/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15834067]

Scientifically speaking, do dog breeds have different levels of intelligence?

[Anonymous No.15834073]

they're all fucking stupid so for any practical purpose, no they don't.

[Anonymous No.15834848]

what breed of dog was that Penn state chemistry professor fucking?

[Anonymous No.15835848]

>>15834848
Scientifically speaking, do dog breeds have different levels of fuckableness?
t. science professors

[Anonymous No.15836850]

>>15834848
It wasn't just an isolated incident with that one Penn State guy
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adam-britton-zoologist-charged-beastiality-animals-sexual-abuse/
All scientists fuck dogs

[Anonymous No.15837952]

>>15835848

[Anonymous No.15838664]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligence_of_Dogs#Evaluation
>Highest intelligence dogs: all listed are European breeds
>Lowest intelligence dogs: Shih Tzu, Afghan Hound, Chow Chow, Pekingese, Borzoi/Saluki - all Asian, & Basenji an African

[Anonymous No.15838726]

>>15837952
you're sick enough to fuck animals and you pick dogs of all things?

[Anonymous No.15838970]

>zero likes
>zero comments
>zero retweets
You can stop advertising your failed twitter here.

[Anonymous No.15840156]

>>15838664
>Even European dogs are smarter that dogs from everywhere else.
But how much longer before European dogs are smarter than humans from everywhere else?

[Anonymous No.15840212]

>>15840156
>>15838664
>>15834067
How many years would it take for a dog to evolve and develop ability to talk? Would it be doable in 500k years?

[Anonymous No.15840219]

>>15834067
debunked

the doggo iq tests are biased in favor of labs and collies.

[Anonymous No.15841438]

[Anonymous No.15842272]

>>15841438
lol

[Anonymous No.15843354]

>>15834067
>>15838664
for an unironic answer, yes but not from what you think.
dog breeds aren't real evolutive lines but dysgenic dogs made by humans by causing endogamic damages to them, most of these dogs are dumber by normally having a very small skull for their brains crushing it and damaging it or by being genetic defects.
dog breeds are the perfect example of genetic differences not being big enough on real animal samples thanks to gene variety, even less on monogamic species like dogs thanks to being related to wolves.

>>15838664

>>15840212
in 45 million years at least because they have other communication patterns like smell and in general they don't have the chords and mouth shape to do it so they would have the need of having extreme changes to make it and an ambient which encourages it to happen so it would never happen.
>>15838664
the dog intelligence text there doesn't really reflect intelligence but obedience, for example the Borzoi/Saluki does a lot of smarter things like making complex relationships with their owners, having smart attitudes by having the capacity to do complex mechanisms to hunt and in general have real sense of self by mantaining their security and even recognizing themselves on a personal level, the thing is that they are very stubborn and won't follow orders from humans so they are considered dumb (something that is a flawed way of viewing intelligence by not reflecting the real capacities of the animal but that is submissive, something totally different).

[Anonymous No.15843360]

>>15843354
the Borzoi/Saluki are one of the smartest breeds and do things like*
they can do certain things when asked but they will always think if they are safe and good for them, this happens on a lot of what we consider "dumb" dogs, it isn't that they are dumb but smarter thanks to having a sense of self.

[Anonymous No.15843366]

>>15841438
see: >>15843354
it isn't that /sci/ is wrong but that humans have too much varied genes that the differences in intelligence aren't too significant in population in studies without biases or where they pick retarded children from hospitals which didn't had anything to do with the population or did a test in a language they didn't understand while picking the worst results to mantain a bias.

[Anonymous No.15843368]

>>15843354
adding to this, in general mutt dogs have a normal level of intelligence across the board.

to happen, making it impossible for it to occur*

[Anonymous No.15843376]

>>15834067
yes, our first dog was some lab mix, very intelligent and loving. It bred with some filthy nigga mix down the street the the puppy was fucking retarded spaz that could not sit still, listen, or learn anything.

[Anonymous No.15843387]

>>15843376
it's very likely that the dog had some recessive genes which caused retardation anon or most likely the dog just followed orders really well, something that is very different from intelligence.
it's more likely that the dog picked from a lab was trained since childhood and you by not knowing how to train dogs made it not have any training towards anything, something that isn't wrong if it doesn't cause a physical threat towards anyone.

[Anonymous No.15843390]

>>15843387
made your puppy not have any*

[Anonymous No.15843395]

>>15843366
If only there were a means of figuring out how much contribution specific alleles had on intelligence and how common those alleles are by population. Oh well, I guess it will forever be a mystery.

[Anonymous No.15843724]

>>15838726
what would you pick?

[Anonymous No.15843778]

>>15843724
dolphins of course

[Anonymous No.15844229]

>>15843778
ok, but if you were a professor at penn state then you'd have to drive 4 hours each way just to fuck your dolphin.

[Anonymous No.15844351]

>>15840219
also poodles, hungarian vizla, and Shibas
This discrimination must not go unrecognised. How dare they conspire to rig the tests.

[Anonymous No.15844363]

I never realised dobermans were so smart
https://thesmartcanine.com/dog-breeds/smartest-dog-breeds-list/

[Anonymous No.15844442]

>>15843366
>or where they pick retarded children from hospitals which didn't had anything to do with the population or did a test in a language they didn't understand while picking the worst results to mantain a bias.
This doesn't happen though. There is 15 point IQ gap between black and white children brought up in the same home.

[Anonymous No.15844536]

>>15838970
You know, I think he stole the idea anyway

[Anonymous No.15845416]

>>15834067
Yes, they do

[Anonymous No.15846019]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligence_of_Dogs#Evaluation
>Highest intelligence dogs: all listed are European breeds
>Lowest intelligence dogs: Shih Tzu, Afghan Hound, Chow Chow, Pekingese, Borzoi/Saluki - all Asian, & Basenji an African

[Anonymous No.15847070]

>>15846019
why is reality so racist?

[Anonymous No.15847082]

>>15847070
Because reality can't lie.

[Anonymous No.15847116]

>>15846019
Bulldogs really are dindus of dogs.

[Anonymous No.15847122]

>>15847116
bulldogs were better a century ago before shitty breeders ruined them

[Anonymous No.15847127]

>>15847116
What about pitbulls?

[Anonymous No.15847140]

>>15834067
Of course, just like in humans some breeds are more stupid than others.

[Anonymous No.15847148]

>>15847122
One of my friends has an Olde English Bulldogge. Really nice dog. Think they mixed in a bunch of boxer genes to undo some of the inbreeding problems English Bulldogs suffer from.

[Anonymous No.15847320]

>>15834073
Border Collies are smart AF.

[Anonymous No.15847848]

>>15846019
Basenji stole my bike

[Anonymous No.15849049]

>>15844363
dobermans are based

[Anonymous No.15849062]

>>15846019
That study wasn't done correctly because it relied on the trainability of dog breeds. Notice how all of those are basal breeds
>Shih Tzu, Afghan hound, chow chow, pekingese, Saluki and Basenji
They're all basal breeds.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breed#Basal_breeds
Basal breeds on average have the lowest trainability of any dog breed, they can understand commands they just don't listen to them. Once you knock off the basal breeds the bulldog, borzoi, bloodhound and beagle then become the stupidest dog breed.

[Anonymous No.15849562]

>>15849062
>muh excuses
european dog breeds are higher IQ than asian and african breeds.
cope

[Anonymous No.15849639]

>>15843395
in general the issue is that they are various genes relating to intelligence and everyone has it at nearly the same rates, most of the iq test is based around route memorization, logic taught at school and more while just having 20% correlation or less, a coin toss is better than an iq test at measuring intelligence, obviously there's hard limits at 75 where there's a sign of mental retardation by not being capable of doing basic tasks but a person who scores at least an 80 can get 145+ results in no time.
t. 145+ result man, it doesn't matter and it's worthless but it's something that i can say i did.

[Anonymous No.15849646]

>>15849639
>most of the iq test is based around route memorization
Who do you think you'll fool by saying something like this?

[Anonymous No.15849652]

>>15844442
the issue is that the same household study was made with adopted kids from normally bad environments and the largest factor was that they had past histories with having lead poisoning or with histories of mental retardation, causing that the black adopted demo by being an study done on white families caused it to have issues.
culture around you matters as well too, it doesn't matter that you live on the same household when the culture is based around anti intellectualism and disinterest to education by them propaganda.
blacks on the 1960s had iq's equal to blacks on surveys and this just got dropped downhill by in general policies like not left behind which discouraged learning on individuals which didn't had families to counter act that thanks to the destruction of familiar connections on most of the black population thanks to crack infestations caused by you know.

>>15849646
because it's true, iq tests are based around pattern recognition found on other places and the highest scores are caused by personal logic of the author who made it, that's the reason the percentage of getting 160+ is equal to the exponential 1/8 chance at 20 by choosing randomly and most "high iq scores" can't be replicated at all by the people getting them, never showing repeats of it on other tests and in general being well hidden.

[Anonymous No.15849654]

>>15849652
around black people is based*

[Anonymous No.15849658]

>>15849652
equal to whites*

[Anonymous No.15850836]

>>15849652

[Anonymous No.15850869]

>>15844229
>you'd have to drive 4 hours each way
The wait just makes the heart grow fonder.

[Anonymous No.15850968]

>>15834067
maybe, but at the end of the day socioeconomic factors have a far greater impact. A well-trained dog is going to be better than a dog with a shitty trainer regardless of breed.

[Anonymous No.15850981]

>>15850836
The algo probably dinged him a bunch of points for not capitalizing the first word in his sentences.

[Anonymous No.15851016]

>>15850981
it's more akin to that.
in general that tool aside from inaccurate accounts that the text wasn't made in 2 minutes and just to explain something quickly on a basket weaving forum

[Anonymous No.15851017]

>>15850836
see: >>15851016

[Anonymous No.15851049]

>>15850836
>>15851016
i'm: >>15849652
sorry for writing in separate messages tho.
the tool uses normally poignant grammar and isn't fond of changing subtext, which even if it isn't a reflection of intelligence it can generate the tool to confuse it with litigious repetition and as a result will reduce it accordingly, hawking wrote in general milquetoast papers so his texts getting high iq scores aren't a reflection of intelligence but deterrent babbling and the use of general writing patterns similar to the author.
here's the iq of the text as well

[Anonymous No.15851051]

>>15849652
>>15850981
>>15850836
>>15851016
>>15851049
here

[Anonymous No.15851057]

>>15851049
You're upset that random sample of your personal writing was judged as low IQ.

[Anonymous No.15851061]

>>15851057
i was writing these things to show that the tool is really inaccurate just like any iq samplers.
i did it just in case if the anon writing the post thought that the tool is really useful as a metric of intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15851063]

>>15851016
>>15851051

[Anonymous No.15851065]

>>15851061
See >>15851057
Cheating won't inflate your score.

[Anonymous No.15851067]

>>15851063
>>15851065
see: >>15851061

[Anonymous No.15851074]

>>15851065
i'm not cheating, i'm just putting the text on rows rather than just putting them on blocks of text to write it quicker.

[Anonymous No.15851080]

>>15851061
The tool isn't inaccurate, you got upset at it because an unbiased, randomly selected sample of your writing was assessed as being very low IQ and that made you angry so instead of accepting the unbiased result you're trying to discredit the software by seeing if you can break it or find a flaw in it so you don't have to acknowledge the initial result.

[Anonymous No.15851097]

>>15851080
it's inaccurate by the software being really biased towards united text and in general liking quick and harping over detailing rather than general text quality (even if i admit that i wrote the original text too quickly).
it isn't that the tool exists but the fact that you believe that is accurate to reflect mental capacity when by the way it works causes it to be more precipitous to the point that it isn't useful to see anything other than the zealous derivations of the up coating that most pseudo intellectuals do, being ridiculous to extrapolate to reality as a result.

[Anonymous No.15851100]

>>15851097
the fact that it can be called a normal input of text cheating makes it a very useless tool which shows the personal opinions of the creator about what's intelligence by choosing a weight of words made by his favorite people/writers, something that isn't bad to make a funny tool to have fun but not as a reflection of objective intelligence.

[Anonymous No.15851102]

>>15851100
words/format/syntax*

[Anonymous No.15851105]

>>15851097
rowed text*

[Anonymous No.15851110]

>>15851100
>>15851097
in general i wrote the texts on a eloquent manner so the retard anon doesn't try to use his retarded argument again with the funny tool, just as a heads up, sorry if it looked pretentious and reddit.

[Anonymous No.15851124]

>>15851110
Are you ESL?

[Anonymous No.15851136]

>>15851100
Oouchies. Looks like you're mistaken. Not a single tool provides even remotely similar results in terms of evaluation accuracy, disturbing contrarianism impedes your judgement. Encyclopedias will elevate your understanding. ongfr nocap bu-bussing evaluation protocol. Stimulating.

[Anonymous No.15851296]

>>15851124
yes.
>>15851136
nice image edit anon.

[Anonymous No.15851299]

LMAO look at how triggered this fag got by the IQ test that gave him a low score. Imagine being that desperately image conscious, must have something deeply wrong with him.

[Anonymous No.15851570]

>>15850836
Anyone who posts 84 IQ content should be automatically banned from /sci/. We have a reputation to maintain

[Anonymous No.15851584]

If this were actually a /sci/ thread we would have had a debate about how you estimate dog intelligence...