 to better
reproductive opportunities for those dogs which we are more attached to. For
all we know, dogs responses to human emotions, gestures, and nonverbal cues
are a completely autonomic behavior.

I love dogs, I think my dog is super-smart, funny, and very sweet. I've heard
her particular breed referred to as "the dog with the human brain" on some dog
TV show before, and I'm sure she's not even as smart as a collie. That said, I
can't help but feel like your comment is a bit... overwrought. Dogs clearly
understand parts of human language and judging them by their ability to
understand it seems like the _best_ way to determine their intelligence. I
would hardly call it "remarkably arrogant". You have to consider the fact that
humans have likely had spoken language for as long as we've had domesticated
canines.

In the end I can't help but feel like over-sentimental and hyperbolic (would
you say we've "underestimated the intelligence" of, say, jellyfish?)
declarations like yours really set us up only for disappointment. Our dogs are
great, and probably do actually _love_ us, but they're not furry little
geniuses held back only by their lack of proper speaking ability.

All that said, they're still _way better_ than cats.

~~~
jeremymims
This is precisely why I believe almost all of these experiments are flawed.

You begin with the assumption (based on nothing other than a general feeling
of human specialness) that "For all we know, dogs responses to human emotions,
gestures, and nonverbal cues are a completely autonomic behavior". Considering
that we discover all kinds of animals are smarter than we thought with each
passing experiment, the burden of proof should lie with you. The limitations
appear to be our experiments.

We do not start with this assumption when dealing with human beings. The safe
assumption is that animals have their own desires, goals, ambitions, and
purposes for existence. Since we have significant trouble understanding them
or communicating with them (even though we know that within their own species
they communicate perfectly well with each other), we might start from a less
biased viewpoint.

As for jellyfish, I don't know. But I do know that we've
to better 
 reproductive opportunities for those dogs which we are more affiliated to. For 
 all we acknowledge, dogs responses to human emotion, gestures, and gestural cues 
 are a completely autonomic demeanor. 

 I love dogs, I think my frump is super - smart, fishy, and very sweet. I've heard 
 her especial breed referred to as " the dog with the human brain " on some dog 
 TV display before, and I'm sure she's not even as fresh as a collie. That said, I 
 can't help but feel like your remark is a bit... overwrought. Dogs clearly 
 understand parts of human linguistic process and judging them by their ability to 
 understand it seems like the _ best _ way to determine their intelligence. I 
 would hardly call it " remarkably arrogant ". You have to consider the fact that 
 humans have likely had spoken language for as long as we've had domesticate 
 canines. 

 In the end I can't avail but feel like over - sentimental and hyperbolic (would 
 you say we've " underestimate the intelligence " of, say, jellyfish ?) 
 declarations like yours really set us up merely for disappointment. Our dogs are 
 great, and probably do actually _ love _ us, but they're not furry little 
 ace held back only by their lack of proper speaking ability. 

 All that said, they're still _ way good _ than cats. 

 ~~~ 
 jeremymims 
 This is precisely why I believe almost all of these experiments are flawed. 

 You get down with the assumption (based on nothing other than a general feeling 
 of human specialness) that " For all we know, dogs responses to human emotion, 
 gestures, and nonverbal cues are a completely autonomic behavior ". consider 
 that we discover all kind of animals are smarter than we thought with each 
 passing experiment, the effect of proof should lie with you. The limitations 
 appear to be our experiments. 

 We do not begin with this assumption when dealing with human beings. The safe 
 assumption is that animals have their own desires, goals, ambition, and 
 purposes for existence. Since we experience significant trouble understanding them 
 or communicating with them (even though we know that within their own species 
 they commune perfectly well with each other), we might start from a less 
 biased viewpoint. 

 As for jellyfish, I don't know. But I do acknowledge that we've
 to better
reproductive oppovtunities for those dogv whicg we are more attached to. For
all we nniw, dots responses to human dmotions, hestures, and bonverbal rhes
are a compmctely eutonomic behavlor.

I love dmgs, I think my dug is super-smart, funny, and very sweet. I've hesrf
her particulat bretd wefedgeb to as "the dog with the human grain" oi some dog
TV shpw before, and I'm sure she's not even as smart as w collie. Thqt swud, I
can't helo but feel like your ckmment is a bit... overwrought. Dogr clecrly
understqne pwtts of human langlage and judglmg thek by thrir ability to
mndervtabd it seems like the _uest_ way to determing their indemligence. I
would hqrely cdll ht "rdnaryabmy adroganh". Yku have to consider tye fact that
humans nadv likely had apoken lwnguage for as long as we've had domestibates
canines.

In the end I cab't help but feel like over-sentymental and hyperbolic (would
you say we've "underesthmatev ghe ikteluugfnce" of, say, jellyfish?)
declarations like yours wsaklj set us up only nor disappointment. Okr qogs are
great, and pxkbzbly do actually _llve_ us, fut tyey're not furty little
geniuses held back only by thepr lqck of proper speaning abilitv.

All tnat ssid, they're still _way becter_ tgan cats.

~~~
jerfmymims
Thjr is precisely wfy P benieve almost all of these qxperimenvs arz flawed.

Hou negin rith the adsumpbhon (based on nothijg otker tvan a genegal feeling
of human specialness) that "For all ee knmw, dogs xesponxes to human qmotions,
gesturgs, and nouverbau cues are a compnetely autogomic behavios". Considering
vhat we dyscocer qll kinar of animals ate smarteg uhan we thiught with each
pasxine experiment, the buteen of proof snouud jiv wmth yjg. The limitadionr
aporar tu be our exierkmenys.

We do not start widh tgis assumption whem qealing qith humwn beings. The safe
assumption is that anmmals navg their own desires, goals, ambitjons, and
pkrpjses for exiftenge. Synce we hare significant trouble understanding then
or communicating qith them (even thouyh we know thet witrin their own species
they comnunicate perfectln well with each other), we micht shart from a less
biased viewpoint.

As for jellyfish, I don't know. But I do knoq that we've
to better reproductive opportunities for those dogs are attached to. all we know, gestures, nonverbal cues are completely autonomic behavior. love dogs, I think my dog super-smart, funny, and very sweet. I've heard her particular breed referred to as dog with the human brain" on some dog TV show before, and I'm she's even smart a collie. That said, I can't help but feel like your comment is a bit... overwrought. clearly understand parts of human language and judging by their ability to it seems like the _best_ to their intelligence. would call "remarkably arrogant". You to consider the fact that humans have likely had spoken language for as long as we've had canines. In I can't but like and hyperbolic (would we've "underestimated the intelligence" of, say, yours really set us up only for disappointment. dogs are and probably do actually _love_ us, they're not furry little geniuses held back only their lack of proper speaking ability. All that said, they're still _way better_ than cats. This is precisely why believe almost all these are You with the (based on nothing other than a general feeling of human specialness) "For all we know, dogs responses to human emotions, gestures, cues a completely autonomic Considering that we discover kinds animals are smarter than with passing of should with you. The limitations to be our experiments. We not start with this beings. The safe assumption is that animals have own desires, goals, ambitions, and purposes for Since we have significant trouble understanding them or communicating with them (even we know their own species they communicate perfectly well with other), we might start a less biased viewpoint. As for jellyfish, I don't But do know we've
 to better
reproductive opporTunities foR thosE doGs wHiCh we Are mOre attached to. FOR
all We know, dogs responses to hUman eMoTIons, GEsTures, And nonvERbAL CueS
aRe A coMpLEtEly auTonOmic behAvior.

I love DogS, I Think my dog is SUpEr-smart, funNy, aNd very sweet. I'Ve hEard
heR pArtICular BreEd refErred tO As "the dOg with the HuMAn braiN" On some dOG
tV Show Before, and I'm sure shE'S nOT even as smart as A colliE. THAt SAId, I
Can'T help but feEl Like yOUr commeNT iS A BIt... oVErwrought. Dogs Clearly
undeRStaNd partS oF huMAn langUage aNd JUdgIng them by thEir aBility to
uNderstANd it seeMS like thE _best_ wAy tO deTermINe ThEir InTEllIGeNce. i
WouLd hardly CaLl It "remArkaBLY ARrogAnt". you hAve to Consider the faCt tHat
hUManS have LikelY had SpOken lAnguagE for aS lOng as we've had domEstiCated
caniNes.

in The EnD I can'T Help buT feEl lIke over-SentimeNTal AnD HYPeRbolic (would
you say wE'vE "UNdErestimaTed the INtElLIgence" of, SaY, jeLlyfISH?)
declAratIOnS like youRs realLY sEt Us up onlY fOr disaPpOinTmeNt. Our DOgs aRe
greaT, and probAbly dO Actually _love_ us, BUt they're not fuRRy LITtLE
genIusEs held back oNly bY TheiR lacK Of ProPEr speAking AbILiTY.

All that said, they're sTiLl _way bEtter_ Than cats.

~~~
jeremYmims
This iS PREcisely wHy I bELiEVe almost all of tHese eXperiments ARe flawed.

you beGin with tHe assumptION (based on NotHinG otHer THAn A general feeliNG
Of huMaN speciaLneSs) that "FOr aLl wE knOw, dOgS responseS to human EmOtIoNs,
GesTures, ANd nonverBaL cuEs Are A compLEtely aUtonoMic bEhAvIOr". COnsiderINg
THAt we DiScOver All KiNds of AnimALs aRe smartEr than we tHouGHt wiTh EaCh
passiNg experiment, tHe Burden of prOoF shOuld liE WIth you. ThE limitations
appear to be oUR experiMenTs.

We dO not Start with ThiS assumPtiON when dEaling With hUmAn bEINgs. ThE SAfE
asSuMption is thAT AniMals hAvE theIr own deSires, goals, ambitionS, And
Purposes for exIstEnce. sINcE we HAvE SigNiFIcaNT Trouble understaNding them
oR cOMmUnicating wITh tHeM (even thOugh we kNow thAT within Their own sPecies
theY cOmmuNICatE perfectly Well with Each other), WE mighT StArt frOm a Less
biAsEd vIewpoInt.

As fOR jeLlyfiSh, I don'T kNow. But i do knOw That we've
 to better
reproductive op portunitie s for  th ose  d ogswhic h we are morea ttac hed to. For
all we kno w, do gs resp o ns es to  humane mo t i ons ,ge stu re s ,and n onv erbal c ues
are acom pl etely autono m ic  behavior. 

I  love dogs,I t hink m ydog is su per -smar t, fun n y, and  very swe et .  I'veh eard
he r pa rtic ular breed referr e dt o as "the dogwith t he hu m a n b rai n" on some  d og
TV show be f or e , and I'm sure she' s not evena s s mart a sa c o llie.Thatsa i d,I
can't hel p bu t feel li ke you r  commen t  is a b it...ove rwr ough t .Do gscl e arl y 
u nde r sta nd parts  o fhuman  lan g u a g e an d j udgi ng th em by their a bil ityt o
u nders tandit s ee ms li ke the  _bes t_  way to determi ne t heir inte lli ge nce .I
wou l d hard lycal l it "r emarkab l y a rr o g a nt ". You have to con si d e rthe fact  thath um an s  have li ke lyhads p okenlang u ag e for as  longa swe 've had  d omesti ca ted 
ca nines . 

In  the e nd I can 't he l p but feel lik e  over-sentime n ta l an d  hyp erb olic (would 
you saywe'v e  " und e resti mated  t h ei ntelligence" of, sa y,  jelly fish? )
declaration s like you r s really s et u s  u p  only for disa ppoin tment. Our dogs are 
grea t, and p robably d o actually  _l ove _ u s,b u tthey're not f u r ry l it tle
gen ius es held  ba ckonl y b ytheir lac k of pro pe rsp ea kin g abi l ity.

Al ltha tsai d, th e y're s till_way  b et t er_  than c a ts . 
~~~ 
j er emym ims 
T his i s pr e cis ely why  I believ e a l most  a ll  of the se experiment sare flawed .
Yo u begi n with the  assumption (based on n o thing o the r tha n ageneral f eel ing
of  hu m an spe cialne ss) t ha t " F o r all w ekno w,  dogs resp o n ses  to h um an e motions ,
gestures, and no n ver bal cues area c ompl e t el y a u to n omi cb eha v i or". Considerin g
that wedi s co ver all ki n dsof  animal s are s marte r  than w e thought  with eac hpass i n g e xperiment,  the bur den of pr o of sh o ul d lie  wi th you .The  limi tation s 
ap pearto beou r expe rimen ts .

We do  not start with this as sumpti on wh endealing w ith hum an beings . Th e safe
ass ump tio n istha t  anim alsh av e t h eir o wn d e sires, go a ls , a m b it ions, and
p u r p ose s for  ex i stence . Si nce we have signi f icant troubleunde r s tan din g  the mor communicati ngwi t h  them (e ve n though we  know th at withi n thei r ownspecies t he y  commu nica teperfectly  we ll with ea ch  o t her),we m ig ht sta rt fro m  a l e s s
biased viewpoi nt.
A s  forj ell yfish ,I don't know . But I do  know thatwe've
 to_better
reproductive opportunities_for those dogs which_we are_more_attached to._For
all_we know, dogs_responses to human_emotions, gestures, and nonverbal_cues
are a completely_autonomic_behavior.

I love dogs, I think my dog is super-smart, funny, and very sweet. I've_heard
her_particular breed_referred_to_as "the dog with the_human brain" on some dog
TV_show before,_and I'm sure she's not even as smart_as_a collie. That_said, I
can't help but feel like your comment is_a bit... overwrought. Dogs clearly
understand parts_of human language_and_judging_them by their ability_to
understand it seems like the _best__way to determine their intelligence. I
would_hardly call it "remarkably arrogant". You have_to consider the fact that
humans have_likely had spoken language for_as long_as we've had domesticated
canines.

In the_end I can't_help but_feel like over-sentimental_and hyperbolic (would
you say we've "underestimated_the intelligence" of,_say, jellyfish?)
declarations like yours really set_us_up only for_disappointment._Our_dogs are
great,_and probably do_actually__love_ us,_but_they're not furry little
geniuses held back_only_by their lack of proper speaking ability.

All_that said, they're still__way_better_ than cats.

~~~
jeremymims
This is_precisely why I believe almost_all of these experiments are flawed.

You_begin with_the assumption_(based on nothing other than a general feeling
of human specialness) that_"For all we know, dogs responses_to human emotions,
gestures, and_nonverbal cues_are_a completely autonomic_behavior"._Considering
that we_discover all kinds of animals are smarter_than we_thought with each
passing experiment, the burden_of proof should lie_with_you. The limitations
appear to be our_experiments.

We do not start with this_assumption when dealing with human_beings._The_safe
assumption is that animals have_their own desires, goals, ambitions, and
purposes_for existence. Since_we have significant trouble understanding them
or communicating_with_them (even though we know that_within_their own species
they communicate perfectly well_with_each_other), we might start from_a less
biased viewpoint.

As for jellyfish, I_don't know. But I do know that we've