 7y ago
    Exactly. When I see just-so story used as a criticism, it's almost always because something isn't falsifiable, and more specifically, it's usually an argument from ignorance. The explanation slots into a space we don't know much about and defends itself with "it's possible and it makes sense", but its strengths are almost always narrative rather than factual. Like Kipling's actual Just-So Stories, they're interesting and memorable, but very dissimilar to the histories we actually know. (As far as why this specific example qualifies, it's basically impossible to falsify the story, yet it's badly out of sync with what we do know. "Wolves circling the campfire" show up in books and movies, not in real life; even absent modern tools, wolf attacks on humans are rare and reliably come from desperation attacks on isolated people, exactly the wrong circumstances for this story. Keeping predators at bay by offering food that won't sate them is the exact opposite of how things generally work; it's the equivalent of tossing out chum to stop sharks from attacking. And we have a pretty good model of how canine domestication in general began - it does involve bone and meat scraps, but scavenged from waste, and with wolves scaring away other predators, not spontaneous cooperation.)
FriendlyNormie 7y ago
I really hope “just-so story” isn’t going to be the new thought-terminating cliché we see everywhere.
- rzzzt 7y ago
  Slippery slope fallacy!
- posterboy 7y ago
  The just-so story is itself thought-terminating, insofar it presents a conjecture as that's just what it is (it's just so), without asking the right questions to connect to.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    The story itself is not the thought-terminating cliche, labelling it as such (especially with no attempt to engage or correct the poster of it) is.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

bitexploder 7y ago

This is essentially an important skill for hunting animals. Some trainers call it “prey drive” or “chase instinct”. It’s all about their need to hunt and catch prey. Bringing back is a way to repeat the game, which is rewarding. Pretty sure that is the “understood” reason for this behavior.

briefcomment 7y ago
Oh, cool! The article doesn't mention anything like a prey drive, and seems to assume fetching is just a way of playfully interacting with humans. Seems like an oversight.

INTPenis 7y ago

I'd say it's much simpler than that. In nature things don't fly across the ground unless they're alive, prey. So a ball or stick flying/rolling across the ground mostly immitates a small prey animal. I believe that is what our training is nurturing. I have a jack russel and she is genetically predisposed to hunting after small things.

briefcomment 7y ago
That makes sense. Why would a wolf pup bring it back though? I wouldn't be surprised if wolves that brought back food/bones thrown by humans were then given more food, making those wolves a bit better off, fostering that trait.