My cattledog, Silas, is about to get a companion, Penny, a miniature dachshund. I’d love to show him pictures of her beforehand but . . . he is pointedly unaware of photographic images.
Why would that be? I see Penny there. Sure, it’s about 2-dimensional vs. 3-dimensional, but how exactly?
Thanksinadvance ~taps
Are you sure it’s a 2D vs. 3D issue? If you show your dog a statue or stuffed plushie of a dog, does he show more “hey look, a dog” interest in them than in the photographs?
How about a video with sound and motion? Does that seem to say “dog” to him?
The biggest part is probably that it doesn’t smell like a dog. Comparatively speaking, vision is much less important to a dog than it is to a human.
Yeah, there’s something else going on than not being able to see a 2D image. We’ve all seen dogs react to images of dogs on TV, which is the same thing.
Lack of movement. Could be an issue. The huge discrepancy in size might be an issue. The lack of scent probably doesn’t help.
I’ve heard that when dogs start sniffing something, it’s not just an odor or even a combination of odors – the dog is getting a whole story from the various scents left behind. But humans just don’t get it. Same thing. We’re better at seeing, and they’re better at smelling.
My dog once took an interest in the dog in a painting. He wanted to get picked up and approach it was another dog.
Stuffed anything is just consumable. Definitely (without study, only observation, he is clueless as to what any toy or stuffed whatever is.
Video is an interesting contribution to the question… I have seen where dogs seem to react to video, but my own never have. The video type that seems to catch them involve rapid movement of familiar object, e.g., a cat.
My JRT reacts to dogs (or any animals really) on TV, but doesn’t react to his own reflection in a mirror, to a photo of an animal, or even to a video of an animal on my laptop. I think it has to do with image size, lack of motion, and lack of smell.
Why would we think that a dog would confuse a picture with a 3-D living being? Perhaps they are smarter than that.
Insightful. And maybe the answer. Sensory input like that could be the recognition trigger. And we can’t dispute that dogs really like funky smells.
It has to be more than 2D vs 3D, maybe something to do with the picture not moving. One of my dogs very clearly recognizes dogs on TV (even if they aren’t making noise). If she even sees one in a commercial she’ll run up to the TV and sit there waiting for it to come back for a few minutes before she loses interest.
That is so cool. Really cool is that a dog can react just the opposite to a few of the examples. Silas will (I swear, I swear) sit and stare at me in a mirror. Whew-ee-hoo.
Maybe Silas is just not digging Penny.
No, no, you. This is not the only time I’ve observed this. With different Silases and different Pennies.
I think it is the nature of the dog-dogs that ID by smell will never react to an image. Dogs that ID visually (whether or not they use smell, too) can react to a TV image, or maybe even a photo.
there is the story of the Border Collie that can identify toys by picture, but either he is either an outlier or the story is not true.
I think this is the key factor. For most people, if we could smell a person in the room but not see anybody, we’d just assume it was a false odor and nobody is there - we trust our eyes more than our nose.
Dogs are the opposite. They trust their nose more than their eyes. So if they can see a dog but not smell a dog, they’re generally going to figure there’s no dog in the room.
Pictures, in most cases, do not look all that much like the real thing to humans either, until they learn to look at the right aspects of the picture. Primitive peoples who have never seen photographs before are often confused by them at first: it is just a little rectangle of card (itself probably a distractingly unfamiliar material) with vari-colored areas on it. With a photographic print, the white back, or the strong contrast between the white borders and the grey or colored image may seem more salient, and so get more attention, than the image itself (and if it is a picture on an iPhone or something, the distracting elements are probably even more salient). We civilized people have learned that all that stuff is unimportant, and what matters is the variegation in the image reason, and figuring out what sort of actual sight that image might resemble. A primitive tribesman can figure this out too, especially if you explain it to him a bit, but it takes him a while to get the hang of it, because he has not had the practice we have had; a dog can’t figure it out at all and you can’t explain it to him.
Their vision sense is also different than ours. They have more rods and fewer cones, and only have two types of cones where we have three.
Having only two types of cones makes them essentially red-green colorblind. The smaller proportion of cones to rods means that they don’t see colors as well, even for the colors that they do see. The larger proportion of rods means that their vision sense is more tuned to movement and works better than ours in low light conditions. They have a reflective membrane at the back of their eye that gives them additional help in low light. They see much better at dusk and dawn than we do.
So not only do they rely much more on smell and less on vision than we do, their vision also concentrates more at movement than ours does.
It may also have to do with not thinking abstractly. You clearly see the photo as representational of a dog. Even if your pooch recognizes a dog shaped 2D image, he sees it as the literal photo. It is a piece of paper.
I once had a nearly life sized labrador stuffed toy. It would fool real dogs at a distance. They would react just as to a real dog right up until they could get close enough to smell it. Some dogs had to sniff its butt with a totally comical WTF expression on their faces. Then they would react exactly the way they would to a giant stuffed toy (carry it off, ignore it, whatever). To dogs, smelling is believing.
A sampling of prior threads on the subject (in no particular order) . . .
(ETA: Mostly addressing the similar question of whether dogs can or do watch TV.)
(Or are simply smart enough not to.)