©1995 Pamela Gatts
I read Stanley Coren’s book, The Intelligence of Dogs, approximately 4 months ago. This was the book that caused such a flap when first published in hardcover in 1994, mostly, as nearly as I can determine, by people who had never actually READ the book, but had turned directly to the tenth chapter where Mr. Coren lists 79 breeds of dogs in order of their obedience and working intelligence. Various newscasters discussed the book; various articles appeared, primarily in the AKC Gazette, disputing Mr. Coren’s findings and making unequivocal statements in the vein of, “My Basenji just graduated from Stanford with a Ph.D. in nuclear physics, and Stanley Coren is a moron.”
Border collies are ranked Number 1; Afghan hounds 79th. Bouviers come out a respectable, but not overwhelming, 29.
Mr. Coren includes a “Canine IQ Test, in the book, ” a sort of “test your doggie in the privacy of your own home” sort of thing. When I read the book, I thought, “This would be fun, I think I’ll try it some time,” but didn’t get around to it until this week. My decision to administer the test (and share the results - if they came out good - with the members of the SCBdF Club) was based on a mature adult discussion between my husband and I in which we both claimed that the other’s dog(s) were not nearly as bright as our dog(s)and then started calling each other (and each other’s dogs) names.
The Canine IQ Test consists of 12 separate tests covering aspects of both learning/memory and problem solving. All tests were carried out in a strictly scientific manner, using scientific methods (trying not to cheat), in a sterile environment (I thought I’d throw that in - the dogs had recently been bathed and I vacuumed last week), and using a REAL SCIENTIST (my son, who just graduated from Berkeley with a degree in microbiology and whom I bribed and threatened).
Tests were administered over a period of several days; the dogs began looking at me very strangely, and my helpers kept wandering off. I also attempted to test all the dogs separately so as not to influence the outcome of any of the tests. Bouviers not being tested were dragged into the bathroom; Beagles not being tested were allowed to nap uninterrupted.
The test subjects were as follows:
This is a test of observational learning as applied to daily life. At a time when the dog is not typically walked, the tester is to walk silently to the dog’s lead and pick it up. The dog is scored on the basis of his reaction - how quickly, if at all, he moves toward the door.
Results
- All three dogs went berserk. Test Dogs 1 and 2 almost knocked me over on their way to the front door. Control Dog woke up from his nap and tried to pull the leash from my hand. (Secondary result - dogs became extremely depressed when they discovered they were not, after all, going for a walk). All dogs scored 5, the maximum score attainable.
This is a test of problem solving. The dog is shown a tasty tidbit of food (Snausages are the big favorite around here); the dog is allowed to sniff the food; the food is placed under an empty can. The dog is scored on the time it takes him to get the bait.
Results
- Test Dog 1 knocked over the can in less than a second. Score 5. Test Dog 2 also knocked over the can in a very short time, 2 seconds. Score 5. Test Dog 2 then trotted off with the can, forcing the testers to chase her around the house for approximately 5 minutes. Control Dog was awakened and scored 1 - he sniffed the can, whining rather piteously, but did not knock it over. All three dogs were quite pleased with themselves and the Snausages relieved their bitter disappointment over Test 1.
- Test 2 was responsible for the (temporary) loss of assistance from Helper No. 1 (my husband). He stalked off, claiming that the reason his dog did not get the bait was that he (my husband) had trained his dog so well that he (the dog) knew better than to disturb the can. As opposed to MY dogs, which were not trained at all and just helped themselves to anything within reach and he (my husband) often feels that he’s living in either Jurassic Park or an episode of Marlin Perkin’s Wild Kingdom.
This is a test of attention and environmental learning. While the dog is out of the room (whoever thought of this test obviously did not own Bouviers, who, in my experience, are NEVER out of a room), the furniture is rearranged. The dog is scored on the amount of time it takes him to notice something is amiss.
Results
- Test Dogs 1 and 2, overjoyed at being let out of the bathroom, immediately started sniffing about. Score 5 each. Control Dog presented some problems with the test - he was asleep on the loveseat, grumbled when forced to move, had just settled himself comfortably on a bed, and was forced to move yet again when his turn to be tested came up. As there was no score applicable to stalking into the room, heading directly for the nearest piece of upholstered furniture, and falling asleep, I scored him 5 also (for adaptability). He did notice that the loveseat was not in its usual position.
- I highly recommend administering this test, even if you don’t plan on doing any of the others. I discovered that the loveseat really looks much better to the right of the couch. I also found - under the couch and loveseat: a) three lost tennis balls and a Gummibone, b) enough Bouvier hair to knit a sweater the size of Cleveland, and c) $1.26 in change.
A measure of problem solving. A large bath towel is thrown over the head and shoulders of the hapless and confused canine. Scoring is based on the amount of time it takes the dog to extricate himself.
Results
- Test Dogs 1 and 2 both scored 5 points; they freed themselves immediately. Test Dog 1 looked at the bath towel and emitted a powerful Bouvier snort. Test Dog 2 lay on the floor, looking depressed. Control Dog scored 4 points - it took him 23 seconds to free his head and shoulders. He didn’t seem too concerned, however, about the towel over his head; my guess is that he was considering the possibilities of taking a nap under the towel.
Test 5 is a test of social learning. The tester waits until the dog is hanging around approximately 8 feet away. The tester then stares at the dog until the dog’s attention is aroused. At this point, the tester is to “smile broadly” at the dog. Scores are based on the dog’s reaction. (Hot tip: don’t try this when another human is in the room - not only does one become an object of ridicule, but the maniacal laughter elicited from one’s helpers is wont to screw up {scientific term} the results).
Results
- Test Dog 1 blew it. He stared back at me, making no effort to move toward me and only scored 3 points. Test Dog 2 scored 5 - she immediately leaped up, ran across the room, and leaped into my lap, showering me with kisses. Control Dog scored 1 (the minimum) on this test. None of us were able to awaken him, unless we shouted, “Ernie, FOOD!!,” which, in my opinion, was not fair and became yet another bone of contention between my husband and I.
Another test of problem solving similar to Test 2 in that it also involves hiding food and confusing the dog. See results from Test 2.
This is a test of short-term memory. The tester shows the dog a tidbit of food, puts the dog into a sit-stay, places the tidbit in a corner of the room, leads the dog out of the room, walks it around in a circle, and then leads the dog back into the room, timing the dog on how long it takes him to retrieve the tidbit.
Results
- Test Dog 1 scored 5 - he walked directly to the food. Test Dog 2, more strongly food motivated than Test Dog 1, had to be dragged out of the room, dragged in a circle, and when released beat all land speed records obtaining the tidbit. Score 5 also. Control Dog had to be awakened (this time “Ernie, FOOD!!! was valid), and physically dragged from the room, but retrieved and gulped down the tidbit in 4 seconds. Also score 5.
This is a test of long-term memory and must be performed immediately after Test 7. The tidbit is placed in a different corner of the room and the dog must be absent from the room for 5 minutes.
Results
- Test Dog 1 only scored 2 on this test. He was so pathetically happy to see me after being locked in the bathroom for 5 minutes that he forgot for several minutes that there was a biscuit in the corner of the bedroom. Test Dog 2 scored the maximum of 5 on this test. She bounded out of the bathroom, ran to the kitchen, inhaled the dog biscuit, then checked every other corner of every other room in the house. She also checked under the dining room table and around the bar stools to see if there was any other food accidently left lying about. Control Dog used the 5 minutes of abandonment to catch some much needed shuteye and awakened fresh to retrieve his biscuit in only 30 seconds. Score 5 also.
This test involves hiding a treat under upholstered furniture where the dog cannot reach with his muzzle, but instead must reach and retrieve the treat using only his paws. This supposedly tests problem solving and manipulation ability.
Results
- Test Dog 1 scored 3 on this test. He attempted to use both his paws and muzzle, and when he discovered that he couldn’t retrieve the treat, snorted and looked very put out. Test Dog 2 also scored 3. She, however, refused to give up and began pushing the couch across the room, using only her muzzle. Control Dog was awakened and immediately retrieved the treat using only his paws. Score 5.
A test of language comprehension. The dog should be settled approximately 2 meters from the tester (that’s about 7 feet, I assume the author felt “meters” sounded more scientific). In the tone of voice one normally uses to call the dog, the tester should say “refrigerator.” If the dog doesn’t respond, the tester calls “movies.” If the dog still doesn’t respond, the dog should be called by name.
Results
- Test Dog 1 scored 5 as he responded only to his name. Test Dog 2 came bounding into my lap at the first syllable of “refrigerator” and scored 3 points. We were unable to awaken Control Dog; he opened one eye when his name was called, and, seeing that there was no food involved, went immediately back to sleep. He scored 1.
This test looks at the actual learning process. The command, “front” is taught.
Results
- I prefer not to discuss the results of Test 11 in any detail.
Final test. A “fairly difficult” problem solving task. A vertical aperture (that would be a hole) is cut in a large, very heavy piece of cardboard. The cardboard is too high for the dog to step over and is secured on both ends, or held by two reluctant assistants, so the dog cannot knock it over. The dog is shown a treat through the hole and encouraged to get said treat.
Results
- Test Dog 1 and Control Dog both quickly figured out that it was necessary to go around the barrier to obtain the treat. Score 5 each. It was more difficult to score Test Dog 2 who did not go around the barrier, but instead battered through, enlarging the hole with her head and effectively destroying the barrier; the book did not include a score for this behavior, so I gave her 3 points for persistance and creativity.
Test Dog 1 scored a total of 48 points on the 12 tests. Test Dog 2 scored 49 points. Both Bouviers fall into the “Score of 48 to 53” category, which proves the Bouvier des Flandres is, and I quote, “ a superior dog with extemely high intellegence.”
Control Dog scored a total of 39 points - “This score represents average intelligence for a dog. A dog in this range may show intermittent flashes of brilliance, but for other tasks its performance may be uninspired.”
The results of this scientific test have unequivocally proved that my dogs are smarter than my husband’s dog, and I don’t really think he’s serious about filing for divorce.
 |
Pam Gatts is a technical writer by profession, and occasionally blesses us with wonderful articles when time permits. |
Contents |
Herding | Carting
| Intelligence
| Mosby | Compendium
| Doggie Training
Articles contributed by the Membership
Incorporated in the state of California April 3, 1974 as a non-profit 501 (c) corporation.
