Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Animals vs humans round 2

1002 replies

livingzuid · 02/11/2013 20:00

I was enjoying our previous debate started by Fifi. Not sure if we were done!

AIBU to think if faced with choosing a pet over a human (even if a stranger), you should choose the human?

The idea was brought up in another thread and put in life or death situation. Building on fire contains your pet and a stranger. You could only save one, who would it be?

I had a dog, Ralph, I cried my heart out when he died 3 years ago. The only dog I wasn't scared of! But I can't imagine leaving a person to die instead, no matter how my heart would break.

OP posts:
merrygo · 04/11/2013 19:25

The canine IQ test results are in: Even the average dog has the mental abilities of a 2-year-old child.
The finding is based on a language development test, revealing average dogs can learn 165 words (similar to a 2-year-old child), including signals and gestures, and dogs in the top 20 percent in intelligence can learn 250 words.
And the smartest?
Border collies, poodles, and German shepherds, in that order, says Stanley Coren, a canine expert and professor emeritus at the University of British Columbia. Those breeds have been created recently compared with other dog breeds and may be smarter in part because we've trained and bred them to be so, Coren said. The dogs at the top of the pack are on par with a 2.5-year-old.
Better at math and socializing
While dogs ranked with the 2-year-olds in language, they would trump a 3- or 4-year-old in basic arithmetic, Coren found. In terms of social smarts, our drooling furballs fare even better.
"The social life of dogs is much more complex, much more like human teenagers at that stage, interested in who is moving up in the pack and who is sleeping with who and that sort of thing," Coren told LiveScience.
Coren, who has written more than a half-dozen books on dogs and dog behavior, will present an overview of various studies on dog smarts at the American Psychological Association's annual meeting in Toronto.
"We all want insight into how our furry companions think, and we want to understand the silly, quirky and apparently irrational behaviors [that] Lassie or Rover demonstrate," Coren said. "Their stunning flashes of brilliance and creativity are reminders that they may not be Einsteins but are sure closer to humans than we thought."
Math test
To get inside the noggin of man's best friend, scientists are modifying tests for dogs that were originally developed to measure skills in children.
Here's one: In an arithmetic test, dogs watch as one treat and then another treat are lowered down behind a screen. When the screen gets lifted, the dogs, if they get arithmetic (1+1=2), will expect to see two treats. (For toddlers, other objects would be used.)
But say the scientist swipes one of the treats, or adds another so the end result is one, or three treats, respectively. "Now we're giving him the wrong equation which is 1+1=1, or 1+1=3," Coren said. Sure enough, studies show the dogs get it. "The dog acts surprised and stares at it for a longer period of time, just like a human kid would," he said.
These studies suggest dogs have a basic understanding of arithmetic, and they can count to four or five.
Basic emotions
Other studies Coren notes have found that dogs show spatial problem-solving skills. For instance, they can locate valued items, such as treats, find better routes in the environment, such as the fastest way to a favorite chair, and figure out how to operate latches and simple machines.
Like human toddlers, dogs also show some basic emotions, such as happiness, anger and disgust. But more complex emotions, such as guilt, are not in a dog's toolbox. (What humans once thought was guilt was found to be doggy fear, Coren noted.)
And while dogs know whether they're being treated fairly, they don't grasp the concept of equity. Coren recalls a study in which dogs get a treat for "giving a paw."
When one dog gets a treat and the other doesn't, the unrewarded dog stops performing the trick and avoids making eye contact with the trainer. But if one dog, say, gets rewarded with a juicy steak while the other snags a measly piece of bread, on average the dogs don't care about the inequality of the treats.
Top dogs
To find out which dogs had the top school smarts, Coren collected data from more than 200 dog obedience judges from the United States and Canada.
He found the top dogs, in order of their doggy IQ are:

  1. Border collies
  2. Poodles
  3. German shepherds
  4. Golden retrievers
  5. Dobermans
  6. Shetland sheepdogs
  7. Labrador retrievers At the bottom of the intelligence barrel, Coren would include many of the hounds, such as the bassett hound and the Afghan hound, along with the bulldog, beagle and basenji (a hunting dog). "It's important to note that these breeds which don't do as well tend to be considerably older breeds," he said. "They were developed when the task of a hound was to find something by smell or sight." These dogs might fare better on tests of so-called instinctive intelligence, which measure how well dogs do what they are bred to do. "The dogs that are the brightest dogs in terms of school learning ability tend to be the dogs that are much more recently developed," Coren said. He added that there's a "high probability that we've been breeding dogs so they're more responsive to human beings and human signals." So the most recently bred dogs would be more human-friendly and rank higher on school smarts. Many of these smarty-pants are also the most popular pets. "We like dogs that understand us," Coren said. We also love the beagle, which made it to the top 10 list of most popular dog breeds in 2008 by the American Kennel Club. That's because they are so sweet and socialable, Coren said. "Sometimes people love the dumb blonde," Coren said. And sometimes the dim-wits make better pets. While a smart dog will figure out everything you want it to know, your super pet will also learn everything it can get away with, Coren warns.

.... so, they're kinda like 2yr olds?

ToysRLuv · 04/11/2013 19:28

No, I'm not. I am saying that some people might.

merrygo · 04/11/2013 19:39

If it's the people who are denigrating the pet saviours then they are contradicting themselves. Because the majority have been arguing that in the heat of the moment thos who would save pets would actually save the stranger (at the very least this belief is implied), they have very clearly said that the pet being saved first is said for effect.

Yet this real life case actually supports what the pet saviours have been saying..... they would insist their pet was saved first, pet was saved first. These people acted in the heat of the moment. Should they be branded evil?

How do we know they had not thought about & discussed this scenario just like the people on here. If they had, would they be evil?

pianodoodle · 04/11/2013 19:52

Said to make a point and for shock value.. I hope.

When I first stumbled on the thread I thought that too. I thought "this isn't a real question who's going to really pick the pet unless they're joking!"

But it turns out at least a few weren't!

I think in the husband and wife scenario that's between them if they were both happy that the dog get saved first. I find it odd but not evil if that's what they really agreed.

With the scenario on this thread, I've assumed the human stranger would quite like to live. I think even if the stranger said "leave me and take your dog" I still wouldn't!

ToysRLuv · 04/11/2013 19:54

I, personally, wouldn't think that they are actually, and actively, "evil". I would assume actual psychological reasons (pathological, or normal, e.g. related to panic/extreme stress and trauma). Not a justification, though. Just an explanation. That is why I am surprised that even when not in an actual stressful situation, so many people say that they would save their dog over a stranger. I would like a follow up on that research to see if the animal over human answerers had any personality factors or experiences in common, or whether they were indistinguishable from thew human over dog answerers (doubt it, tbh).

merrygo · 04/11/2013 19:57

But you've (plural as I can't be bothered to go back & see exactly who...) also scorned those who said they WOULD insist the FF save their pet over them. Insisting that in the actual event they would want to be saved first.

What is they had NOT discussed this beforehand? Both acting in the heat of the moment?

The husband saved his dog first. It could easily have been INSTEAD of his wife.

Just like people on here have said they would.

And just like people on here have said would not happen..... and would be evil if it did.

ToysRLuv · 04/11/2013 20:00

piano: I know people think all sorts of things (hence bonkers conspiracy theories, etc.), so shouldn't be surprised, really. But I still am.

merrygo · 04/11/2013 20:02

Toys, perhaps some people are just very aware of themselves & how stressful situations like this are likely to affect them. That they can say how they would act while not under stress is not proof they are evil or odd (though some may happliy own to being odd - I'm happy I'm odd) but instead more an indication they have very high self awareness.

There did seem a gender bias. Slightly more women would save the pet. I was surprised by that tbh

ToysRLuv · 04/11/2013 20:11

Self-awareness-maybe.. Hard to say. Need more research on this, as you certainky can be aware of your own mental "quirks", or alternatively be so enmeshed in them to think that instead of "quirks", they are normal, acceptable and even preferable ways of thinking.. Or maybe it is really so. We're fast getting on a philosophical plain, here, where I'm getting a bit overwhelmed and bored by the infinite amount of possibilities.

TheBigBangFairy · 04/11/2013 20:13

And an astonishing 40% of respondents, including 46% of women, voted to save their dog over a foreign tourist.

So this 40% Team Pet figure that's been thrown about a bit in this thread... that is specifically for the case of Pet Dog vs Foreign Tourist?

I find it pretty sad that the value of a human's life is worth even less against an animal if the human life is foreign, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Although if I draw anything positive from it, I hope it at least implies that, say, Pet Dog vs Stranger Child would yield a much smaller percentage in favour of the animal.

Fascinating thread, but wow, what an eye opener it has been. To those who readily admit on here that you would save your pet over a human stranger, would you also happily admit this to colleagues and friends in real life?

2tiredtoScare · 04/11/2013 20:16

Some posters have said their pets are their only friends

2tiredtoScare · 04/11/2013 20:16

At least a dog wouldn't blab about their dubious stranger killing stance

merrygo · 04/11/2013 20:17

Well the couple on here were happy to have the fact they chose their pet over a loved family member reported in the news, so why wouldn't those who would choose their pet over a stranger not tell others. Also, well your question has been asked before & answered. Yes they would.

Spikeytree · 04/11/2013 20:17

Of course I would happily admit it to colleagues. My animals are my friends, they already know.

merrygo · 04/11/2013 20:18

And some posters have said they are Dhs & have DCs who have looked at their pet sleeping & said they too would choose the pet.

merrygo · 04/11/2013 20:19

And so what if the pet is their only friend? What is your point in highlighting this? Are you actually showing some understanding? Or are you being snide?

ToysRLuv · 04/11/2013 20:21

I suspect the friends and colleagues are only understanding (or rather do not want to really think about it and have a hard disgusdion or disagreement that would strain the relationship), because the situation hasn't actually arisen. I doubt they'd be accepting of their visiting human family member being killed because the person chose to save a pet over them..

2tiredtoScare · 04/11/2013 20:22

It was in response to bigbangfairy

Spikeytree · 04/11/2013 20:24

Of course people are snide about me only having pets for friends. Unfortunately being a carer doesn't allow for a great social life.

Toys, if it makes you feel better I don't have visitors staying in my house, because I'm too busy being a carer. I don't have anyone but my animals so I won't be leaving them to burn.

2tiredtoScare · 04/11/2013 20:26

I wish people would RTFT

ToysRLuv · 04/11/2013 20:27

If the pets are a person's only friends, it could mean bad experiences (or lack of sufficient positive experiences) with humans and a tainted view of humanity, which would, of course, skew the person's views. The animals could be substitutes for human children and friends.

Spikeytree · 04/11/2013 20:27

I have RTFT. I've been on both of them from the start.

everlong · 04/11/2013 20:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

merrygo · 04/11/2013 20:32

2tired, you'd make a good politician with that answer. bigbang was asking about telling human friends. Why would you feel a need to point out some did not have human friends? It is my thought that there was more behind you stating this than a simple informative, non judgmental fact. At least going by the flavor of your previous comments.

Toys, there are 40% of people who agree with the animal saviours. I'm pretty sure some of those can be found in workplaces etc.... Only those who have spoken to their colleagues etc can have some idea as to what they think about this.

Hmmm.... guess the husband in the article above has some real comfortable family gatherings! And what a pariah he must be at work!

ToysRLuv · 04/11/2013 20:34

Everlong: I should hope they would at least try, unless they actually couldn't from extreme panic and tgen regretted it afterwards (even if it wasn't their fault, as such, that they paniced and were nit thinking straight or were frozen).

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.