Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh. Science

Cat Meows Have Evolved Because of Humans 107

Posted by timothy from the as-if-this-weren't-obvious dept.
GuyMannDude writes: "ABCNews.com has a story on research being done at Cornell University's Psychology of Voice and Sound Laboratory on cat meows. The scientists believe that over generations, cats have learned how to meow in different ways specifically in order to hook into human perception tendencies and get what they want."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cat Meows Have Evolved Because of Humans More

Cat Meows Have Evolved Because of Humans

Comments Filter:

  • fascinating (Score:4, Funny)

    by tps12 ( 105590 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @02:32PM (#3519288) Homepage Journal
    I have to say that I don't think any of us would have predicted this. I am completely astou--

    One moment, Tiger needs something.

    • Cats' mind control doesn't work too well when humans take them to the vet to be neutered.

      Seems as if widespread sterilization would refute the 'evolution' argument as well. No animals with successful traits would reproduce! Nobody wants a big strong tomcat, or a fat kitten factory.

  • Dogs think, "You feed me. You must be god."
    Cats think, "You feed me. I must be god."

  • Sneaky (Score:2, Funny)

    by Deanasc ( 201050 )
    I knew those cats were up to something. Oh well at least the dog isn't trying to manipulate me.
    • Oh well at least the dog isn't trying to manipulate me.

      I wouldn't count on that either. I saw a nature show once where Innuit children kept laughingly throwing puppies out of their igloo into the snow and the pups kept trying to get back inside. Finally the pups just sat in the doorway and shivered pathetically. That is, they shivered until the kids stopped paying attention to them, then they stopped shivering.
      • That's usually what happens after you freeze to death. You stop shivering.
        • Innuit dogs live outside all the time and don't freeze to death. On stormy nights they just get covered up by a nice warm snow drift. However the traditional northern Amerindians were not noted for their coddling of their canines. Traditionally after spring thaw when the dogs couldn't be used a drayage any more some Athabascan tribes paddled their faithful predators to large islands located on even larger lakes and just cut them loose for the summer to survive on rodents and washed up fish. Towards the end of the season they would retrieve the survivors for sled dogging service again. Luckily, at that latitude the unfrozen season only lasts 4-5 months. Yesterday afternoon I experience the American counterpart to this situation. We took our 13 year old hound for a walk on the Bay where she found a stick and made it clear that she wanted to play fetch in the water (her favourite activity). So we threw sticks into the Bay for 15 minutes. It was a reasonably warm evening (I was comfortable in a T shirt) so we weren't worried that she would be uncomfortable when she got out. We left her leashed outside of a restaurant and had dinner. I went out about a half hour later to give the old girl some table scraps and found myself confronted by 8-10 Oakland cops asking if I owned that poor dog. I said I did and they gruffly told me that they had received several calls complaining of a shivering wet dog and warning me that if I didn't put her in a car right away they would "confiscate" her. I'm sure she would have been much happier at the pound. I can see why politicians are always calling for more cops. I mean, the city couldn't even scramble a dozen cruisers to deal with this deplorable situation. And there wasn't a donut shop in sight! I bowed and scrapped and leashed my dog in a more out of the way place until my family could finish our meal and take her home. FWIW, the beast often shivers when she's dry and at home, too. She is 92 in dog years and only has stubs for teeth and has arthritis, so she is uncomfortable a chunk of the time (dogs shiver when they are in discomfort). But she is generally a happy animal and we are not ready to put her down as long as we are convinced she is still enjoying life, and we still enjoy her antics, tail wagging and constant affection.

  • Cats = Aliens? (Score:5, Funny)

    by airship ( 242862 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @02:41PM (#3519347) Homepage
    We feed and take care of cats despite the fact that they do absolutely nothing for us. Do they have some kind of psychic mind control over us?
    It is believed by many that Egyptian culture was delivered to humanity by a race of alien beings. At just about the same time, Egyptians began worshipping cats. Coincidince?
    Even though they are supposedly mammals, cats have those weird slitty eyes. No other mammal has eyes like that. Are they really of this earth?
    The Discovery Channel should do one of their pseudo-science specials on this subject. I'm sure it has just as much credence as any of the other goofball theories they've broadcast 'documentaries' on.

  • evolution or learning? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oyenstikker ( 536040 ) <slashdot @ s b y rne.org> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @02:43PM (#3519359) Homepage Journal
    Are they basing this on survival of the fittest? Cats that don't meow well die? I don't think so. Cats learn what sounds get a response, and use them. Kittens learn from their parents, who learned from their parents. . . This is learned behaviour, not evolution.

    • Re:evolution or learning? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sydb ( 176695 ) <michael@@@wd21...co...uk> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @02:56PM (#3519493)
      Alternatively, it might be that humans have bred cats to meow, subconsciously favouring the more 'appealing' animals when pairing mates.

      The domestic cat is quite far removed from anything natural.

      You [microsoft.com] don't need to be fit for a 'natural' purpose to survive, providing the environment [tuxers.net] is suitably [eurolinux.org] artificial [asu.edu].
      • Hate to reply to myself but my comment was stupid. If humans had bred cats in favour of a particular level of noise, then they would come without vocal cords.
        • Hate to reply to myself but my comment was stupid. If humans had bred cats in favour of a particular level of noise, then they would come without vocal cords.

          Assuming that humans do breed cats in favor of reduced noise, perhaps cats of the future will indeed lack vocal cords. The evolutionary interaction of cats and humans, even if it has been thousands of years, is miniscule compared to the time it would take for an entire species to lose something as essential as vocal cords.
          • Cat will never lose vocal cords. "Evolution" through survival of the fittest brings out certain advantageous genetic traits. For example, when the pollution made the trees in London dark colored, the moths with the darker wings became more prevelant, because the lighter ones stood out and were eaten. When London was cleaned up, the lighter ones survived. The moths didn't turn colors. No genetic mutation happened. Just that the ones with more desirable traits (wing color in moths would be analagous to, say, eye color in humans) survived in greater numbers. If the sound of a cat is in fact a genetic trait, this may happen. But some large genetic change, such as lack of a vocal cord, will not happen.
            • Errr... large genetic changes do happen. Apes for example have lost the ability to biosynthesise certain vitamins, due to getting plenty of them in their natural food.
    • The change in the way domestic cats meow is probably the result of BOTH evolution and the enviroment in which the cat was raised. Some of the "meows" exhibited by domestic cats may be learned, but it is not unreasonable to think that humans selectively chose to keep cats that are more friendly and that have a more pleasant meow. So you are correct; cats who don't meow are thrown out and die. They will have a lesser chance of multiplying and passing on their unfriendly meows to their progeny. And thus, evolution has occured.
    • I'm not sure where I heard this tidbit exactly; I think it was a video documentary about cats. Anyway, it seems that cats by themselves do not meow to each other or to animals other than humans -- it's something that they only do with us.

      It's not only a parental thing handed down the line either -- we have one cat that was separated at birth from her mother, and she is very good at indicating when she wants affection, a trip outside, or food. As to her emotional needs beyond that short list, I'm afraid I'm not evolved enough to pick those up. The other cat, being a glutton, only asks for food whenever possible, though she does trill a lot.

      • I've seen footage of big cats in the wild who grumble to themselves when something goes wrong. Didn't catch that springbok? Mwor! Walked into a spider web? Mewal! Stepped on something sharp? Reiow!
      • I thought meowing was a message saying "You are bigger than me, please don't hurt me". Since other cats aren't nearly so huge as us that may be why they don't do it to each other.

        When we have a pet cat (especially if you get it as a baby) it stays in a kind of arrested kittenhood. As an example, drueling and pawing are from kittens going after mom's milk. Dogs are the same way, they are big puppies. People sometimes stay in an arrested childhood if allowed to live at home past 18. ;)
      • All the cat's I have ever seen (except one deaf, stupid albino cat that lived next door for a while) have meowed at other cats and some other animals. They even use recognisable meows so you can tell what their issues are (you know, the "That's my space" meow, the "I will hurt you" meow, and the "I need some pettin' and a lovin' on my rain soaked hide" meow)
      • not meow... PURR!

        The documentary said that cats don't purr to each other, only to humans. (It then went on to say that there were in fact a few times that cats purred within their own social structure, but it was very very rare).

        This was that discovery channel documentary series, one hour long, that focused on one (typically domesticated) species at a time. I've also seen the episode on horses and the one on dogs.

        My male cat meows all the time to other cats. I can't tell you how many times he's woken me up at 3 am making that stupid "me-OW? me-OW?" call. He wanders the house looking for the female (someone needs to tell him that he's been neutered.)
    • If that were the case--that it's learned from parent to kitten--then you'd expect cat cultures to evolve, where different communities of cats would have different vocabularies. This is seen in chimps [st-and.ac.uk] right in the same neighborhood. With cats being so widespread, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate that cats in Albania have developed a different culture of vocalizations than their cousins in Brazil. (Has anyone done this? I couldn't find any evidence.)

      Also, just because it isn't Darwinian evolution, depending on differential reproduction to pass traits, doesn't mean it's not evolution. Long before Darwin, there was Lamark, who recognized evolution and gave his own theory as to the mechanism. After a century of ridicule by Darwin advocates (not including Darwin, who seems to have thought highly of Lamark's work), a large number of findings in cellular biology beginning in the 1970s show support for both natural selection and environmental influence in passing new traits to offspring.

      What does that have to do with cats? I dunno. But there's more to this evolution thing than they're arguing in southern courts. Don't discount new ideas just because they show up in the media (though it's not any sort of endorsement, for sure).
    • Good point about learned behavior. The researcher in question might do well to see if he can study the meowing habits of stray cats, which presumaby wouldn't have learned to meow towards humans' likings as well due to less exposure.

      But your concept of natural selection is bunk. Natural selection has just about nothing to do with living and dying except insofar as it assists reproduction.

      If we look at mechanisms of evolution and take into account reproduction and not just survival, there is plenty of room to see how humans could unconsciously affect the evolution of cats. The situation that comes to mind for me is a family with only one cat. If they find that first cat pleasing to be around in some way, they will be far more likely to get more cats, thus providing the first one with potential mates (assuming they don't fix their pets).

      Now spread that out over 5,000 years of feline domestication. Noticeable evolution has happened in far fewer generations than that before. . .
    • Yeah, it would be interesting to know if the research tries to account for this. Maybe find a domestic cat and a desert cat who were separated from their parents and raised in the same environment, and then compare them. The article doesn't go into this level of detail, unfortunately.
    • This is learned behaviour, not evolution.

      It's probably a bit of both:

      Cats that learn to meow in like human babies cry get human adult attention -- as such, they are more likely to get food and other assistance. This makes them more likely to survive.

      Cats that can't meow human-like don't get the resulting survival benefits.

      Cats that genetically tend to meow in a human-like way are much more likely to 'learn' that this kind of meow gets them what they want.

      Even if there is a learned response element, it can still be an evolutionary driving force.

      This leads me to an ineresting speculation: Psych labs that have been running rats in mazes for the last 20 years may have accidently bred a maze-running strain of rat. The question might make for an interesting psychology/genetics experiment one day.

      • The subset of cats vocal abilities, cat preferred vocalisation in situation, human hearing, human preferences - approx: meow.

        e.g. they screech too and most animals including humans would agree that screeching = negative vocalisation, so what else can they do that we can hear? purr, meow, yowl.

        As for the rat speculation. Maybe - but do they breed rats depending on their maze performance or some other criteria? If they do breed them based on maze running (e.g. not necessarily finishing maze - but at least willing to run around and not just stay put and go to sleep ;) ), then yeah. But if they are bred based on other criteria then I doubt you'll get a maze running strain of rat. e.g. bred not to bite researcher's fingers off.

        Anyway I think you can order the sort of lab rat you want nowadays - they've got many breeds for various lab uses. So maybe they have a maze rat.

        Cheerio,
        Link.
  • Evolved or Adapted? Is that the reason for polydactyls: mutant feets get more attention.
  • and of course it's interesting to study something like this. Kind of like how we know more about the near upper atmosphere than we do the bottom of the ocean, we know more about a rare snail in Africa than we do our household pets. To spend a little time studying our backyards is cool, even if the results are predictably simple and unsuprising. But I don't understand why this story is categorized as "it's funny, laugh." Because it really isn't that funny, just pretty damn obvious.

  • I had to say it... (Score:3, Funny)

    by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @02:56PM (#3519491) Journal
    "I think cats have evolved to become better at managing and manipulating people." [says the researcher in the article]

    How it is it news that a pussy can manipulate people?

  • Evolution of a Cat's Meow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Peapod ( 568493 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @03:02PM (#3519542)
    Our society has become so dominated by the evolutionary theories that whenever something changes over time, it doesn't change, but evolves, as if it were a change in the make-up of a cat's genetic code.
    • Our society has become so dominated by the evolutionary theories that whenever something changes over time, it doesn't change, but evolves, as if it were a change in the make-up of a cat's genetic code.

      That's exactly how it's supposed to happen. All evolution by natural selection as described by neo-darwinism involves a change in a specie's genetic pool.

      If you are trying to debunk evolutionary as only a "theory", something George W. Bush said recently, please note that the scientific definition of "theory" is very different from the layman's definition. An idea has to be able to withstand unrelenting scrutiny in order to earn the title "theory." Evolution through natural selection is an easily observed occurance and can be proven through statistical and mathematical analysis. Neo-Darwinist principles should be renamed "The Law of Evolution through Natural Selection" just as we currently have "The Law of Gravity."
      • Woah, there... no need for a kneejerk pro-evolution response.

        I think the first poster had a valid point, and that is that in the popular conception, any change over this timescale is seen as evolution, when, sometimes, it's just change.

        Incidentally, the hyper-Darwinstic viewpoint is not accepted by most scientists, either. (By h-D I mean, as I stated above, the conception that all change is evolution.) The mechanism for evolution is a random process. We can only hope to understand it in the average, large-scale dynamics. And a good amount of the time, a random change will not lead to progress. It's just that since there is a selection bias towards things that work, you do see it.

        • I think the first poster had a valid point, and that is that in the popular conception, any change over this timescale is seen as evolution, when, sometimes, it's just change.

          The popular conception which you descibe is infact correct. Evolution is change over time. Evolution doesn't have to use the mechanism put forward by Darwin and refined by various others. Stellar evolution is a example of this.

          Your post is also misleading in stating that the "The mechanism for evolution is a random process". Random processes are only a part of evolution. The natural selection bit also plays a very considerable role. To leave it out, leaves one open to creationist probability strawmen.
          • To leave it out, leaves one open to creationist probability strawmen.

            And what exactly are you trolling for here? Since you seen to discount creationism (or the belief in a creation) then do you also discount religion (belief in a supreme being) as a whole? As for evolution and it's definition, I don't worry about trifles.

            • Wow, the defination of trolling has just become a little bit bigger.

              I think that you have misunderstood my post. While I personally discount religion, I also don't see anything wrong with it. That is, as long as doesn't try to mislead people into believing a lie (such as the above creationist strawman arguements.
          • Actually, I'm kind of confused as to why my original got modded to "Flamebait"... mod it "Redundant", or even "Crap", but, hey, it was politely worded... Anyway:

            >>I think the first poster had a valid point, and that is that in the popular conception, any change over this timescale is seen as evolution, when, sometimes, it's just change.

            The popular conception which you descibe is infact correct. Evolution is change over time. Evolution doesn't have to use the mechanism put forward by Darwin and refined by various others. Stellar evolution is a example of this.

            What you have just stated is, IMHO, a confusion between two different meanings of the word "evolution". It is unfortunate that the scientific community uses the words differently, and the example you showed was a good one. For example, as a mathematician, I'm forever talking about "evolution equations" when I don't mean anything biological or Darwinistic, but just a physical process which changes in time.

            On the other hand, the usage of the word in biology, and in this article, was that of biological evolution which arises from natural selection. And, yes, my point is still valid: in the popular conception of evolution, whenever we see speciation, or change in a biological organism, it is expected that there is some sort of evolution going on which is driven by natural selection, and this is simply untrue. Sometimes change is just change. In fact, most major changes in the genome are highly detrimental (e.g. go hang out in Chernobyl for a while). Just because they happen does not imply evolution in any Darwinian sense.

            Your post is also misleading in stating that the "The mechanism for evolution is a random process". Random processes are only a part of evolution. The natural selection bit also plays a very considerable role. To leave it out, leaves one open to creationist probability strawmen.

            This last paragraph of yours is wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe I'll get "Flamebait" again, but there's no polite way to tell you that you misunderstand the issues in a fundamental way.

            All evolutionary change is as the result of a random process. If you think anything differently, you are a creationist (or some other type of "directed evolution"ist) yourself. The fundamental mechanism for evolution is a random process. What you call natural selection is a selection bias in this random process. Obviously, organisms which work better are selected for, and those which don't are selected against. So of course there is a mean drift in the direction of "better" organisms. But the assertion that this is not random is, quite frankly, creationism.

            This is exactly Darwin's (and others') fundamental insight into the field, that a random process can drive a progression towards more complicated lifeforms. This is the most misunderstood part of Darwin's theory.

            The shame is that the armchair scientists (so to speak) play down this part of the theory, since it's a difficult thing for a layman to wrap his mind around. The anti-evolution arguments always state "Well how can these complicated objects arise randomly?", but this is the beauty of the theory. "Defenders of evolution" do it a disservice by cutting this part out so that it is more palatable to its enemies.

            Because, let's be honest. The creationists aren't going to buy anything the scientists say at all, no matter how beautifully worded, because they don't buy the scientific method. So fuck 'em.

            • The fundamental mechanism for evolution is a random process. What you call natural selection is a selection bias in this random process.

              You're so close to the mark, and your point a good one. But... to nitpick, there are two "fundamental mechanisms" in evolution: variation and selection.

              It's variation that is random, whether through genetic recombination or mutation. Selection is not random. If it were, it would be impossible to describe what selection pressure is and how it affects a population.

              I don't mean to be argumentative, but your description of evolution as a "mean drift in the direction of 'better' organisms" makes it sound like you are the one who misunderstands the issues in a fundamental way. cp99 is correct when he says that random processes are only a part of evolution.

              It may be chance that on a given day, a particular bird eats a particular insect, but the fact that birds eat insects is not chance, and certainly is not random.

              - MFN

              • Frankly, I think we're saying the same thing in principle. But, using the correct vocabulary, the whole thing is just one random process. Of course, you can take the mechanism, and call it two mechanisms, but that's an overcomplication.

                Consider a simple example: a random walk on a line. Start off a particle at x=0. At each time step, say the particle has a 50/50 chance of going right or left. We know intuitively what we expect to happen: the expected position of the particle is of course 0. The math backs this up, and tells us even more: that after N steps, we really expect to see the particle between \sqrt{N} and -\sqrt{N}. We can analyze this situation even fuirther, but it's not important.

                Now, make the example more complicated. Let's say that at every time step, the particle has a 70% chance to go right, and 30% to go left. (It's not too interesting to consider the case where the particle can sit still, since we can just rename our timesteps to be the times of motion.) Anyway, what you see mathematically is what you expect: a mean drift to the right. Now, you won't always see motion to the right, but the longer you wait, the more you expect to see right-ward motion. In particular, the statement is that as N goes to infinity, the probability that the particle is to the right of 0 goes to 1. (In particular, in this case, as N goes to infinity, the probability that the particle is to the right of any integer goes to 1.) Now, of course, this is a simple example, you could let the probability of going right be dependent on the place you're at, etc.

                But this simple model is somewhat reminiscent of the natural selection case. According to mathematical terminology, this section case is still considered a "random process", just with a mean drift. Think of it as natural selection, where right is somehow "better" than left.

                Again, it's ok to say that natural selection is not random (of course it isn't), but as we see from the above example, the whole mechanism can be put in the framework of a random process, which makes it of course more elegant conceptually.

                For anyone who's really interested in the math, this [amazon.com] is an absolutely wonderful treatment of the subject (although quite advanced mathematically).

    • Yeah, that rather pisses me off. People are quick to say things 'evolved over time' without suggesting a mechanism. Evolution is not the mechanism of change! Thing's don't just 'change over time' in the sense of growing new limbs or changing skin colour. Specific mechanisms of evolution (ie. evolutionary forces) include:
      1) Natural selection
      2) Non-random mating
      3) Mutations
      4) Viruses (and some bacteria)
      5) Geographic isolation should be included too since it more or less causes speciation

      Unless you can pinpoint it to one of these things (or others which bring about changes in the population of alleles) claiming evolution is just silly!

      • No, its not silly, Evolution=change over time. Thats what evolution means. It doesn't even have to include biological specimins. The motor car has evolved. The computer has evolved.

        Darwin does not have exclusive rights to the word evolution.

        It is people who assume that evolution must mean Darwin is involved who are silly. Darwin didn't even use the word evolution in Origin of Species, for crying out loud.

        • That's fine and dandy if you're an english major, but when you claim 'evolution' in a scientific study, you are talking about Evolution - plain and simple. There is no room to pander with words.
          • No, evolution is a word like any other. Are you now going to tell me that if you use the word "species" in a scientific study that you must mean population of animals which can reproduce to give viable offspring?

            Hint - it also can be used for any particular atom/ion.

            Oh, and by the way, when a chemical reaction produces gas, it is said to be "evolved" - the reaction results in the evolution of gas. So Darwin must have been a chemist, hmm?

  • interesting theory, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spood ( 256582 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @03:02PM (#3519545) Homepage Journal
    I think it's much more plausible that humans have adjusted their opinion of what an 'urgent' meow and a 'contented' meow are, rather than the cats adjusting to our 'language'. We observe a contented cat and the associated meow and we learn to recognize the difference. Which do you think is more likely? Cats have evolved a language to speak to humans, or humans have learned to recognize cats' language?

    Comparisons to feral cats in zoos, let alone the wild makes no sense. It might make more sense to raise a feral cat in one's house from kittenhood and see if it made the same language adjustments. I very much doubt that the language is herditary.
    • that would prove that it's a learned behavior, not an evolutionary behavior.

  • Powerful Language (Score:4, Funny)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @03:11PM (#3519612) Homepage Journal
    Cat thought of the day -
    A meow might get her attention, but she'll really notice if you crap on her sweater.

  • me too (Score:5, Funny)

    by Polo ( 30659 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @03:46PM (#3519837) Homepage
    Funny, I tend to meow differently to get the attention of cats.

    (weird, but true)

  • My cat (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos.chipped@net> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @04:30PM (#3520080) Homepage Journal
    My cat had a way of mimicing my speech in a limited scope. If I would walk into a room and say "hi" she would respond with a very short "mmw" but if I sait "hello" (two sylables) she would respond with two of her own "mmw meow". I wonder if other cat owners had seen similar things...

    • Re:My cat (Score:3, Funny)

      by doooras ( 543177 )
      my mother was sure her dog would say "i love you" and the cat will say "what?" if you ask it a question. surprisingly, she doesn't have a history of crack addiction.
    • I actually do this with my cat on a regular basis only a little different. I imitate her meow and she responds. If i do multiple meows or long ones, she will often do the same number or stretch them out.
      • Actually, I lie, it is really me that is straying and the dogs that are locked safely behind tall fences, but it sounded better that way.

        I guess I first noticed it with a much missed pet, but have noticed it more and more since I learnt to walk without the aid of my own dog.

        But I am now quite certain that at least some dogs import significance to the number of repetitions in a short sequence, be it the dog's own barks or the human's poor imitations, or even clicking vocalisations.

        The only cat I know that meows a lot is stone deaf.
    • Actually, my mother used to up one of my cats and hugs him while he was upside down until he made a certain sound. She thought the murmured double meow sounded like, "Mama." I thought it sounded like, "Put me down, you crazy bi..."

      Never mind.

  • And in other News of the Obvious... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nyarly ( 104096 ) <nyarly@redfivellc. c o m> on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @04:34PM (#3520101) Homepage Journal
    Who hasn't noticed that housecats sound like the cries of babies? (There's some thought that this is part of the "stealing babies' breath" myth.) There's been a lot of research that suggests that humans are hardwired not to be able to ignore the cry of a baby, and it seems resonable that housecats might have hooked onto that long ago.

    I've noticed several times how a cat will adapt to be more and more attention grabbing as time goes on, and how her housemates will learn particularly effective behavior quite rapidly.

    • Well, cats, like people and other animals, will do the things that get results. So if tapping you with a paw will get you off your behind and feed the kitty then your cat will do that.

      I also think there is some truth to the baby connection. Cats have those big baby-like eyes that have been shown to trigger our protective instincts. Just look at those hideous "big eyed children" paintings.

      Excuse me now, my kitty is demanding a belly rub.

  • Meows (Score:3, Funny)

    by FattMattP ( 86246 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @04:35PM (#3520111) Homepage
    I always thought they were saying "Me Now." :-)
  • Suppose they did not evolve to fit with our perceptions, but rather that the cats' high vs. low frequencies, rising vs. falling tones, short vs. continuous sounds, and so on, are used for roughly the same meanings (food! alarm! momma!) as among other creatures that communicate vocally. If this is the case, our sounds and Kitty's probably echo calls heard in the primeval swamps. How about that!
  • I think Wittgenstein's notion of 'language games' suggests that this is pretty much all there is to it anyway. But we're so insecure about labelling anything that isn't human 'language' or 'learned' or 'intelligence'. So research like this looks like a big deal, instead of just the regular everyday way the world works.

  • manipulating people (Score:4, Funny)

    by kilroy_hau ( 187226 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @05:09PM (#3520362) Journal
    "I think cats have evolved to become better at managing and manipulating people."

    That's why catbert is the human resources director, not dogbert
  • We all know who is the master in the human-cat relationship... and it isn't us. Thus is it not more likely that we have evolved to become better servants for our masters?

  • Bathing Cats (Score:2, Funny)

    by Samus ( 1382 )
    Maybe thats why they sound like people dying when you try to give them baths. :-)

  • Pavlov's Cat (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Skjellifetti ( 561341 ) on Tuesday May 14, 2002 @09:08PM (#3521644) Journal
    Analog SciFi once printed a poem called Pavlov's Cat. I wish I could remember it as a poem, but the gist is that while Pavlov is training his dogs, Pavlov's cat repeatedly rubs up against his leg, meows, and walks to the door until Pavlov finally lets him outside. By the end of the poem, Pavlov's dogs are salivating at the sound of a bell and Pavlov is automatically letting his cat out when it meows.

    Dogs have masters. Cats have staff.
    • Couldn't find the poem, but this was funny:

      Everyone has heard of Pavlov's Dogs and many have heard of Schroedingers Cat. But what of Shroedinger's Dog and Pavlov's Cats?

      Let's not concern ourselves with Shroedinger's Dog, a creature so stupid it has difficulty being in one state at a time let alone in two states simultaneously. When put into a box with a decaying vial of poison which might or might not release the poison, Shroedinger's Dog chewed the vial thus ensuring it ended up in a dead state every time.

      Pavlov's Cats is a far more interesting a subtle experiment into feline-human behaviour. Pavlov was a Welsh behavioural scientist who conducted experiments into ringing bells and cats eating food. Went something along the lines of:

      Day 1: Rang bell. Cat buggered off.

      Day 2: Rang bell. Cat buggered off.

      Day 3: Rang bell, but cat put paw on bell so it only made a 'thunk' sound.

      Day 4: Rang bell, cat said he'd eaten earlier.

      Day 5: Tried to ring bell, but cat had taken batteries out of bell.

      Day 6: Cat rang bell. I ate food.

      (found at http://members.aol.com/moggycat/pavlov-cat.html )

      • I couldn't fine the poem either, but I really want to read it. 3 points to anyone who can find it.

        This does remind me of a ST:TNG episode, though, with Data explaining to Geordi how he's trying to train his cat -- he succeeds about as well as one would expect:
        Geordi: "So how's it working?"
        Data: "Not very well. Apparently, Spot isn't a very intelligent cat."
        Spot: "Meow."
        Data: (looking down) "Hmm?"
        Spot: "Meow."
        Data: "Ah!" (gets cat food)
        Geordi: (starts laughing)
        Data: "Huh?"
        Geordi: "I don't know about your project, but he's got you trained pretty well!"

        As for me an my cat, I'm not such a good subject. With us it's more like:
        Pavel: "Meow."
        David: "Fuck off."
        Pavel: "Meow."
        David: "Get it yourself!"
        Pavel: "Meow."
        David: <kick>

        What's interesting about him, though, is the apparent intelligence with which he's learned to irritate me. He obviously knows that if he wants something, it's not enough to tell me about it -- the only way it'll happen is if he can be so annoying that I'll give in and do it just to shut him up. Early on, he discovered that the sliding doors of my closet make an incredible amount of noise when pushed just right, so standing up in front of them and batting on them with his paws is the best way to get let out at 4:30 AM. He can make almost as much noise scratching at the glass door from outside, making that the best way to get let in at 4:37 AM. He has further learned that nothing gets me to react faster than the sound of his claws in my couch, making that his doorknob whenever I'm in or near the living room.
      • This "Cat rang bell. I ate food" stuff is from a routine by the British comedian Eddie Izzard.

        graspee

  • a troll but I remember first hearing about this years ago on a documentry about cats on the Discovery Channel. Its not news to me and I am sure alot of other people know about this.

  • Transcript (Score:2, Funny)

    by saqmaster ( 522261 )
    Cat: *meiow*
    Owner: Aw, you want some food?
    Cat: *meiow*
    Owner: Ahh yes you do!
    Cat: *meiow*
    Owner: Would you like some chicken honeybunny?
    Cat: *meiow*
    Owner: Here you go then.
    Cat: *gobble*

    I don't see the intelligence in that, especially in the owners corner ;)

  • This is propably old, but... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    EXCERPTS FROM A DOG'S DIARY!

    Day number 180
    8:00 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
    9:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
    9:40 am - OH BOY! A WALK! MY FAVORITE!
    10:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
    11:30 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
    12:00 noon - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
    1:00 pm - OH BOY! THE YARD! MY FAVORITE!
    4:00 pm - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
    5:00 PM - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
    5:30 PM - OH BOY! MOM! MY FAVORITE!

    Day number 181
    8:00 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
    9:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
    9:40 am - OH BOY! A WALK! MY FAVORITE!
    10:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
    11:30 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
    12:00 noon - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
    1:00 pm - OH BOY! THE YARD! MY FAVORITE!
    4:00 pm - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
    5:00 PM - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
    5:30 PM - OH BOY! MOM! MY FAVORITE!

    Day number 182
    8:00 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
    9:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
    9:40 am - OH BOY! A WALK! MY FAVORITE!
    10:30 am - OH BOY! A CAR RIDE! MY FAVORITE!
    11:30 am - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
    12:00 noon - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
    1:00 pm - OH BOY! THE YARD! MY FAVORITE!
    1:30 pm - ooooooo. bath. bummer.
    4:00 pm - OH BOY! THE KIDS! MY FAVORITE!
    5:00 PM - OH BOY! DOG FOOD! MY FAVORITE!
    5:30 PM - OH BOY! MOM! MY FAVORITE!

    EXCERPTS FROM A CAT'S DIARY

    DAY 752 - My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while I am forced to eat dry cereal. The only thing that keeps me going is the hope of escape, and the mild satisfaction I get from ruining the occasional piece of furniture. Tomorrow I may eat another houseplant.

    DAY 761 - Today my attempt to kill my captors by weaving around their feet while they were walking almost succeeded, must try this at the top of the stairs. In an attempt to disgust and repulse these vile oppressors, I once again induced myself to vomit on their favorite chair... must try this on their bed.

    DAY 765 - Decapitated a mouse and brought them the headless body, in attempt to make them aware of what I am capable of, and to try to strike fear into their hearts. They only cooed and condescended about what a good little cat I was...Hmmm. Not working according to plan.

    DAY 768 - I am finally aware of how sadistic they are. For no good
    reason I was chosen for the water torture. This time however it
    included a burning foamy chemical called "shampoo." What sick minds could invent such a liquid. My only consolation is the piece of thumb still stuck between my teeth.

    DAY 771 - There was some sort of gathering of their accomplices. I was placed in solitary throughout the event. However, I could hear the noise and smell the foul odor of the glass tubes they call "beer". More importantly I overheard that my confinement was due to MY power of "allergies." Must learn what this is and how to use it to my advantage.

    DAY 774 - I am convinced the other captives are flunkies and maybe snitches. The dog is routinely released and seems more than happy to return. He is obviously a half-wit. The bird on the other hand has got to be an informant, and speaks with them regularly. I am certain he reports my every move. Due to his current placement in the metal room his safety is assured.

    But I can wait, it is only a matter of time..................
  • Anybody who owns a cat would believe this. Can you not tell when your cat wants something, or when it just wants attention. Now while they may have learned to "meow" in such a way that we can more easily interrprut their desires, I think they have also learned to "listen" to us as well. Every cat I've knows has been able to understand a sharp loud vocalization (ie: "No") and softer quieter tones (ie: "Here kitty, kitty, kitty"). I think there's more to it than that though. I have two cats at home (with very different personalities) but they both seem to understand "outside". If I ask them if they want to go out, they will usually head for the back door.

    Kinda scary when you think about it. They're learning to communicate with us better. And not just us. Ever seen a cat sitting in a window watching a (bird|squirrel|mouse)? They will try to vocalize a sound I've only heard from a cat in this situation. Sort of a chattering. Maybe Star Trek's Universal Translator was nothing more than a few cats.

    • Every cat I've knows has been able to understand a sharp loud vocalization (ie: "No") and softer quieter tones (ie: "Here kitty, kitty, kitty").

      You mean just like every other living animal?
      Dogs do the same thing on tone, babies and young children do the same thing on the tone of your voice.
      Heck if you don't understand the language you can guess if something being said is positive of negative.
      Many languages have a soft for affirmative (yes, ya/ja, oui ..) and a harder for Negative (no, nein, never, non...)

      I like telling babies they're just little stinky poop machines in a cute voice so they giggle and laugh about it, it's the only revenge you can get.
  • Hmm? I thought cats were the supreme beings on this planet. I would be willing to bet you that there has been human evolution solely derived from Mankinds beneficial association with cats.

    My cats are making me type this. They are in^H^Hnot in command - they're just want to rule^H^H^H^Hpurr and be friendly.

    Seriously 'tho - Can anybody spot any evolutionary trends since Mankind started domesticating animals that arised solely out of that domestication?
  • All I know is that my cat (Tux of course) loves to watch the movie Cats and Dogs, even though the cats get beat in the end. He literally stares at the TV. That's the most attention he's paid to anyone thing since the 7 double rolls of Cottenelle he dismantled in the bathroom. Talk about a huge pile of fluff. No piece was bigger than say 1.5 x 1.5 inches. He was curled up in the middle of it, waiting to get his ass beat I think...

Slashdot Top Deals

Professional wrestling: ballet for the common man.

Close