Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

Dog intelligence is the ability of a dog to learn, think, and solve problems. Dog trainers, owners, and researchers have as much difficulty agreeing on a method for testing canine intelligence, as they do for human intelligence.
Certain breeds, like Border Collies, Poodles, German Shepherds and Golden Retrievers, are generally easier to train than others. It is worth noting that these descriptions are relative to other dogs, not relative to the world at large. The ability to learn and obey commands is not the only possible measurement of intelligence. Other breeds, such as sled dogs and Border Collies demonstrate intelligence in other ways.

When you read what he actually said in the apology it doesn't sound to me like it's reinforcing his original statement.

real life wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

Your link makes my point very well...

wiki wrote:

Dog intelligence is the ability of a dog to learn, think, and solve problems. Dog trainers, owners, and researchers have as much difficulty agreeing on a method for testing canine intelligence, as they do for human intelligence.
Certain breeds, like Border Collies, Poodles, German Shepherds and Golden Retrievers, are generally easier to train than others. It is worth noting that these descriptions are relative to other dogs, not relative to the world at large. The ability to learn and obey commands is not the only possible measurement of intelligence. Other breeds, such as sled dogs and Border Collies demonstrate intelligence in other ways.

And the same general observations relate to humans as well (which was the point of my previous question about musicians and artists being as intelligent as physicists and engineers). "Intelligence" has a slippery definition, so Watson should probably take his preconceived notions of what is intelligent and what isn't, and quit trying to force-fit science into his narrow minded boxes.

A good question:

Why do those who train dogs to do various tasks choose only certain breeds to work with?

Does it have nothing to do with intelligence?

RL,

You seem to be "jumping through hoops" to connect Watson's odd statement to the subject of this thread.

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

Your link makes my point very well...

wiki wrote:

Dog intelligence is the ability of a dog to learn, think, and solve problems. Dog trainers, owners, and researchers have as much difficulty agreeing on a method for testing canine intelligence, as they do for human intelligence.
Certain breeds, like Border Collies, Poodles, German Shepherds and Golden Retrievers, are generally easier to train than others. It is worth noting that these descriptions are relative to other dogs, not relative to the world at large. The ability to learn and obey commands is not the only possible measurement of intelligence. Other breeds, such as sled dogs and Border Collies demonstrate intelligence in other ways.

And the same general observations relate to humans as well (which was the point of my previous question about musicians and artists being as intelligent as physicists and engineers). "Intelligence" has a slippery definition, so Watson should probably take his preconceived notions of what is intelligent and what isn't, and quit trying to force-fit science into his narrow minded boxes.

As predicted, you try to make the difficulties associated with DEFINING and MEASURING intelligence to appear as insurmountable barriers to establishing intelligence as a relevant subject.

Do you think intelligence is just a matter of opinion, ros?

real life wrote:

A good question:

Why do those who train dogs to do various tasks choose only certain breeds to work with?

Does it have nothing to do with intelligence?

Maybe it's for behavior and temperment. Do you consider those things "intelligence"?

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

Your link makes my point very well...

wiki wrote:

Dog intelligence is the ability of a dog to learn, think, and solve problems. Dog trainers, owners, and researchers have as much difficulty agreeing on a method for testing canine intelligence, as they do for human intelligence.
Certain breeds, like Border Collies, Poodles, German Shepherds and Golden Retrievers, are generally easier to train than others. It is worth noting that these descriptions are relative to other dogs, not relative to the world at large. The ability to learn and obey commands is not the only possible measurement of intelligence. Other breeds, such as sled dogs and Border Collies demonstrate intelligence in other ways.

And the same general observations relate to humans as well (which was the point of my previous question about musicians and artists being as intelligent as physicists and engineers). "Intelligence" has a slippery definition, so Watson should probably take his preconceived notions of what is intelligent and what isn't, and quit trying to force-fit science into his narrow minded boxes.

As predicted, you try to make the difficulties associated with DEFINING and MEASURING intelligence to appear as insurmountable barriers to establishing intelligence as a relevant subject.

Do you think intelligence is just a matter of opinion, ros?

Just because you predicted it doesn't mean it's not a valid point. Besides, it was the article you posted which made the point.

How do you define intelligence RL? Do you think it's just a matter of opinion?

Do you think that dogs (or humans) ever exhibit behavior based on what they have learned, or always based on something else?

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_intelligence

Your link makes my point very well...

wiki wrote:

Dog intelligence is the ability of a dog to learn, think, and solve problems. Dog trainers, owners, and researchers have as much difficulty agreeing on a method for testing canine intelligence, as they do for human intelligence.
Certain breeds, like Border Collies, Poodles, German Shepherds and Golden Retrievers, are generally easier to train than others. It is worth noting that these descriptions are relative to other dogs, not relative to the world at large. The ability to learn and obey commands is not the only possible measurement of intelligence. Other breeds, such as sled dogs and Border Collies demonstrate intelligence in other ways.

And the same general observations relate to humans as well (which was the point of my previous question about musicians and artists being as intelligent as physicists and engineers). "Intelligence" has a slippery definition, so Watson should probably take his preconceived notions of what is intelligent and what isn't, and quit trying to force-fit science into his narrow minded boxes.

As predicted, you try to make the difficulties associated with DEFINING and MEASURING intelligence to appear as insurmountable barriers to establishing intelligence as a relevant subject.

Do you think intelligence is just a matter of opinion, ros?

Just because you predicted it doesn't mean it's not a valid point. Besides, it was the article you posted which made the point.

How do you define intelligence RL? Do you think it's just a matter of opinion?

I asked you first!

was given to strong opinions, once describing her thesis advisor,Ronald NOURISH, a future Nobel laureate as a"stupid, ill mannered, and deceitful person"...(Implying that Franklin was "goofing off" )Watson then states that Franklin was fresh back from a 4year crystollographic investigation of graphite when she was installed as a new research biophysicist at Kings College

Sure, intelligence is a valid subject for discussion, but if you're gonna discuss it, ground the discussion on fact and what we know, not just on airy supposition.

I. What intelligence tests "measure", to the extent that they do, is only one of somewhere between seven and ten or more different kinds of "intelligence" (depending on who's counting), some of which seem to have far more relevance to success in life than Stanford-Binet does.

II. As noted in the links above, I.Q. seems not to be fixed, but have significant dependency on social and economic variables. That is, it's risen five to ten points for EVERYBODY over the last eighty or ninety years, as social and economic conditions have ramped up for the country. If it were actually measuring something genetic, that shouldn't happen.

III. As also cited in other posts above, when social and economic variables are taken into account, most of the supposed differences between "races" dis appears.

IV. The variations within "races" are greater than the differences between "races".

V. The genetics indicates that ALL of us came from a small population, of an order of magnitude around 10,000 individuals, around 160,000 years ago. There just isn't a whole lot of genetic diversity in modern humans--far less than in most mammalian species. And most of that is in external characteriestics like skin color or eye color. So far there's no indication of any genetic differences in "intelligence". You can suppose all you want. But in the absence on any evidence, that's all it is, is supposition.

VI.Something the "racial difference" demagogues conveniently ignore is that the same test results they trumpet also indicate that whites score up to twenty IQ points LESS than Asians, on average. Which means that if they're going to write off Africa as hopeless, then Europe and America are equally to be written off, and we should just bow to the natural superiority of the Chinese....

because they are far smarter than we are and much better able to determine what is best for us and for the race as a whole........