[ExI] dogs again

[rex]

spike <spike66 at att.net> [2014-05-20 17:25]:
>
>   We have a new question, similar in some ways to how difficult it is to
>   measure intelligence in humans.  It depends to a large extent on how you
>   measure it.

AFAIK, there's no generally agreed upon definition of intelligence.
OTOH, IQ is not difficult to measure and it has the best predictive
power known for many outcomes, e.g., educational outcomes, job
performance and many social outcomes.

>   I had a Doberman who chose all the opposite assumptions; everyone was
>   guilty until proven innocent, and maybe guilty even then.  He seldom
>   passed up an opportunity to demonstrate his disdain for strangers.  But
>   the Doberman was not a hunter; there was nothing subtle about him.  He
>   didn't sneak around ever.  The setter wasn't stupid; he just liked
>   everybody.  The dobe wasn't stupid, he was just very aggressive.  Both
>   were excellent dogs.

There are differences in the mean trainability of breeds of dogs, just as
there are in human breeds (AKA races).

I've posted about the amazing abilities of crows and parrots with no
response. Here are two more example, one illustrating a wild crow
making, and then using, a tool to obtain food, and the other
illustrating a wild crow solving a complex series of puzzle that must
be completed in order.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGrI_p4fzps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHtwcaol_rc

-rex
-- 
Nielsen's First Law of Computer Manuals: People don't read 
documentation voluntarily.