Verified by 
Oversimplified explanations of what makes dogs tick don't work
Very often I wind up talking about "all things dog" with people who know what I do and with many who don't. These conversations are incredibly useful and often very rich, as so many people are solid "citizen scientists" when it comes to talking about what dogs do, think, and feel, and why. In Canine Confidential: Why Dogs Do What They Do and in numerous Psychology Today and other essays, I include their stories when I write about the results of scientific research or when I make suggestions for different sorts of studies that are sorely needed to answer a wide variety of questions. Jessica Pierce and I also write about what we've learned from citizen scientists in Unleashing Your Dog: A Field Guide to Giving Your Canine Companion the Best Life Possible.
I get very frustrated when I read or hear sweeping generalizations that suggest something like, "This is how all dogs behave in the same contexts or this is how they think or feel," as if the behavior, thoughts, or feelings of all, or even most dogs, can be explained by these broad statements. I also get numerous emails from people who also are frustrated by sweeping generalizations, because their dogs don't fit into some sort of normalized canine mold. Some people are alarmed because they feel their dog isn't doing what dogs are supposed to do, and there's something wrong either with their dog, with them, or with the relationship they have with their canine companion. I assure them that these generalizations often are false and explain why this is so. The bottom line can be simply stated as follows: There is no universal dog--no "the dog"--so these sorts of normative generalizations simply do not reflect who dogs truly are.
This is so even if we limit our sample to "homed Western dogs" with whom many people are most familiar and who also are used in a wide variety of studies. They're only a tiny fraction of the global population of dogs, estimated to around 900 million. It's also been estimated that around 85% of dogs are free-ranging individuals, some of whom have some human assistance and others who have none. So, suggesting that all, or even most dogs, behave, think, or feel in a certain universal way in the same or in similar situations is extremely misleading and is based on a minute fraction of dogs on our planet. It's a fact that the word "dogs" can be extremely misleading when it's used to refer to an incredibly diverse group of mammals we call Canis lupus familiaris.
Why do myths about dogs become memes?
Recently, while Jessica Pierce and I were outlining a chapter for a book we're writing, she made the comment about how interesting it is that myths about dogs become memes. I had never thought of it this way, and realized that this was an incredibly good way to summarize how so-called facts spread widely and uncritically among people who are interested in the behavior and cognitive and emotional life of "the dog," who really doesn't exist. Simply put, a meme "is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture—often with the aim of conveying a particular phenomenon, theme, or meaning represented by the meme." Memes can also cross cultures.
What are some myths about dogs that have become memes? Among those that are far too often repeated as if they're facts, rather than beliefs, are: They realize that multi-tasking doesn’t work, they don’t have polarizing, relationship-busting beliefs, they practice self-regulation, they focus on the present, and they express themselves freely. (For further discussion of these myths see "Dogs Live in the Present and Other Harmful Myths.") Other myths that have taken on meme status among some people include: Dogs don't exhibit dominance (they do); dogs don't feel guilt (we don't know if they do, so it's best to keep the door open to this highly likely possibility); dogs love us unconditionally (they don't); dogs are our best friends (they're not); all dogs need is a soft bed and food in a bowl (they need much more); you shouldn't hug a dog (it's okay to hug dog on their terms and it's clear they enjoy it); there's a being called "the dog" (there's not); play fighting usually or always escalates into serious fighting (it's extremely rare); dogs don't have a theory of mind (evidence suggests otherwise); dogs shouldn't sleep in bedrooms or beds (it depends on the specific situation); it's not a good idea to "get down and dirty" with your dog (it's perfectly okay if your dog enjoys it); and dogs shouldn't eat "people" food (there's no reason why they can't eat many people foods). (For further discussion see "6 Facts About How Dogs Think" and "Let's Give Dogs a Break by Distinguishing Myths From Facts.") Some other myths about which I frequently read include: Dogs always circle before they lie down (they don't); dogs don't have a sense of time (we really don't know much about how they track time); dogs don't have a sense of self (research suggests they do and it depends on the definitions and methods of study that are used); and peeing is always marking (it's not).
Two problems for many of these disturbing and pervasive myths are that no references to research are provided when these claims are put forth, and some are patently false given what we know from detailed research. While I also value citizen science, people need to be very clear about the source for what they're writing or saying. Often, they're generalizing from their own dog or others with whom they're familiar. This is a limited sample, as noted above.
Another problem, as I mentioned above, is that talking about "the dog" is very misleading because of the enormous amount of individual variation in behavior and personality even among littermates and other siblings. I've written a good deal about significant within species variation among dogs, and a few weeks ago someone told me at a local dog park that he recently rescued two littermates when they were around 8 weeks old, and already by that age there were, as he put it, "huge black and white differences between them." I've seen significant differences among wild coyotes when they first emerge from their dens at around three weeks of age.
In addition to the fact that a wide variety of popular films, books, and newspaper and magazine articles perpetuate myths about dogs, I wanted to know more about why so many myths about dogs become memes or semi-memes, so I asked some people around town. There was a wide variety of answers, but many centered on a few common themes. These included: We want dogs to be who we think they are; it makes us feel good to believe that we know a lot about our canine friends; we want to believe dogs will love us no matter what we do because it makes us feel good and makes it easier to live with them; if we think dogs love us unconditionally we can continue living as if they're an add-ons whose interests come second; and too many people believe just about everything they read or see in popular media.
I couldn't get a good read on why so many people, including writers and filmmakers, continue to claim that dogs are our best friends, other than we get uncritically bombarded by this meme in a wide variety of ways so, as someone said, "We assume it must be true." In an essay called "Are Dogs Really Our Best Friends?" I note a few of these misleading headlines and stress that this myth and others aren't good for dogs or for humans. They create false expectations about who dogs truly are and what we should expect from them when we choose to bring them into our lives.
Where to from here?
We owe it to dogs to learn more about them as individuals and the various and unique relationships they form with other dogs and with humans. We need to better understand their perspective, how they sense their world, and what they want and need from us. As we accumulate this knowledge, it will surely help us appreciate that there likely are very good reasons why not all humans consider dogs to be their best friends and why not all dogs are unconditional lovers. Individual differences clearly matter very much, so many explanations and interpretations of dog behavior and feelings that might work for some dogs do not work for many others.
Myths, metaphors, and memes about who dogs are short-change them. As we learn more about dog-human relationships and dog behavior, there will be many valuable lessons about how to form and maintain the closest and best possible reciprocal social bonds given who the individual dog is and who the humans with whom they interact are. When we understand and appreciate the nitty-gritty details and nuances in behavior and patterns of social interaction, it'll will be a win-win for all.
All day long I thought about my friend's question, "Why do people make up myths and other stuff about dogs?" I'm still not sure what he meant by "other stuff," and the next time I see him I'll ask him. But, for now, his question came just at the right time, soon after Jessica Pierce asked why so many myths about dogs become memes. We still really don't know, but it's clear they do. One reason might simply be that's it's easier to write or talk about dogs in general than to write or talk about specific individuals. Nonetheless, it's far more accurate to temper broad claims about "dogs" by noting that these claims are based on a small number of dogs and we need to keep in mind that exceptions--wide ranging individual differences--surely exist. As a researcher, I find myself at least equally, if not more, interested in individuals who don't follow trends, statistically significant or not. They're not noise in the system but rather very worthy of further study.
A few take-home messages are very clear. These include: It's essential to become fluent in dog, or dog literate; when we think we know everything there is to know about dogs, we're clearly wrong; sweeping species-wide generalizations about why dogs do something, think something, or feel something have little merit, because there's no universal dog; we really don't know why myths become memes; and far too many discussions of "the dog" refer to only a tiny fraction of dogs who live on our planet.
Stay tuned for more discussions about why people make up myths about dogs and what we're learning from all sorts of research in canine science. We also need to pay close attention to reliable citizen science. While we know quite a lot about dogs, there's still a lot to learn, and keeping an open mind is important if we're to gain a fuller understanding of, and deeper appreciation for, these amazing sentient beings. And, while you're enjoying learning about your dog, keep in mind that they really aren't good go-to animals for how we should live. If you think and behave like a dog, you might find yourself in a lot of trouble.
It's a very exciting time to study and to learn more about dogs and what makes them tick. I look forward to sharing this information as it becomes available. In the meanwhile, cherish and love your dog for who they are, and don't worry if they don't fit into a hypothetical or widely held stereotypical and oversimplified image of who they're supposed to be, how they're supposed to behave, or how you're supposed to interact with them. Respect their individuality, appreciate the large amount of diversity among these wonderful beings, and give them all they need and then some. They depend on us to give them the very best lives possible.
