Agree Or Disagree With This Statement?

[macoduck]

Would you agree or disagree with this statement?

 

Dog sociology teaches that greyhounds think children are dogs (their equals), not masters.

 

I am not sure of the context of where this may have originally been written.

Edited November 10, 2013 by macoduck

[OwnedBySummer]

I think they (dogs) think that children are lower. Certainly, all of mine did.

Edited November 10, 2013 by OwnedBySummer

[Riverhound]

I voted other, because my dogs each act differently with children.

 

If a small child is squealing and running, Brees thinks it's prey. We don't let her get near babies. Children standing still are scary.

 

Joe loves kids like he loves puppies, so I think he regards them as dogs. In his eyes, the younger the better. Once a kid is about 8, it's human and not very interesting unless it has food. 8 is also the age where I start to think of kids as being people, so I think he's right on the money!

[greysmom]

I think it depends on the early socialization of an individual dog. And that it depends a lot on the nature of each dog, and the actions of the children.

[Acadianarose]

I don't believe dogs think children are their "masters". Although I think it has more to do with children lacking the authority to instruct a dog and the dog follow the instruction, rather than the dogs thinking of them as litter mates.

 

At 9 years old, DD is just getting old enough to help with training and the dogs take her seriously.

[PatricksMom]

No idea so we didn't vote, we've always adopted very kid friendly dogs, ironic for people who don't have children.

[Sambuca]

Kids are unpredictable and don't express themselves clearly, so dogs don't understand them. The running and playing is fun, so the dogs enjoy playing with kids. I don't think dogs think kids are dogs or even their equals.

[GreytNut]

I don't think they consider children dogs, but they do recognize that they are juvenile humans and thus lower on the pecking order than a mature human. They do seem to try to push them around more than they would dare with an adult. On the flip side, they also seem to tolerate stuff from children that would get an adult bitten.

 

Example: Argus loved children, but he would sometimes take advantage of them. If a child had food in his or her hands, he wouldn't think twice about stealing it right out of their hands. He would never have tried that with an adult. On the other hand, when we went to my MIL's house my little niece saw Argus and immediately jumped onto his back before we realized what she was doing. She thought he was a horse. Argus lay down on the floor without so much as a peep of protest. He would've bitten a strange adult who grabbed and straddled him.

 

Our dogs have all been fond of children, so these observations are based on that. I'm not sure how non-kid-friendly dogs view children.

[Saffron]

Would you agree or disagree with this statement?

 

Dog sociology teaches that greyhounds think children are dogs (their equals), not masters.

 

I am not sure of the context of where this may have originally been written.

 

Other. I find it rather nonsensical.

 

There is really no such thing as "dog sociology" although the term has been (mis)used by the "Human needs to be Alpha Dog because dogs are descended from wolves" aficionados. Those theories have now been fairly thoroughly debunked as it is now accepted that the original research on wolves was flawed. And domesticated dogs are not the same as wolves anyway.

 

Dogs (greyhound or not) do not perceive children as dogs. Dogs are not stupid and can tell the difference. Their behavior towards small humans will vary according to their socialization and experience, and the behavior of small humans with said dogs.

 

This phrase was used by (but possibly did not originate with) a Greyhound Adoption Agency in materials for training volunteers ages and ages ago. The idea was to be very cautious when adopting out greyhounds to families with small children and to warn potential adopters to use appropriate care supervising greyhounds (or any other dog) in interactions with small children.

 

The training materials may have been revised since 1995. I hope so.

[JJNg]

I agree with Saffron. The statement doesn't make sense, and it's also way too general. I'd honestly never heard the term "dog sociology" before, and even a Google search wasn't very revealing. As others have mentioned, each dog is different, and their reaction toward and relationship with children depends on a number of factors. I don't believe in dominance theory, especially regarding a dog's relationship with humans, so I don't think that categorizing a dog's view of children as equals or masters even applies. I find it more useful to look at behavior individually and situationally, rather than trying to apply broad labels and generalizations.

[silverfish]

I voted 'other' too. I agree with neither of the other two options.

 

Dogs do not seem to regard children as puppies - they behave quite differently with puppies in my experience - or other dogs. Their senses are far, far too acute, and children simply do not behave like puppies, so they can't fit them into their 'sociological' framework. Neither do they think of them as their 'masters'. A 'master' to a dog, is someone who knows what he or she is doing within the family (which is what passes for a pack structure these days for most of them) with particular reference to the dog. Children do not.

 

This is how I see it: children are pack members (clearly) and also clearly human, and yet not at all competent as far as the dog can see. They can't feed and care for themselves properly or contribute anything concrete to the family in terms of providing anything important (as far as the dog can see), and they are noisy and demanding of attention. Therefore, to a dog they probably appear vulnerable and weak. To some dogs this may suggest that they need protection, and to others that they are unimportant or even disposable. It is even possible, given that they see them as weak pack members, that when they are screaming and causing disruption, babies may be seen by some dogs as a danger to the pack integrity and something that should be eliminated for the greater good - which may possibly explain why some dogs appear to think of screaming babies as 'prey' when they are noisy, and yet not at any other time.

In my personal opinion, dogs know that babies are young humans, but are confused by them until they learn how to deal with them (which should be taught be the humans in the family so that the dog doesn't come to the wrong conclusion). It's not a case of 'where do they place them on the scale of hierarchy?' so much as 'how do they fit them into their world?', because babies are so different from adult humans (as far as the dog can see). Sure, they see them as competition at certain ages, but I don't believe they see them as dogs.

Edited November 10, 2013 by silverfish

[Batmom]

Agree with Saffron.

[JJNg]

An additional thought.... I think dogs are quite aware that humans are not dogs. But the only way they know how to interact with other individuals is from a canine perspective. The same applies in the other direction too. We are also obviously aware that dogs are not people, but our only frame of reference if from a human perspective. We may never know what or how dogs truly think because we can't avoid applying our biased interpretations to their behavior simply because that's the only way we know how to think.

[sobesmom]

I voted "other"...because the question confused me.

 

I believe that dogs are pack animals - and they're most happy when they know their place in the pack. Be it human or dog, or a combination.

 

In my house - humans are first - but my child made her place in the pack.

[Guest Giselle]

An additional thought.... I think dogs are quite aware that humans are not dogs. But the only way they know how to interact with other individuals is from a canine perspective. The same applies in the other direction too. We are also obviously aware that dogs are not people, but our only frame of reference if from a human perspective. We may never know what or how dogs truly think because we can't avoid applying our biased interpretations to their behavior simply because that's the only way we know how to think.

I think this is a very clear rendition of Alexandra Horowitz's "umwelt" idea. And I think it is exactly right. It takes a very honest and humble mind to come to this conclusion, but I think it also takes immense skill, creativity, and theoretical/applied background to turn "umwelt" into usable information and meaningful research. I do think we can eventually deduct, to a very accurate degree, how dogs think. It will take time, science, and honest evaluations, but I think we'll get there.

 

For now, I also agree that this statement is total non-sense and don't have much to add to Saffron's post.

[Guest Giselle]

Here's a brief article about Horowitz's book and a bit about umwelt: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/books/review/Schine-t.html?_r=0

 

These days, I think Alexandra and a few other researchers are especially talented in the ways they see and study canine cognition. No one has the perfect experiment or theory, but it's all coming together quite beautifully now. I cannot wait for the day when we talk about dogs in terms of their incredible cognitive capabilities and not through these outdated "pack theory"/"dominance theory"/"pack members" anecdotes.