How Smart is Your Viewer?
Jun. 25th, 2004 07:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
iainjclarkThe document contains no data? Of course the document contains data, you stupid bloody...THERE’S the data. It’s right there. Gah!
Where was I? Oh yes.
I was watching How Smart Is Your Pet, or something similar on BBC1 the other week. (I know, I know, it’s my own fault. It was a Saturday evening, so I should have known the TV would be pitched at a level that colobus monkeys would find vaguely patronising.)
Anyway, they did a feature with an “amazing” intelligent dog which could fetch whichever large foam-rubber letter its owner asked for, simply based on a word command. It was as if the dog could tell one letter from another. The TV presenters fawned admiringly, including the lovely Kate Humble who really should know better.
What no-one seemed to realise was that the dog was clearly taking very simple cues from its owner, just like the famous case of the horse that could allegedly do sums by stamping the result with its hoof.
The dog’s owner made encouraging “Find the letter ‘C’, find the ‘C’, no, the ‘C’, find the ‘C’” noises. The dog snuffled from one letter to another. Then, as soon as the dog (by random chance) happened upon the letter ‘C’ the owner immediately changed to shouting “Good dog, there’s a good dog.” The dog, realising its task was complete, happily trotted back with the letter. Very simple. Very obvious. Requiring nothing more than basic fetching skills from the dog. Sheep dogs manage far more complex tasks.
I don’t know why I’m ranting about this, except that shouldn’t a programme that professes to be some kind of survey on the intelligence of animals have even the vaguest smattering of scientific method and skepticism about it?
Apparently not.
Maybe it was all some fiendish experiment to test my willingness to sit through utter drivel. If so, I think I failed. No doubt the colobus monkeys were all watching the Discovery Channel.
Where was I? Oh yes.
I was watching How Smart Is Your Pet, or something similar on BBC1 the other week. (I know, I know, it’s my own fault. It was a Saturday evening, so I should have known the TV would be pitched at a level that colobus monkeys would find vaguely patronising.)
Anyway, they did a feature with an “amazing” intelligent dog which could fetch whichever large foam-rubber letter its owner asked for, simply based on a word command. It was as if the dog could tell one letter from another. The TV presenters fawned admiringly, including the lovely Kate Humble who really should know better.
What no-one seemed to realise was that the dog was clearly taking very simple cues from its owner, just like the famous case of the horse that could allegedly do sums by stamping the result with its hoof.
The dog’s owner made encouraging “Find the letter ‘C’, find the ‘C’, no, the ‘C’, find the ‘C’” noises. The dog snuffled from one letter to another. Then, as soon as the dog (by random chance) happened upon the letter ‘C’ the owner immediately changed to shouting “Good dog, there’s a good dog.” The dog, realising its task was complete, happily trotted back with the letter. Very simple. Very obvious. Requiring nothing more than basic fetching skills from the dog. Sheep dogs manage far more complex tasks.
I don’t know why I’m ranting about this, except that shouldn’t a programme that professes to be some kind of survey on the intelligence of animals have even the vaguest smattering of scientific method and skepticism about it?
Apparently not.
Maybe it was all some fiendish experiment to test my willingness to sit through utter drivel. If so, I think I failed. No doubt the colobus monkeys were all watching the Discovery Channel.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-25 12:41 pm (UTC)Tsk.
Just the title itself put me off ever watching it.
Saturday television is not of the good, most often. However, I think even the Beeb has a hard time getting
downup to Sky's standards. *g*no subject
Date: 2004-06-26 05:23 am (UTC)And there was your first mistake...
The TV presenters fawned admiringly, including the lovely Kate Humble who really should know better.
You'd think so - but it seems to be the state of BBC "science" programming. A few (well alright twenty) years ago, this kind of thing was "entertainment" (remember "That's Life" with "talking" dogs, and counting horses). That's fine, I've no problem with that. But packaging the show in quasi-scientific wrapper - is all wrong. :-(
I don't know why I'm ranting about this, except that shouldn't a programme that professes to be some kind of survey on the intelligence of animals have even the vaguest smattering of scientific method and skepticism about it?
Don't be ridiculous. We don't want to confuse the viewers with anything as complex as "facts". Besides it would get in the way of showing us cute puppies, kittens, and other random fluffy animals... :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-06-26 06:34 am (UTC)Ah yes! :-)
This kind of "national debate" programming seems to have really taken off recently. I find it less offensive than reality TV, largely because some of the programmes have actually served to educate. The Big Read and Great Briton ones, for example, have almost certainly increased the literacy and general knowledge of the populace, however fractionally. (Depressing how low some of the scientists came in the Great Britons thing, though.)
On the other hand, Ann Robinson should be ashamed of herself for claiming that her 'pop culture awareness' quiz relates in any way to IQ.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-26 08:30 am (UTC)Yes, indeed. It's no substitute for real programming (either in History, the Sciences or the Arts), but it's certainly much better than "reality" programming. I agree completely about the ranking of scientists in "Great Britons" poll, BTW.