Talk:Cat intelligence

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Lawelker, Kendracasey.

Yippie

Finnially! a cat intelligence article!

You should be able to contain your excitement, since it was you who wrote the article. I suppose the article has been missing, but remember when you write for Wikipedia to cite your sources, do not use original research, and write from a neutral point of view. The article is not quite up to those standards yet, but I'm sure we'll get it there. Haakon 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I only wanted to start a disscusion! :P

Some of the things here are so difficult to believe. I agree with what Haakon has said. Zephyr2k 23:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a work in progress! I want people to add things! :P

Yeah, I know it's a work in progress. Sorry if I offended you in any way. But really, that cat tricks section needs to be redone. ^_^ Zephyr2k 15:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit, I was a little harsh on the last message, and I will try to make it better by adding more on why a cat would do those things, and I haven't really mastered footnotes. Meep!

The language in this article is in dire need of a grammar check. There are a number of sentences which are tenuous at best, and at worst, incoherent. This article lacks the professional standards of most Wikipedia entries, and could do with a re-write.

I'm only 12! Also, I have loads to do! Since I know the most about Neopets of my friends, guess who everyone asks for help? I have other things on my agenda so if you think it needs to be improved feel free to research this and add more! The external links are good if you want to add stuff.

You shouldn't take the criticism personally. Wikipedians, including you, only want to produce the best articles possible. You gave us a good starting point for an article that was missing earlier, and I'm sure you'll participate in improving it over time, too. Haakon 08:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, I added an external link ("How Intelligent Are Cats?") that could be useful in fixing up this page a bit. Biagini 03:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It is good.

My space, her space

Cats are territorial; therefore I have trained my cat to stay on the tiled portion of my house and not go onto the carpet. It was really easy. Every time she started to walk on the carpet, I said "NO" in a firm voice. The most important thing was never to confuse her by letting her on the carpet occassionally. It is an all or nothing thing. She sometimes vomits or poops on the floor, so I really needed to have this rule. It has worked out great.

I also had a cat that would follow me everywhere. He was really my neighbor's cat, but he spent most of his free time at my house. If I made kissing noises, he would roll over; so as a trick, I would say "roll over," then make the kissing noise. Everyone thought I had trained the cat to understand me. Really the cat had trained me!:-)

I have a cat now who, I noticed, licks herself whenever I stroke her back in a certain way; so now I say "lick yourself, " stroke her, and everyone thinks I trained her.

My friends cat was a real scaredey cat who always ran home at the first sign of danger. Once some guy was walking down the street with his dog. I new the cat would run home, but he hadn't noticed the dog. Then when the man and dog were between the cat and the cat's home I yelled, "watch out, it's an attack cat. The cat noticed the dog and ran straight at them to get home. The poor guy almost messed his pants. Am I bad?

BmikeSci 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, you're just gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.67.224 (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever learned of manners? Slinging insults doesn't solve non-existent problems. Wikipedia is intended to be a very sophistacated site, and it's people like you that ruin it. </rant> :P Sorry, had to get my frustration out. Mumbles (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Brain Size

Should we delete the "Brain Size" section? After all, it's somewhat poorly written and there's no correlation between brain size and intelligence, so why should we have it?--Stratford15 05:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we should NOT delete 'Brain Size'! It's as scientific as some of the wierd stuff said in "Dog Intelligence" such as the towel stuff.

I also think we ought to leave the stuff on brain size in there. I just cleaned up the grammar, so that's not a problem, and anyway brain size stats are pretty standard when discussing the intelligence of any animal, regardless of the fact that the discussion tends to end with "but there's no proof of direct correlation between brain size and intelligence." And about that last thing: I think the inevitable caveat about a possible brain size-to-intelligence correlation has more to do with small intra-species variation than it does with much larger inter-species variation. In other words, if my brain is bigger than yours, that fact alone doesn't say much about how smart either of us humans might be--the variation just isn't that meaningful. But if your brain is normal-sized for a person and mine is the size of a cat's, well, wouldn't you say it's a pretty good bet that you're going to be a bit smarter than me? In other words, size does matter sometimes, but it always depends on the context of the discussion. (The question of whether the brain mass-to-body mass ratio is meaningful in this context is, however, way beyond my level of expertise.) Oh, and one last thing for everyone: PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS! All it takes is four tildes... Buck Mulligan 21:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad some one agreed with me! I spent awhile researching all the information for that part, Iwould be greatly offended if someone was to delete a section or vandalized it. Sorry if I tend not to sign. Sometimes I prefer to be anonymous. I hope you understand that. :) B katt 500 02:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought surface area was cm²... Stuart Morrow 21:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If you put it in squared, you get 82 cm squared. I did the squaring already so others don't have to. B katt 500 00:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the cortical area of the cat being 82 cm², but the figure for the human brain of 1350-1400 cm is the 'volume, not the cortical area (and thus should be cm³). The cortical area for the human brain is actually the better part of a square meter when fully unfolded (Kandel and Schwartz should have a more precise figure). So, I would strongly suggest someone double-check both numbers to check that they indeed are correct, as onje of them at least is obviously wrong.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Me Likie How Article Ees Turning Out

Yes, I LOVE how my bit of reasearch and knowledge is turning into a great article!B katt 500 02:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Cat vs. Dog

We need some info on cat intelligence vs. dog intelligence. - Peregrinefisher 20:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tool usage, brain surface area comparison, and tests. Will reasearch!B katt 500 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I decided to not. We do NOT need cats vs. dogs trash in this article. Go make a cats vs. dogs and a man vs woman articles if you must.B katt 500 00:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Citing References and sources

I will remove the 'This Article Does Not Cite Its References and Sources' box because no other article the same length has as many notes as this! How this NOT be classed as an article that has cited it's sources!B katt 500 23:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dog Intelligence

WHY IS THERE A LINK TO DOG INTELLIGENCE ON THE 'SEE ALSO' SECTION!!! CAT INTELLECT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DOGS!!! I will delete it.

Woah, woah, woah. Calm down, insanely fanatic cat lover. 67.186.131.2 (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cats often live in the presence of dogs as well as humans. Cats are obviously more like dogs than like humans. The ecological role of dogs is much like that of the big cats even with modest size.

Do cats learn from dogs?Pbrower2a (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article was a GA candidate, though I failed it for the following reasons- too short of lede, lack of sources, and overall looking pretty short. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two problems with two of the reasons it failed:

1. It DOES NOT lack sources!!! I do not know how it can lack sources!

2. There are no doubt many short articles that are still good articles!

B katt 500 02:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I added some more to the introduction about cat intelligence.B katt 500 02:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Catman breed needs to be removed

I believe the "catman" breed needs to be removed. Or am I missing something? Going to the "catman" disambiguation page shows no breed. InlovewithGod 19:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue why that was there. It wasn't classed, it was just there. B katt 500 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Polydactyl cats

It might be worth mentioning these cats as capable of more interesting tricks. Not so much because they are smarter but because they have "thumbs" which allows them to do more interesting and "intelligent" things.--72.140.175.249 17:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well I'll add that, but you could do that yourself! User:b katt 500

The relative intelligence of a normal DSH/DLH cat

How intelligent is your average moggie compaired to the pedigrees? I'd like to know and I'm sure people interested in this subject would be as well. Cheers. Patrick Bayer BSc 14:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Beacause there are so many mutt cats, and all of them have different roots, it is too hard to figure it out.69.226.52.95 03:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Himalayan Intelligence

I disagree on Animal Planet's intelligence ranking of the Himalayan breed. Himalayans are known to pretty damn smart (that's why Mr. Jinx in Meet the Parents was a Himalayan). I'd like to know what methods Animal Planet used to test the breeds... obediance is not a measure of intelligence! --Candy-Panda 09:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I KNOW obedience doesn't matter with intelligence! Thats why I have stuff about the brain! I don't know how they were ranked, but that is the rank of the Himalayan!B katt 500 03:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of cat intelligence...

I inserted a "citation needed" flag in the section on intelligence by breed because I couldn't find anything on Animal Planet's website to back up these rankings. It would be great if somebody (preferably the person who put the list there in the first place) could fill in a citation. Thanks. Buck Mulligan 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The list at the bottom of Animal Planet's cat breed directory has links to individual breeds, each of which has a list of character stats. I'd guess that's where our list is taken from, but as AP doesn't mention their testing criteria/method (or information source, if they got it from elsewhere), I don't know whether that means it should all be removed?

B katt 500 added the list, and will hopefully comment here :) --Quiddity 19:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's the page I found when I went looking for a proper citation. Now I see that somebody has gone through the names of a bunch of breeds and counted the little boxes in the space next to "intelligence"--just an oversight on my part. I also just found the page we need for the business about measuring intelligence in terms of "smarts," whatever that means, so I'll insert the necessary citations. I don't think there's really any need to remove the list, since Animal Planet is about as close to an authority on these things as one is likely to find, short of heading into the lab. Also, so long as we've got that caveat in the form of the quote from the cat trainer about intelligence being basically impossible to measure objectively, we ought to be fine. After all, it's not like measuring human intelligence is any less controversial! Thanks for getting me to take another look at the AP site, Quiddity. Buck Mulligan 20:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No prob, I went there looking a few weeks ago, but their site was even slower than it is today! Section looks much better now. Just "cat tricks" to cleanup next... --Quiddity 21:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's all taken care of. Buck Mulligan 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this section has caused any confusion. I haven't been on for a while. I do wonder how Animal Planet rated the cat's inteligence too. Perhaps they tested 100 cats of each breed and took the average, or maybe they just asked owners of each breed (which would be pretty biased), yet I do know that is how the results turned out.B katt 500 03:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed from GA nominee list

I removed this article from the GA nominee list because technically it was not nominated correctly (there was no GA nominee template on this page). Also I don't think a nomination was appropriate when you have an essay banner, and a citation requested template that have not been addressed in the cat tricks section. Finally, although I am not formally reviewing the article, I would say that the sources for the toilet training subsection of cat tricks, which are anecdotal accounts on web pages, don't meet the standard for reliable sources for an article on a scientific topic. I do think the brain size and learning sections are reasonable but the rest of the article is rather unencyclopedic for a GA nomination. The cat tricks section in particular would need a lot of work.Rusty Cashman 18:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments re: cat intelligence

Citations are needed for the following statements of "fact": 1. Cats are solitary predators, so they need to think more about how they catch their prey than pack animals, such as wolves. 2. Cats are less willing to please than dogs, therefore are more difficult to teach tricks.

Also need to delete entirely (as being non-factual, unless good citations can be provided): 1. Feline blinking section (conclusion is not based on facts presented, no citation). 2. Turning on water: in general cats lack the physical ability to turn modern taps, never mind adjust the temperature. They may take advantage of a tap left running. Citation needed for anything else. 4. Retrieving items: No logical link is provided between retrieval and Thorndike's boxes. One demonstrates persistence and a degree of ingenuity, the other memory and the capacity to learn. They are different concepts. As well, most of the examples of "intelligence" in this section are really no more than trial and error and the usual instinct of repeating behaviors that are rewarded. It is the premise behind most learning models. That cats have the capacity for basic learning does not reflect intelligence. The same goes for "Using the Toilet", "Opening Doors and Windows", and "Playing Fetch". Simple lure/shape - reward models as opposed to measures of intellect. Dev33 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the comment about solitary predators needing to think more. It is complete nonsense. For example, Digger Wasps are solitary predators, and studies have shown their behaviour to be completely mindless. Fricasso 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

While the phenotypic and philogenetic distance of this comparison may be an issue, I think there may be some evidence that mammal pack predators tend to be somewhat more intelligent, including felids, like lions vs tigers (despite of brain size in the opposite direction, in this case). The rationale is that the pack attack (more often against a herd) has more variables, it's often not just "brute force" against the prey.

Found an article mentioning Thorndike experment. Maybe some it has stuff in it to add to the Wikipedia Article?

http://messybeast.com/intelligence.htm , How Intelligent Are Cats? Copyright 2004-2014, Sarah Hartwell

Jan Burse (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Who cares about Animal Planet?

Why is there a whole paragraph going on and on about how Animal Planet is not a scientific investigation? I think that should be taken out or trimmed way down... 216.237.177.2 04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The Animal Planet rankings need some explanation or a link to their original list. It isn't clear what the categories mean. Fijagdh (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Animal Planet rankings belong in this article. There's no information on its methodology, and it doesn't appear very scientific at all. That something is "interesting" does not mean that it warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. If someone can find an actual reliable site that tries to measure some more quantifiable aspect of intelligence (ability to solve certain problems for instance) of cat breeds, that would serve much better. I'm willing to hear what others think before removing it though. W (talk) 11:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That section reads like a critique of Animal Planet, and not like an encyclopedia. I will see what I can do to improve it. E James (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on further inspection, why does this section exist at all? The text itself has a pretty good argument for removal: "... until there is a credible definition of what might be meant by cat intelligence and a way to measure it, any comment anyone will make about the subject is, at best, speculation." I am going to remove most of the content. I leave the decision about the section itself up for debate. E James (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The ability to identify eyes remarkable?

"Cats will respond to a human who purposefully closes and opens their eyes by reciprocating the action. This perhaps illustrates a remarkable aspect of cat intelligence that is rare in non-human animals; that they are able to identify and relate part of their own anatomy to the same structure on another species."

The ability to identify eyes and figure out what they are looking at is such an useful ability for both predators and prey that I have a hard time believing this is truly remarkable. Cat eyes or human eyes, they are still eyes. --Lakefall 22:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when a cat slowly blinks at you, it's giving you a kiss! (Same with people blinking at cats- the cat will react accordingly and may even "kiss" you back). I had remembered reading this somewhere (though I can't remember where) so I did a little looking around to be sure I had remembered correctly- you can find some examples here, here, and here. SnoLeopurrd 05:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that's conflict avoidance behaviour - the slow blink is a way of reducing the fundamental hostility of direct eye contact. Very few animals are likely to appreciate anything staring into their eyes. 194.74.62.195 (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Spatial recall

An anon has deleted this section twice. I can understand that the reference given [1] is unreliable, but it refers to a reliable source (which I cannot find a copy of online). I'm just leaving this note here for someone else to follow up on. --Quiddity 17:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Nutty dog people keep coming in with no sources that anything is not true. At least you have a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellwake (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Persistent memory

Note of interest: Stepping of the forelegs over obstacles establishes long-lasting memories in cats via Cats need to navigate an obstacle to remember it. To be added. --Quiddity 19:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There may be a wording problem that needs correction

"It can be conjectured that, while pressures to please another life form might be strong in a social animal, they are weak or non-existent in a predator"

But shouldn't that be 'solitary predator' and not simply "predator", because there are social predators out there who have higher social intelligence. eg. Lions.

I am not an expert on the subject so I will leave it to the experts to make the changes, if any need to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necromancer44 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

==2 Question marks==

"Cats' learning abilities are aided by their good memory, recalling certain information much longer than dogs - up to 16 hours"

This seems an odd claim to me, considering it is quite normal for cats that have been missing for weeks to know their way around their territory once they are returned, and head for their familiar food place to request food.

Inability to remember anything beyond 16 hours would be a fatal handicap in the wild, if it were real. Cats take months to learn to hunt, and retain the skill lifelong, even after being confined indoors for a month or more.

"Since they are not social animals,"

The phrasing is wide open to misinterpretation imho, as people will often interpret it as meaning cats aren't sociable, which is far from true, as any fan of cats will know. Tabby (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Paws and manipulation

"Cats' paws are not designed for manipulation,"

they seem to manipulate mice pretty skilfully. The difference is the lack of opposable thumb, the consequence of which is that cats do many tasks with their mouth that we would use our paws for. This really does not mean that paws aren't designed for manipulation, the possession of multiple toes is a big evolutionary step in manipulation ability, and claws improve manipulation ability further.

Some (polydactyl) cats do have thumbs, but they don't use them the way we do. I guess either they're not opposable or cats don't have the degree of muscle manipulability there to control them independantly. Tabby (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the only ways that cats spontaneously use their paws (outside of body movement and scratching) are to bat small objects from side-to-side or towards themselves, or to hold things down so they can get at them with their mouths. That's why researchers have found it almost impossible to train cats to push things outwards with their paws. AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, cats can push things outwards with their paws. (Though usually unintentionally) 67.186.131.2 (talk) 02:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What?

I have a half Russian Blue cat that grabs food out of the dish using his paws. 174.54.135.108 (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

People should at least look things up for themselves before freaking out. How about a video? See it with your own eyes and if one isnt enough please don't be lazy, there are a million ordinary cats doing this and other things on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA5TAWaGU_Y — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellwake (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Image:Cats reading.jpg

Image:Cats reading.jpg The image seems unnecessary, and seems to some point misleading, and could make it look like cats can actually read. Does the article really need an image of cats, people already know what cats look like , and the image isn't showing anything of importance to the article.Funkfrost (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? People might think cats can read English? It shows they have been trained to sit in an amusing position. Why was this image removed? IT SHOULD BE RESTORED ASAP Zoara2010 (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It might be imitative behavior. The question isn't whether cats can understand the nuances of human behavior; instead there is evidence that cats lack the sort of vision that allows humans to see detail on the scale of a printed word. No matter how smart a cat is it could never read a book. It might see things on a TV screen and respond, perhaps to motion, as I have seen in a cat who pawed at the televised image of a pitcher(baseball) on the screen from atop the console TV set. That could be a response to motion as one might expect from a predatory animal that attacks any small image that moves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbrower2a (talk • contribs) 12:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Article comments

This is a trite article. Starting at the top, the image for "cat intelligence" is "cats can groom each other" -- social grooming is not a top choice for an article on intelligence. Do we have a "cat solving <type of problem>" image, anywhere? The main discussion on cat intelligence is summed up as "cats can open doors, retrieve items from hard places, and defecate in places humans find acceptable".

Surely we have something more on this - actual problem solving, academic research information, and the like? Although "cat intelligence" is a very valid topic, as it stands the article is way too trite, at the moment.

Some thoughts.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

schroedinger's cat

I removed the "ambiguity" portion completely: Schroedinger's Cat has nothing to do with the cat's intelligence, it is a thought experiment. Any living animal (and a number of other objects) would have worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrschum (talk • contribs) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad Reference?

The sentence:

Interestingly, cat brains have been shown to be more similar to human brains than other domesticated animals.

references a page on Helium.com. Said page does make this claim, but offers no evidence to back it up, nor does the author, based on her bio, have any special experience in feline neurology, beyond owning cats. Not sure whether that should be tagged with a fact check or just removed. Da Next Pope (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence was an extension beyond what was stated in Helium.com, so the sentence was revised to restate just the information that was present in Helium.com. Obankston (talk) 05:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why should a reference to an opinion of a fiction writer be consider as research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.18.130 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I don't understand why people don't search for evidence to the contrary before complaining — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellwake (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Goddamn! It's simply the most stupid way to go about doing things! Anyone can simply make things up, or just quote things that random/famous non-specialists have asserted, with no scientific basis at all, and then it's someone else's burden to find scientific proof of the contrary? That got to be a joke. Wikipedia isn't a personal blog to fill up with nonsense.

Scientific Cat Intelligence Studies

There are some cat intelligence (and many other cat related studies) on this site:

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.searchResults&id=5D121F08-CECC-8A85-DCC9-DF1762DFE44B&facetSearchType=IndexTerms&term=Cats&facetAction=apply&dbTab=pa

Some of these would be useful to cite in wiki. That is a pay-per-paper site and only the title and abstract of each paper is displayed. Its limited information can be useful for locating the full text elsewhere on the web with no access restrictions.

Be warned that some of the papers are clearly the result of vivisection (intentional damage to a living animal being) experiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.144.216 (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pack Hunting

Purely anecdotal but I had 4 cats, a male, a mother and her 2 sons that used to use pack hunting skills to beat up the neighbour's cat. Everyone had their roles, including lead, point, backup, and the chicken of the bunch kept the rear. After the 2 sons passed on the male and female were observed by me on a few occasions using pack hunting techniques. On one occasion they walked up the neighbour's pathway in lockstep. The female went under the stairs where the neighbours cat was hiding while the other one laid in wait for her to flush the cat out. Once that was done he ambushed her as she ran from underneath the stairs. Their cue for a hunt was looking each other in the eyes. After that they seemed to know just what to do.

174.6.75.215 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

More likely you just observed a bunch of cats and ascribed non-existent roles to them based on coincidence or misinterpretation of their behaviour. 81.105.111.230 (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cat Intelligence

The article page should contain the heading, and the rest of the page should be completely blank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentetsu (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons with dogs

I think the comparisons with dogs should be removed. If people want a dog vs cat article, then this should be on its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.18.130 (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article relates not only to feline intelligence, but the various facets and definitions of what we term "intelligence". A comparison with canine learning serves to indicate the different behaviours we might term "intelligent", and perhaps the biological and evolutionary reasons behind those differences. If it is a matter of not letting people engage in idiotic cat vs dog preferences then diligent editing can be maintained. Ninahexan (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Cats and dogs are obviously related creatures with some similarities of behavior. Both are cunning, resourceful, agile, adaptable, voracious, strong, powerful, aggressive... killers. Small dogs can be very cat-like.

2. Because of their size, large dogs have the ecological role of big cats where there are no big cats.

3. If you are to make any cat-dog comparisons, then the cat most similar to large dogs is either a lion (if the dog is in a pack) or a tiger (if the dog acts singly). Dogs, like tigers, are good swimmers but poor tree-climbers. Unlike leopards or domestic cats they would never pounce upon prey from a perch. Pbrower2a (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tigers are most likely more significantly jumping on some prey from a tree (which they can climb, just happens to not be as useful, and more unlikely since trees are proportionally smaller and there isn't much to do there) than swimming. They're probably not much better swimmers than any other cat, only not as averse than some other cats, which are all able to swim. There is no simple big cat vs dog/wolf niche correspondence either. Sometimes there are both types of animals (like cougars and lynxes alongside wolves, foxes, coyotes), alongside with other animals outside this bogus cat-dog "dichotomy" (like bears, wolverines), and often there are even some degree niche separation even between "big" animals of the same "category", like leopards and lions (or more significantly, cheetahs), and the aforementioned wolf/coyote/fox trio. It doesn't make much sense to have only cat/dog comparisons, it should exist only more or less proportionally to actual scientific research, not be a focus of the article. I'd rather have this whole article deleted and have the best/referenced parts in a single "animal intelligence" article. Even crows don't have a full article on crow intelligence, and probably there's more scientific research done on that than on house cats or felids in general (compared to birds in general). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.219.27 (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"The Learning Cat" section

Christ that's a lot of citations on the first sentence. Isn't there some way of cleaning that up so it doesn't look so strange? 64.30.108.172 (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Comparison with humans!?

I've removed the line which read "Cat brains have been shown to be more similar to human brains than dog brains, and the part of the brain for emotions is the same in both cats and humans" as it simply isn't sourced to a peer reviewed scientific study or to anything that shows any signs of engagement with relevant scientific data, which seems crucial in the case of such a contentious claim. The link leads to an unreferenced throwaway statement on a blog. I'm pretty sure neurological studies of humans have yet to identify any one specific "part of the brain for emotions". The subsequent claims in this section seem odd too - I doubt human brains are any more similar to cat brains than one would expect from the distant evolutionary relationship between primates and felines and their shared mammalian heritage - so even if they can be referenced (which they currently are not) their inclusion seems to give a misleading impression. Jamrifis (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"See Also" Needs Fixing.

I question the logic of putting a link to "Psychoactive Drugs" under "See Also", as psychoactive drugs clearly have nothing to do with the intelligence of a cat. Furthermore, psychoactive drugs are never mentioned anywhere else in the article. Taurusrat (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How about the Richard the Lionheart and Henry the Lion links? Those seems super relevant. Removed. Tripnoted (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Really?

Cats are NOT intelligent. Whoever made this article is probably some obese lonely woman with toxoplasmosis that actually thinks cats have intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.130.221 (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No basis for statement. Opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.148.138 (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems not very good to me

I have never posted on wiki before, but perusing this article, isn't the final section "A civilized creature" at minimum just rubbish? Content, and for that matter style too. Why does this sort of thing deserve to be on wikipedia? Delete it...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.226.208 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the greatest wikipedia article I have ever stumbled upon

This is amazing. Never change. To 'improve' this article with 'facts' or 'grammar' would be to tear down a paradise to put up a parking lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.103.22 (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Horrible article

This is one of the worst articles I've seen in a long time. Everywhere is filled with off-topic synthesis and original research based on poor-quality sources. Seriously, what does the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale have to do with cat intelligence? What do wet brains have to do with cat intelligence? What does the Encephalization quotient or brain size have to do with cat intelligence? And that's just the first section!  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 03:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This article definitely needs some help. I tried to clean it up a little bit, but there's still a lot of work that needs to be done. Several sections could be merged or eliminated altogether and all of them need to be at least revised. The first two sections could definitely be merged and the "Revelations" section contains one sentence and it's full of weasel words; it should probably go. Also, the quotes at the beginning of some of the sections seem unnecessary and should be removed. —CaptainTickles (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It feels like just about every assertion should have "original research" tags/warnings. Apparently many people who wrote this article or parts of it don't even get much that they're doing it, I'd guess they think that finding articles and news that can be seen more or less as supportive of their analogies and ideas is already adequate "referencing" and not original research. That's the only way I imagine some parts would have so many "references", such as the "domestication effect" section. But when you look at it, the references are more like free-associations, supporting original "research".

Some corrections (the 1st attempt)

I did the followings:

• Cleaned up the article through some grammar corrections
• Corrected some syntax errors to maintain the uniformity of the text
• Rephrased some unclear and confusing statements, broke down some run-on sentences, made new paragraphs out of too-long paragraphs, and the like (there were many and there are some more left)
• Moved a few sections to better places, and moved a few paragraphs around to give the article a more rational flow
• Took care of the in-line citations (moved them to the Reference section; although some of them are not full-citations yet and still have to be completed)
• Asked for a few more citations where they are due
• Reorganized and corrected the layout
• Improved the titles and the subtitles

However, the article still needs a lot of work. I would give it another try in a few days.

Any constructive thoughts and feedback?

Eric (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

please update "facts" on memory

The memory information from the mid 1950s and late 1960s has all been supplanted by more recent research at the University of Michigan.

The cat cognition article has the following which is reliable summarization. Cut and past to follow... ^ a b c Thompson, Andrea. Live Science. 22 Feb 2010. Web. 24 March 2011.

Good luck. DNFTT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.148.138 (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Signed in..... The address above is mine

Definitely trying to be of assistance. Google scholar with the restriction of since 2008 should provide valid peer reviewed articles with up to date verifiable information that is not anecdotal. (I'd be glad to give that dating from the early 1950s as well.) feline works more efficiently than cat due to the imaging method producing hits that are not pertinent to your endeavor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IANJSB1965 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, since dogs are completely unrelated in genus, species, behavior... etc. (Dogs are pack animals. Cats are solitary hunters.... ocasional cooperation is not a pack.) there is really no basis for comparison that would outweigh the detritus submitted by pet fanciers with obvious preferences.... There were just too many comments of that nature for me to "tolerate" reading.

Once again. Good Luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IANJSB1965 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Artificial intelligence" Section

Granted this article would need a lot of work to improve. Would it not be a simple improvement to delete the whole of the "Artificial intelligence" Section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.114.55 (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The memory section sounds baseless

The newly created memory section is terrible and sounds bogus. The alleged "references" are totally insufficient if not completely nonsensical and useless. It needs rewriting with serious references.

Eric Bright (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mirror Test

Shouldn't the reaction of cats to the mirror test be discussed here?

Personally, I think the mirror test should be omitted. The test results can be inacurrate: just because a cat can recognize it's own reflection does not mean it will react to it's reflection in a way so as to suggest recognition, and just because it doesn't react doesn't mean it does not recognize itself. I see my own reflection almost every day without reacting to it almost every day, and in most cases, I don't even think about it: I see the mirror, I don't even notice it, yet I am self aware and I am capable of self recognition. I suggest you read the Mirror test article, particularly the Criticisms section. ~Piki (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The key thing to decide is whether there is actual scientific research of "mirror tests" done with cats. If there is, then it would be totally fine adding a brief summary of the conclusions (and even mention of potential problems with such conclusions and link to a deeper and more general "mirror test" article), not even necessarily (and more likely not) requiring a dedicated section to it. What can't be done is just to put some general information about "mirror tests" done with other animals, and then some about cats, referencing some observations reported in forums or e-mail lists of cat owners, cat-lover sites, sites of veterinarians, and things like that.

Random cat photos - why not LOLcats as well?

Why not put some "LOL cats" pictures too? It's not that much more random than it already is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.219.27 (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

sensory-motor intelligence

"Further research showed that the animal has an awareness of objects not directly available to sight, and also sensory-motor intelligence comparable with a two-year-old child.[55]"

seems misleading, the 2 year old child has the same level 6 intelligence as adult humans. IOW cat intelligence equals human on this point. 86.10.62.169 (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Cats can be misleading. 2606:6000:610A:9000:5DA0:7E4:1677:8A5A (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

University of Guelph - Pet Nutrition Wikipedia Assignment - Cat Cognition Research

Hello Everyone,

My group and I have been studying cat cognition in our 3rd year university level course in Pet Nutrition. We will be rearranging the page and adding our thoroughly researched topic on cat nutrition and the effects on brain cognition. Please let us know if you have any suggestions, we are not deleting anything, just fitting in our topic.

Thanks so much,

Kendracasey (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)Kendra & Team University of Guelph

Kendracasey, please note that each member of "your team" will need to create an account if they plan on editing Wikipedia - there is no sharing of accounts. Primefac (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

All that new stuff

Kendracasey, I'll be honest, I'm a bit concerned about the content that you're adding to this article. Now, I'm not particularly fussed with the content itself, as it seems to be well-sourced and reasonably well-written, but more about the fact that most of it has almost nothing to do with "cat intelligence" itself. You've added almost 20k of information to the page, and quite honestly I think that's probably enough for its own article. For example, the sentence Natural sources of Vitamin E are primarily plant based and therefore cat diets with high amounts of raw protein, such as fish, need to be supplemented with Vitamin E has zero to do with cat intelligence.

I think the best thing going forward would be to create a page about cognitive support diets for cats, because what you're adding is only very tangentially related to the article subject. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your opinions- I didn't realize we had a cat intelligence expert on board. We are moving to a new article, just because we've decided that this page is not scientific (cat nightmares???) and lessens our information. We added to this page since there was already a cat diet and brain section. But thanks again for your HONEST input, I truly hope your concerns have been put to rest. I'm sure we'll hear from you again, since you're now so keen on editing cat related pages, apparently. Kendracasey (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Sarcasm is hard to tell on the internet, but I'm feeling generous so I'll read into that without the sarcasm. Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Short Term memory

The claim that 'cats' short-term memory lasted about 16 hours' isn't cited to an actual study, it's cited to an article that mentions a study saying that cat's short term memory lasts 16 hours, but doesn't actually link to the study or provide any details about it. I wasn't able to find this study on my own either, and I think that someone just made that figure up.

Silly "Learning capacity" section

The quality of research on domestic cat behavior and nature is in general pretty bad. The offhand claim that "... whereas this capacity [observational learning] is wholly absent in the domesticated cat ..." - cited here from two pretty crummy sources, the second of which doesn't even address the subject - is a laughable one for anyone with even a casual interaction with domestic cats:

http://i.imgur.com/YZeNPxa.gif

Rt3368 (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)