That point was far from clear in your post.
If you understand what it means, then why did you refer to double blind studies with respect to animal behavior? You were the one who first brought the term up. That fact made it appear that you didn’t know what it meant, which is why I explained it.
I wondered just how well my cats understood their names. I thought maybe the tone of the word had a lot to do with it but they both understood it clearly when whispered at a great distance. My younger cat would not only react to it by looking at me she would verbalize her response. If she didn’t want to come to me she would give a distant meow that I would translate as “I’m not in the mood”. So she understood her name and that I was summoning her.
Yes you can claim I’m interpreting what she “said” and that is true. But studies have shown pets like cats and dogs have developed an historic bond with humans in such a way that they understand basic commands. More intelligent animals like monkeys do not have this ability. We can point and summon with our hands and they understand the significance of the gestures and vocal commands.
If you think you are so important, try ordering another mans dog around.
Hiding a stranger who has never been around Rover & having him command Rover, who was taking a nap in the sun to , “Rover, get the sock & put it on the porch.” … It’s not happening.
He may start looking for the intruder, in a not so nice way depending on how is trained. Might actually realize that of the three dogs in yard, someone was talking to him. But to do what is asked by a total stranger he can not see, only hear, he would have to be taught to obey any random stranger that addressed him.
That would take some powerful training because that is against how dogs are wired up.
The scientific way usually goes like this:
Little old man: I can find a black pipe gas line that is no more than 3" inches under normal ground.
Scientist says, “Ok we will test you.”
They then set up the test with a copper, a plastic, galvanized pipe & a black pipe with random depths up from 2" to 5" …
Little old man finds all black pipes that are 3" or less under the ground.
Scientist say, " You are a fraud because you did not find all the gas lines."
Nope, he only found the ones that he said he could. That is not enough for scientists, you have to meet the criteria that they set. Just doing what you say you can does not count. You have to meet their demands.
With dogs & cats, IMO, you can’t demand that from a living creature to do what no one said they could do.
Historically they were never trained, or bred, nor wanted to this. Maybe a .00001% of dog owners in the last 100 years would even think of doing it.
That is not testing, that is asking the cow to climb the fence.
IMO, that is bad science.
What exactly are you claiming they can do?
I believe it was to point out their unsuitability.
OK, I realize I’m backing up a few days, but it seems to me we’re all taking the OP’s question and seeing different goalposts.
I understand (I think) your first sentence - an animal that responds to its name may not realize that the word is its name - it could just be a command to come here or pay attention, as far as the animal is concerned.
That condition, I think, could be met by an animal understanding that another individual’s name has been called, and giving evidence that it knows it (looking at that individual, retrieving that individual, whatever).
But I don’t understand the second. You say both those conditions, one of which is ‘an animal actually knows what its name is’ is different from an animal ‘knowing what a name is, in general.’ What hurdle are you saying needs to be jumped to satisfy that? Would an animal that recognized individual names besides its own count? Or an animal that knew names for individual toys? What?
You believe it was? You’re not sure yourself?
Whatever the case, your posts on the subject have been unclear with regard to the point you were trying to make. If you don’t want them disputed, you might strive for more clarity.
I suggest we stop dragging this thread off topic into discussions of comprehension and clarity.
OK, I probably wasn’t clear on that. If an animal has a sense of self, and Colibri posted about that up-thread, it might understand the concept of its own name. But that doesn’t mean it will understand the abstract idea of “a name”. IOW, Ginger might not understand that Fido has a name, too, or that “tree” is the name of that thing the squirrels link to run up.
I am not claiming they can do anything.
I do not think you can double blind test dogs & maybe cats if as part of the test they must be able to do something they are not designed to do.
Do you train or think the test should contain an unknown voice for anything beyond a reaction to a voice it did not know was there.
Put 4 dogs that seem to know their name into this test and at the first sound of that voice, you will not be able to see any difference in their reaction to a strange voice from all four.
I am saying the set up of the double blind test as described in this thread will not work on dogs. (cats) The test is flawed because the cow must climb the tree. I see no one claiming that their dog or dogs in general will do what is being required as that has no bearing because of the bonding between human & dogs.
Dog will go fetch a sock in a yard that contains 4 other dog style toys. He will do the same in an unknown to him backyard that has a sock and 4 different toys in it. Now you want him to be removed from HIS human, taken to a strange place and do the same thing for a strange as the first interaction the dog has with the new guy?
Specially trained dog can learn to do this I believe but in general, you ain’t going to be ordering some one else’s dog around that does not know & trust you & had previous interaction with all 3, owner, dog & third person.
So, test parameters flawed.
I make no claim what any dog can do that can be double blind studied.
What about the actions of Skid Boot?
WARNING… AUTO RUN video with sound.