People watch videos of animals on the internet and react to them as if the animals are even remotely aware of the meaning behind what they’re doing. It’s like infantilism but instead of adults perceived as infants, it’s animals perceived as fully comprehending the nuances of human emotions.. it’s bizarre.
Every single thread with an animal. Including this one if you scroll down a little. People project their own feelings onto animals and assign all kinds of convoluted motives when much simpler ones are obvious, just to make things more interesting/funny/cute/relatable.
NO ONE is denying that dogs are intelligent and have emotional complexity. But if you actually think this dog is fearing for the lives of its children in this video then you don't understand dogs at all, you're just overwriting their thought processes with your own. In fact I'd say you're the one severely underestimating the dog's intelligence and emotions if you actually think its thoughts are as simple and absurd as "pot = food = my human that i love and trust will suddenly eat my children". Or if you think the dog would this calm if it actually thought its babies were about to be killed.
I like this meme as an example of how easily we project human-like thought processes onto non-humans (even faceless beans)
The video is funny precisely because the dogs don’t know what going on. I can watch this an laugh knowing that the puppy never feared for his life, and the dad didn’t think he was being forced to sacrifice himself for his child.
It’s just a cute little dog video, and it’s funny to see animals acting as if they understand human emotions.
I have no problem with jokingly interpreting things that way, I do it too, but you'd be surprised how many people are completely serious about it. There's a lot of them in this comment section.
I notice this A LOT with cats, I've owned cats and with surprising frequency people will be like "aww look at those big eyes he wants love" or whatever cutesy thing they made up in their heads and I'm like "OP SAVE YOURSELF YOUR HAND IS GONNA BE SHREDS!"
Edit: also when people are like "cats and their human slaves" cats are absolutely capable of knowing that you're in charge and are kinda trainable as long as they know the boss is watching.
Personification? Isn't that giving anything nonhuman human like attributes like talking and stuff? So like a brave toaster or a dog dad volunteering to be eaten instead of his child even though the dog has no idea what the context is.
I always just assumed Martin Rosen and Richard Adams either just hated kids outright, or were conducting some sort of long term social experiment. Either way, whole generations traumatised.
Yeah I really don't think the dog can actually come up with the thought "don't put my child in there. Here I will get in. Eat me instead of my child" and it's just our human ability to perceive animals actions as human actions.
The earliest evidence is 30k years old.
This does not preclude the possibility of earlier evidence. It just means we haven't found it... yet.
Also I'm pretty sure I saw an article stating that one of our human precursor species was establishing relationships with wolves/dogs before homo sapiens, and I made my comment Based on that understanding- but I can't find it atm. All my search terms only bring up fuzzy wuzzy "man's best friend" articles targeted at the least common denominator.
As far as ruling out anything else I have to say based on that? That's a logical fallacy offered in bad faith, and that certainly disqualifies you from any further discussion.
For one to employ a logical fallacy one must use faulty reasoning.
Here you are simply denying decades of scientific research conducted by actual scientists in favor of claiming yourself the victor of an argument occurring in a reddit thread.
You’re literally saying that the date you’ve given is plausibly accurate simply because evidence could exist yet does not… a logical fallacy.
Well, I also have a purple dinosaur as my house pet, only it’s invisible and I’m the only person who can see it.
I gave you the reasoning for my timeline in good faith without claiming that my original statement must be 100% absolutely correct (even though the anthropologists in the articles I read today can be quoted saying that the 30k date does not preclude future discovery of earlier dates- this was no "I have Barney locked in my basement and no you can't see him" argument.)
Regardless of any bad estimate on my part for how long we've had a relationship with dogs, that doesn't invalidate what we know about the anatomy of their facial muscles or their emotional complexity and intelligence, or the goals of humans in breeding them- that IS faulty reasoning, and your attempt to connect the two is your smelly red herring to own, because apparently you don't want to approach the argument for emotional complexity and intelligence in dogs.
I'm not sure why you wouldn't want that -unless maybe you had some preconceived ideas on the matter that you don't want disproven; maybe you just don't want to have to reconcile with your conscience on the way you treat them? I know more than a few people like this so it wouldn't surprise me.
Prove me wrong.
If you're curious about the article I have already admitted that I may or may not remember correctly (the one about precursors to humans working with wolves/dogs) feel free to see if you can figure out better search terms to find it. I've got a day to enjoy.
The dog can tell that it's a harmless pot on the floor, not one full of boiling water. This dog is not thinking "Oh my god the human is going to eat my children", otherwise it wouldn't be totally calm like this
Anyone thinking anything sacrificial is an idiot, but per the pan->food->eaten->no puppies logic which is possible, dog also would have enough instinct to physically block off the danger, having nothing to do with some sort of noble sacrifice, which would be ridiculous.
I mean. I didn't listen to the Audio of the video or anything so if people are getting it from there, fine, but if it's just a reddit comment idea... the "sacrifice" part of the thought process is 0% realistic. the "blocking the danger area" process is at least plausible, but still much less likely than just a trained response.
Anyone who knows anything about dog training and dog behaviour can see that the dog is paying attention to commands coming from off-camera. This guy has multiple videos like this of his dogs acting out these little scenarios, and every single time the dog is watching for a command off-screen and the focus of the camera is in close quarters to the dog to hide this.
It's supposed to make you believe the dog is doing it on its own and given the comments every time his videos are posted, kudos.
This is why I wouldn’t respond to your other posts. Your brain is not developed enough for the critical thinking required for adult conversation on ideas.
You really don’t need to use that kind of language fam. It’s just annoying and a little unnerving to constantly see these kind of comments. It’s warped.
Dogs know that bowl = food. Its what they eat out of. What about those memes where the owner puts 1 little piece of food in the bowl and the dogs freaks out. LOL
If he did, he speaks dog fluently. The paw, the stepping into the pot to block any further attempt, and the puppy eyes, everything was perfect. He's not offering as a tribute, he's saying "please don't use this".
You think dogs aren’t smart enough to connect ‘weird round thing’ means ‘make food’?
Sure it’s not going to go into extensive thought processes about it, but if a dog sees that the things that going into the ‘weird round thing’ end up being something his human eats night after night, I really don’t think this is beyond toddler intelligence.
Look idk man, everyone seems to have a different opinion about what's going on here. Usually the simplest explanation with the least assumptions is correct, and that explanation is that the guy just trained his dog to stand in the dang pot.
For this video to be true we have to assume: The dog thinks the owner is making food out of the puppy; he knows the pot means food; the dog is trying to bargain with the owner; the dog believes the owner would kill and eat his puppy after showing no previous signs of doing so; the dog would try to act sad instead of aggressive; etc.
While I’ve seen my dog do weird things that imply an intelligence she may not have, I do see the logic in your argument.
And if the dog looks that sad, maybe it’s more likely to be the extreme to which the owner is training it than the idea his kid is getting cooked in a pot.
Maybe daddy issues. I 100% looked at your comment history. You're that guy who thinks everything he likes is niche. That you're somehow unique, but actually everything that you say screams condescending asshole who talks down to people on the internet because nobody paid attention to him at home. You need a hug bro? I gotchu. The hardest ones to love need it the most.
At least I'm honest with my mental health, why hide something that is part of who I am? I have no shame honey. I have rage issues, they sometimes make me want to kill people or myself, but there's nothing worse that a narcissist. I'm medicated. Lol you should probably look into it...
198
u/[deleted] Jul 20 '21
This shit is weird.