As a guy who isn't particularly good looking and never smoked, many things have blown me away since adopting a dog in my early thirties a couple of years back.
Besides the obvious things such as exercising (I do forest runs)/ walking more regularly and often, a dog has had a calming and stress reducing effect on me I'd never have imagined possible.
I have ADHD and besides the impulsivity that comes with it, it was untreated until after I adopted my dog. Even prior to diagnosis, having a mammal besides you that you cannot talk to, but that is very reactive to your emotions has calmed me down significantly.
I experienced I can only interact calmly and trusting with my dog if I am, in fact, doing so being calm and trusting myself.
Also, dogs are amazing at executive functioning. They don't fret past mistakes, they try again. Seeing it physically in front of you every other day puts me in a different mental spot. Can't be depressed if I see it's possible.
And last but not least, I've never had so many positive random interactions with strangers ever in my entire adult life.
Both me approaching others when my dog is with me or being approached.
People just don't read you as a creep or threat if you present yourself as being able to interact well with a dog.
I have had fish and ants before, the mental and social effects don't ever compare.
Highly recommend adopting a dog if you're so inclined.
>I've never had so many positive random interactions with strangers ever in my entire adult life.
>Both me approaching others when my dog is with me or being approached.
That's great. But to others considering a dog... be aware that the opposite can be true also.
My dog is not friendly to strangers, so we have to take extra steps to avoid contact with them when we go out. I love the dog, but I feel like I'm missing out on random interactions with my community that used to happen on occasion.
My dog is really friendly but incredibly needy, and he hassles all of my guests endlessly or cries in his crate, so he makes having company stressful for me.
But for the purpose of say me wanting my dog to show a certain behavior or perform an action.
I can’t explain it in human terms.
Talking works if I have previously taught my dog my desired outcome in ways the dog understands.
So in order to be able to speak, you first need to learn how to think like a dog and break a certain outcome down into intermediate smaller learning steps.
It’s kinda similar to programming, but in the context of bringing emotions into the mix (how do I teach calmly, and handle when my dog cannot immediately follow my instructions), it has made me incredibly more empathic.
I've found having a regular conversation at your dog, or explaining some philosophical or technical concept to them, or reading to your dog, or composing a simple song about them and singing to them, very rewarding.
This is a textbook example of how not to label and caption figures within a scientific publication.
The caption for each figure should completely describe the information being shown. In this case, they have a Time axis with numbers but no indication of what units of time are being represented, or what is meant by time '0'.
The graphs are, in fact, utter BS. They don't really match the method described in the "analytical approach" section particularly well.
The real conclusions are in Table 2. "Pet ownership" is barely "statistically significant" (yeah, I know...) there. Tables 3, 4, and 5 should be similar but as a whole things are kind of all over the place.
Nothing inherently, but the problem is that it can be misleading.
Let’s make an arbitrary example. Say a study is designed to measure the difference in lifespan between group A (water drinkers) and group B (coffee drinkers). Imagine there is a true difference in lifespan (say, 87.8yr vs 87.9yr) and the study is powered to observe a statistical difference.
Now imagine plotting the average lifespans between the two groups.
If the scale starts at 0 and ends at 100, the difference would be imperceptible.
But if the scale is shown on a range of 87.6-88.0yr, with breaks of 0.05yr, the difference between the groups would appear quite large. This Y axis scale is shifting your frame of reference to potentially think the difference is bigger than it actually is.
Maybe that 0.1yr is meaningful for some contexts or opinions, but maybe it’s not. This is why reading the units on an axis is very important: so we’re not mislead by the visual difference between two group values.
Isn't it hard to conclude that this is causal? How do we know we're not just seeing that the set of people who elect to take on the responsibility of walking, feeding, and socializing with a dog are likely to see a slower cognitive decline? That they take on dog ownership because they're sharp and capable -- not the other way round.
Intuitively, I do believe that being forced to walk a dog every day when you might not have otherwise exercised, will come with health benefits. And it does not seem implausible for their findings to be true. But did they actually prove anything here?
I don't see why bird ownership wasn't similar to cat.. Would mammal be important or would there be a hidden variable in being able to house a dog or cat as one sometimes needs less permissions for smaller animals in rental agreements, etc..
That they didn’t break down the bird owners between parrots and canaries/finches was a major oversight - while some canary/finch owners do let their birds out and handle them, parrots (even budgies) tend to interact far more with human keepers than finches and canaries do.
Some parrots are out of their cage all the time and interact quite well with the family, like potty-trained 3-d dogs.
It is harder to take them outside for a walk though (although there are bird leashes). This sort of limits the outdoor social interaction that dogs confer.
and yes, some smaller birds are treated more like fish that a member of the family.
The difference may lie in how as mammals, living with a dog or especially a cat is more similar to living with another person. Intelligent birds require a lot of interaction which is good for reducing mental decline, but the relationship is different — most birds spend a substantial amount of time in a cage and generally need to be controlled more, whereas cats and dogs usually freely roam about the house with a few areas that are off-limits.
With dog you have to walk outside even if you have a garden, a dog needs a daily walk a bit further around.
Cat doesn’t need a walk, well it requires play time but I would say walking around the block should do more for person health than playing around with cat in-house.
Well, there’s a physical aspect and socio-mental aspect. A dog probably would be better for the former, but cats aren’t as straightforward as dogs to please or understand and require increased ability to put onself in another’s shoes and view things from their standpoint. Cats are a lot like little furry people in terms of socialization.
I ask because people are often surprised at how social cats are. Sure, some are extroverts and just love everyone like any golden retriever would. But most cats will want to be in the same room if you even if they aren't cuddly (all the time). They greet you at the door and like to play with you. They're just introverted and need time to warm up
Our 15 year old part Maine Coon that passed away last year was a massive extrovert. He would sit on our front porch waiting for strangers to walk by just so he could run out and flop down on the sidewalk for belly pets. I used to tell him he was going to get kicked out of the Cat Union for doing it.
Sure, but have you ever seen a pet parrot with the person it bonded to?
I've had cats that were affectionate and cats that came to the house only for food.
The overall problem with this study is that it does nothing to try to categorize the relationship to the pets or eliminate the correlation problems like almost no one has an outdoor cat in an urban environment or any cat in an urban studio apartment.
I'm not arguing that the bird category shouldn't have been broken down but that wasn't what your comment was about. It was about general bird ownership.
I agree, a parrot is not an average bird and I'd wager would be beneficial in similar ways
But I disagree, a cat is not like an average bird.
These are two wildly different conversations. Not to mention that people frequently believe cats aren't social. So I'm not sure how you would expect me to interpret your comment as "parrot, not average bird"
One of our cats fit that description to an exaggerated amount. She didn’t like cuddling or pets, but she’d follow us around the house and just curl up next to us.
I wonder if it's really just a function of how much work is involved in taking care of pets. I have had pet turtles and cats for years. Cats easily require 10x the amount of work to keep them happy and healthy.
I suspect this result has as much to do with the exercise as the mental stimulation. Physical activity is one of the best things for the body (including the brain) and older people who have to take care of a dog or cat have to move more than those who don’t.
wanna see one which controls for variables like hobbies and social activity/participation. i don't think "living alone" or "with others" means anything significant regarding the cognitive benefit of socializing often. bunch of married people without friends free-falling at the (passive) television world or Zurg's Meta short-span videos
As a guy who isn't particularly good looking and never smoked, many things have blown me away since adopting a dog in my early thirties a couple of years back.
Besides the obvious things such as exercising (I do forest runs)/ walking more regularly and often, a dog has had a calming and stress reducing effect on me I'd never have imagined possible.
I have ADHD and besides the impulsivity that comes with it, it was untreated until after I adopted my dog. Even prior to diagnosis, having a mammal besides you that you cannot talk to, but that is very reactive to your emotions has calmed me down significantly.
I experienced I can only interact calmly and trusting with my dog if I am, in fact, doing so being calm and trusting myself.
Also, dogs are amazing at executive functioning. They don't fret past mistakes, they try again. Seeing it physically in front of you every other day puts me in a different mental spot. Can't be depressed if I see it's possible.
And last but not least, I've never had so many positive random interactions with strangers ever in my entire adult life.
Both me approaching others when my dog is with me or being approached.
People just don't read you as a creep or threat if you present yourself as being able to interact well with a dog.
I have had fish and ants before, the mental and social effects don't ever compare.
Highly recommend adopting a dog if you're so inclined.
It's awesome.
>I've never had so many positive random interactions with strangers ever in my entire adult life.
>Both me approaching others when my dog is with me or being approached.
That's great. But to others considering a dog... be aware that the opposite can be true also.
My dog is not friendly to strangers, so we have to take extra steps to avoid contact with them when we go out. I love the dog, but I feel like I'm missing out on random interactions with my community that used to happen on occasion.
My dog is really friendly but incredibly needy, and he hassles all of my guests endlessly or cries in his crate, so he makes having company stressful for me.
Sounds like your dog needs “therapy”, dog whisperer style.
Best endorsement for adopting a dog that I've seen
> having a mammal besides you that you cannot talk to
You don’t talk to your dog?
I’m sure he does but his dog can’t hold a conversation with him. Shoulda got a husky.
I do, of course.
But for the purpose of say me wanting my dog to show a certain behavior or perform an action.
I can’t explain it in human terms.
Talking works if I have previously taught my dog my desired outcome in ways the dog understands.
So in order to be able to speak, you first need to learn how to think like a dog and break a certain outcome down into intermediate smaller learning steps.
It’s kinda similar to programming, but in the context of bringing emotions into the mix (how do I teach calmly, and handle when my dog cannot immediately follow my instructions), it has made me incredibly more empathic.
I've found having a regular conversation at your dog, or explaining some philosophical or technical concept to them, or reading to your dog, or composing a simple song about them and singing to them, very rewarding.
This is a textbook example of how not to label and caption figures within a scientific publication.
The caption for each figure should completely describe the information being shown. In this case, they have a Time axis with numbers but no indication of what units of time are being represented, or what is meant by time '0'.
The graphs are, in fact, utter BS. They don't really match the method described in the "analytical approach" section particularly well.
The real conclusions are in Table 2. "Pet ownership" is barely "statistically significant" (yeah, I know...) there. Tables 3, 4, and 5 should be similar but as a whole things are kind of all over the place.
It's not a strong paper.
Let's not forget the Y axes not starting at 0!
What’s wrong with that?
Nothing inherently, but the problem is that it can be misleading.
Let’s make an arbitrary example. Say a study is designed to measure the difference in lifespan between group A (water drinkers) and group B (coffee drinkers). Imagine there is a true difference in lifespan (say, 87.8yr vs 87.9yr) and the study is powered to observe a statistical difference.
Now imagine plotting the average lifespans between the two groups.
If the scale starts at 0 and ends at 100, the difference would be imperceptible.
But if the scale is shown on a range of 87.6-88.0yr, with breaks of 0.05yr, the difference between the groups would appear quite large. This Y axis scale is shifting your frame of reference to potentially think the difference is bigger than it actually is.
Maybe that 0.1yr is meaningful for some contexts or opinions, but maybe it’s not. This is why reading the units on an axis is very important: so we’re not mislead by the visual difference between two group values.
are you those smart geeks who check for images and read a paragraph of the conclusion?
because i think the graph makes complete sense by checking the methodology... which i'll save your time: 18 years and ~ 16,000 participants
Isn't it hard to conclude that this is causal? How do we know we're not just seeing that the set of people who elect to take on the responsibility of walking, feeding, and socializing with a dog are likely to see a slower cognitive decline? That they take on dog ownership because they're sharp and capable -- not the other way round.
Intuitively, I do believe that being forced to walk a dog every day when you might not have otherwise exercised, will come with health benefits. And it does not seem implausible for their findings to be true. But did they actually prove anything here?
> Dog and cat ownership was associated with slower cognitive decline compared to no pet ownership; bird and fish ownership showed no such association.
I don't see why bird ownership wasn't similar to cat.. Would mammal be important or would there be a hidden variable in being able to house a dog or cat as one sometimes needs less permissions for smaller animals in rental agreements, etc..
Survivorship bias: Cat owners with stronger cognitive skills are more likely to notice and evade their cats’ murder attempts.
That they didn’t break down the bird owners between parrots and canaries/finches was a major oversight - while some canary/finch owners do let their birds out and handle them, parrots (even budgies) tend to interact far more with human keepers than finches and canaries do.
Some parrots are out of their cage all the time and interact quite well with the family, like potty-trained 3-d dogs.
It is harder to take them outside for a walk though (although there are bird leashes). This sort of limits the outdoor social interaction that dogs confer.
and yes, some smaller birds are treated more like fish that a member of the family.
The difference may lie in how as mammals, living with a dog or especially a cat is more similar to living with another person. Intelligent birds require a lot of interaction which is good for reducing mental decline, but the relationship is different — most birds spend a substantial amount of time in a cage and generally need to be controlled more, whereas cats and dogs usually freely roam about the house with a few areas that are off-limits.
I would wonder about dog vs other animals.
With dog you have to walk outside even if you have a garden, a dog needs a daily walk a bit further around.
Cat doesn’t need a walk, well it requires play time but I would say walking around the block should do more for person health than playing around with cat in-house.
Well, there’s a physical aspect and socio-mental aspect. A dog probably would be better for the former, but cats aren’t as straightforward as dogs to please or understand and require increased ability to put onself in another’s shoes and view things from their standpoint. Cats are a lot like little furry people in terms of socialization.
I wonder if owning both a dog and a cat scales linearly, or if the combo is synergistic.
Have you ever had a cat?
I ask because people are often surprised at how social cats are. Sure, some are extroverts and just love everyone like any golden retriever would. But most cats will want to be in the same room if you even if they aren't cuddly (all the time). They greet you at the door and like to play with you. They're just introverted and need time to warm up
Our 15 year old part Maine Coon that passed away last year was a massive extrovert. He would sit on our front porch waiting for strangers to walk by just so he could run out and flop down on the sidewalk for belly pets. I used to tell him he was going to get kicked out of the Cat Union for doing it.
Sure, but have you ever seen a pet parrot with the person it bonded to?
I've had cats that were affectionate and cats that came to the house only for food.
The overall problem with this study is that it does nothing to try to categorize the relationship to the pets or eliminate the correlation problems like almost no one has an outdoor cat in an urban environment or any cat in an urban studio apartment.
I'm not arguing that the bird category shouldn't have been broken down but that wasn't what your comment was about. It was about general bird ownership.
I agree, a parrot is not an average bird and I'd wager would be beneficial in similar ways
But I disagree, a cat is not like an average bird.
These are two wildly different conversations. Not to mention that people frequently believe cats aren't social. So I'm not sure how you would expect me to interpret your comment as "parrot, not average bird"
One of our cats fit that description to an exaggerated amount. She didn’t like cuddling or pets, but she’d follow us around the house and just curl up next to us.
I wonder if it's really just a function of how much work is involved in taking care of pets. I have had pet turtles and cats for years. Cats easily require 10x the amount of work to keep them happy and healthy.
would be interesting to see rabbits included as well, it's a social mammal and does well in rentals
I suspect this result has as much to do with the exercise as the mental stimulation. Physical activity is one of the best things for the body (including the brain) and older people who have to take care of a dog or cat have to move more than those who don’t.
wanna see one which controls for variables like hobbies and social activity/participation. i don't think "living alone" or "with others" means anything significant regarding the cognitive benefit of socializing often. bunch of married people without friends free-falling at the (passive) television world or Zurg's Meta short-span videos
Interesting. So, what is the impact on the cognitive functioning of elderly people who regularly take care of their grandchildren?
[dead]
[dead]