![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
LinkyPost - Envy
Dec. 8th, 2008 11:52 amTake a moment and read this article.
Then tell me where it proves that the envy that dogs feel "comes in a simpler form than what we and our primate cousins feel".
The nearest I can see is that they say "in contrast to primates, the dogs never rejected food ... so there is a fundamental difference in the behavior of the primates and the dogs.", which doesn't seem to me, to in any way invalidate or reduce the emotions of the dogs.
In fact, it seems to me to be yet another example of horrible science reporting. It's already known that different species of primates will behave differently towards food and that it's not a mark of intelligence to do so, so much different weighting in how the brain prioritizes things. It seems like it would be much more reasonable to hypothesize that dogs are weighted for consuming food and not causing offense towards higher ranking members of the pack than it would be think "the dogs don't react like primates, therefore they experience simpler emotions".
Someone in this experiment is acting like an idiot... and I don't think it was the dogs.
(Why do I keep reading these science news sites?)
ETA: The story has also been picked up by National Geographic and it clarifies things a bit. Basically, the jealousy experiments with primates could become more scientifically complex because they were able to fine-tune the methods to an extent that they couldn't with dogs. I still find fault with the conclusion that dogs are somehow "less evolved" than primates, but the majority seems to be with the reporting over at LiveScience.
Then tell me where it proves that the envy that dogs feel "comes in a simpler form than what we and our primate cousins feel".
The nearest I can see is that they say "in contrast to primates, the dogs never rejected food ... so there is a fundamental difference in the behavior of the primates and the dogs.", which doesn't seem to me, to in any way invalidate or reduce the emotions of the dogs.
In fact, it seems to me to be yet another example of horrible science reporting. It's already known that different species of primates will behave differently towards food and that it's not a mark of intelligence to do so, so much different weighting in how the brain prioritizes things. It seems like it would be much more reasonable to hypothesize that dogs are weighted for consuming food and not causing offense towards higher ranking members of the pack than it would be think "the dogs don't react like primates, therefore they experience simpler emotions".
Someone in this experiment is acting like an idiot... and I don't think it was the dogs.
(Why do I keep reading these science news sites?)
ETA: The story has also been picked up by National Geographic and it clarifies things a bit. Basically, the jealousy experiments with primates could become more scientifically complex because they were able to fine-tune the methods to an extent that they couldn't with dogs. I still find fault with the conclusion that dogs are somehow "less evolved" than primates, but the majority seems to be with the reporting over at LiveScience.
