"We humans define intelligence in such limited terms." How would you define intelligence, then? Being able to correctly respond to human emotional cues has been evolutionally advantageous for dogs. They've had thousands of years of coexistence to refine their instinctual abilities to "interpret" our emotions, which leads to more attachment on our part, which leads to better reproductive opportunities for those dogs which we are more attached to. For all we know, dogs responses to human emotions, gestures, and nonverbal cues are a completely autonomic behavior.
I love dogs, I think my dog is super-smart, funny, and very sweet. I've heard her particular breed referred to as "the dog with the human brain" on some dog TV show before, and I'm sure she's not even as smart as a collie. That said, I can't help but feel like your comment is a bit... overwrought. Dogs clearly understand parts of human language and judging them by their ability to understand it seems like the best way to determine their intelligence. I would hardly call it "remarkably arrogant". You have to consider the fact that humans have likely had spoken language for as long as we've had domesticated canines.
In the end I can't help but feel like over-sentimental and hyperbolic (would you say we've "underestimated the intelligence" of, say, jellyfish?) declarations like yours really set us up only for disappointment. Our dogs are great, and probably do actually love us, but they're not furry little geniuses held back only by their lack of proper speaking ability.
All that said, they're still way better than cats.
This is precisely why I believe almost all of these experiments are flawed.
You begin with the assumption (based on nothing other than a general feeling of human specialness) that "For all we know, dogs responses to human emotions, gestures, and nonverbal cues are a completely autonomic behavior". Considering that we discover all kinds of animals are smarter than we thought with each passing experiment, the burden of proof should lie with you. The limitations appear to be our experiments.
We do not start with this assumption when dealing with human beings. The safe assumption is that animals have their own desires, goals, ambitions, and purposes for existence. Since we have significant trouble understanding them or communicating with them (even though we know that within their own species they communicate perfectly well with each other), we might start from a less biased viewpoint.
As for jellyfish, I don't know. But I do know that we've approached it from the wrong angle. Asking how many words a jellyfish can respond to and then determining whether or not it is intelligent is a surefire way to create a lousy experiment.
BTW, Europeans used to do the same sorts of experiments with people from other countries and civilizations. They knew that white Anglo Saxons were the best and brightest so they looked for evidence to prove it. Africans clearly hadn't invented guns or the printing press so they determined that they had a lower level of intelligence. It's just as ridiculous a methodology when you're talking about studying animals.
Considering that if you take very young wolves and raise them as if they were dogs they fail to acquire anywhere near the understanding of human emotions, gestures, and non-verbal clues that dogs acquire, it seems pretty clear that there is something built-in to dogs at play here.
Keep in mind that humans have lived in a very close, symbiotic relation with dogs for a very long time. It's at least 20k years, with some indications the relationship could go back 100k years.
It may have even been the advantage dogs gave us that let us win out over rivals such as neanderthals.
I'm not at my computer so can't find the reference but there has been an ongoing experiment in Russia where they selectively bred Siberian foxes and after about 20 generations had a female that responded to her name and craved human attention. All her puppies (is that the right word for a fox?) exhibited the same behaviour and became more and more dog-like.
"We humans define intelligence in such limited terms."
More to the point, our understanding of intelligence was rudimentary until just a short time ago and is still developing.
We're like medieval mechanics, presented with an F-22. At first, things just seemed magic, and we couldn't even theorize how all of it worked. Now, we've started to develop some theories, and we can even make some toy examples that mimic certain aspects of functionality, but we're still far from being able to build even a crappy knockoff from scratch.
It is so interesting when you have a smart dog to see how they learn. My dog responds really well to hand commands compared to other dogs I have owned but voice commands usually only work so well except as a supplement.
There are a large amount of interesting things she responds to other than simple commands but I can't say she has a human type of intelligence or even close but there is definite problem solving ability (such as opening cabinet doors, the refrigerator, and even pushing the sliding glass door open by standing up on it and moving her paws).
I love dogs, I think my dog is super-smart, funny, and very sweet. I've heard her particular breed referred to as "the dog with the human brain" on some dog TV show before, and I'm sure she's not even as smart as a collie. That said, I can't help but feel like your comment is a bit... overwrought. Dogs clearly understand parts of human language and judging them by their ability to understand it seems like the best way to determine their intelligence. I would hardly call it "remarkably arrogant". You have to consider the fact that humans have likely had spoken language for as long as we've had domesticated canines.
In the end I can't help but feel like over-sentimental and hyperbolic (would you say we've "underestimated the intelligence" of, say, jellyfish?) declarations like yours really set us up only for disappointment. Our dogs are great, and probably do actually love us, but they're not furry little geniuses held back only by their lack of proper speaking ability.
All that said, they're still way better than cats.