Brian Hare

Hare and Woods' careful research leads compellingly from the process of 'self-domestication' as a most effective survival tactic to a similar case with Homo Sapiens. Dogs began following hunter-gatherers, eating their leavings (yes, everything) but were tolerated as cleaning up the camp was useful, over time they made themselves useful in other ways, barking at approaching predators, and eventually even as hunting companions. Point being, some dog-loving human did not embark on the kind of show more selective breeding program we think of now, hunter-gathering lifestyle precluded that option. The changes happened slowly over time. From there the authors shift to humans, theorizing (as a layman I found their research compelling but I am no scientist) that the big change that separates homo sapiens from all the others is that we self-domesticated ourselves--enough to be able to live in large groups which enabled cooperation and collaboration, the secret of our success. However, only up to a point. As with many innovations the undesirable tags right along with the desirable. In this case, the same hormones (mainly oxytocin triggered by eye contact and touch) that causes humans to feel loving to their children and families and their own 'group,' also gives rise to increased leeriness of outsiders. There are degrees to this that range from mild to horrific, the horrific level being when a human being will 'decide' that some other human being is NOT a human being and can therefore be sacrificed and disposed of any old how. (When push comes to shove how many men think this way about women? The authors leave this aspect untouched, btw.) This was the subject of Karl Ove Knausgaard's final book in the 'My Struggle' saga and what he was working towards throughout. His shock at realizing the mechanism of savage violence to other humans and how Hitler, a deeply damaged and incredible intuitive person could manipulate others with inflammatory rhetoric reverberates and echoes backwards through the novels.
Can anything be done? Well, democracies do better than anyone else at equitable governance, all the checks and balances are critical, as are limits to free speech and types of demonstrations. Peaceful. No weapons. And, most critically, no pushing of the dehumanization button. The book follows many interesting avenues of research and is very convincing. If only the people who need to read it would or even could. Another gem: Darwin's Survival of the Fittest idea has led to many disastrous (think eugenics) pursuits, but he did not mean strongest he meant the most effective at promoting survival. The former concept was already lodged deeply in the popular imagination from the 19th century interpretation of his work and was intensified through imagery put forth by Life Magazine in the 1960's (I remember this book!) so that a huge group of people still take the idea for granted as meaning that the strongest in a group (literally, most violent) survive the best. It ain't so. Research is very very clear on that. Violence breeds more violence and doesn't end until everyone is exhausted. Non-violent change has a far better chance. Further and thought-provoking research indicates that once a mind closes, the only way to re-open it is through personal contact, i.e. through friendship. Tall order. This is quite a radical read, I think. ***** show less

Why reading: Brian Hare contributed to the brilliant children's book [b:Fox Talk: How Some Very Special Animals Helped Scientists Understand Communication|26406466|Fox Talk How Some Very Special Animals Helped Scientists Understand Communication|L.E. Carmichael|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1442817823s/26406466.jpg|25880090] and this is all that I can find by him for lay adults.
......
So far so good; preface and first chapter convince me of the rigor of the science, plus it's show more engaging.

But now I'm at an interesting chapter break. Claimed is that early humans (like almost all humans throughout history and prehistory around the world) are afraid of wolves, and that wolves competed w/ us for meat, and that therefore the traditional theories that we intentionally domesticated wolf puppies as helpers is wrong. Well, I'm not reading on until I set down what had always been my theory. I think children adopted those cubs that were of lower status, perhaps even expelled from the pack, as companions. That is to say, certainly the son of the alpha wolf wouldn't have appealed to human nurturing instincts, but a cub in need of rescue would.

But then, I may be overly influenced by the powerful metaphors of literature like [b:All the Mowgli Stories|1897436|All the Mowgli Stories|Rudyard Kipling|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1411333762s/1897436.jpg|1899044] and [b:The First Dog|196968|The First Dog|Jan Brett|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1172603798s/196968.jpg|952400].

Hare's cliffhanger chapter end indicates that he's confident of what he figured out (discovered?) and so we'll see.
............
Ok done. Lots of book-darts, so much to type, procrastinated. Really should be letting you know, asap, that if you have even the slightest interest in the topic you want to read this. Gracefully, intelligently written, effectively argued, fascinating.

"Dogs had independently evolved to be cognitively more similar to us than we were to our closest relatives [primates]."

The answer to the cliff-hanger? In a word, very oversimplified, 'self-domestication.'

"Humans did not create dogs; we only fine-tuned them later down the road."

Ok for friendly descendents of wolves... now look at the Russian domestic foxes, and at bonobos. Bonobos have smaller teeth and the females are more closely bonded, etc... "All this goes to show that often, it's survival of the friendliest."

Wolves v. dogs, wild foxes v. Belyaev's foxes, chimps v. bonobos... -> humans v. apes...? Hare hypotheses... it seems a stretch to me but his argument merits consideration.

"The mostly peaceful high-density living we enjoy may be the result of self-domestication facilitating today's urban populations, which are so innovative."

So, I expected "Part Three, Your Dog," to be more casual and also (duh) directed at dog owners. And of less interest to me, as I've never actually known a dog personally. And also I knew, going in, that Hare is recruiting 'citizen scientists' in order to get more data to enrich his research.

Well, I was still fascinated, and I do feel enlightened. Iow, don't skip Pt 3.

"Historically, dogs were divided into breeds ... by function, so any dog who chased hare was a harrier, and lapdog was a spaniel, and large, intimidating dog was a mastiff."

"As you can see, there is not a lot of research out there, and not a whole lot of agreement within the research, but that is the fun of a scientific revolution. It is supposed to be a messy, opinionated, data-based conversation. The more data you collect, the louder you get to holler, and that is how progress happens."

"Milo's temperament changed [mellowed] when his testes were removed, which reduced the androgen levels in his body. As a result, cognitive skills that were there all the time finally had a chance to influence his behavior."

[I can think of a few men who should be castrated, y'know....]
...........
Well anyway, read this book if you have any interest in dogs, animal cognition in general, or even general evolutionary communication and psychology. Easy to read, entertaining, and provocative. show less

*book received through GoodReads giveaway*

I can't be the only person out there who, despite greatly enjoying reading books dealing with science, often has a hard time trudging through them because of the dense argot that they employ. On the flipside, it is very easy for a book like this to turn into an anecdotal portrait of the author's dog extrapolated onto the canine group as a whole. Count your blessings: this book belongs in neither of these camps. John Grogan put it best when he said it show more is "thoroughly researched and written in the voice of a brainy scientist sitting at your kitchen table".

Among other topics, Hare discusses the unusual relationship between man and wolf, the lineage of the dog, Belyaev's fox-breeding experiment, the importance of intraspecies cooperation in the survival of a species, the extraordinary ability of dogs to read the intentions of humans, the minute genetic differences between the vast majority of dog breeds, the poor treatment of dogs in many societies (in the USA and abroad), and the interdependence of dogs and humans. All of these topics are bolstered with numerous references to studies and thorough (yet not exhaustive or overwhelming) analysis.

Hare does include anecdotes, but they are not meant to be "the last word" on any aspect of dog intelligence, so much as a way of relating to the facts that you read by adding a personal touch and coloring the path that the author took. For every anecdote in the book, there are references to about ten studies. The information he presents is not merely telling people what they are likely wanting to hear; in fact, there's a whole chapter devoted to a list of skills that have been dulled during the wolf-to-dog transition.

As an animal lover and an inquisitive person, I really picked up a lot from this book and appreciated the vast amounts of research and dedication that went into it. I didn't always agree with the conclusions that the author drew, but he still gets full marks because he was quick to tell that they were just opinions and not unequivocal. show less

The authors, both scientists of canine cognition, explain the results of scientific testing about how dogs make inferences and solve problems, and they also share interesting research and theories about the effects of domestication. The findings are presented in an entertaining way and provide lots of background on wolves versus dogs, as well as interesting insights into what your dog is really “thinking.”

Some highlights:

Perception and projection skew our assessment of dog show more characteristics. For example, “…contrary to popular belief, there is no experimental evidence that dogs experience the feeling of guilt or that they have a human-like concept of guilt. Currently we only have evidence that dogs react to their owner’s frustrated behavior.” That is, the dog may understand you are stressed, and this in turn will stress the dog, but it is too much of a leap to identify this response as guilt.

Pit bulls are blamed for most dog-bite-related incidents, but many people incorrectly identify aggressive dogs because of their preconceived beliefs about pit bulls. One study found that people blamed pit bulls for “a notable proportion” of 84 dog bites in children, even though the actual rate was only 13 percent. Yet another study showed that, when shown pictures of an identical dog appearing in one picture with a scruffy looking owner versus another with a nicely dressed owner, people were more likely label the first dog as the aggressive one, even though they were looking at the very same dog.

Even adoption agencies can’t be relied upon to tell breeds apart; in one study they were asked to identify a series of dogs. Then blood samples of those dogs were sent for DNA analysis. The breed was misidentified two-thirds of the time.

Domesticated dogs and foxes, as well as bonobos (similar to chimpanzees but much less aggressive) are different from non-domesticated close genetic relatives both in terms of their social skills with each other and in the nature of their interactions with humans. In addition to a less aggressive demeanor, other traits seem to have accompanied domestication, such as smaller body size and sometimes floppy ears and curly tails.

It is believed that bonobos domesticated themselves; the authors speculate that early humans might have gone through a similar process. Maybe it wasn’t the smarter people who had the survival advantage, but the friendlier people - those most apt to cooperate with others. Cooperation can lead to better food, better protection, and more knowledge sharing, all of which would help contribute to higher intelligence. As the authors suggest:

"Before humans could become ultra-cooperative, we had to become ultra-tolerant. This tolerance preceded the evolution of more complex forms of human social cognition. Inferential reasoning, planning, and skills for coordination do little good in planning for hunting or finding shelter if no one can tolerate engaging in group activities or even listening to what others have to say. … [S]elf-domestication may have … catalyzed an evolutionary chain reaction leading to the evolution of completely new cognitive abilities…”

At the end of the book, the authors reverse the focus of the book and include a small section on how humans react to dogs.

Evaluation: This book will interest ethologists and dog-lovers alike. show less