BillTre said:
What are those impressive things?
How would you measure them comparatively in the two species?
Anatomical differences are actually 100% traits. You can select for mutants in anatomical differences.
Behavioral traits you also have mentioned. They are also inherited traits. There are many mutations in various behavioral traits. They are quite accessible to scientific questions, but those questions have to be well formed so the question can be answered in stead of just argued.
I looked at some of your links. They spoke of differences but did not say which was best except for very specific cases. One or two such cases does not support your broad and poorly defined claims. It sure doesn't relate to cats being smarter than dogs.
You are throwing around intelligence like you are the only source for what it means. If you are so sure about it, you should be able to measure it directly no rely upon these weak and not well thought out arguments. Just because some animal has a more similar-to-human looking brain anatomically does not mean it is more intelligent. People usually make arguments like this based on brain size (corrected for body size). But then you still have to figure out what you mean by smarter.
What about the birds that can talk. Certainly a very "human-like" behavior. Bird brains are some of the most structurally different of vertebrate brains. Parts are described as being inside-out. It would be hard compare their anatomy with mammals (earlier common ancestor than dogs and cats). Yet in the sense of being able to speak so much better than cats or dogs would seem to mean they are the smarter of the group?
Sounds like you are throwing around words without understanding them. Please stop.
All these things could be measured independently. You really sound like you are desperately grasping at straws to find something to support your preconceived notion that cats are smarter than dogs. That is not the way science is supposed to be done. Please stop that too.
1. I plan to see what research is out there soon. Have not at this point. short term memory. long term memory. Willingness to stay engaged with a problem. All things cats are better at which i need to verify. Any amateur scientist could develop methods to test these. not hard at all. if cats would be willing test subjects.
2. You are correct. anatomical differences are traits. You have to make an argument, to find out what the questions are, so that they can be tested. Many of the issues discussed in my thread have not been tested in literature. But there are logical inferences and deductive reasoning worth looking at, in order to see how they correlate with what is observable. If you are offended because you are a dog lover, and you can not look at this unbiased, I could see how it can be aggravating for you. I am unbiased because I have owned both animals. I am at a place to have made the observations. And there are clearly logical inferences and deductive reasoning that are worth a look.
3. for cats...."They have been used extensively for neurological research,
brain and
vision studies as well as toxicology" and "They have been particularly important in research into epilepsy and brain area mapping." and "Cats are often the model of choice for neurological research, as well as studies on hearing, balance, movement and
motor neuron research related to spinal cord injury. Due to anatomical similarities in brain structure they have been used for mapping studies." ..........Absolutely nothing on the brain or neuroscience for dogs for the government animal research reference. You are losing at this point.
4. Well. I have read through many of the research studies I have referenced, and have obtained my information through them. That is the whole point of the age old "argument". It has not been directly measured. I can't just personally design a study, get it peer reviewed, and get it published. ALl we can really do, with the information we have, is formulate logical arguments, make logical inferences, and use deductive reasoning. That is kind of how hypotheses or theories start. Obviously, hypothesis are not immediately measurable. Methods, and results, and conclusions are needed. The research needs to be done. It has not at this point. This is mainly about logical inferences and deductive reasoning. I have had both dogs and cats. Cats are very obviously smarter. My own subjective opinion. So I should not be surprised to learn that cats share more DNA with humans than dogs. Or that their brains are good models for study due to anatomical similarities to humans, likely because they share more DNA with humans compared to dogs.
5. Why would a more anatomically similar brain not result in greater intelligence? More anatomically similar goes hand in hand with more similar connections, and thus greater processing power. What logical argument do you have to oppose this? Why is this a weak argument?
6. "People usually make arguments like this based on brain size (corrected for body size). But then you still have to figure out what you mean by smarter." I think this is the second time I am responding to you about this. I think you may have missed it the first time. Please see my study involving "neural packing density". Brain size is not a predicter of intelligence. Connections and neural packing density are, because better connections mean better processing power.
7. "Sounds like you are throwing around words without understanding them. Please stop." what words do you think I do not understand specifically please? Sounds to me like, if cats and humans have a stronger genetic relationship than dogs, its stands to reason their brains could be more similar.
8. "All these things could be measured independently. You really sound like you are desperately grasping at straws." Ok so. All of these things can be measured independently, so therefore I am grasping at straws? You have no logical relationship between A and B here.
....Apparently having a dog or cat is associated with a slower rate of cognitive decline in aging adults.