There’s a good possibility that the winner is extinct.
astro
February 13, 2012, 11:01pm
42
Fuzzy_Dunlop:
I get what you mean here, but I still think it’s funny because it reads like you’re worried that all the hamsters and hippopotamuses that post on this board would hijack your thread and make it about how we shouldn’t judge mammals’ value by intelligence. And you just know the dolphins who post here would be making a stink too just out of some weird mammal guilt, even though they’re obviously one of the most intelligent mammals.
Seriously? Just look at some of the respondents in this thread that are just dying to lecture me at length about anything resembling the anthropomorphization of intelligence. The only thing stopping them, (and it didn’t stop all of them) is my little disclaimer.
Elected Senators and representatives?
Colibri
February 13, 2012, 11:10pm
44
[Moderator Note]
You’re quite correct: political jabs are not permitted in GQ, even if just in a “reason for editing” tag. Don’t do this again.
Colibri
VOW
February 13, 2012, 11:17pm
45
Perhaps there should be a “Stupid Dog” contest?
We had one VERY stupid dog. Lovable as Hell, but I doubt there were two cells clanging around in his empty skull.
I always said his parents were a rock and a stump.
Surprised no one here said, Possum.
Vicious, ugly, rock stupid. IMHO.
Chefguy
February 13, 2012, 11:54pm
48
MikeF:
Since no one else has said it, I will. Homo sapiens. What other mammal knowingly uses up its food sources until they are nearly extinct (bison, cod, blue fin tuna) or poisons its own environment (too many to list) to the point where it can no longer live there? I’m no tree-hugger or PETA member but that seems pretty stupid to me.
Yes, but that’s willful stupidity, not innate.
One man’s “lecture” is another man’s “fighting ignorance.” You DID post in General Questions, not IMHO.
Colibri
February 14, 2012, 2:04am
50
sisu:
Fundamental Christians.
[Moderator Warning]
sisu , religious jabs, like political jabs, are not permitted in General Questions, and you’ve been around long enough to know this. Given that I just mentioned the rule against political jabs, I’m going to make this one a warning.
Colibri
Colibri:
[Moderator Note]
You’re quite correct: political jabs are not permitted in GQ, even if just in a “reason for editing” tag. Don’t do this again.
Colibri
Aw shucks!
There was this Brit named Roger. I lost track of him years ago, but to this day I still slap my head at some of his idiocies.
Colibri
February 14, 2012, 3:31am
55
Once upon a time, a trick like that contributed to getting someone banned (although in that case it was a much more severe remark). So don’t play games - moderators can read the original post.
My apologies. It was all done in benign humor but I shall not do so again.
Belowjob2.0:
Surprised no one here said, Possum.
Vicious, ugly, rock stupid. IMHO.
If you’re referring to the Virginia opossum, I did actually include them in my list of successfully-trained mammals.
Placid, unique, quite trainable. IMHO.
yabob
February 14, 2012, 8:01am
58
Somebody apparently tested opossum learning ability in mazes and so on, and decided that they are actually fairly intelligent, small primitive brain or not - “above dogs and more or less on a par with pigs”. Ugly, I will grant you. Even vicious, given that their response to being disturbed is likely to be to bare their very numerous and sharp teeth and hiss at you. “Playing possum” is an involuntary response on their part, and they don’t always do it. They more or less have to try to bluff their way out of danger because they are too slow to run away. But whatever else, they are clearly very adaptable, which also argues for a fair degree of smarts.
araminty:
When we talk about animal intelligence, one metric often used is “trainability” - the infamous rankings of dog breed intelligence were based on learning a cue in less than five repetitions and obeyed them 95+% of the time.
I’ve personally trained lots of mammals. (Want a list? OK. Horses, cows, sheep, goats, pigs, cats, dogs, rabbits, guinea pigs, opossums, skunks, squirrels, woodchuck, ferrets, hedgehogs, fruit bats.) All these animals have been capable of being trained, e.g., can recognize an event marker (aka bridge, usually clicker or whistle), that the marker is a result of some aspect of their behavior, to accept a primary reinforcer (treat, usually food) and, to actively seek the reinforcer through modifying their behavior. Does that make sense?
Those animals that fulfil the metric from the dog test the best (short time to learn a cue, consistent performance) were dogs and horses - obviously, they’ve been selectively bred for trainability for a long, long time. Other domestic species, like goats, rabbits, even ferrets, I’ve found to be very motivated and relatively easy to train.
The animals I’ve had to work harder to train include sugar gliders and sheep - these are communal living, commonly preyed upon species, with well-developed “flight” reflexes. Does this mean a sugar glider is less intelligent than a hedgehog? No, just less trainable. In some ways, trainers enjoy the challenge of a so-called “dumb” species - it just means we need to work harder to motivate the animal. My dog breed of choice, basenjis, are right at the bottom of the above list… a border collie would just seem too easy!
Cool. Are you a zoo animal trainer or something?
Or something
Zoo educator. When I’m not teaching kids, I’m training the program animals.
And I thought I could get away with it that way! 
