-
spiritdogs


- Joined on 09-10-2007
- Posts 11,729
- Points 1,020
|
miranadobe:I tend to question studies like these, because behavior input (external influences like socio-economic status, etc) is so different for each human, and comparing humans to dogs still doesn't quite fit for me, esp in this context.
My sisters and I were all spanked, and even physically abused by our alcoholic father - meanwhile, we all have genius IQs. Oh, and we all have been productive people who have "stayed out of trouble", ie, offered positive behavior - no arrests, no drug problems, etc, etc. Our step-sisters, who were not hit, have average IQs, and have had arrests, drug problems, etc. Clearly, we're not in any study, but here's where I have to believe that genetics plays a bigger role in IQ than anything, enhanced by environment, of course, but your base level stems from your genetics, IMO.
Likewise, I think human (and dog) IQ is not the same as behavior. Measuring if a dog will offer extraneous/novel behaviors may seem like some to be a measure of IQ, but I don't. Good points. I caught an interesting TV show about genetics (might have been Nova, not sure) and the fact that it isn't just genes that make us who we are, it's the triggers that turn those genes on and off - and those are much more variable. I also think the point isn't whether you still have a genius IQ after such treatment as you got, but whether those genius IQ's would have been even higher had you not. I agree that your base level is related to genetics. But, since your half sisters haven't the same genetic makeup as you and your sibs, the argument that they didn't get spanked doesn't really relate to their relative intelligence compared to yours - I think, again, it's about whether their intelligence would have been any different based on the correction factor. When you think of it in those terms, the sample would have to be larger than one family to show a correlation between punishment and IQ in humans. I assume that it was in the study, and would be very interested to see how a random study in dogs would work out.
I can also identify with Liesje's point about just somehow knowing that my parents were in charge. I think that's what my dogs must feel - I don't spank them, or even use collar corrections, but they "get it." Think about the privileges as resources and it fits. So, Liesje got a later curfew, and Sequoyah gets to play tug if she lies quietly at my feet in a down for a few minutes. The control of resources, and the expectation of respect are important, I think. Also, confusion leads to anxiety, and I think that anxiety is counterproductive to learning. Therefore, I would expect dogs that are anxious to learn less well than if they were not. So, if we assume that a stable dog with a good reinforcement history can handle a bit of punishment without much anxiety, what about the nervous or anxious dog? And, what about the untrained dog with the owner who punishes without first installing that history? I don't know if this study has any implications for dogs, but I think that the discussion is worthwhile in making for more thinking trainers;-)
Regional Director for Massachusetts, International Positive Dog Training Association Director, SeniorCare Pawsitive Connections Program
AKC CGC Evaluator #3669 Therapy Dogs, Inc. Tester/Observer Sioux, CGC, TDInc. Maska, CGC, TDInc. Sequoyah, CGC Fergie, Retired Lap Dog, Age 20 1/2 Dancer, CGC, TDInc. (1989-2006) #1 Heart Dog
In memory of Mike, please become an organ donor today.
"If you talk to the animals they will talk with you and you will know each other. If you do not talk to them you will not know them and what you do not know, you will fear. What one fears, one destroys." - Chief Dan George
"The fidelity of a dog is a precious gift demanding no less binding moral responsibilities than the friendship of a human being. The bond with a true dog is as lasting as the ties of this earth can ever be." ~ Konrad Lorenz
|
|