|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear FF: I can remember when collies were smart, before the
AKC ruined them as they have so many breeds, breeding for
looks. You didn't say so, but I think your example is also
a manifestation of altruism on the dog's part.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
I diagree, Bill. I think that when dogs act "protectively" towards children or adults in their owner's family, they are being instinctively protective towards members of their "pack". Dogs aren't stupid, and they can pick up what is allowed and what is not, what is dangerous and what is not, within the group, at a certain level. They then apply that knowledge without, I think, a great of reasoning when those situations arise.
Elsie, my shepherd bitch, attacked a completely innocent tradesman at my parent's house one day simply because he got between her and my niece, towards whom Elsie was very protective. Fortunately, only his dignity was injured.
Dogs will also put up with things from kids that they would never take from an adult. Elsie loathed anyone tugging on her ears, including me, and we were very close. She'd growl at first, but if you persisted, she'd take your hand in her mouth quite firmly - not a bite, just holding on - and growl again. After that, all bets were off. My niece, on the other hand, when she was a toddler, could sit on Elsie's back and twist her ears like the twistgrips on motorcycle handlebars. The dog's eyes watered and she whimpered, but she didn't try to escape or growl.
The reason I raised that quite serious question about animal altruism in my post above is because cats don't have the same instinctive "involvement" with other cats, never mind humans or dogs, apart from their own kittens. And even that instinct becomes suppressed when the kittens are weaned and reach a certain age. I've seen a cat attack her own, grown, kittens when they got between her and her food. The recognition of kinship ends with kittenhood.
So what would motivate a cat to provide a dog (who appeared poorly) with food? This was a real incident, and I'm glad that Frank was staying with us when it occurred because otherwise I doubt if anyone else would have believed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
That raises the question: Does behaviour detrimental to oneself but beneficial to the pack count as altruism? It's got to be a question of the definition of altruism, but I don't see any reason to exclude it. Call it weak altruism as opposed to Pfranz's cat's strong altruism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Capfka: I have observed your "pack" phenomenon in the
Border Collies we used to have. It was very clear that the
sheep dogs looked on the sheep as source of future meals.
And the humans as just as partners in the enterprise.
But I see no way in which any "gene" for dogs' saving humans
could have developed. Humans saved pups whose parents showed
desirable traits. It's just luck that desirable traits emerged. I think it is just too tempting to find devious
detours around traditional explanations of behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Genes for this or genes for that is just sociobiological claptrap, in my book, a poor excuse for failing to investigate the real causes of things. No, there are no "genes" for dogs saving humans, but dogs are poor distinguishers between "dog" and "not dog" when it comes to pack behaviour. Although I can't lay my hands on the research any more, there was a beautifully done article on domestic dog behaviour in one of the psych journals I read at college. Dogs, apparently, accept that all "creatures" within their "pack" milieu are members of the pack and will very quickly work out their position in the pecking order and then more or less stick to it. Intelligent dogs (such as border collies) appear to be able to make "decisions" about their "instinctive" behaviours dependent on circumstances. They are also very good at working out what is acceptable (and unacceptable) behaviour in the pack environment. Dogs hate uncertainty in social situations and there is a theory that family dogs which bite family members are just uncertain about their position (or "worth") within the pack. Dunno about that, though.
Cats, however, walk alone.
I don't think that any of this is "devious" explanation. You will surely have observed a lot of the behaviour in your own dogs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear capfka: "devious" was not directed at you, but at some
of the seventh day wonders who get books printed on the subject. If your distaste for "sociobiology" extend to E.O.Wilson, I think you are grievously in error. I'm not
well enough informed to discuss him, beyound saying that I
am impressed by the amount of work he has done. I don't know of any of his critics who are in same league with him.
Only possible exception to that is that I remember is S.J. Gould.
I found a couple sites that credited Auguste Compte with
coinage of "altruism" and "sociology".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
>>>Talking of altruism only makes sense for beings who can communicate their motives to us, humans.
I don't believe altruism is a virtue that can be attibuted only to those whom we understand. Why would you think so, wsieber? Since we cannot communicate with animals why do there actions become null. They could just as well be altruism as not - so what makes it automatically impossible.
There are many things we understand now, that we did not 1000 years ago. Were they any less true then?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2 |
Hello. I am new here. I hope i am doing this right.
I just wanted to say:
I don't think one can indulge in art for purely altruistic reasons. Art is self expression and therefore is by definition selfish.
Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,027 |
Hi belMarduk,
Since we cannot communicate with animals why do there actions become null. They could just as well be altruism as not - so what makes it automatically impossible. Oh dear, I never even suggested that animals' actions "become null". There are many other positive attributes that can apply to actions, besides altruism. My point is that altruism as a moral criterion hinges on the agent's intentions, and in the case of animals, we have no way of knowing those in advance. If we judged altruism of an action after the fact, we run into problems with human altruistic projects that have ended in disaster.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,891 |
Allo Wsieber But wseiber, how can we misinterpret the intention of that mother bird? It is to protect the babies. Even if, ultimately, she is not successful, I don’t see how that can not be altruism. Maybe it's our personal interpretations of altruism? One of the definitions of altruism I found was this... In human and animal behaviour, the tendency to act in ways that benefit other individuals more than oneself, sometimes even where there is a real cost involved to the giver.And this... a generous willingness to help another person or persons, even when there is no reward or other observable benefit to the helper; often involves some sacrifice on the part of the helperThese are what I believe altruism to be. I’m not quite sure what definition you hold true – as usual on the Board  we have varied opinions. Can you let me know?
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,323
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 members (wofahulicodoc),
465
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
