It seems likely that most people who try to evaluate the intelligence of animals are probably measuring the wrong things! Yes, there is great importance in the fact that parrots and parakeets can often quickly learn to COPY sounds they hear. Similarly, most dogs can be conditioned to behave in specific ways on command. These are certainly aspects which show native intelligence. But I believe that it is important to place higher standards on what is expected.
Here is an example of what I consider to be far clearer evidence of the native intelligence of one specific dog. As a puppy, a dog of mine was frightened by a very loud sound, the firing of a shotgun just a couple feet away from her. As a result, Deimos always hated loud sounds throughout her life.
It was only after watching this happen many times that I finally realized that she had somehow figured out the relationship between lightning and thunder! When she would see the bright flash, she had figured out that a few seconds later, there would be a loud boom! So it was not the bright flash at all that she was afraid of, but the thunder that she knew would soon follow.
That is amazing ANALYTICAL THINKING! How could a dog discover such a relationship?
It actually had some humorous side effects! Whenever a flash camera was used to take a photo of anyone, she would immediately run to her bed and start shivering! I would wonder if she was confused as to why there was no sound of thunder then!
This example shows a combination of good observation and good logic in an analysis and then in arriving at a reliable conclusion. That is pretty close to what is considered the Scientific Method of investigation! That is quite different from an animal simply learning to copy some sound or behavior, or to reinforce a specific behavior based on treats or praise training.
Rather than the traditional methods of trying to determine the alleged intelligence of dogs, I developed methods which I felt were far more insightful. Just because a dog could learn a new trick, quickly or slowly, or accurately or poorly, seems to me to be more related to manual dexterity.
I played 'tennis ball' with all my dogs, often five times every day! Tennis balls were central in their lives. So I developed several 'IQ Tests' for my dogs, which I encourage anyone else to try as well. Since I usually had several dogs at any time, I often had more than one tennis ball in my hands. I thought it was significant to see the various ways that different of them responded to 'Test 1'. I softly tossed a ball to a specific dog and then IMMEDIATELY soft tossed a second ball to the same dog. Phobos learned to catch the first ball in the BACK of his mouth, where he could then also catch the second ball. I considered this to represent about a 115 IQ. Deimos would catch the first ball and then use it to bounce the second ball off. For various reasons, I considered Deimos to be about 125 IQ. Titan would catch the first ball, but in the process of then trying to catch the second one, would always drop the first ball. I considered Titan to have about 80 IQ. Mimas would always stand next to Titan when he tried this, and she somehow figured out WHICH of the two balls she should grab, to bring back to me, to make sure that Titan virtually never had any ball to bring back to me! For other reasons, I considered Mimas to have an IQ of at least 140 or maybe much higher. Most of other dogs brought back the first ball to me, often without even making any attempt on the second ball, and I considered their IQs to be around 100, 'average'.
A second IQ Test I tried on my dogs was outdoors, They loved when I would throw tennis balls for them to chase and return to me. Occasionally, I would fake a throw, and using my thumb to hold the ball in my palm, I showed the dog the BACKSIDE of my hand. Titan ALWAYS bought that deception and he would run out and around to try to find where the ball went. I could usually get dogs to buy this ONCE, but all the rest would not be deceived in this way a second time. This was clearly too easy for Mimas, Deimos, Phobos or Meatball, and I had to create a more sophisticated deception. I would make a big windup and as my hand passed behind my neck, I would slide the ball down into my tee shirt. The dogs would realize that the ball was not in the air, and most suspected that I still had the ball. Only Mimas ALWAYS KNEW where the ball was! She would walk around behind me and stand up against me and nose-poke my back (as high as she could reach).
Variants of these involved me slipping the ball down into my pants pocket. Some of the dogs (like Titan) intended to CHEW his way through my pants to get to the ball! Only one, Mimas, IMMEDIATELY walked around to the correct pocket and she nose-poked the ball through my pocket. I had the impression that she was just demonstrating to me that she KNEW where the ball was, and showing that 'she had won again'.
Sometimes when I would send all the dogs outside for a run, I would HIDE 'half Milkbones' all over inside the house. When they came back in and realized that there was a search needed, several of them had unique techniques they used to find the maximum number of goodies. Deimos seemed the most organized, as she would run back and forth across the floor of a room as though she was mowing a lawn, apparently in order to check every square inch of floor. Titan's nose worked great and his nose wiggled during all such searches as he found a few. Mimas immediately flipped the cushions out of every chair to find the goodies I had put there. Then she had other search techniques. She abused her brother Titan during such searches, as when she saw that he found one, she would always go over to grab his rear leg as though she wanted to play with him. He would get so distracted that he generally opened his mouth to grab her back as he twisted around, but she would see the flying goodie and often catch it in the air! I never got the impression that Titan ever figured out that his sister had just stolen another goodie from him!
In February 2011, PBS aired a program about a dog which showed similar analytical thinking. An owner had gotten the dog to recognize an amazing number of words, each associated with different stuffed animals. The dog could hear a (known) word/name and immediately go to her pile of stuffed animals to find the correct one, quite consistently. A Reporter decided to push the idea farther. (He was also a Physicist!) He brought a stuffed animal of his own along, which the dog had never seen and had never heard the unusual name of that animal, Darwin. So the Reporters asked the dog to find Darwin. The dog was clearly confused, and he needed to ask again. She then brought out the CORRECT stuffed animal, one that she had never seen before! She clearly did a lot of logical thinking, in first realizing that the word Darwin was not associated with any of the stuffed animals that she was familiar with. Amazingly, she did deductive thinking in then concluding that the new WORD Darwin MUST BE associated with the NEW stuffed animal, so she decided to bring out the CORRECT stuffed animal (which was absolutely unknown to her).
This is EXACTLY the sort of experiment which I have always tried to challenge my various dogs with. Some failed miserably at such tests. Only four consistently impressed me with their ability to FIGURE OUT things that they rightfully should not have been able to deduce (Mimas, Deimos, Meatball and Phobos). The rest of my many dogs seemed to be pretty normal in dog terms, but still wonderful!
One category of such IQ Test was somewhat accidental. We often played tennis ball inside the farmhouse (usually in their two main rooms) With nine house dogs, they drank a LOT of water, and I had discovered the value of keeping a (three gallon) pail near one wall of one of their rooms. Occasionally, when one of my hard-thrown balls bounced off somebody's nose, it flew up and fell into their water bucket. IF this was the only ball we were playing with that day, then everything stopped as all the dogs formed a circle sitting around the water bucket. Some, like Titan, NEVER tried to recover the ball, clearly always expecting one of the others to recover it. In general, even Mimas rarely tried to get a ball out of the water bucket. Phobos had the most direct approach, where he put his head against the bucket and intended to push it over! I never allowed that and Phobos was often still the one to recover the ball. He would reach into the pail with mouth open and stick several inches of his nose underwater to grab the ball and a bunch of water, a method which always worked (except for once). If Phobos was not around, and if the ball was fairly new where it had tennis ball fuzz, Deimos would then try. But she hated to ever get wet and she used her front teeth to try to grab some of the fuzz, to lift the ball up and out without getting wet!
The one time when those methods did not work were on a day when none of the dogs had brought me an actual complete tennis ball to play with. They had a lot of tennis balls, but most of them wound up out in their 'outdoor private run'. So once in a while, the best they could do would be to bring me a 3/4 tennis ball for us to play with. I still threw hard and they had their challenges, but I would be surprised that none of the dogs went to the trouble of finding a complete tennis ball for us to play with. This specific day, the 3/4 ball bounced up off of somebody's nose and landed in the water bucket. But instead of floating like they always had done before, this one sank to the bottom of the bucket, under a foot of water! After some frustration, Phobos reverted to his wanting to push the pail over to get the ball (which WOULD have worked!) But clearly, there was NO dog-compatible method of getting the sunken tennis ball out of the bucket. Maybe an hour later, I noticed that Mimas was sitting next to the bucket. I wish I knew what went through her mind! In any case, she had often proven before that she was left-footed. I watched as she moved up right next to the bucket and very slowly and carefully reached her left forepaw over the edge of the bucket, all the way down to the bottom! It seemed really weird! I cannot explain the rest of what what I saw that day. SOMEHOW, she got her dewclaws to extend and very slowly, she somehow got a dewclaw INSIDE the partial tennis ball! She then slowly raised her leg and paw, which had the tennis ball hanging on it! Just as it got to the surface of the water, she reached forward with her head and she attempted to grab the ball with her mouth. Unfortunately, she knocked the ball off her dewclaw and it fell back down to the bottom of the bucket.
I was so astounded that ran and found my (ex-)wife to tell her about the incredibly strange 'accidental' event I had just witnessed. I remember telling her that I had seen a 'once in a lifetime event'! I doubt if she believed what I then told her! I assumed that no one would ever see that event occur ever again. There was mental thinking and planning involved, and then physical dexterity to actually pull it off. 'What a lucky and unique thing to have seen!'
But I had been doing paperwork in that room that day so I was there all day. About 45 minutes later, Mimas walked up and sat down next to the water bucket again. I thought she was going to get a drink! But she slowly raised her left forepaw and again lowered it down into the bucket! This was much quicker, and clearly more organized, as 30 seconds later, she had AGAIN lifted the partial tennis ball up to the water surface, and this time she grabbed it with her mouth and had recovered the partial tennis ball!
It is hard for me to imagine that ANY animal, in history, has ever THOUGHT THROUGH and then MECHANICALLY COORDINATED a variety of required movements to accomplish that! I wished I had owned a camera to record what I had seen (TWICE)!
THAT event, and to have seen it twice, is what convinced me that Mimas certainly had an IQ of at least 140 and possibly far higher!
One day some months later, while the dogs were running around in their two-acre yard, I saw Mimas 'Pronking', a very peculiar running technique that only two species of African Antelopes have ever done (Klipspringer and Springbok). I cannot imagine where Mimas learned how to Pronk. As far as I know, she only did it once, for a few hundred yards. Pronking involves the four legs contacting the ground in a small group, together and simultaneously. If you have ever see African videos of gazelles, you probably have seen a few of them Pronking. Since no animal in North America has ever Pronked (except for Mimas that once), how did she learn it? Our TV was often left on PBS, but do dogs ever look at TV? That seems to me to the the only available explanation of how Mimas could have learned how to Pronk.
I have always been a "critter" person. Ever since I was a little kid, I had the opportunity to be around quite a number of animals, especially dogs. I have shared my life with about 20 dogs, nine of them all at the same time!
During those times, I have witnessed a number of incidents that certainly seem to indicate some thinking capability in at least some of them. Several of these incidents are presented below.
Quite a few of the dogs I have had have been hunting breeds. Nearly half have been varieties of Coonhounds. Since I would never want to even injure any animal, much less kill it, I needed to find a way to let them practice some skills while still teaching them to never hurt anything. So I trained them to ONLY kill tennis balls! But I encouraged full out attacks on their tennis balls!
After a while, many of their lives revolved around tracking, catching, retrieving and trying to chew up tennis balls! They REALLY looked forward to the times I would play with them. Usually, I would sit on the living room floor and ask for a ball. They would disappear in all different directions and in short order I'd have half a dozen tennis balls!
Mimas always knew what was about to be asked and understood the question, but she rarely actually went to find a ball. She clearly knew that the other dogs would bring back the necessary balls to play with, so usually she just got into the best avaiable position! I suppose that could seem to be laziness or stupidity on her part, but I tend to think that she knew how to USE the other dogs like that. She seemed to confirm that on certain times when her brother Titan had found a ball and was about to give it to me. Mimas would nip his back leg, and when he would turn around to nip her back, she would catch the ball that came out of his mouth and bring it to me. She and I would then look at each other, and I wondered if she thought she had fooled me about bringing a ball!
Early on, when I just had two Coonhounds, they would often be satisfied just playing with one ball. Whoever brought it back got praised and petted, so there was a lot of competition. They were VERY active dogs and I would throw the ball against a wall pretty much as hard as I could. The ball would come back at really high speed. (I didn't want this game to be TOO easy for them!) Sometimes, the ball would bounce off one of their mouths or noses and wind up almost anywhere. Sometimes, that would be rolling under a couch.
If it was near any edge of the couch there was no problem and either dog could reach under for it. But when it rolled to near the middle, their heads were too big to fit far enough in to be able to grab it. They would look under at it. The two dogs DEFINITELY had different ideas. After a few seconds of looking, the male, Phobos, would just jam his head under, lifting up the heavy couch as he pushed. He did this a couple times even when I happened to be sitting on the couch. That had to be REALLY painful!
The other dog, the female, Deimos, clearly had more organized thoughts. Her usual method resembled the following methodical approach: She would go up to all four sides of the couch and look at the ball. Then she would again look from all four sides. She would stay for several seconds in each place. So this all took more than half a minute. After all that, she invariably would pick the side that was nearest the ball. I was always impressed with the thoroughness of her approach. It suggested to me a series of organized thoughts, taking observations and then analyzing them to determine the best side to work from. (Even when the ball was near one end of the couch, she would still look from the other end, five feet away! She had found a system that worked and she never varied from it.)
Once she selected the best side, her head was still too big to fit under the couch to reach it. At different times, she tried various ways. One worked well, of just kicking at it with her paws, but the ball would come out the other side of the couch and the other dog would get the credit for bringing it to me. She eventually came up with a way that worked relatively well. She would CAREFULLY reach both of her forepaws under the couch (her head was up alongside the couch so she couldn't actually see what was happening). If the ball was only a little beyond what her mouth could have reached, she would gently put a paw (usually the right paw) on top of the ball and carefully pull it back toward her. Even if it slipped off (and it usually did) the ball rolled generally toward her side of the couch enough for her to grab it with her mouth.
When the ball was even farther away, she could sometimes somehow extend her claws that would catch in the fuzz of the tennis ball. Sometimes, she used both paws alternately to very slowly pull the ball toward herself. Quite impressive!
I was SO impressed by her combination of logical analysis and then motor skills that, sometimes when the dogs were not around, I would use a ruler to place the ball just 1/2 inch nearer the front back or end of the couch, to see if she would try from the best direction (she ALWAYS did!) and how successfully she would be at actually getting it. She was remarkably effective! I do not see how that sequence would be possible without intelligence, logic and creative thought.
Several years later, these two dogs had a litter of nine puppies, three of which were kept as parts of the family. Two of those three were not particularly notable except as being generally good dogs, Titan and Enceladus. The third, Mimas, was the most remarkable animal I have ever had the honor of being near. She exhibited a number of behaviors, each of which I cannot explain except by attributing to her a significant analytical ability. I have collected some of the anecdotes about her in a separate page, at Animal Insight, Intelligence, Logic.
(Yes, Phobos and Deimos were named for the two moons of Mars. When they had a litter of nine, at that time the planet Saturn was known to have nine moons, and I named each of them appropriately, so the three unusual names above arose that way.)
There are some other web-pages which are dog-centered:
This presentation was first placed on the Internet in June 1997.
This page - -
- - is at
Link to the Home Page
Link to the Public Services Main Menu
E-mail to: Public4@mb-soft.com
C Johnson, Theoretical Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago