I have long thought that it's the most intelligent dogs that have the worst behavior problems. Although, it's not their fault, it's the fault of an owner who thinks they can reason with their dog using people-logic when they really need to learn more about how dogs think and behave.

Owning an intelligent dog is like signing up for acting classes. The dog will watch your every move and play you like a chump if you do the wrong thing. It requires you to act like the alpha dog (which is a very awkward feeling to most people) in order to maintain the behaviors you want. This means understanding how dogs see reward, punishment, encouragement, etc… or at least learning what to do when you see behavior that you don't like and understanding how your own behavior affects the dog.

I wouldn't say that less intelligent breeds/individuals don't have issues, but a super-smart shepherd or hunting dog can easily get bored and turn that creative energy into a destructive streak.

Agreed about bored dogs having the worst behaviour, and the rest of your comment is spot on, but I'd like to correct a common but incorrect belief that you bring up:

> It requires you to act like the alpha dog (which is a very awkward feeling to most people) in order to maintain the behaviors you want.

The "alpha-dog" theory has been totally disproved by dog behaviourists. It was an extrapolation from a single case study in the 1930s, of captive wolves. It has since been debunked, and is not even applicable to wolves, never mind domestic dogs.

All the dog training which is based on this (such as Cesar Milan's submission-based training) holds no merit, and is far more likely to be detrimental than positive, as it relies on terrifying the dog. Note that this was only debunked in 2000, so a huge amount of dog training and research needs to be revised as a result.

Much more detail here: http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha...

the page you links to cites one solo "debunking" study which was done by a guy named Dave Mech, who links to occupy wall street and likes "evolutionary biology and social justice": http://www.davemech.com/

people's personal views often influence research

You make him sound like a fringe lunatic. After reading your comment I pictured a young hipster writing pseudo-science to suit his political agenda.

In actual fact, his "solo debunking study" is one of a very long academic career of studying wolves and other prey. Quoting from http://www.davemech.org/: "L. David Mech (pronounced "Meech") is a Senior Scientist with the Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey and an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, and Ecology, Evolution and Behavior at the University of Minnesota. He has studied wolves and their prey since 1958, as well as several other species of wildlife."

He has a massive list of peer-reviewed publications, going back 50 years (http://www.davemech.org/publications.html), and looks exactly like every serious academic researcher I've come across.

Yet he links to OWS from his personal site and all of a sudden that's all invalidated?

frans de waal is another along the same lines.

check out the two sides of evolutionary psychology - the bonobos and the chimpanezee. the bonobos are the feminine, nice, friendly monkeys that are dying out. the chimpanzees are warlike and aggressive and are quite strong. both are closely related to humans.

researchers will generally take one side or another depending on whether their views skew more to the left or the right

I didn't realize that 'acting like the alpha dog' meant dominance theory but I can see how that could mean that. I'm not recommending people treat their dog like a wolf that they constantly have to dominate. I don't know much about Cesar Milan's theory. Like many dog-training theories, I'm sure it's a mixed bag.

My point is that when you give a dog a command, you have to give it with authority and sound convincing. When you leave your house and you feel guilty leaving your dog alone, you have to act like it's normal so you don't transfer your anxiety to him. When your dog misbehaves, you can't plead with him to stop like he's a little person who can reason about it.

This does not feel natural for a many dog owners. If you're type of person who isn't very self-aware or good at controlling your behavior, I'd recommend getting the dumbest/laziest dog you can find. :-)

> you have to give it with authority and sound convincing.

I don't think there's anything special you have to do here. Dogs respond to rewards, not authority. To make a dog respond to your commands, he has to be trained to do so, using some kind of reward. Say "sit", he does the right thing, he gets a treat (or a hug, or to play, or whatever). Do this 50 times, and you have a dog that responds to the "sit" command.

No amount of gravitas in your voice is going to help him "sit" if he hasnt been trained.

A self deprecating text editing experiment:

I have long thought that it's often the most intelligent nerds that have the worst behavior problems. Although, it's sometimes the fault of a nerd who thinks they can reason with non-nerds using pure logic when they really need to learn more about how normal people think and behave. It's sometimes the fault of a normal who thinks they can reason with nerds using social-logic when they really need to learn more about how nerds think and behave.

Being an intelligent nerd is like signing up for acting classes. People will watch your every move and play you like a chump if you do the wrong thing. Some think it requires you to act like the alpha nerd in order to maintain the behaviors you want (which is a very awkward feeling to most people.) This means understanding how nerds see reward, punishment, encouragement, etc… or at least learning what to do when you see behavior that you don't like and understanding how your own behavior affects the nerd.

I wouldn't say that less intelligent individuals don't have issues, but a super-smart nerd can easily get bored and turn that creative energy into a destructive streak.

Wait ... you said "dog", not "four-year-old", right?

As much as I respect this for being way cooler than anything I'll ever teach my dog, I can't help but think there are better things to teach them to make them seem more adoptable. Maybe train them to fetch beers from a minifridge, then package the adoption with a dog-accessible minifridge and a 30 rack for an extra $200. Boom, sustainable charity

I showed this comment to a shelter volunteer, and they were livid. They felt this would attract the wrong kind of people to adopt dogs: dogs need loving homes, not people who view them as kitschy party tricks.

This driving thing is already a kitschy party trick. And I teach my dog wacky tricks mostly to show friends when they come over, but it doesn't mean I don't love him.

I think the only reason it invites the idea that it would attract the wrong kind of people is because I used a beer example. But if dogs came knowing how to fetch drinks from the fridge, I think few would complain.

The driving thing serves their purpose: a wide reaching campaign to show that dogs are really smart, even shelter dogs.

There's a really interesting question about incentivization behind this. Everybody knows that there are too many dogs, and as a result many die in shelters because they aren't adopted. Yet many folks continue to buy dogs from breeders, particularly in America where they actually sell dogs in stores!

So what is the best solution so that exactly the right amount of dogs exist and none are killed. This is innovative, but I suspect training doesn't scale. Perhaps make it illegal to sell dogs until we're out of strays? Maybe a tax deduction for adopting a dog, or a tax penalty on buying a dog? Or an anti-breeding campaign (like the anti-fur one which has been very successful)?

I'd love to hear some cool ideas here.

Professional breeders are not the problem. It is not in breeders' interests to flood the market and collapse prices.

The problem is irresponsible pet owners who fail to neuter and spay their pets.

Santa Cruz County, California, where I used to live, enacted in 1995 a law requiring neutering and spaying of pets. (A breeder's licensed can be purchased for something like $100 annually, IIRC.) The numbers of animals in the shelters dropped dramatically.

Efforts to pass a similar bill at the state level failed, however.

I doubt it's an either-or situation.

However, I'll note that all shelter neuter and spay, so if it irresponsible pet owners who are responsible, than it is limited to those owners who did not get their dogs from a shelter.

Los Angeles is leading the charge on this. West Hollywood banned the sale of pets two years ago. Los Angeles city is doing so now.

http://www.examiner.com/article/los-angeles-poised-to-ban-sa...

The cost may still be a little too far out, but what about requiring breeders to register the dog's DNA sequence in some database. If the dog is found as a stray, a large fine is imposed on the breeder or the most recently registered owner. The fines could go towards programs for neutering and finding homes for strays. If particular breeders are frequently coming up as strays, they could loose their breeder license, etc. Of course to play my own devil's advocate, the risk here is that the owners who have lost interest in keeping a pet kill the animals instead of releasing them.

The point of this is not to make people adopt abandoned dogs because they can drive, it is to make people more likely to adopt abandon dogs by removing the conception that they are stupid/uncontrollable.

I think the real issue with overpopulating dogs is that they are treated as a commodity, so eccess stock is almost inevitable. Of course, every species that ever existed is always in a state of overpopulation, or exponential growth.

The original story is at http://www.3news.co.nz/SPCA-teaches-dogs-to-drive/tabid/367/..., though I don’t know if it’s available outside New Zealand.

Haha, I saw this a few days on the Herald. It's my only tie back to news in NZ at the moment! The link for that one is: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&obj...

But looks like 3 News did cover it first :)

I know the feeling. I can't stand the herald, but how else do you know what's going on

Available to me in Montana.

This is impressive on so many levels. It's not so much that they are taught basic tasks over and over, but that together those tasks amount to something so much more complex.

One can say the same for human beings.

Sorry - couldn't help it.

Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ueg7Q7hO7U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwpWaLrDHnU

There was another prank but couldn't find it

Nice to see NZ on the front page for something other than Kim Dotcom.

The dogs in the video look supremely pleased to me. There's something about the way dogs stick their heads out the car window that makes me think most of them would love to drive. I'm not the only one. I remember hearing someone's song about the same thing and wishing they could let their dog drive the car. If in 30 years, with advances in genetic engineering and our understanding of intelligence, dogs were driving cabs, I wouldn't think that's wrong at all, but somehow right.

Granny-shifting. Not double-clutching, like you should.

Maybe if the dogs were driving 30 year old cars. The dogs obviously know those Minis have synchros.

Yes, the dogs are smarter than the writers for The Fast and the Furious.

I'm surprised they didn't try and teach sheep how to drive instead, ha ha. Seriously though, this is kind of cool and scary at the same time.

At least the risk of drunk drivers would fall to cero. Also they are probably more polite than the average driver.

and dont try to run over all cyclists they see (just the mailman ;P )

That´s not a dog. That´s an ewok.

A new game of fetch! LMAO!

"I am driving! I like driving! I am an excellent SQUIRREL!"

That said, if these dogs drove cabs I bet they'd stop for everyone who hailed them.

Ok so who else is seeing an opportunity to completely undercut all those Taxi startups?

Proving that hipsters are as trainable as dogs?

Most hipsters are too cool to drive.

Isn't a knack for conformity part of the requisite skill set?

After we started letting women drive, this was only a matter of time.