Temple Grandin made this point before, that domesticating dogs changed humans as much as the dogs.
Did you mean to link the same article twice?
No, I'm going to go fix that--the second link was supposed to be to an article about how our teaming up with dogs enabled us to out-compete the Neanderthals.
I think the wolves hunting as the Gelada stir up their prey (rats) is entirely consistent with the notion that predators don't go after sizeable and potentially dangerous prey unless there isn't an easier choice around. Since the Gelada are in large groups and weigh about as much as the wolves, it's no easy target. So the wolves aren't really working with the Geladas, just amongst them.That's pretty different than how we work with dogs.
Just the camel's nose under the tent. I'll bet the Neanderthals didn't take us seriously at first, either. :-)
I thought the idea of "cooperative eyes" was pretty interesting. I'd never heard of it before.Shipman points to the "cooperative eye hypothesis," which builds on the observation that, compared to other primates, humans have highly visible sclerae (whites of the eyes). For purposes of lone hunting, sclerae represent a clear disadvantage: not only will your pesky eye-whites tend to stand out against a dark backdrop of a forest or rock, giving away your location, but they also reveal the direction of your gaze. ...Expressive eyes, however, for all their competitive disadvantage, have one big thing going for them: They're great at communicating. With early humans hunting in groups, "cooperative eyes" may have allowed them to "talk" with each other, silently and therefore effectively ... Human babies, studies have shown, will automatically follow a gaze once a connection is made. Eye contact is second nature to us; but it's a trait that makes us unique among our fellow primates.Dogs, however, also recognize the power of the gaze. ...
Post a Comment