D-g duped by statue

May 31, 2013 • 7:34 am

Can you imagine a cat trying to get a statue to pet it? Or jumping into a statue’s lap for a belly rub? Nope, that won’t happen, because cats can distinguish between people and bronze replicas of them.

D-gs cannot. This one repeatedly tries to get the statue to play “fetch the stick.”

95 thoughts on “D-g duped by statue”

  3. I had a Border Collie who would drop a ball in front of anybody to get them to throw it. If there was nobody who was willing to throw it she would drop it in front of another dog, and nose it to get the dog to throw it. Never worked, of course.

    1. At Xmas my dog goes nuts when he sees the eight reindeer on my neighbours lawn.

        1. Nine? Are you sure, the song only mentions two – Rudolph (the red nosed one) and Olive.

          That’s Olive as in “Olive the other reindeer”!

          I’ll get my coat!

          Cheers,
          Norm.

        1. Yeah, but, in that video, the balloon was moving in a not-quite-right way and it advanced on the cat. As soon as the cat dispatched the zombie intruder and figured out that, whatever it was, it was no longer an animate object, it give the “all clear” and stopped worrying about it.

          The canine above, however, is wondering why a hunk of bronze isn’t moving….

          b&

    1. Aha! Cats can be fooled as well! Our cat reacted similarly to a ceramic statue of a cat.

      1. Cats do react to shapes and silhouettes that resemble other cats. Usually, though, after a sniff test fails to reveal any eau de cologne de chat, the shape is ignored.

        How long was your cat “fooled”?

    1. The comments on the video’s youtube page seem to confirm that it is his memorial.

      1. It was reminding me of Isaac Asimov; that’s because there’s a pale patch on the left cheek (also visible in several other googled images of the Turing memorial) that looks like the trademark white mutton-chop.

          1. Omniscience, hell — I’d be happy just for signs of enough brains to not eat his own shit.

            I mean, is that really too much to ask?

            b&

  7. I suspect either that someone out of view of the camera was doing something to confuse the poor d*g or something had been sprayed on the statue that confused it.

  8. My (now deceased) dog freaked out when after about two minutes of interplay he seemed to finally realize a floating plastic duck in a pond was not a real duck. Seemed to ruin his whole day. I could have been misreading the signs, of course.

  9. Cats do not recognised themselves in a mirror, unlike chimps, doplhins and I guess a few other animals.

    My father had once a mirror on the street, which he put in his corridor. And our cat thought is was another cat and she felt treatened by herself.

    1. Actually, I rather suspect that the classic mirror test is flawed. Cats don’t care much about visible smudges of dirt on their flanks, so of course they don’t care much about visible smudges of dirt on their foreheads.

      When Baihu first came in from the street, his reaction to the mirror wasn’t anything special — just the usual type of curiosity.

      A while later, after he, as Gary Larson might say, “got tutored” and came home with the “collar of shame,” his reaction to his appearance in the mirror was everything that you’d want from the mirror test.

      You see, he’d just instantly grown this big blue mane….

      Cheers,

      b&

  10. Some collies are so obsessed with playing with toys that they lose all sense! Without the stick, he would soon have realised.

    The cat with the balloon is something a dog would never fall for…

  11. But… but… this is precisely why dogs are fun and cats are not. Dogs play and engage and emote.

    1. Cats most emphatically DO play and engage and emote.

      Baihu won’t let me go to bed unless we’ve either gone on a walk or spent time playing. Though he always starts the night on the bed, either on my chest or by my side, the only times he actually stays there the whole night through (instead of just reappearing at breakfast time) are during winter when it’s cold…or when I’m sick.

      Cats are very social and playful animals. They’re just wary of strangers, is all.

      Cheers,

      b&

      1. I have a cat that sleeps all night on the bed and calls when she feels it is time to sleep and I am still busy downstairs. Unless it is raining – then she goes out and comes back in soaked and full of life and insists on waking us up to tell us about it (mewing loudly, batting noses), after which she settles down for the rest of the night. She is the most social and human-interactive cat I have ever known.

        1. Cats have lived with humans long enough that they may have evolved behaviour selected by humans.

      2. “Very” social? I think a routine assessment of canid and feline species would correct this line of thought. Almost all canids are social, whereas most felid species are solitary. Given that this is a website that revolves around evolution we should strongly weight evolutionary evidence when making such statements.

        One might also question your definition of “social”. Being “wary of strangers” is decidedly not social.

        1. By “cat,” I was referring to Felis silvestris catus, and they’re one of the decidedly non-solitary cat species. They regularly form colonies with dozens of members.

          And if you think that “being wary of strangers: is a sign of a species not being social, may I suggest an experiment? Walk up to a wild tribe of chimpanzees or a wild pack of lions or a wild herd of elephants or a wild beehive — all famously social species — and observe how well you, a stranger, are welcomed into their midst.

          Or, for that matter, you could try it with H. sapiens sapiens by walking into the worng side of town….

          Cheers,

          b&

          1. Well, if we were interested in a useful experiment I would test walking up to domesticated animals such as cows, sheep, goats, horses, camels, pigs, and dogs. And quite serendipitously I have conducted such experiments! In each of these cases the animal did not seem wary, and certainly did not run away – unlike many experiences with domesticated cats.

            Regarding humans, I, as well as most others, are not “wary of strangers” in any meaningful sense. If we were, our adrenal glands would shot after walking down any city street for more than 5 minutes.

          2. cows, sheep, goats, horses, camels, pigs, and dogs

            Those are all species that have been bred for docility and the individuals you approached had assuredly all been imprinted and trained from birth by humans.

            Try approaching a herd of wild mustangs, though — and watch your skull. Or a pack of javelinas. Or, for that matter, a pack of Dobermans on a private estate.

            And, as I noted, wild chimpanzees, lions, elephants, or bees.

            Does your definition of “social” exclude all of the above? If so, I’ll grant you the consistency of your statements but note that you’re using “social” in very confusing ways that nobody else does.

            Cheers,

            b&

          3. Yes, the animals listed have been bred for docility; the same can be said for domestic cats. Similarly, the cats I am referring to are only cats that have been raised from birth with humans – and I might add with likely more human interaction than some of the other domesticated animals mentioned above.

            Unlike the other animals, when I have approached domesticated cats, the typical response is indifference – sometimes at first, sometimes without change.

            In stark contrast, I have approached many domestic dogs, of which the typical response is not indifference but pro-social tendencies for the dog to initiate and sustain interactions.

            So, I think the definition of social for our purposes here should revolve around how domesticated animals that have been raised from birth with humans, interact with strangers.

            Given this definition, defining cats as “very” social is an overstatement. Similarly, I did not say that domestic cats were asocial, but the relevant comparisons are other domesticated animals, and in that case cats can not be reasonably defined as “very” social.

          4. So, I think the definition of social for our purposes here should revolve around how domesticated animals that have been raised from birth with humans, interact with strangers.

            You’re welcome to such a definition, but that’s not at all what biologists mean by a “social species.”

            To a biologist, a social species is one in which its members regularly form closely-interacting groups amongst members of the species. And F. silvestris catus, by that standard and common definition, is as social as they come.

            The term you’re looking for is not at all “social,” but “gregariously extroverted” or some variation on that theme. “Social” has a very specific meaning in biology, and that meaning is unrelated to how quickly you get drunk at office parties.

            Cheers,

            b&

          5. Thank you for the clarification Ben, although at first I was slightly peeved by the semantic argument, the distinction you make at the end is important.

      3. Well, the website is disallowing any more replies below, potentially due to the number of indents, so I’ll have to address the concerns here.

        I do appreciate you providing a biological definition of “social”, as I am only a biologist that studies social behavior in the field I would have never known how biologists define social.

        The offered definition above reflected the sentiments you provided when you stated that cats were social but wary of strangers. I suppose if you don’t want people to offer definitions based on your implied meaning you should choose your words more carefully.

        Finally, using your definition of social does not indicate levels of sociality as it renders it binary. Though this is inconsistent with you calling them “very” social above. Despite the inconsistency, even by standard definitions cats are not “as social as they come”. Both Red-billed quelea and wildebeest form larger herds, and sociable weavers form larger colonies and have more in-group cooperation than cats. These are just the vertebrates that show more pro-social behaviors than cats. Cats are much less social than the eusocial groups that include hymenoptera, certain aphids, and a species of shrimp, where subsets of individuals behave to help the genes within the group. In fact, individual cells in certain social amoeba are more altruistic than cats (and humans).

        The biological assessment of cats does not find them to be “very” social either. Yes, You’re correct, biology quantifies sociality in specific ways. I suspect if you read a bit about sociality in the literature you’d quickly recognize the inaccuracy of your previous statements.

        1. Silly me. I always thought the “cats are better than dogs are better than cats” argument was tongue-in-cheek.

          Turns out some people seem to take it seriously.

        2. I am only a biologist that studies social behavior in the field I would have never known how biologists define social.

          Is it common practice of field biologists to determine the eusociality of a species based upon how welcoming they are of an unknown individual of a different species, which you’ve repeatedly offered as your standard investigative tool?

          If so, since you’re so well versed in the literature, perhaps you could point me to your favorite published article about this practice?

          Cheers,

          b&

          1. No, it’s not common practice.

            I would copy and paste my response from above since it seems you didn’t read it in full or didn’t understand it, but I’ll reword it.

            I offered a definition based on the fact that you said they are wary of strangers and composed of comparisons to appropriate species. Apparently, you didn’t like the results when we compared cats to other domesticated animals. That’s fine. But if you don’t want people to follow your implications then choose your words better.

            After I said I am happy to use the literature as a reference about how we talk about social behaviors I provided several examples of animals or organisms that the field considers “very” social. There are numerous species that form groups, but if we view sociality as a continuum group-living does not get a species close to the “very” social side of the spectrum.

            Since you are so interested in primary literature why don’t you read the most recent academic book about sociality by Andrew Bourke, “Principles of Social Evolution”. I’ll give you some time and you can get back to all of us with how many times he actually mentions cats in the book. And also tally how many times he refers to cats as “very social”. Or, better yet, I’ll await your next review article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution explaining why all the social biologists are incorrect in not considering cats “as social as they come”.

          2. So, first you come out swinging by declaring that cats aren’t social because the ones you’ve personally met were wary of strangers; you got upset when I assumed that your misunderstanding of the term meant you’re a rank novice and then tried to correct your understanding of what “sociality” means in this context; and now you’re trying to simultaneously hand-wavingly continue to defend your “wary of strangers” definition of “social” while suggesting that I’m the one who doesn’t understand the subject.

            Um, okay. Whatever.

            May I suggest?

            If you don’t want people to assume that you’re ignorant of a field, don’t push bizarre non-standard definitions of common terms that have more to do with pop culture than the subject at hand.

            b&

          3. One of the world’s leading ethologists, Paul Leyhausen, wrote in his book Cat Behavior: The Predatory and Social Behavior of Domestic and Wild Cats that cats recognize prey largely by movement and social conspecifics by facial cues and other signals including scent and behavior. He mentions that humans can trigger a cat’s innate releasing mechanism without triggering comparable inhibiting mechanisms. Human faces are similar enough, to feline vision, to cat faces to trigger a positive social response, but that scent, behavior and other anatomical cues that may trigger territorial conflict are not present which led him to speculate that cats are capable of forming closer social bonds with humans than with members of their own species.

            If you want more details, you can read the book. It’s not easy going if you don’t have at least some grounding in ethology, and if you can’t find one in your local library it’ll cost you – used copies on Amazon range from $55.00 to $195.00.

          4. E.A. Blair, that’s a really interesting hypothesis. One wonders how much of it goes the other way, too — if humans are able to more easily form close relationships with non-humans because of a similar mix of signals. You can pour out your deepest inner thoughts to a cat without the same type of danger from doing the same with a human, after all….

            b&

          5. If you were offended that I pointed out that cats were not “very” social then your problem is with reality, not with myself.

            I have said, multiple times, that cats are social. Just for kicks I will say it again so that maybe you won’t continue to misrepresent what I have said: domestic cats are social. But calling them “very” social or as social as any other animal is an overstep. So, if you want to continue to intentionally misread and ignore what I am actually saying then continue to do so, you sound like a creationist presented with fossils. I’d rather be a rank amateur than someone who is too dense to or too unwilling to follow and address an argument.

            I didn’t push the definition after specifying it was based on your implications, and I was more than willing to drop the assumed definition that you had implied when you mentioned how social cats were except they were wary of strangers. Again, if you don’t want people to use your metrics for social behavior then be more articulate. So no, I am not defending that definition, I am happy to use the normal definition since either of them renders your comment as a reach.

            If you understand the subject so well then by all means point out why cats deserved to be mentioned along the eusocial hymenoptera. It sure sounded like it when you were talking about the standard definitions of sociality in biology. But hey, if your books on sociality aren’t that successful I’m sure the Discovery Institute would love to have someone that willfully represents what someone has said or just plain ignores biological evidence.

          6. If you were offended that I pointed out that cats were not “very” social then your problem is with reality, not with myself.

            So that’s what all this comes down to? I point out that cats aren’t the emotionless anti-social automata that Jon originally claimed they were, but their actual degree of sociality isn’t sufficient to rise to your own standard of “very” because there are too many species that are even more social for you to grant them the “very” appellation?

            It seems I am in even further need of enlightenment from one as learnèd as you.

            What are the proper adjectives describing how social a species is, and what are the dividing lines between classifications? Are cats “rather” social and humans “very” social and bees “super ultra mega” social?

            b&

          7. If you’ll pardon an anecdotal account, in my current personal experience, I have one cat who is addicted to cuddles and physical contact to the point that she will pass up a treat for some petting and clings to human contact while the other accepts attention but is relatively indifferent to it and does not seek it out. That’s just a long way of saying that my cats have personalities and react to humans and other cats as individuals.

          8. If you’ll pardon an anecdotal account . . .

            Why not? Anecdote seemed to be all GM was offering in his original pronouncements on cats.

            Maybe there’s just something about him . . .

  12. For shame, smearing dogs with an anecdote. Such a smear can be addressed with a second anecdote. Chaser, a border collie from the US, has a memory of >1000 items based on name alone. If I remember correctly, Dr. Coyne dismissed this amazing feat of non-human intelligence with special pleading.

    I fear this is a treacherous topic. A well-read evolutionary biologist should be aware of the generally supported “social intelligence hypothesis”, whereby living in groups leads to increased social interactions and selection for intelligence, at least in terms of navigating the social landscape. And given that most canids are social, while most felids are solitary, pointing out the lack of acuity in one dog invites evolutionary comparisons that suggest that canids are likely more intelligent as a group.

    1. Indeed. Wake me up when there are guide cats, rescue cats, bomb-sniffing cats and drug-detecting cats.

      1. Most of those tasks depend on either a smell-based tracking instinct or brute strength or both.

        Cats are visual hunters, which rules them out for all the scent tracking tasks.

        And a 150-pound attack cat (such as a jaguar) wouldn’t merely wrestle its target to the ground with a bit of bruising, it’d completely shred and eviscerate the target — and probably silently and without warning, too. They’d be awesome attack animals for the military…but most jurisdictions frown upon police officers summarily executing suspects.

        That is, dogs are valued for those tasks over cats because they’re not as good at the basic skill as the cat and therefore give the mere human a fighting chance.

        Cheers,

        b&

      2. Yeah after I put the wee little harnesses on my 2000 cats I’m going to show those huskies at the Iditarod. 😀

  13. There’s an old Far Side cartoon that, as far as I am concerned, says it all about dogs: Two dogs with their tongues hanging out and a-drool are watching a frowsy woman in a muumuu and rhinestoned eyeglasses operating a can opener. The caption reads, “Oh, Boy! Dog food AGAIN!”.

    1. Or how about the Dan Piraro cartoon that says it all about cats? A cat and a stink-fur looking out a window at their human hanging from a tree limb because the ladder fell down. The dog says, “Oh, no!, He’s in trouble!” and the cat says, “Oh, no! I don’t know how to operate the can opener!”

  14. Interesting.

    My dog just loveslovesloves to chase rabbits. And in our neighborhood we have a lot of rabbits.

    So, our daily walks consists of him spying a rabbit, stalking it, then running as fast as he can until he reaches the end of his leash. Usually the rabbit runs.

    But the concrete rabbits and all the other rabbit statuary everywhere. Nary a glimpse. He doesn’t even pee on those things.

    I guess I have a superior dog.

    1. rabbit statuary everywhere

      You live in a strange place. What religion do the people practice, these rabbit worshippers?

  15. Cats are smarter. One of my cats knows that the alarm clock is what gets me out of bed in the morning (to feed her) and on weekends or holidays she comes over and starts trying to manipulate the clock so it will get me out of bed to feed her. Usually when the clock doesn’t make any noise, she starts manipulating me instead. First a few pokes on the shoulder, and if no response, next comes the face. It almost always works, so she may be smarter than me.

    1. Bah! Fimbos, the lot of them. Ours can’t figure out that if it’s raining at the front door, it will also be raining at the back door.

        1. Nah, vaccines just cause mental retardation and promiscuity, at least that’s what I hear. Besides, the dogs are vaccinated and they seem to understand “It’s raining outside”.

          2. Well there must have been a mix up at the vet’s then, because she seems to be cognitively disadvantaged and I’m pretty sure that lack of equipment is the only thing restraining her from total depravity.

  16. Does nobody else see the dog as being a supplicant whose prayer is not being answered?

      1. This god also serves a useful purpose: pigeon roost and canine entertainer.

        And it reminds people of a real human who figured out much of what makes it possible for you to read these words right now on a computer.

        Really, in a contest between the two, Jesus hasn’t a prayer.

        b&

        1. I disagree: Jesus has lots of prayers – he just doesn’t answer any of them (maybe he hasn’t checked his voicemail).

          1. That does raise an interesting question: what does Jesus do with all those prayers that everybody keeps sending to him?

            He sure doesn’t answer them, and he doesn’t pass them on, either.

            Does he just have a massive prayer collection that he rolls around in like Caesar getting a tweasure baff?

            b&

          4. Maybe this is how it’s done:

            “Dear Praying People,

            This is God. I’m sorry but I can’t answer your prayers right now. Tim Tebow is fervently praying for Me to help him complete his next pass, and has promised to do that little thing he does every time he thanks Me (he looks so cute when he does that).

            Your prayer is very important to Me. Please stay on your knees and the next angel, saint or deceased relative will be on the line to intercede for you, and I’m really sorry for any deaths, illnesses or natural disasters that happen during the game.”

    2. A dog looks at its human and thinks, “He feeds me, he pets me, he plays with me, he gives me a warm place to sleep and takes me for walks. He must be a god.”

      A cat looks at its human and thinks, “He feeds me, he pets me, he plays with me, he gives me a warm place to sleep and keeps my litter box clean. I must be a god.”

  18. I love both cats and dogs. My little border collie (whom I opted to name Luna, due to her black and white color patterns) is an angel, and has been by my side since I was 14. My girlfriend has two cats, a boy named louie and a girl named olive. Louie is a big baby…he almost trips us on a daily basis, in an always successful attempt to elicit a typical “Okay FINE. We can cuddle” response from one of us. Olive is generally aloof, but when I lay down or sit, she jumps up on me and purrs loudly. All of this arguing seems kinda pointless…there are good things about BOTH cats and dogs. I give them equal time 🙂 And jerry, I just finished your book. Incredible…I know so much more about Evolution now.

  20. My wife has a statue of an Egyptian god Bast — a sitting cat about two feet tall. When our kitties were young, they would bring the traditional presents of toys and kills, and place them in front of the statue.

Comments are closed.