Oxford Scientists Say Dogs Are Smarter Than Cats 716
Velcroman1 writes "This again: scientists at Oxford University claim canines are smarter than felines. And the reason, according to the researchers, is that dogs are more social animals and therefore have bigger brains than the more solitary-inclined cats. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, charted the evolutionary history of various mammals' brains over 60 million years and found a link between the size of an animal's brain in relation to its body and how socially active it was."
From the No-shit-sherlock department (Score:2, Informative)
Anyone who's trained a dog, or attempted to train a cat, could tell you this.
Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department (Score:5, Informative)
Hey. Catching and eating mice around your grain stockpile has, historically, been a really big deal. (Now, cats in America in 2010, that's a different story.)
Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department (Score:3, Informative)
That may be the case in urban families, but cats do have a role. The reason they were domesticated in the first place was to combat rodents. The only thing they received in return was shelter from weather and predators. Through the course of our joined evolution they've moved into our homes and become the lazy bastards they are today.
One of my cats was actually born in a horse barn where he learned to be a proper cat. When he came to live with me he provided an endless supply of mice, squirrels, birds, and even rabbits. It's only been in the past couple years that he's gotten lazy, but we forgive him because he's getting rather old.
As far as intelligence is concerned, we have another cat and two dogs. They're each intelligent in their own way. And they're each really stupid in their own way. I typically think of intelligence as the ability to solve problems. This usually requires the capacity to learn new things. My cats don't learn new things very quickly, but my dogs acclimate in a matter of hours. Though, my girl dog would rather sit in the cold rain at the back door on the off chance someone might let her in than go get in her doghouse.
Re:Ever try to train your wife? (Score:1, Informative)
You're just not giving her the correct rewards.
Might I suggest: diamonds and cunnilingus.
Re:Slashdot Crowd, Rebel! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:no (Score:3, Informative)
Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department (Score:2, Informative)
For pussy you might put up with a really annoying movie and listen to someone bitch about how all the women at work piss them off ;)
It's all about motivation.
Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department (Score:1, Informative)
Door (noun) -
What a cat always finds himself on the wrong side of.
Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department (Score:1, Informative)
This one is not about intelligence, monkeys look at the finger too. It's more about the environment, animals learn to recognize human gestures if they grow up with humans. Wolves are known to look at the finger if they are wild, and look at the place you are pointing to if they grew up with humans.
Re:From the No-shit-sherlock department (Score:1, Informative)
Actually I believe the better explanation of dog domestication was that wolves became partially domesticated first through natural selection when humans first started to live together in villages. Villages create garbage that wolves could scavenge from. Wolves with a lower "flight" instinct would be more likely to scavenge from these garbage piles without being scared away by the nearby human preference. This would give a survival advantage to wolves that exhibited this lower flight instinct. Given enough time the wolves that are less "afraid" of humans would be more likely to survive and pass along their genes. This would then set the stage for humans to step in and start training/breeding these already partially domesticated animals.