4 ms·

Going only by the headline, I don't know why this would be a surprise to anyone who has lived with dogs or cats. I have hurt some of our four-legged family mem

Going only by the headline, I don't know why this would be a surprise to anyone who has lived with dogs or cats. I have hurt some of our four-legged family members - kicking them because I didn't see them, or stepping on their tail - and the very first thing they always want to know is if I did it on purpose or by accident. I wonder why this would even be the subject of research? And if it were, how could you possibly conduct an ethical experiment around it?

IAmGraydon 5y ago
Because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism
- Stratoscope 5y ago
  OK, I will challenge you on this. How many dogs and cats have you personally lived with? Have you ever hurt them, intentionally or by mistake? Did their response change based on whether you reassured them that it was an accident, or making it clear you really meant to hurt them? And honestly, I have to say I am a bit offended by being accused of anthropomophism. I am not attributing "human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities" like the dogs and cats I've lived with. I am doing my best to understand their dog and cat emotions. They are not human emotions, they are dog and cat emotions. You can't deny that they are emotional creatures, and it is my job as their caregiver and protector to understand them and meet them where they are.
  - IAmGraydon 5y ago
    I’ve always had pets. I currently have two Siamese cats. I’ve accidentally stepped on them, but never intentionally hurt them. All of that is beside my point, though. What you’re saying is clearly correct. The OP’s post supports this. I was simply telling you why studies like these are necessary: because things that can seem very real can be a case of cognitive bias. A scientist’s job is to gather evidence to reveal whether what we perceive is real or illusion.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      So how would a scientist prove conclusively that other humans are conscious and self-aware and not just very advanced automata that behave in ways which mimic consciousness and self-awareness? No matter how much data you collect, when you're assessing behaviour there's always a subjective interpretation of how behaviours differ and what they mean in context. Experiments like these simply disguise and hide the subjectivity. Questions of subjective experience are absolutely unprovable scientifically. You can collect correlations between stimuli and responses, but when you're done you have a table of correlations between stimuli and responses - and that's all. In practice we assume that our own states correlate with behaviours, and this also applies to other humans in a straightforward way. (It often doesn't, but it's a nice thing to believe.) From there it's an easy step to making the same mapping for certain animals, albeit with more of a stretch. But this is all unprovable, even as a hypothesis. All you can say objectively is that stimuli either match or don't match expected behaviours. That's all that's ever on the table.
      - pathseeker 5y ago
        > So how would a scientist prove conclusively that other humans are conscious and self-aware and not just very advanced automata that behave in ways which mimic consciousness and self-awareness? That's not the topic we're discussing but this isn't meaningfully different from the "are we in a simulation" question. This particular question is about animals understanding the difference accidents and not, which is a super interesting question because they can't communicate. This is something you can construct experiments around and observe different behaviors.
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    Anecdotes are still anecdotes regardless of how many you have. For data you need to actually measure a response in a controlled environment. Making sure you record both the interesting, and non-interesting, responses so you can compare them. Humans have a very strong natural tendency to only remember and evaluate interesting responses. Causing us to vastly overestimate the frequency of interesting outcomes. That paired with our brains strong desire to pattern match, means we’re terrible at making accurate observations on a day-to-day basis. Hence scientists do experiments like this to discover what aspects of our intuition are accurate, and what parts are inaccurate.
BrandoElFollito 5y ago
Your comment made me realize that I should maybe not react when I kick the cat by accident. I stop and tell her get how sorry I am, which did not make much sense and probably confuses the cat even more. Same with a dog (when I had one). Thanks for the interesting comment about something I never have a deeper thought to.
- Stratoscope 5y ago
  > I stop and tell her get how sorry I am, which did not make much sense and probably confuses the cat even more. Thanks for giving this some thought. Really, it does make sense to your dog or cat. When cats play, they often will hurt each other a bit as they tumble and play. Same with dogs. Just watch their behavior afterward. If they really meant to hurt each other, the attack will continue. If it was an accident, they will stop, smell each others' butts, see if everyone was OK, and then either take a rest or get back to playing. Two of our cats love to toss and tumble every night. If you didn't know, you might think they were fighting. But they are best of friends and love to play like that. I suppose this is the bottom line (quite literally): if you kick your cat, smell her butt! No, seriously, you don't need to do that. Cats and dogs have an amazing talent for reading human emotions. So just reassure her that you didn't mean to do it. A little head scratch, pet her, and she will get the message.
  - BrandoElFollito 5y ago
    > Really, it does make sense to your dog or cat. What I meant is that it may be better to just continue walking after having stepped on them as if nothing happened, rather than making the event special. I have more experience with children than with cats so this may be the reason (when my children fell and hurt themselves (in the "usual way"), they would look around to check how parents react. If we did as if nothing happened or just casually acknowledged the accident, they would usually go ahead with what they were doing. Running to them with "poor baby!" was the worst thing to do (in our case at least))
    - pxc 5y ago
      > I have more experience with children than with cats so this may be the reason (when my children fell and hurt themselves (in the "usual way"), they would look around to check how parents react. If we did as if nothing happened or just casually acknowledged the accident, they would usually go ahead with what they were doing. Running to them with "poor baby!" was the worst thing to do (in our case at least)) Dogs are like this, too. This is how a lot of owners end up reinforcing fear and fear-related aggression: cooing and fawning when their dog is shaking with fear, growling, or barking. I've had dogs who are smaller than most cats. When I step on a paw, I do apologize and I do check on the critter, but I try to keep it low-drama so as not to feed into all that. I just pick them up and gently squeeze each paw with gradually increasing firmness, while I watch to gauge the reactions. This lets me know whether he's actually hurt or the yelping was more anticipatory (like a 'watch out!') and if the former, which paw it was and a little bit about how bad it is. Then I give them a quick and cheerful apology and I pet them or throw a toy to chase or something like that. If you want I can try to find some more authoritative resources on this, but basically your intuitions and the analogy from your kids are right on afaik.
Ensorceled 5y ago
Are these animals responding to the emotion of your apology and chagrin and being soothed or did they recognize your intent? What experiments did you do to figure that out difference?
- Stratoscope 5y ago
  Do you seriously think I am going to experiment with kicking my dogs and cats or stepping on their tails, for the sake of science? I love the dogs and cats that I have the privilege of living with. So no, I'm not going to do that. Update: sorry I took some offense at your comment. Basically, I don't think this is a matter of science. Our dogs and cats are living, emotional creatures. As their human, it is my intuition and interaction with them that best teaches me how to provide them with a loving and happy home.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    So you love your pets and treat them kindly and with affection, yet you are assuming that your pets behaviour when you do accidentally hurt them is due to an unproven ability to discern that it was an accident rather than simply learned behaviour that you are not a threat and, rather, a boon? Assumption is not science.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      Or you could just watch cats and dogs for a while to see how clearly they understand the difference between friendly play, territorial grandstanding, and all-out war without needing accredited scientific legitimisation. Superficial casuistry isn't science either.
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    Or you could just do what these scientists did, and test whether or not dogs were capable of recognising intent in scenarios that don’t involve harming them. Not sure why you would need to harm to test if they could understand intent.
  - 5y ago
trimble_tromble 5y ago
In science, we cannot cite our intuition or anecdotal experience as firm and reliable evidence for any phenomenon. One outgrowth of this is that good science is not just about investigating something that is likely to be surprising, it is about checking our intuitions in a more systematic and structured manner.

IAmGraydon 5y ago

Because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism

Stratoscope 5y ago
OK, I will challenge you on this. How many dogs and cats have you personally lived with? Have you ever hurt them, intentionally or by mistake? Did their response change based on whether you reassured them that it was an accident, or making it clear you really meant to hurt them? And honestly, I have to say I am a bit offended by being accused of anthropomophism. I am not attributing "human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities" like the dogs and cats I've lived with. I am doing my best to understand their dog and cat emotions. They are not human emotions, they are dog and cat emotions. You can't deny that they are emotional creatures, and it is my job as their caregiver and protector to understand them and meet them where they are.
- IAmGraydon 5y ago
  I’ve always had pets. I currently have two Siamese cats. I’ve accidentally stepped on them, but never intentionally hurt them. All of that is beside my point, though. What you’re saying is clearly correct. The OP’s post supports this. I was simply telling you why studies like these are necessary: because things that can seem very real can be a case of cognitive bias. A scientist’s job is to gather evidence to reveal whether what we perceive is real or illusion.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    So how would a scientist prove conclusively that other humans are conscious and self-aware and not just very advanced automata that behave in ways which mimic consciousness and self-awareness? No matter how much data you collect, when you're assessing behaviour there's always a subjective interpretation of how behaviours differ and what they mean in context. Experiments like these simply disguise and hide the subjectivity. Questions of subjective experience are absolutely unprovable scientifically. You can collect correlations between stimuli and responses, but when you're done you have a table of correlations between stimuli and responses - and that's all. In practice we assume that our own states correlate with behaviours, and this also applies to other humans in a straightforward way. (It often doesn't, but it's a nice thing to believe.) From there it's an easy step to making the same mapping for certain animals, albeit with more of a stretch. But this is all unprovable, even as a hypothesis. All you can say objectively is that stimuli either match or don't match expected behaviours. That's all that's ever on the table.
    - pathseeker 5y ago
      > So how would a scientist prove conclusively that other humans are conscious and self-aware and not just very advanced automata that behave in ways which mimic consciousness and self-awareness? That's not the topic we're discussing but this isn't meaningfully different from the "are we in a simulation" question. This particular question is about animals understanding the difference accidents and not, which is a super interesting question because they can't communicate. This is something you can construct experiments around and observe different behaviors.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  Anecdotes are still anecdotes regardless of how many you have. For data you need to actually measure a response in a controlled environment. Making sure you record both the interesting, and non-interesting, responses so you can compare them. Humans have a very strong natural tendency to only remember and evaluate interesting responses. Causing us to vastly overestimate the frequency of interesting outcomes. That paired with our brains strong desire to pattern match, means we’re terrible at making accurate observations on a day-to-day basis. Hence scientists do experiments like this to discover what aspects of our intuition are accurate, and what parts are inaccurate.

BrandoElFollito 5y ago

Your comment made me realize that I should maybe not react when I kick the cat by accident. I stop and tell her get how sorry I am, which did not make much sense and probably confuses the cat even more. Same with a dog (when I had one). Thanks for the interesting comment about something I never have a deeper thought to.

Stratoscope 5y ago
> I stop and tell her get how sorry I am, which did not make much sense and probably confuses the cat even more. Thanks for giving this some thought. Really, it does make sense to your dog or cat. When cats play, they often will hurt each other a bit as they tumble and play. Same with dogs. Just watch their behavior afterward. If they really meant to hurt each other, the attack will continue. If it was an accident, they will stop, smell each others' butts, see if everyone was OK, and then either take a rest or get back to playing. Two of our cats love to toss and tumble every night. If you didn't know, you might think they were fighting. But they are best of friends and love to play like that. I suppose this is the bottom line (quite literally): if you kick your cat, smell her butt! No, seriously, you don't need to do that. Cats and dogs have an amazing talent for reading human emotions. So just reassure her that you didn't mean to do it. A little head scratch, pet her, and she will get the message.
- BrandoElFollito 5y ago
  > Really, it does make sense to your dog or cat. What I meant is that it may be better to just continue walking after having stepped on them as if nothing happened, rather than making the event special. I have more experience with children than with cats so this may be the reason (when my children fell and hurt themselves (in the "usual way"), they would look around to check how parents react. If we did as if nothing happened or just casually acknowledged the accident, they would usually go ahead with what they were doing. Running to them with "poor baby!" was the worst thing to do (in our case at least))
  - pxc 5y ago
    > I have more experience with children than with cats so this may be the reason (when my children fell and hurt themselves (in the "usual way"), they would look around to check how parents react. If we did as if nothing happened or just casually acknowledged the accident, they would usually go ahead with what they were doing. Running to them with "poor baby!" was the worst thing to do (in our case at least)) Dogs are like this, too. This is how a lot of owners end up reinforcing fear and fear-related aggression: cooing and fawning when their dog is shaking with fear, growling, or barking. I've had dogs who are smaller than most cats. When I step on a paw, I do apologize and I do check on the critter, but I try to keep it low-drama so as not to feed into all that. I just pick them up and gently squeeze each paw with gradually increasing firmness, while I watch to gauge the reactions. This lets me know whether he's actually hurt or the yelping was more anticipatory (like a 'watch out!') and if the former, which paw it was and a little bit about how bad it is. Then I give them a quick and cheerful apology and I pet them or throw a toy to chase or something like that. If you want I can try to find some more authoritative resources on this, but basically your intuitions and the analogy from your kids are right on afaik.

Ensorceled 5y ago

Are these animals responding to the emotion of your apology and chagrin and being soothed or did they recognize your intent? What experiments did you do to figure that out difference?

Stratoscope 5y ago
Do you seriously think I am going to experiment with kicking my dogs and cats or stepping on their tails, for the sake of science? I love the dogs and cats that I have the privilege of living with. So no, I'm not going to do that. Update: sorry I took some offense at your comment. Basically, I don't think this is a matter of science. Our dogs and cats are living, emotional creatures. As their human, it is my intuition and interaction with them that best teaches me how to provide them with a loving and happy home.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  So you love your pets and treat them kindly and with affection, yet you are assuming that your pets behaviour when you do accidentally hurt them is due to an unproven ability to discern that it was an accident rather than simply learned behaviour that you are not a threat and, rather, a boon? Assumption is not science.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    Or you could just watch cats and dogs for a while to see how clearly they understand the difference between friendly play, territorial grandstanding, and all-out war without needing accredited scientific legitimisation. Superficial casuistry isn't science either.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  Or you could just do what these scientists did, and test whether or not dogs were capable of recognising intent in scenarios that don’t involve harming them. Not sure why you would need to harm to test if they could understand intent.
- 5y ago

trimble_tromble 5y ago

In science, we cannot cite our intuition or anecdotal experience as firm and reliable evidence for any phenomenon. One outgrowth of this is that good science is not just about investigating something that is likely to be surprising, it is about checking our intuitions in a more systematic and structured manner.