Do dogs think? Are they capable of problem solving, independent thinking, or making judgment calls?

Often operant conditioning is used as an argument as to why dogs aren't capable of reasoning. Is that a starting point or the ending point of understanding the dog thought process?

Do dogs think? (Define Think).
Are they capable of problem solving (Yes), independent thinking (See above), or making judgment calls (Define judgment)?


Often operant conditioning is used as an argument as to why dogs aren't capable of reasoning. Is that a starting point or the ending point of understanding the dog thought process?

Operant conditioning is NEVER used an argument for a dog's ability to reason. It has NOTHING to do with it. By DEFINITION Operant conditioning is: Modification of emited BEHAVIORS by manipulation of the ENVIORNMENT. Thought has nothing to do with it.

Dogs do think independently, reason, & make judgement calls. Despite all the arguements made here that the dog is a self centered creature, if dogs weren't capable of all the above then how do cases such as the dog who pulls a child from a fire? Or the dog who has no training... protecting a child from runaway horses? Or the collie who pestered her owner until she got her up the stairs to discover the baby was choking? All of these are strong cases that have been documented & televised.

In these two cases the dogs involved had to think quickly & make a decisions independently. There was no commands from an owner. No collars or leashes involved. No rewards for their behavior. They could choose flight or self preservation. Humans are the same. There are people who would stand there & wring their hands & others who would sacrifice their own safety to save another.

The dog is a thinking creature who is capable of a whole lot more than most give them credit for.

Operant conditioning is NEVER used an argument for a dog's ability to reason. It has NOTHING to do with it.

I wouldn't say its never used as an argument...often various trainers/handlers have used operant conditioning as the reason why dogs DON'T have reasoning capabilities. In my discussions with them anyway.

I agree with you that it has nothing to do with it. Thats why I'm asking. Skinner's research only proves the animals' instinctive reactions to stimuli and how to manipulate and control them. Thats where it stops and as such is limited in scope.

As for the definition of 'judgment', this is what I'm thinking (I just took it from the dictionary) -

1. The mental ability to perceive and distinguish relationships; discernment
2. The capacity to assess situations or circumstances and draw sound conclusions;

And here's what I'm getting at with 'think' (again, I just stole it from the dictionary) -
1. To have or formulate in the mind.
2. To reason about or reflect on; ponder
3. To judge or regard; look upon

I just included that for clarification, not to be smart.

Then based on those definitions, dogs do exhibit judgment, they do not think.

Ed, is Catherine for real, or did you make her up to keep things interesting <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ?

Catherine, if you are for real, it was not meant as offense-this time I'm going to side with you. Based on your definitions, I don't see how Richard arrived to the conclusion that dogs exhibit judgment, but do not think. Doesn't the capacity to assess situations and draw sound conclusions require formulation in the mind, reasoning and making a sound judgment? If that is not thinking, what is?

I'm going to go even farther in stating that dogs, at least some of them, have the capacity for moral judgment and some possess a rather intricate sense of humor. And before anyone accuses me of anthropomorphizing, let me say that I don't see anything wrong with a healthy dose of that. Not everything can be explained from the point of view of drives and operant behavior, although there is a lot of validity in that. Unfortunately, the issues we are talking about here cannot be studied, replicated and proven in a lab, we have to rely mostly on stories. But the preponderance of such stories, some documented, some not, indicates that there is something there to ponder. I personally find this subject very fascinating. Any ideas?

I base those statements on the definitions provided. Judgment does not require thought under the definitions as provided. Judgment involves the ability to access a situation and draw a sound conclusion. Dogs definitely do this; I can give you multiple examples of this from my own experience. Judgment can also be trained. The is the basic principle behind owner defense. The dogs are trained to recognize a threat based on specific behavior. By recognizing that type of behavior they exhibit judgment by reacting to the situation. They perceive the threat (relationship) evaluate it, and react to the situation based on training and/or drives (whichever you prefer, it doesn't matter for the discussion). Another example of the same thing is when I work in emergency medicine. I access the situation and react to the circumstances based on my training and experience, I don't think about it. That is why you practice these things in a safe non-emergent situation. In many circumstances if you have to think, the response would be too slow. Judgment can involve thinking, but based on the definition it is not required.
Thinking, based on the definition, involves "to formulate in the mind, to reason about or reflect upon, ponder". There is no significant information that dogs do any of these things. That may change, but at this time there is no method to measure such things as it would require the communication of a "thought process" to demonstrate. I know of only one experiment that would show this type of behavior in animals, that is the work with Koko the gorilla. There is significant evidence that biologically dogs do not have the brain development for this type of behavior based on physiology. Anecdotal stories may have some value, but there is no provable evidence. At some point in time that may change, but for now the best evidence is that is does not happen.

I told you that degree would come in handy for something, four years of studying operant psychology and comparative anatomy had to be good for something.

I forgot, Catherine Skinners work has nothing to do with instinct. Skinner studied emitted behavior, this has nothing to do with instinct.

My psychology is a little rusty as you can see. Just wanted to point out that it had limits when trying to explain dog behavior as do drives.

While there is "significant evidence that biologically dogs do not have the brain development for this type of behavior based on physiology", there is also no definitive answer based on pure science.

Interesting subject.

Yes, I truly belive that dogs can think and reason out a situation. But only if they are allowed to do so by their trainers, instead of being programmed for a certain response over and over again. Animals in the wild think and show judgement all the time. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />