What are some examples of intelligent small dogs?

Factual Questions
41

You’re describing, pretty perfectly, how confirmation bias works, and how such mythology perpetuates. You are not, however, describing anything remotely related to empiric evidence. All of your evidence is positive; i.e., anecdotal by nature and consisting purely of confirmation. Real proof must include negative proof; i.e., other explanations must be eliminated. A clumsy description, but perhaps the point is made nonetheless.

Example: there’s a whole bunch of confirmation evidence that the sun goes around the earth. That hypothesis, however, does not stand up to negative scrutiny. Likewise, there’s a whole bunch of confirmation evidence that does not disprove the hypothesis that underlies dog breed prejudice. But lack of disproof does not equal proof.

Think of a criminal case, like you see on TV, where all the evidence perfectly lines up with a theory of the crime that convicts someone of the crime. Only to find out that he was not in fact guilty. That’s how confirmation bias works. I have a theory. This bit of evidence supports it/does not disprove it. So does that bit. You can have as much confirmation evidence as you want–as in with breed prejudice–but all you need is one piece of negative evidence, that disproves it, and it’s disproven. A million points of confirmation proof is still not proof: any hypothesis must be tested against negative proof. That’s never been done with dog breed prejudice, so people have–for millenia, as you point out–accumulated confirmation evidence that seems to support the prejudice.

When, in fact, it’s not the case.

42

I’m waiting for your evidence that intelligence is not a breed characteristic.

43

You will acknowledge that SOME characteristics are more likely to appear in certain breeds than others, right? I mean, the chance of a bulldog beating a greyhound in a race is pretty damn slim. Or are you suggesting that because I’m expecting this to be the case I’m simply not paying attention to the speedy bulldogs out there? If you will acknowledge (I hope) that some characteristics are more likely to appear, then (from your perspective) what traits can and what traits can’t be selected for?

44

[In response to Zsofia]

That’s now how it works. You can’t prove a negative. The way your hypothesis would be stated is “Intelligence is a breed characteristic.” That’s the hypothesis that has been mistaken for a conclusion for millenia, as you put it.

The closest you might phrase the hypothesis that you disagree with is “Intelligence is an individual trait.” That’s more testable. “Intelligence is not a breed trait” is not testable.

In addition to which, the mountains of evidence supporting the hypothesis that intelligence varies by individual, not by “breed,” is overwhelmingly supported in the extensive studies done with another species that has highly variable races: Homo sapiens. The scientific consensus as to the variations of that species are well enough established that it makes more sense to start there, with other species that have widely varying physical traits.

Not to mention, “Intelligence is an individual trait” is a hypothesis that, if proven, is fully compatible with your anecdotal experience, especially when breed prejudice and self-fulfilling prophecies are taken into account. In other words, the variations you note in intelligence between different breeds is actually between individuals within those breeds, so is not incompatible with the “by individual” hypothesis. But every time you meet a stupid golden or whatever, that doesn’t fit the breed prejudice, by your hypothesis you have to simply discount them as an exception. With the intelligence hypothesis, such exceptions don’t have to be ignored or discounted.

Sorry this all seems so disjointed; going on 9 hours without food and I have blood sugar issues. Brain feels gritty.

45

I noted physical limitations, that’s not at issue.

46

Missed edit, but: ETA: To emphasize–as far as I’m concerned, the fact that your anecdotal observations are compatible with the “individual” hypothesis, while my anecdotal observations, and established science regarding variations of intelligence between different races of other species, are not compatible with the racial/breed hypothesis, is the strongest evidence in favor of the individual hypothesis.

Like, all possible observations are compatible with the hypothesis that the earth circles the sun, but only the most obvious observations are compatible with the hypothesis that the sun circles the earth. None of your anecdotal observations disprove the racial/breed theory. But your anecdotal observations–even the anecdotal observations of millenia–are still just that, anecdotal confirmation, not testing.

47

Dude, you’re the one making extraordinary claims. Why on earth would dogs, which we’ve been selectively breeding for specific traits pretty much since we’ve been humans at all, have anything to do with colors of people? What on earth does that have to do with smart dogs? Offer up some proof that we breed for physical characteristics of dogs but that it’s just crazy-ass talk to say you can and do breed for mental ones.

48

Well, isn’t differences in behavior due to physical differences/limitations? How is it that you agree (I think) that every other physical structure of a dog can and has been modified through selective breeding… but not the brain?

Race is a very vague term that is not linked very strongly with biology. That is nothing like different breeds of dogs.

If you mean human “populations,” then why WOULD there be large variations in intelligence unless it was much more selected for in a particular environment? I don’t see how intelligence would be selected for much more in one group than in another.

With dog breeds, there HAS been selective pressure – a huge amount of it. Great energy has been put into selecting specific behavioral traits.

Pretty big difference there.

49

I am a little torn here, as I think it’s important to downplay the importance of breed and a lot of the traits we assign to breeds, so I tend to agree with some of what lissener seems to be saying.

However, he doesn’t seem to be interested in responding to my questioning his choice of calling me out, so that choice by itself leads me to doubt his seriousness.

But, assuming for the sake of argument that lissener’s basic premise is correct, and dog intelligence is not correlated to breed, is it nevertheless possible that a dog’s emotional makeup, which would direct that intelligence, might vary by breed? In other words, that a Shar Pei is statistically no likelier smarter or dumber than an Australian Shepherd, but they express their brainpower through such different interests and behaviors that we humans perceive it as differing intelligence? Perhaps the Shepherd is more emotionally/psychologically inclined to do what we find useful, so we see him as “smarter?”

In general, I think there is something to “breed tendencies,” although they are often wildly overblown by both enthusiasts and detractors of a given breed. But perhaps, if it exists, it’s in the psychology and not the brainpower.

As one example of how alike dogs are despite our ideas of “breed differences,” in the last couple of conversations (both online and in real life) I’ve had about dogs, I’ve noticed a LOT of people say their particular breed tends to be a “velcro dog,” or talk about how loyal/dependent/focused-on-the-human the breed is, or describe them as “cuddlers,” or say “he has to be wherever I am,” or “he watches whatever I’m doing like it’s important.” All these seem like the different people’s descriptions of the same behavior. People with Malteses, Shih Tzus, mutts, Rottweilers, Brussels Griffons, Jack Russells, and numerous other breeds might recognize the behavior of my American Pit Bull Terrier as she follows me from room to room, standing close to me, and seeks physical contact, or rolls her eyes pleadingly at me while waiting for me to get off the computer. I do believe that most dogs have more in common than our efforts to define separate breeds have led us to believe.

50

Scientist Jared Diamond has written that he believes populations of hunter-gatherers (note the distinction from “races”) are more intelligent than populations of advanced Western nation-states. He cites selective pressure (hunter-gatherers are selected overwhelmingly for their ability to master a complex environment, we are selected much more intensely for disease resistance to many different epidemic diseases) and, of course, our access to television.

51

I didn’t reply because I didn’t call you out. Of course you weren’t the only one promulgating breed prejudices. Yours was just the iteration I happened to be reading when I reached my saturation point and decided to address it.

Fruitlessly, I’m well aware; I’ve been beating this drum for like 25 years, since the summer I decided I wanted a particular breed of dog and started researching breeds, and had my eyes opened.

It’s silly to take it personally, sailboat, when what you’re expressing is a view held by millions.

52

It’s far more complicated than that. There is nothing at all like a consensus supporting behaviors being hereditary, beyond the hardwired “instinct” type behaviors. Why, if you want to play it like that, is such behavior hereditary in dogs, but not in humans?

Dog breeds are as biologically vague as race. It’s only human labels that give the illusion of distinctness. And yes, it’s exactly the same as breeds of dogs.

Natural selection selects for intelligence.

There’s been a couple thousand years of breeding selection. There’s been millions of years of natural selection.

53

Oh, good. We’ve managed to turn yet another perfectly good thread into a debate about some…checks forum name…unique idea of lissener’s.

54

I know one exception doesn’t prove anything…but my parents had one of those.

They’ve had many dogs, but that Papillon was the stupidest dog I’ve ever met. I mean, that little rat was lucky to remember how to breathe. Unfriendly, too.

And it snored like a chainsaw.

And it had bad breath.

And it shed like crazy.

No, I didn’t like it. And I like almost every dog that doesn’t try to bite me.

55

As a lifelong dog fancier, current dog owner, and giant dog nerd who reads a lot, I have to agree with lissener (and all scientific evidence so far supports his basic ideas here as well). Breed is no guarantee of anything at all, it’s the individual that makes the difference, and all sorts of dog are much more similar than they could ever be different. They are the same species and they all speak the same ‘language’ no matter who their ancestors were, where they are from, and across massive differences in body size and conformation. They may look vastly different but they are much more homogenous than humans, really.

That said of course the breed of a dog can influence an individual’s behavior, problem-solving ability, and trainability.

I do think there is a great deal of truth to the common perception of Border Collies as ‘the smartest breed’. For instance, the only two canines with a comparably extensive vocabulary and unusual affinity for language (one has a vocabulary of 300 words) are both BCs. They have been selected for intelligence and problem-solving ability (as general farm/working/herding dogs) for most of their history, rather than for performing more broad (guarding, tracking) or specialized (competative ratting) tasks and for their confirmation, like the majority of modern breeds.

56

Zsofia, Sailboat, if you really want to do this strictly on an anecdotal field, I can match you observation for observation. Bonus: both your observations and mine are compatible with the per-individual model, while my observations are incompatible with the race/breed model.

Working in a pet store for 8 years, I interacted with thousands of dog owners. Every breed fancier would recite all the things that were unique about his preferred breed: uniquely loyal, uniquely intelligent, uniquely protective, etc. We sold all the breed-specific books. Every single one of them had an introduction that was pretty much boilerplate. “[Breed X] is known for its [yadda yadda yadda].” Breed to breed to breed. Every breed fancier thinks his preferred breed is the best.

In addition to that kind of observation, I was a freelance dog trainer for 5 of the years I worked at the store. You know where intelligence tends to fall, according to my observations? The smartest, most readily and enthusiastically trained dogs were all owned by “dog people.” The smartest dogs all had committed, engaged owners. The dogs that were the hardest to train were the ones owned by idiots, the kind who thought that every breed has certain behaviors hardwired into it, and all they had to do was buy the right model and it would develop all these wonderful traits. These animals were analogous to human children raised by wolves: there had been no attempt to engage with them in a way they could comprehend.

This fell across all breeds, and all mixes. The five smartest dogs I ever trained were mixed breeds. The dumbest dog I ever knew was a $1500 collie. I even knew a dumb Border Collie once. With almost zero exception, the apparent intelligence of the dog was dictated by the intelligence of the owner.

The way confirmation bias works is, say I believe Golden Retrievers are smart. So I see a smart Golden. Confimation. I see another smart Golden. Confirmation. Times let’s say seven. Not taking into account, for example, the likelihood that Goldens’ reputation for intelligence makes it an attractive breed for owners interested in really training a dog. Whoomp: Self fulfilling prophecy. Meet a dumb Golden? An exception, dismissed.

Likewise, owners who “know” their breed’s traits would tend not to bother to train their dog in skills that lay outside of the prejudicial traits outside of that dog’s traditional profile. Whoomp: a dog who’s not skilled in things his breed is not known for. Another self fulfilling prophecy.

Anecdote for anecdote, none of the prejudices accepted by breed fanciers disprove the per-individual model; they all fit within it when confirmation bias and self-fullfilment are taken into account. But many of, for example, my personal anecdotal observations, as well as thos of others I’ve known in the field–tend to disprove the race/breed model.

57

I don’t have a dog in this fight (heh), but I have to point out that the the concept of race in humans and breed in dogs is not directly analogous. There is much, much less morphological difference between humans of different race than there is between dogs of different breeds. Genes in populations of humans show gradual clines across humanity as a whole rather than abrubt genetic shifts between discrete populations; the concept of race is far more deeply rooted in culture than in biology. If all humans were dogs, we’d very likely be all the same breed.

58

Your conclusion doesn’t follow from your assertions.

Just as likely, if race distinctions–a cultural concept–were more like breed distinctions–ditto–there’d be a greater number of described races. If a Basset Hound is a separate breed, for example, then human dwarves would be a separate race. So the distinction between the concept of race and the concept of breed is purely arbitrary and semantic. In addition, I think it’s highly likely that–hypothetical here, obviously–if there were another species on the planet that had domesticated humans 10,000 years ago, and had spent those 100 centuries breeding humans for various traits, who’s to say there wouldn’t be just as many different “breeds” of humans as there are dogs? As silly as that thought experiment is, it illustrates the idea that variations in race–and in breed–are arbitrary, artificial, serendipitous, nebulous, and highly dynamic and variable.

The two concepts are certainly not distinct enough to render the science of psychobiology as applied to dogs and to humans as wholly different as they would need to be to support breed prejudice and mythology.

59

You simply don’t see the morphological differences between humans that you do between dogs. It’s not there. There’s no human population invariably averaging around one weight and another invariably averaging around sixteen to twenty times that weight. Ranges like that doesn’t occur presently in human genetics. A layman could look as a Chihuahua skeleton and a Mastiff skeleton and distinguish between them; the skeletal differences between a black man and a white man have to be made in measurements of millimeters in difference in the curvature of the femur. That’s not merely my assertion, that’s dominant view in the field of anthropology. This mirrors the view of every single anthropologist I’ve ever spoken to on the matter:

Dr. Conrad P. Kottak, University of Michigan

60

I read that as largely agreeing with me–perhaps we’re talking past each other. The difference is one of degree and time. Your cite posits the same hypothetical that I did.

In any case it addresses the semantics of terminology, which is certainly relevant to *how *we’re holding this discussion. But it provides us with no insights as to the heritability of behaviors in dogs.

Otherwise, I’m not sure of the practical relevance of this cite. Beyond the semantic difference between the words “race” and “breed,” does it demonstrate where that line is drawn? or how closely heritable behaviors follow that line? Obviously there’s a structural difference between a Chihuahua and Great Dane. Roughly the same difference as between the smallest man and the largest. If this size difference is heritable–which it certainly would be, if humans were bred like dogs–does it necessarily follow that the separate bloodline of this hypothetical breeding program would vary in intelligence?