Customer Reviews

The Intelligence of Dogs: A Guide To The Thoughts, Emotions, And Inner Lives Of Our Canine Companions

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

As a trainer who has actually studied and researched dog behavior, I had trouble reading this book. On several occasions I put it down in disgust, unable to read another word. But, because I want to be widely versed in dog behavior - even if it's just the inaccurate garbage that my clients might be exposed to - I did read it in its entirety. I have trouble citing anything from this book that is factual and would make it worth reading, apart from perhaps the entertaining historical anecdotes. If you want to know about dog intelligence, the dog behavior professional should read "Applied Dog Behavior and Training" by Lindsay (all 3 volumes) to start. For seriously interested dog owners and /or professionals, I recommend "Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition" by Ádám Miklósi. For lighter reading, Alexandra Horowitz's "Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know" is very good. Both the latter authors are doing research in the field of canine cognition, and so actually know a thing or two about the subject (unlike Coren).

The dog owner should understand that the "tests" in this book mean absolutely nothing and may actually be harmful by labeling a dog "dominant" or "aggressive" when he is nothing of the sort. Here are the main problems I found with Coren's book:

* Excessive reference to dominance theory, including the terms "alpha," "pack leader," etc. Dominance theory was created based on faulty research in the mid-20th century, which has since been updated and has been mostly thrown out when referring to pet dogs. Your pet dog is not a pack animal - if it were, it would kill every intruder to its territory, including the mail carrier, guests, and dogs that come to visit for "play dates." We could not live with a pack animal, and through the domestication process we have bred it out for our own convenience. Current research points to dogs as solitary animals, congregating in groups of 2-3 when food scarcity requires it. They are different enough from wolves that they simple can't be compared the way we used to think they could. Your dog does not jump up on you to establish dominance, nor as a sign of "disrespect." Humans are the ones obsessed with respect (or the lack of it), not dogs. Dogs know we are not dogs; they're not that stupid. And to assume that all dogs think about is social rank and dominance is simplifying their intelligence unnecessarily; most dogs could care less and have far better things to think about, such as how to get you to fill the food dish or pick up the leash. Coren likens dog intelligence to that of 2-year-olds, and yet doesn't make the connection that most dogs out there are trying to manipulate us - just like 2-year-olds - not dominate us.

*The "intelligence tests" themselves are not based on any sort of scientific research, nor was any research done to determine whether or not they are accurate. Simply reading them, I couldn't find a single test that I felt would be an accurate reflection of what they tested for. There were too many other ways - much easier, simpler, more reasonable ways - to interpret the results. For example, a dog that does not explore and show immediate interest in an environment that you have altered dramatically is given a low "score." However, a well socialized dog, used to seeing many different things and learning to take them all in stride, may show little or no interest - and you WANT that. Alternatively, if you're the type that rearranges the furniture often, the dog may be so used to it that he ignores the change. A dog that is quick to react and explore may well be neurotic, not intelligent. For another test, a dog is supposed to attempt to get a treat from beneath a towel. The author recommends using a biscuit. A dog, being an intelligent animal, may well decide that the effort involved in finding the biscuit is not worth the biscuit itself (being a very low-value food reward), thus scoring low on the test. A "spoiled" dog that is used to having problems solved for him will simply wait for you to retrieve the biscuit. I'd call these pretty intelligent dogs, personally. A dog that doesn't like his equipment (not uncommon if choke chains, prong collars, or the like are used) or that isn't walked on a leash often will fail test 1. A dog taught to "leave it," whether formally or informally, will fail test 2. Test 5 will likely be failed if you haven't taught your dog to hold eye contact, which is an unnatural behavior for dogs. In summary, some of the tests will insult your dog's intelligence, not test it. They are better used to show how much training your dog has received.

*The "personality tests" were simply ridiculous. Again, many of them test training, not personality, and they all are supposed to be able to gauge your dog's level of "dominance." Research has shown that the only personality factor that is worth testing in puppies is fear - all other factors tested were unrelated to dogs' adult personalities. Coren also suggests a puppy handling protocol that is actually different from that used by the US Army, and says "there is no harm in handling the pup for a longer period of time" than he suggests. This is false, harm can be done by over-handling of young puppies; it creates neurotic adult dogs.

*He refers to dog-human interactions in such cold terms that is debases the nature of the human-animal relationship. He described dogs "submitting to" the "commands" of their human "masters." Perhaps this is how he truly sees it, having been in the military and likely having a background in compulsion training. Luckily, training methods have evolved, and trainers have a better understanding of how learning and behavior occur. Dogs don't "obey" - they simply react the way that works best in a given situation. Humans, having a weakness for power and feeling important, sometimes interpret this as "obedience" and thus they think they have "control" over the dog. Nothing could be further from the truth. His attitude toward dogs and their behavior are a reflection of the type of training that was popular decades ago - current trainers with any sort of understanding of learning theory would never refer to dog behavior the way he does.

*He used obedience judges as "experts" in dog intelligence. Maybe it's just me, but somehow I think that someone who researches dog intelligence might be a better expert than someone who judges the effectiveness of a dog's training. (Let me note here that Coren does not research dog intelligence - his academic training has, in fact, nothing to do with dogs. He is a hobby judge and showman. He isn't an expert in dog intelligence - he just decided to write a book on it. I could write a book on the work Cohen did for his Ph.D., but that doesn't mean I'll have any idea what I'm talking about.) Obedience judges are trained to quantify how well a dog has been trained - not how easy or difficult it was to train any of them, taking into account the methods used and the experience of the trainer, the power of the reinforcers or punishers used, etc. His "experts" were poorly chosen. He says himself that he spoke to obedience judges because he found the idea of properly analyzing his data too daunting. I suppose it doesn't matter which he ended up doing, because he hadn't collected enough obedience trial data to yield accurate results, anyway, so either way his list of dogs by intelligence would be worth very little.

*His interpretation of dog body language is inaccurate, which must have been difficult to accomplish given the many good resources on dog body language. I recommend Turid Rugaas's book "On Talking Terms With Dogs: Calming Signals" and "Canine Behavior" by Barbara Handelman if this aspect of the book interested you.

In summary, this is a book written to be sold and create revenue, not to increase awareness of dogs or dog behavior. In fact, it does the opposite. It has a feature many find attractive - an intelligence test! Unfortunately, the tests do nothing of the sort. I'd hold off on trying to test your dog's intelligence until we figure out how to do it with people, which we currently aren't really sure how to do accurately. If you want to know how intelligent your dog is, ask yourself why it matters - every individual dog has something to offer, regardless of how "smart" or well-trained he is. Look for the things your dog is good at and emphasize those to bring the best out of him every day.

"The Intelligence of Dogs" is the most practical book on dog behavior I have ever read. It contains two separate tests, both developed by the Seeing Eye people to prequalify their dogs. The tests are extensive, and quantify: problem solving ability, memory, biddability, aggressiveness/passivity, steadiness, and other important personality traits of a puppy or dog. I used this test to prequalify a stray border collie puppy before adopting her. After 3 years, I would rate the test results "highly accurate."

In addition, Coren describes the psychology and behavior of dogs in the wild, and how this can be used to better communicate with and train your dog. Works like a charm.

Never mind the controversial list of general intelligence of different breeds. The practical utility of the book is in testing and communicating with *your* dog...or a dog you are considering for adoption or purchase.

I loved this book! Its not because Stan Coren was my professor almost 30 years ago, or because there's a mixed Border Collie (Rank #1) / German Shepherd (Rank #3) savant sitting on my foot as I type. I loved this book because it is truly a celebration of the DOG. It captures the essence of that marvelous companion who unquestionably trusts us, undeniably loves us, and unconditionally accepts us wherever WE might rank on some psychologist's list. Coren eloquently captures the essence of our canine companions in his obvious affection for the subject matter.

The book's title, "The Intelligence of Dogs" should have been "The Intelligence of ALL Dogs," because some people seem to be hung up on "the list" and think the book is about "The Intelligent Dogs." As a psychologist myself, I know how people can focus on rankings and comparative lists, and in the process lose perspective of the whole picture. We get defensive because our Dalmatians were spotted 39th, and angry when our Afghans wagged the distribution's tail in last place. Know what? It doesn't matter. Don't throw the puppy out with the bath water; the rest of the book will balm you even though your Labrador retrieved only a 7 ranking. The canine history section alone is worth the price. But the real problem now is, how do I break the news to brilliance here that he was descended from a proto-cat?

Coren's rating of the intelligence of dogs does not take into account the function for which that breed was established. The tests used and the criteria to determine intelligence are flawed. Sadly, many intelligent breeds have suffered by this arbitrary list both those near the top by unrealistic expectations and those at the bottom by undeserved prejudices. The Border Collie is a very intelligent dog but if I was drowning, I'd want a Newfoundland to be there to rescue me and if my child was lost, I'd want a Bloodhound tracking him. For herding, the Border Collie would be a much better choice. And the "lowly" Afghan: ever see one lure coursing? Seeing it do what it was bred to do is awesome. That is the way to rate dogs. Consider their function and the task at hand. Not that any dog could not cross over and adequately perform a task traditionally designated for another breed, but they might not do it as well. This is no slight. It's just the way thi! ngs are. In my opinion, there are no dumb dogs, just dumb humans who don't bother to help their dogs achieve their full potential. This book contributes to that.

This is an absolutely awful book. It trades in on common misconceptions with dogs, and then goes on to make generalizations about breeds that have no business circulating. Thanks to this fine author, people can parade around their poodles and say they have the second smartest dog in the world... Never mind that they are tethered to a puppy mill inbred. Generalizing that Border Collies are smarter than Poodles are smarter that Rottweilers is just plain asinine. What was the sample size? (I believe it was like 5 dogs.)

Maybe this book was supposed to make some owners feel better or something... Beats me. Read the Wiki on "Dog Intelligence"... Coren's only barometer for "intellect" revolves around the dog's willingness to please, which he still hasn't recognized because he's too busy believing the "Alpha Dog" myth.

Save your money and buy your lil' man some bully chews.

The list provided that ranks dogs by intelligence is based on the ease of training, (the number of repetitions required of an action before the dog learned it) not overall intelligence. Dogs of all breeds can be very smart and within any breed there are ranges of intelligences. I used to have a Peke that would run rings around any Sheltie in the obedience ring. Some dogs only need to be shown something a few times to learn it. Those dogs are usually your Herding, Working and Sporting breeds. They were bred to work WITH man and to OBEY his commands. Some breeds, like the Terriers and the northern breeds, were bred to think for themselves. Does this mean they are not intelligent? Hardly. THis is a great book for anyone who has dogs and wants to understand them better.

This is not a review where I will tell you what the book is about. There are plenty of other reviews on that point. However, I will tell you that I found this book so absorbing that I could hardly put it down. This says a lot when I tell you that non-fiction doesn't have that effect on me. His book is informative, without being difficult to read. Simply put, if you have a dog, are considering getting a dog, or you're just interested in dogs, then this book is for you. Every dog lover should own a copy. End of story.

I couldn't even begin to count all the things Stanley Coren gets wrong in THE INTELLIGENCE OF DOGS. For instance, in one section he claims that dogs have the ability to do math but in another part of the book he claims they can't tell the difference between a tug toy and human skin. The first is clearly way beyond a dog's capacity, while the second is something which comes totally natural to them. How did Coren get things so backwards?

And the "intelligence" tests he provides have nothing to do with intelligence but in how focused or driven a dog is to do the test (or game) while you're doing it. For instance, I tried one of the tests with my dog by putting a piece of food under a towel, then waited to see how long it took him to find the treat. I'd still be waiting if I hadn't decided he'd never look under that towel. Then I tried the same game by teasing my dog with one of his favorite toys. Then I hid it under the towel, and it took him less than a second to get that toy. So my dog is apparently both on the smarter and dumber ends of Coren's intelligence spectrum. (This is just one example, by the way: the whole idea of testing a dog's IQ like this is bogus.)

And don't get me started on Coren's pedantic retelling of the alpha myth. Granted, he wrote this book before the latest research on wild wolf packs proved that there's no such thing as a dominance hierarchy, or an alpha wolf, or the rest of that alpha nonsense. Though, I doubt if even that data would change Coren's mind. After all, he seriously recommends rolling your dog over on its back every day and pulling one of the animal's hind legs in the air to create a posture which supposedly "signifies submission to the pack leader." (Really? Dogs use "signifiers" now?)

The funny thing is, shortly after reading that passage I saw a wolf documentary on TV and the papa wolf did the exact opposite or what Coren recommends! He rolled over on HIS back and let the pups jump on top of him and bite his nose! They loved it! So I tried what the papa wolf did with his pups with my dog--an alpha male, if there ever was one--and HE loved it. And later that night, on our last walk, he was ten times as obedient to me than he had been before I'd mimicked the papa wolf's behavior. Again, Coren had everything exactly backwards to reality.

This "through the looking glass" quality persists throughout the book, with Coren even saying that dogs are capable of hypothetical, symbolic, and conceptual thinking. Wha..? I'm sorry. I love dogs and I think they have wonderful abilities that should be honored and respected, but the abilities they DO have are geared for being a dog, not a mini-me with four legs and a tail. For one thing, fully one third of a dog's brain is devoted to processing olfactory information, and none to processing symbols and concepts. I think Coren needs to do a little more research on comparative neuroanatomy and actual wolf behavior before he makes more ridiculous claims like the ones he made in this inane book.

I first read this book when I was 15, and have reread it twice since then. Coren writes in a way that is very one-on-one and covers vast amounts of information, ranging from amusing dog quotes to myths of dogs to the ever-famous chart of dog intelligence. Throughout the book there is information to be gained and new ways of thinking to be considered. The focal point of this book is not the ranking of breed intelligence but rather the intelligence of dogs in general, hence the title. Areas focusing on ways to improve your dog's fluid and crystal intelligence open up an understanding of the dog's mind that is interesting for any dog owner. Stanley Coren is a psychologist as well as a dog trainer, and these two aspects of his life merged equally when he wrote this.

Although Mr.Coren may know a lot about the history of dogs, how they are represented in different cultures, about different movements concerning animal intelligence, and the like, I couldn't help but feel that this guy just likes to hear himself ramble on and on and on! I may have a problem with run on sentences, but this Stanley needs an editor! You can skim through most of it, but the meat is hard to find, and I was quite bored. This is less of a scientific examination of a species and their intelligence, and more of a round about study of a dogs history, and someone's inconclusive opinion of how and what they might be thinking.
Oh well.