Special Bond between Dogs and Humans?

[nitsuj]

lol I think defining special in this case is pretty easy with breeds like pugs, chihuahuas on and on and on.

Bred to be companions. I think companionship is something special.

For probably thousands of years the "dog" is simply the medium.

 

[symbolipoint]

lol I think defining special in this case is pretty easy with breeds like pugs, chihuahuas on and on and on.

Bred to be companions. I think companionship is something special.

For probably thousands of years the "dog" is simply the medium.

This is going onto the wrong track. Earlier in dog breeding or domestication breeding, the process was done with the goal of practical purposes; to breed something that could help humans with hunting, guarding, pulling for transport. If an individual dog seemed to be easy enough to work with and to train, this individual was used for breeding. Much much later, breeding goals might include some very bad ideas such as to breed for short muzzles, malformed ears, unhealthy wrinkles, and many other unhealthy things. STill, it is Dog, so the 'special' human-dog bond continues. The dog breed does not need to have several malformed parts in order to be a fine, pleasant companion animal.

 

[.Scott]

... However, this does not seem to limit the eating of dead offspring by parents after they die (such as mice or foxes (which I recently saw on a TV documentary)).

In the case of alligators and most fish, live young are tasty bites.

 

[.Scott]

The problem in this debate, as pointed out in the beginning, is with the word "special". A scientific study can measure and score a dog's performance on a test. But that result can't convey "special" and require associated "special" status. The measurement if viewed in isolation is objective data, but the meaning applied to it - the criteria for assigning the judgement - is not.

In the context of this discussion, I believe this is "special":

It is also known as oxytocin.

Among mammals, what makes that someone-special "special" is oxytocin:
from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3858648/

Across the animal kingdom, affiliative social relationships exist between individuals and their parents, offspring, mates, and non-related conspecifics. While most mammals interact prosocially only to mate or rear young, in some cases the benefits of group living have led to the evolution of complex social structures. The behaviors exhibited may vary from species to species and between individuals within a species, but the neurobiological substrates of many of these behaviors likely share common elements. The peptide oxytocin (OT) has been investigated and implicated in the context of a wide variety of social behaviors. While the majority of research on social behavior in mammals has focused on the role of OT in reproductive attachments—between a mother and her young, or between male and female mates—this review focuses on the roles of OT in mammalian social groups, and behaviors that promote group living (sociality).

But can this occur across species? And more specifically can oxytocin induce a dog to see his human with rose-colored glasses?
Why, yes it can: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01854/full

The pupil diameters of dogs were also measured as a physiological index of emotional arousal. In a placebo-controlled within-subjects experimental design, 43 dogs, after having received either oxytocin or placebo (saline) nasal spray treatment, were presented with pictures of unfamiliar male human faces displaying either a happy or an angry expression. We found that, depending on the facial expression, the dogs’ gaze patterns were affected selectively by oxytocin treatment. After receiving oxytocin, dogs fixated less often on the eye regions of angry faces and revisited (glanced back at) more often the eye regions of smiling (happy) faces than after the placebo treatment. Furthermore, following the oxytocin treatment dogs fixated and revisited the eyes of happy faces significantly more often than the eyes of angry faces. The analysis of dogs’ pupil diameters during viewing of human facial expressions indicated that oxytocin may also have a modulatory effect on dogs’ emotional arousal. While subjects’ pupil sizes were significantly larger when viewing angry faces than happy faces in the control (placebo treatment) condition, oxytocin treatment not only eliminated this effect but caused an opposite pupil response. Overall, these findings suggest that nasal oxytocin administration selectively changes the allocation of attention and emotional arousal in domestic dogs. Oxytocin has the potential to decrease vigilance toward threatening social stimuli and increase the salience of positive social stimuli thus making eye gaze of friendly human faces more salient for dogs. Our study provides further support for the role of the oxytocinergic system in the social perception abilities of domestic dogs. We propose that oxytocin modulates fundamental emotional processing in dogs through a mechanism that may facilitate communication between humans and dogs.

(Leave it to a psychologist to dissect puppy love down to the point of tedium)

What about wolves? Well, because of genetics, they are not so friendly with humans.
From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X16304810?via=ihub

The oxytocin system may play an important role in dog domestication from the wolf. Dogs have evolved unique human analogue social skills enabling them to communicate and cooperate efficiently with people. Genomic differences in the region surrounding the oxytocin receptor (OXTR) gene have previously been associated with variation in dogs' communicative skills. Here we have utilized the unsolvable problem paradigm to investigate the effects of oxytocin and OXTR polymorphisms on human-directed contact seeking behavior in 60 golden retriever dogs. Human-oriented behavior was quantified employing a previously defined unsolvable problem paradigm. Behaviors were tested twice in a repeated, counterbalanced design, where dogs received a nasal dose of either oxytocin or saline 45 min before each test occasion.

I don't have access to that full article, but this article is based on it:
https://liu.se/en/article/hundars-samspel-med-agaren-kopplat-till-kanslighet-for-oxytocin

The researchers suggest that these results help us understand how dogs have changed during the process of domestication. They analysed DNA also from 21 wolves, and found the same genetic variation among them. This suggests that the genetic variation was already present when domestication of the dogs started, 15,000 years ago.

“The results lead us to surmise that people selected for domestication wolves with a particularly well-developed ability to collaborate, and then bred subsequent generations from these,” says Mia Persson.

Now, regarding that issue of cuisine:
Subject 1: a cute baby or puppy
Subject 2: a oxytocin-affected person gazing at subject 1
Subject 3: a hungry person gazing at subject 1
With this set up, the interactions between Subject 2 and Subject 3 will be supported with another hormone: adrenaline

 

[nitsuj]

Earlier in dog breeding or domestication breeding, the process was done with the goal of practical purposes. If an individual dog seemed to be easy enough to work with and to train, this individual was used for breeding. Much much later, breeding goals might include some very bad ideas such as to breed for short muzzles, malformed ears, unhealthy wrinkles, and many other unhealthy things. STill, it is Dog, so the 'special' human-dog bond continues. The dog breed does not need to have several malformed parts in order to be a fine, pleasant companion animal.

I completely agree with your last sentence, and my point requires it, a dog doesn't need to be a "companion breed" to be a companion. I was using hyperbole (pugs, chihuahuas) to highlight how far this has gone. From "day one" we've been selecting for traits that lead to dogs being "companions", you refer to this a "easy enough to work with", no difference semantically; both involve spending time together in a "cohesive" way.

Then just the simple statement that companionship is something "special". In turn I figure the dog is just the "medium" of our our choices. Dogs being "pack animals" likely predisposed them to being good companions.

I know with pugs personality is big part of the breed, not just the "deformed" frame.

 

[pinball1970]

Late to the party on this- the below study is a few years old about wolves verses dogs and behaviourhttp://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/864/tab-figures-dataApologies if repeating (no time to read all the comments right now)
Comments about the special bond and social animals has been mentioned by Mark44, but there was study in Russia (?) suggesting certain genes come in groups.
The more friendly wolf pups were selected and those pups gave rise to friendly still pups, no surprise passing on similar traits However those friendly pups also had physical characteristics associated with more this behaviour, big eyes floppy ears “smiley” rather than growly faces.
Apologies if details are scant and flaky- the reference was from a Dawkins book so I will find the correct book and ref for this study and feedback. Those friendly traits associated with co-operation acceptance by the top dog (us) I think the “bond” thing is pure survival and selfish genes chiming, genes we have encouraged via selective breeding.

 

[Marcus Parker-Rhodes]

Hi All,
In a recent discussion ananimal rights activist claimed something to the effect that there is a special bond between humans and dogs, and that this is supported by science. I think she alleged there is fMri data to thus effect. I , not being an expert assumed dogs' behavior was the result of selective breeding and domesticationn; wild , undomesticated dogs do not ,afaik, display any such bond. Can anyone clarify the issue for me here, please?

I'm pretty sure it's not just the face we're reading, but the attitude of the tail, the ears, the entire body. I know instantly if a dog is approachable and friendly or not, because the dog itself is telling me with all of those things.
I would guess that's a learned thing on my part. But it goes back to earliest childhood so I can't remember learning it.

Dogs are wolves that have discovered a new ecological niche and have become parasitic on the planet's new dominant species - Ourselves.
Like many other parasites they have found ways of manipulating their host’s behaviour to their own advantage. The main driving force behind their evolution, is the directive “be loved or die” and since an unloved dog is generally a dead dog, evolution has made them incredibly good at this, giving them an uncanny ability to press every button on the human psych to make themselves lovable. In some cases, cuckoo like, becoming a substitute for their hosts own offspring.
Among the many strategies they have developed is the ability to mimic their hosts own individual personality, acquiring a human like body language. Communicating their wants and desires using a wide variety of human like stances, facial expressions and eye movements. (It's disturbing to note that this can work in two directions. The licking the lips emoji meaning “Yum Yum” it Is not a natural human gesture but has been borrowed from the dogs)
They have also evolved to eat a similar diet to humans. Unlike their wolf ancestors, they can digest starch.
In the unlikely event we ever meet another intelligent species like ourselves, but coming from another planet, they will be amazed to find that although our technologies have found ways of combating all our other parasites, we appear to have overlooked one that is large enough to clearly see with the naked eye.

 

[symbolipoint]

Dogs are wolves that have discovered a new ecological niche and have become parasitic on the planet's new dominant species - Ourselves.
Like many other parasites they have found ways of manipulating their host’s behaviour to their own advantage. The main driving force behind their evolution, is the directive “be loved or die” and since an unloved dog is generally a dead dog, evolution has made them incredibly good at this, giving them an uncanny ability to press every button on the human psych to make themselves lovable. In some cases, cuckoo like, becoming a substitute for their hosts own offspring.

Characterizing the relationship as parasitic is not accurate - but that depends on the breed of dog, of which HUMANS have been responsible.

 

[Marcus Parker-Rhodes]

Characterizing the relationship as parasitic is not accurate - but that depends on the breed of dog, of which HUMANS have been responsible.

The widely held belief that us humans are responsible for selectively breeding the domestic dog from the grey wolf is mistaken. At first the similar hunting techniques of man and wolf made co-operation between the two species an advantage to both. There would be a competition amongst the wolves for acceptance into the human world, with those that had successfully been adopted driving away those that had not.
Since those early days, 83% of the 900 million dog population are still nameless free-ranging dogs and only the remaining 17% have been selected by mankind as pets to be bred into a wide variety of individual breeds the majority of which become too monstrous to survive more than a few centuries before becoming extinct. The rest, however, do become truly symbiotic with us as working dogs.

 

[symbolipoint]

The widely held belief that us humans are responsible for selectively breeding the domestic dog from the grey wolf is mistaken. At first the similar hunting techniques of man and wolf made co-operation between the two species an advantage to both. There would be a competition amongst the wolves for acceptance into the human world, with those that had successfully been adopted driving away those that had not.
Since those early days, 83% of the 900 million dog population are still nameless free-ranging dogs and only the remaining 17% have been selected by mankind as pets to be bred into a wide variety of individual breeds the majority of which become too monstrous to survive more than a few centuries before becoming extinct. The rest, however, do become truly symbiotic with us as working dogs.

You may be referring to the idea that some wolves learned to spend time near human communities and to scavange from humans. Some of these wolves maybe were breeding themselves without knowing it, to be less wild, which by was the symbiosis.

 

[Ophiolite]

The widely held belief that us humans are responsible for selectively breeding the domestic dog from the grey wolf is mistaken.

This is a very clear assertion. When challenging "widely held beliefs" it is good practice to provide citations or detailed arguments to support the assertion. Could you provide those now please? Similar support for your earlier assertion that the human-dog relationship is parasitic would also be appreciated.

 

[PeterDonis]

Dogs are wolves that have discovered a new ecological niche and have become parasitic on the planet's new dominant species - Ourselves.

"Parasitic" implies that humans gain no benefit from their relationships with dogs. Perhaps that's true of you, but it's very presumptuous of you to assume that it's true of everybody else as well.

 

[Klystron]

working dogs.

Working dogs implies domestication as much as riding horses, pulling carts with oxen, deploying raptors near airports, shearing sheep for wool and growing/gathering, roasting, and grinding certain seed pods, then pouring hot water through the grinds to make a nice cup of coffee.

 

[symbolipoint]

Main point about the symbiosis commentary is that dogs in cooperation with humans is not parasitic.

 

[RPinPA]

Working dogs implies domestication as much as riding horses, pulling carts with oxen, deploying raptors near airports, shearing sheep for wool and growing/gathering, roasting, and grinding certain seed pods, then pouring hot water through the grinds to make a nice cup of coffee.

Wait, I missed something. Which breed was selected for an ability to roast coffee beans and make a good cup of coffee?

 

[WWGD]

Wait, I missed something. Which breed was selected for an ability to roast coffee beans and make a good cup of coffee?

Maybe there is a Barista breed? :).

 

[Klystron]

Working dogs implies domestication as much as riding horses, pulling carts with oxen, deploying raptors near airports, shearing sheep for wool and growing/gathering, roasting, and grinding certain seed pods, then pouring hot water through the grinds to make a nice cup of coffee.

Wait, I missed something. Which breed was selected for an ability to roast coffee beans and make a good cup of coffee?

That last bit was my subconscious asking for another cup of java .

Stepping away from doggies for a moment, this thread has touched on several ethical issues. For instance, wearing wool thereby supporting sheep-shearing industry occupies a distinct ethos from wearing leather since the animals recover from shearing but not skinning. Similarly, breeding dogs to perform dog-like work such as herding and guarding seems more ethical IMO than breeding "grotesque monstrosities" such as dogs as spectacle that can barely breath or walk correctly due to excessive inbreeding.

 

[RPinPA]

That last bit was my subconscious asking for another cup of java . Appy-poly-gees.

I was going to go for a joke with a plausible sounding breed name with "Java" in it, but couldn't rev up the brain cells sufficiently to pull it off.

Stepping away from doggies for a moment, this thread has touched on several ethical issues. For instance, wearing wool thereby supporting sheep-shearing industry occupies a distinct ethos from wearing leather since the animals recover from shearing but not skinning. Similarly, breeding dogs to perform dog-like work such as herding and guarding seems more ethical IMO than breeding "grotesque monstrosities" such as dogs as spectacle that can barely breath or walk correctly due to excessive inbreeding.

Agreed. I do not understand what motivated humans to create the modern version of the bulldog, which apparently not only has breathing difficulties but can't mate without artificial insistence and has a variety of lifelong health problems.

I have always favored mongrels.

 

[nuuskur]

I don't keep flees as pets. How is the relationship between a dog and the owner parasitic?

There would be a competition amongst the wolves for acceptance into the human world, with those that had successfully been adopted driving away those that had not.

I don't think the wolves care about 'our world' in the first place.

 

[symbolipoint]

I don't keep flees as pets. How is the relationship between a dog and the owner parasitic?

I don't think the wolves care about 'our world' in the first place.

The idea to keep is that, for your second sentence, some wolves did care about humans' world, or so was such a theory that Dr. Coppinger discussed.

 

[Marcus Parker-Rhodes]

You may be referring to the idea that some wolves learned to spend time near human communities and to scavange from humans. Some of these wolves maybe were breeding themselves without knowing it, to be less wild, which by was the symbiosis.

Not quite what I was trying to say, but close enough.

 

[Marcus Parker-Rhodes]

"Parasitic" implies that humans gain no benefit from their relationships with dogs. Perhaps that's true of you, but it's very presumptuous of you to assume that it's true of everybody else as well.

We enjoy the company of dogs and the very real love and loyalty they give. To fake it would be overly complex and unnecessary. Whether or not it is of benefit to us is a matter of opinion. My Tara for example, gives me exercise when otherwise I might stay indoors when the weather is bad. Not being a breed means low vet bills, but she is still an expensive luxury.

 

[Ophiolite]

We enjoy the company of dogs and the very real love and loyalty they give. To fake it would be overly complex and unnecessary. Whether or not it is of benefit to us is a matter of opinion. My Tara for example, gives me exercise when otherwise I might stay indoors when the weather is bad. Not being a breed means low vet bills, but she is still an expensive luxury.

Is that a retraction of your previous assertion that dogs are parasitic? If not, when may we expect citations from you that would lend credence to that assertion? I apologise if I seem to be pressuring you, but this is a science forum, and assertions need to be justified, or clearly identified as mere opinions.

 

[russ_watters]

We enjoy the company of dogs and the very real love and loyalty they give. To fake it would be overly complex and unnecessary. Whether or not it is of benefit to us is a matter of opinion. My Tara for example...

Let's put a finer point on that: Nobody forced you to get this dog, right? And it wasn't a stray you took pity on? If you chose to get this dog, for the typical reasons people get dogs, you've declared by that choice that having a dog is a net benefit to you.

 

[PeterDonis]

Whether or not it is of benefit to us is a matter of opinion.

Enjoying their company and love and loyalty don't count as benefits?

 

[Marcus Parker-Rhodes]

Enjoying their company and love and loyalty don't count as benefits?

The perceived benefit of a dog companion will reduce the essential loneliness that is an innate drive to seek out the company of our own species. The genuine reciprocal support of friends and family are of real material benefit. The love and loyalty given by pets is a lure to subvert this drive. much like the cuckoo’s egg that more attractive than the host birds own eggs. Another example is a website that subverts the need have discussion with our actual peers, and argue with cartoon martians instead.

 

[nuuskur]

The love and loyalty given by pets is a lure to subvert this drive

You can keep pets and socialise with family and friends without problems. What you say MAY apply in some cases, but the way you formulated your statement suggests this is true, in general. It is not.

As there is no way of clearly distinguishing between what is known and what is opinion, I will assume you are stating (what you perceive as) facts.

Another example is a website that subverts the need have discussion with our actual peers, and argue with cartoon martians instead.

I am probably an idiot, but I don't understand the meaning. Is it about video games or some such? What is the reference? Also, would like to know which website we're talking about.

 

[Borg]

I am probably an idiot, but I don't understand the meaning. Is it about video games or some such? What is the reference? Also, would like to know which website we're talking about.

He's referring to PF and PeterDonis's Marvin the Martian avatar.

 

[nuuskur]

He's referring to PF and PeterDonis's Marvin the Martian avatar.

Ah, so you must be a martian dog and not a competent educated fellow human being. Be gone from here!

 

[Marcus Parker-Rhodes]

I am probably an idiot, but I don't understand the meaning. Is it about video games or some such? What is the reference? Also, would like to know which website we're talking about.

Joke. I was referring to this very discussion. I was responding to PeterDonis who uses “Marvin the Martian” as an avatar. :-)

 

[Marcus Parker-Rhodes]

Is that a retraction of your previous assertion that dogs are parasitic? If not, when may we expect citations from you that would lend credence to that assertion? I apologise if I seem to be pressuring you, but this is a science forum, and assertions need to be justified, or clearly identified as mere opinions.

Not so much an opinion, as an attempt to view the human/dog relationship from Mother Nature’s view point. Blessed be!
Here is citation from dark days in the recent past, when pets where seen as rivals to available resources.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24478532

 

[PeterDonis]

The genuine reciprocal support of friends and family are of real material benefit.

Not all benefits are material benefits.

he love and loyalty given by pets is a lure to subvert this drive.

Ok, once again, maybe this is true for you, but it's very presumptuous to claim that it's true for everyone else as well.

Not so much an opinion, as an attempt to view the human/dog relationship from Mother Nature’s view point.

From the viewpoint of evolution (which is basically what you mean by "Mother Nature" here), yes; but nothing requires a human being's viewpoint to be the same as evolution's viewpoint.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not so much an opinion, as an attempt to view the human/dog relationship from Mother Nature’s view point. Blessed be!
Here is citation from dark days in the recent past, when pets where seen as rivals to available resources.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24478532

I thank you for an insight to an event I was unaware of. However, the misguided reaction of a portion of a stressed population to questionable advice does not support your assertion that dogs are parasitic. At best it suggests that at one time portions of a discrete human sub-set may have perceived dogs as parasitic. That is quite different from your original assertion that had the clear implication that all dogs are parasitic at all times.

Indeed, several passages within the link you provided contradict your assertion. For example:
'In Memoriam notices started to appear in the press. "Happy memories of Iola, sweet faithful friend, given sleep September 4th 1939, to be saved suffering during the war. A short but happy life - 2 years, 12 weeks. Forgive us little pal," said one in Tail-Wagger Magazine.'
I see no evidence there that the owners of that dog viewed it as a parasite and clear evidence that it provided benefit to its owner.

In conclusion, I see no reason in anything you have presented to cause us to deviate from the current view or the masses of evidence that has the human-dog relationship one of symbiotic mutualism.

 

[Klystron]

The perceived benefit of a dog companion will reduce the essential loneliness that is an innate drive to seek out the company of our own species. The genuine reciprocal support of friends and family are of real material benefit. The love and loyalty given by pets is a lure to subvert this drive. ...[snip]

While the premise of the above sentences appears true, I refute the conclusion that "...love and loyalty subvert...".

As a member of a large family with many siblings and cousins, my experience has been that the most friendly family members often keep pets. Even members with pet allergies a/o asthma often maintain outdoor pets -- dogs, cats, semi-wild birds such as finches and hummingbirds. At the risk of drawing conclusions from a narrow data set using undefined terms, the most loving family members seem most inclined to adopt stray animals, feed the hungry of many species, and respect animals.

Attributing emotions such as "love" and "loyalty" to other species seems the definition of anthropomorphism.

 

[nitsuj]

The perceived benefit of a dog companion will reduce the essential loneliness that is an innate drive to seek out the company of our own species. The genuine reciprocal support of friends and family are of real material benefit. The love and loyalty given by pets is a lure to subvert this drive. much like the cuckoo’s egg that more attractive than the host birds own eggs. Another example is a website that subverts the need have discussion with our actual peers, and argue with cartoon martians instead.

A similar perspective was pointed out to me by a co-worker years ago.

imo you err in using "essential loneliness" as a thing to be reduced; what's more the comparative of a dog human to a human human companionship is a bit much.

imo there's a component of being a provider, that appeals to both sexes. A component of being a "master" (I see this one vary a fair bit, maybe better described as a dog is an "outlet" for "controlling behavior"). And a component of the dog itself, being "emotive", however simple but happy is happy either way :D

 

[jim mcnamara]

Evolution does not have a viewpoint, an intention, or a direction. Period. Breeding selection pressure does, or may have, those traits because humans do selectively breed animals that meet some arbitrary, preconceived notions about dog behaviors and appearances. Thus implying direction.

We are getting some odd statements in this thread. If we go too far afield, or start making up definitions for standard concepts like Evolution, then this thread will go the way of Tyrannosaurus rex: extinction. So please do not wreck a good thread for other members with non-supportable statements about science. That is not what PF is all about.

Thank you for understanding.

 

[jedishrfu]

In the interests of keeping this thread focused on a scientific discussion only, we are closing this thread.

It's always dangerous to think that our pets feel human emotions the way we do and with our long history with dogs, it's completely understandable that we feel this way. However, scientific studies have indicated a more complex reason for this bonding as discussed in these reviews below:

https://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1240&context=animsent

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...y-are-humans-and-dogs-so-good-living-together

For those of you, who want to learn more the reviews cite several scientific papers on the dog-human bond.

As always, thank you all for contributing.