March 25, 2008
The K9 Comparison—What Dogs Tell Us About Humans
By Frank Miele
[See
Steve Sailer's review of Race: The Reality of Human Differences
,
Routing The Race Deniers (Not That They’ll Notice]
We share about 97% of
our genes with chimpanzees. But when
Francis Crick, co-discoverer
with
James D. Watson of the double helix structure of
DNA, was asked what unraveling the chimpanzee genome
would tell us about
human differences he replied: "I wouldn't waste
any American money on the chimp".
The dog
genome, Crick went on, would be a better target—because
dogs vary so widely in
appearance and
behavior that unraveling their DNA would reveal much
more about the influence of genes.
Canine evolution,
because of dog breeding, has been run in fast forward—in
some cases, before our very eyes.
In an informative
experiment, Dmitry Balyaev selectively bred foxes [PDF]
to show
neither fear nor aggression when approached by
humans. But the foxes changed in more than just their
behavior. They developed floppy ears, short or curly
tails, an extended reproductive cycle—successive
generations literally becoming more dog-like before the
experimenter's eyes—probably the result of changes in
hormone levels.
And a recent study by
the Max Planck Institute has demonstrated that that in
certain cognitive tasks our canine best friends are more
like us than are our simian nearest relatives.
Fourteen-month old humans and almost any dog, but
not even the brightest chimp,
can use human pointing as a cue to find a food reward.
Researchers Brian Hare and Mike Tomasello concluded [PDF]
that this ability is heritable and due to recent
selection, since wolves cannot do it.
Dog breeds provide
the classic case study of within-species
differentiation. Those who would dismiss race and race
differences regularly point out that DNA differences
between races are minimal. But , as Vincent Sarich
demonstrated in Race: The Reality of Human
Differences (pp. 170 – 173) human racial differences
in
morphology are greater than in any non-domesticated
species. They are around ten times the difference
between the sexes within each race and larger than the
differences that distinguish the two species of
chimpanzee. Despite minimal genetic differences,
human physical racial differences are
clearly observable.
Likewise for dogs.
But only recently has genetic analysis been able to
distinguish between breeds—or even between dogs and
wolves.
All the differences
in body shape, size, color, internal chemistry, and
behavior between the hundreds of breeds recognized by
the American Kennel Club, the Kennel Club UK, and the
Fédération Cynologique
Internationale (the
World Canine Federation) are based on very few genes.
But while it's OK to
talk about differences among dog breeds, not so for
human races. Unfortunately, this has been true even in
scientific circles. And that in itself is instructive.
The classic study was
carried out by Daniel G. Freedman for his doctoral
dissertation. Freedman spent every day and evening
rearing four dog breeds—Beagles, Wire-haired Fox
Terriers, Shetland Sheepdogs, and Basenjis—from age two
to twelve weeks.[See Constitutional and Environmental
Interactions in Rearing of Four Breeds of Dogs D. G.
FREEDMAN, Science March 14, 1958 (Pay
archive)]
He noticed that as
soon as their ears and eyes opened, the breeds differed
in behavior. Little Beagles were friendly from the
moment they detected him. Shetland Sheepdogs were the
most sensitive to a loud voice or the slightest
punishment. The Wire-haired Fox Terriers were so tough
and aggressive, even as clumsy three-week olds, that
Freedman had to wear gloves in playing with them The
Basenjis, barkless dogs from central Africa, were aloof
and independent.
Many of today's breed
differences are cosmetic. But originally breeds were
selected to excel in certain elements of the basic
wolf-dog
ethogram [behavioral repertoire] and reduce or
eliminate others. All of these differences, including
the barklessness of the Basenji, make perfect sense in
terms of what we know about the traits for which the
different breeds were, or were not, selected.
Beagles are scent
hounds. They run in packs and use their sense of smell,
which is better than that of almost all other breeds, to
track fox and other small game.
They have been
selected not only for increased olfactory tracking
ability, but also diminished aggression. Beagles are a
band of brothers (often literally). They all have a job
to do. They are usually kenneled together, and howl to
other members of the pack when finding a scent or
needing help.
Fox hunting is sometimes called "riding to
hounds" because that is
what one does, mounted on horseback and following
the pack as its members pick up the fox's scent.
Fox Terriers come in
two varieties, Wire-haired and Smooth-haired, but this
is largely a cosmetic difference. Like Beagles, they
were bred for fox hunting, but their job is quite
different. The Fox Terrier literally gets a free ride in
the hunter's saddlebag—at least, that is, until the fox,
as they say, "goes to earth". No fun that for the
hunters because it ends the chase and their chance to
bag the fox. Game to the fox…or so it would seem.
But this is where the
terrier earns his seemingly free ride and free lunches.
The hunter grabs him by his short tail and hurls him to
the ground. His job is to run into the den and convince
the fox to resume the game by "making him an offer he
can't refuse".
No beagle in his
right mind would want any part of this. Terriers, on the
other hand, are born scrappers. There is a reason why we
have the expression "a pack of hounds", but not
"a pack of terriers". Rather than a peaceful
assembly the latter would quickly become a canine
gladiatorial.
Even the smallest
terrier, like the
Jack Russell (made famous by the TV shows
Frasier and
Wishbone) thinks nothing about taking on a
Rottweiler or a Pit Bull. Hence another dog saying:
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size
of the fight in the dog".
Among terriers,
"two's company, three's battle royal". Many people
have purchased Jack Russells, thinking they'll have a
companion like the one on TV, only to find they've
brought a canine
Mike Tyson into their house. (With its recent
popularity, breeders have started to select for less
aggressiveness in the Jack Russells. Dedicated fanciers
of any breed will tell you the worst thing that can
happen is for it to become popular overnight because of
some movie or television show. The heightened demand is
met by the unscrupulous
"puppy mills".
And even a dog from a reputable breeder can end up with
an owner or family totally unsuited for him.)
The third breed in
Freedman study: the Shetland Sheepdog, often
affectionately termed "Shelties", or incorrectly,
and to the great annoyance of their owners,
"Miniature Collies". They are indeed sheep herding,
not sheep protecting, dogs.
The Sheltie motto is
"herd ' em, don't hurt 'em". They have been
selected for being very responsive to commands from
humans and for inhibiting the part of their wolf
ancestry that says "look at all that nice mutton,
here for the taking".
Shelties are
excellent dogs for obedience training and competition.
When I took my Great Dane, Payce, to K9 obedience school
he was the second-best pupil in the class. A Sheltie was
Number 1.
One of the most basic
behaviors taught in obedience school is for the dog to
walk alongside the handler and stop and sit as soon as
the handler halts, its front paws parallel with the
handler's toes.
Payce had no trouble
learning to sit. At 127 pounds and over 6 feet tall when
he gets up on his hind legs, however, it wasn't that
easy for him to put on the brakes and stop on a dime.
The Sheltie almost always stopped and sat dead even with
her handler.
Then one time the
Sheltie goofed and ended up about six inches out in
front. She looked around, and quickly backed up until
her front paws were dead even with her handler toes,
hoping he wouldn't notice—very much as I had in
basic training, hoping to avoid the gaze of the
drill instructor.
Everyone in the
obedience class noticed the Sheltie's miscue and
attempted cover-up. The instructor—quite unlike my
DI—pointed to it gleefully as an example of just how
much the dogs can learn. Shelties been selected for both
canine IQ and canine conscientiousness.
Fourth in the
Freedman study: the Basenji.
Basenijis are more
recently domesticated than most of the better-known
breeds. Like wolves, they have never added barking to
their behavioral repertoire. (Barking may be an
exaggeration of the pup calling to its mother which
human selection has enhanced as a means of dog-master
communication).
With their tails
carried up in a corkscrew, Basenjis belong to a group
called
pariah dogs, which includes semi-domesticated breeds
around the world. (When humans cease selective breeding
of dogs, the distinctive breed traits disappear, the
surviving dogs take on a pariah-like appearance and the
full wolf-canine behavioral repertoire resurfaces.)
Basenjis do not lack
canine IQ, but they are at the opposite pole from the
Shelties in conscientiousness. They don't like taking
orders from their owners. They are born canine
scofflaws.
In another classic
study, experimenters put some dog chow out for the pups
and told them "No!" Then they would leave the
room to observe the pups through a one-way mirror to see
if they would go for food. If they did, the experimenter
would go back into the room and scold them "No!"
while also swatting them on their backside, painlessly,
with a newspaper. [Genetics
and the Social Behavior of the Dog, By John Paul
Scott and John L. Fuller]
Shelties are so given
to inhibiting, they wouldn't touch the food. Some of
them even had to be hand-nursed back into feeding again.
Basenjis, on the other hand, started to chow down the
minute the experimenter turned his back, before he even
left the room.
A third study
compared the same four breeds in getting through a
series of increasingly difficult mazes. The breed
differences were not in the ability to master the mazes
(a rough measure of canine IQ) but in what they would do
when placed a maze they couldn't master.
The Beagles howled,
hoping that another member of their pack would howl back
and lead them to the goal. The inhibitory Shelties
simply laid down on the ground and waited. The
pugnacious Fox Terriers tried to tear down the walls of
the maze. The Basenjis saw no reason to play by the
rules and began jumping over walls of the maze.
But what does this
have to do with humans? Professor Freedman wrote that
"I had worked with
different breeds of dogs and I had been struck by how
predictable was the behavior of each breed. A breed of
dog is a construct zoologically and genetically
equivalent to a race of man. To look at us, my wife and
I
[Freedman is Jewish; his wife Chinese], my wife and I
were clearly of two different breeds. Were some of our
behavioral differences determined by breed?" [Human Sociobiology: A Holistic Approach]
Freedman and his wife
set about designing experiments to test that hypothesis.
Their story is interesting not just for its scientific
results and for the different receptions they received
in even the most prestigious scientific journals.
The Freedmans decided to observe the behavior of
newborns and infants of different races using the
Cambridge Behavioral and Neurological Assessment Scale.
Unlike the typical reflex tests performed by
pediatricians, these tests, called the “Brazelton"
after
their developer, measure social and emotional
behavior. [The Manner Born: Birth Rites in Cross-Cultural Perspective,
Chapter 13,
Ethnic Differences in Babies]
The Freedmans found
that European American and Chinese American newborns
reacted differently even though hospital conditions and
prenatal care were the same.
White babies started
to cry more easily, and once they started, they were
more difficult to console. Chinese babies adapted to
almost any position in which they were placed. When
placed face down in their cribs, they tended to keep
their faces buried in the sheets rather than immediately
turning to one side, as did the Whites.
In a maneuver called
the "defense reaction" by neurologists, the
baby's nose was briefly pressed with a cloth, forcing
him to breathe with his mouth. Most Caucasian and black
babies fight the maneuver by immediately turning away or
swiping at the cloth with their hands. Not surprisingly,
this is listed in Western pediatric textbooks as the
normal, expected response.
But not so the
average Chinese babies in the study. They simply lay on
their back, breathing from the mouth, "accepting"
the cloth without a fight.
There were other more
subtle differences. While both Chinese and Caucasian
infants would start to cry at about the same point in
the examination, especially when they were being
undressed, Chinese babies stopped crying immediately,
while Caucasian babies quieted only gradually.
The Freedman noted
that the film of their finding left audiences awestruck
by the group differences.
They then tested
Navajo babies. Anthropology,
linguistics, and DNA agree that
Amerinds have a relatively recent Asian origin. And
the behavior of the Navajo babies was indeed like that
of the Chinese-Americans, not the Whites.
Freedman submitted
the paper on racial differences in neonate behavior to
Science, the most prestigious scientific journal
in the U.S. It had published his study behavioral
differences in pups of different dog breeds without any
problem or controversy.
The paper on race
differences, however, was rejected by a split vote of
the reviewers.
Freedman then
submitted it to Nature, the British analogue to
Science. It again received a split decision from
the judges. Fortunately, the editor broke the deadlock
by casting his deciding vote in favor of publication. [Behavioural
Differences between Chinese–American and
European–American Newborns D. G. Freedman & Nina
Chinn Freedman, Nature December 20, 1969]
Freedman's studies
are important because they used a comparable
experimental design for humans and dogs. And although
our society does not automatically consider being more
or less active as being better or worse, unlike IQ,
differences, race differences in behavior among humans
were viewed even by scientists as too hot to handle.
Group differences can
be a
life or death issue in which
ideology should have no place. Take
pharmacogenetics, the study of
genetic differences in the tolerance and effectiveness
of medicinal drugs.
Breed
differences are taken for granted in the Veterinary
Drug Handbook (analogous to the Physician's Desk Reference). Two examples
