I mean, no joke, a dog whining/ begging is conditioning you.
I am a dog.
I beg. You give me food. I look cute.
I beg. You don’t give me food. I cry.
Next time I beg, will you give me the food?
Probably.
After that: I look cute. You give me food.
Congratulations, you’ve just been conditioned by your dog, buuuuut you get a cute dog, lmao.
I seem to remember reading that domesticated dogs evolved more expressive eyebrows that proved to be a survival advantage in this process.
Found the article: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1820653116
That is super neat, you’re right! It was bread into them due to human preference.
It was bread into them
deleted by creator
Cunning disguises!
This reminds me of the silly iPad games my kid had me playing a decade ago.
I miss it. :(
Lmao, I’m not going to fix it.
Thanks, I just had a good laugh. ;)
Mmmh, puppy muffin.
I’ve seen a few things that have shown many animals have developed a sense of “cuteness” specifically to deal with us.
I’ve long had a theory that cats have evolved to be just cute enough that we don’t murder them. Cats are evil, so it’s understandable that humans would want to kill them, and I think we probably did early on, but some of them were so cute that we didn’t. Those surviving cute cats reproduced and made more cute cats, but they also became more evil. Over generations, we have created beings that are supremely evil, but they’re just so gosh darned cute that we let them get away with it.
Well that and they kill pests. We also like things that are useful. I just wish they wouldn’t put the dead pests in my shoe 😬
If you were a better hunter, they wouldn’t pity you and provide you food to eat.
Cats are an autonomous pest control system, that’s why they’re everywhere.
Cats don’t have any of the typical traits of domestication. Humans do.
Draw your own conclusions.
Yeah they evolved to keep much more baby-like features into adulthood with a big head and huge eyes because that’s cute to us and triggers strong instincts of protection and love. I forget the exact name for it. And my cats do be looking extremely cute all the time so it was very successful.
Too bad it’s not Pavlovian conditioning afaik
deleted by creator
Replace every instance of dog with cat and you’ve got the reason I give out treats at night before I start cleaning dishes.
The correct answer is
Fuck Pavlov
Motherfucker is like the Hitler of dogs. It’s a shame his name is remembered for the conditioning and not the mutilation. Dude was a monster.
Wait really? Ive never been told about this
Yeah, he cut holes in their throats so food would fall out and added additional holes along the digestive tract to collect various “gastric juices”. He also, apparently, started a business harvesting and selling said juices as a cure for indigestion… not sure how that worked, seems like it would cause more than it cured.
My god. We don’t deserve dogs if we are not adjusting Pavlov’s reputation for this.
Jfc, to what end? All this retroactive cancelling of dead people is just diddling yourself for feel-good reasons. Get over it and be different instead of waving some flag that says you are different.
Mate learning from history’s jackasses is how we move forward as a society. Cancelling? The fuck are we cancelling? You said it yourself, fucko is dead, cancelled by life, you don’t get much more “cancelled” than that.
But the mutilation was part of the research I thought
I guess Piccolo was right to curse out Pavlov.
Such an existential question in so few words.
Or… it’s just an obvious “yes”…
There is a joke about that:
Pavlov is sitting in a bar enjoying his beer. The phone rings. Pavlov jumps up: “Damn! I forgot to feed the dogs!”
My dog trained me to get him water by lifting the toilet bowl lid. He doesn’t want to drink out of it, but he knows I’ll get up to stop him and check his water on the way. Now he’ll lift the lid then go stand by the water dish.
Alternatively: your dog has learned how to effectively communicate with you to ask for water.
Pavlov’s dog is not notable for showing that dogs could be conditioned (bell = food time)
What it did was show that a conditional response (bell = food time) could cause a reflexive response (saliva)
Classical conditioning is not the same as associative learning.
Pavlov’s dog is not about associating Thing A with Thing B - that didn’t need a russian scientist to prove.
I didn’t know that! Also apparently the Barenaked Ladies had it right when they wrote Brian Wilson:
It’s a matter of instinct
It’s a matter of conditioning and a matter of fact
You can call me Pavlov’s Dog
Ring a bell and I’ll salivate
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Please Please Please Get a Life Foundation
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Fuck, damn. 🤔
What’s haunting about this question?
i suppose it’s that his intent was to train (essentially to control) something apart from himself, but he likely trained himself in the process (created something within himself that he did not control, at least for as long as the response was conditioned).
Assuming he was conditioned by the sound of the bell. Which might not be the case.
Your brain being altered without your consent/awareness?
Pavlov Pavloved Pavlov
Image Transcription: Twitter Post
Jeremy Parish, probably, @gamespite
Out of nowhere, my nephew just asked, “Do you think Pavlov thought about feeding his dog every time he heard a bell ring?” and now I’m going to be haunted by this question
Deep
The mice will see you now.
