Quote: “But it does indicate that dogs do not have a different sort of intelligence or a huge different in amount or they would not be so good at reading us.”

I think dogs have a very different way of thinking compared to humans. They have evolved to respond to human emotions and intentions due to human selective pressure. Wolves and dingos (even when brought up as dogs) don’t have that ability, although they too have excellent co-operative skills and ability to read body languages. Not just other wolves but other animals’ as well. They need to… predators that hunt like wolves do need to be able to read the emotions and predict the behaviour of prey animals, and since wolves/wild dogs are opportunistic and versatile hunters, they need to learn to read many different kind of animals to be successful.

Also, a wolf pack’s social structure is almost identical to a typical human family: parents in charge (the alpha couple) and then off springs from various years.

Still with all these similarities, I don’t think dogs think as much like humans as many humans think… People are projecting and humanising dogs because they are lazy, as you say.

I also think humans could understand dogs better if they tried. I am quite confident that humans have also evolved under selective pressure to read dogs, at least in many parts of the world, but that is pure speculation: because I can see how massively dogs can improve the efficiency of hunting, herding and protecting families and villages. It would make sense if communities where working dogs were an integrated part of the culture had a higher survival rate & prosperity than communities where they weren’t, prior to modern time.

As I said, that is pure speculation.

JK: Thanks for the comment. My opinion is that you cannot have language without much of it being metaphor. No metaphor – no communication of new ideas. They are born, get old and become fossils. Brand new ones have brand new meanings, they become conventional so the meaning is still there but is losing its power and then finally we not longer see it as a metaphor. “Take heart” would have gone from an encouragement to be brave and embracing life with heart being a metaphor for life and courage, then it would slowly become a stock saying and finally we say “take heart” without even thinking about a beating heart. It is only relatively new metaphors that have the power to affect how we see the world. So I would think that some metaphors are fostering incorrect assumptions, some are fostering more correct assumptions then we had, and some are just interesting quirks of language that no longer affect our thinking in a figurative way but only in a literal way. Thanks again for commenting.

They can’t think of anything original so they use the ‘only humans can x’ hook.

Authors who use the ‘Only humans can x’ hooks always receive an automatic cancellation of their potential credibility in my eyes. As you say, many of the hooks have been disproved (and counting), and many others are likely to disproved or at least, can not be proved.

As to the statement that animals don’t need to keep themselves busy if they have shelter and food, I will explain it to my dogs. They’ll be reassured that they won’t again be dragged along on all these unnecessary walks and jogs in the wood, dog training and plays in the park since I now know they’ll be just as happy to sleep all day long (otherwise I can just drive them to the pound*).

 
*Just kidding, in case of doubt…
Anyway my point is that the author expresses lack of theoretical knowledge of and practical experience with animals.

JK: Thanks, useful to know.