Self actualization 😆

[u/tokiobest]

Dogs realizing what they look like is probably one of the funniest things out there 😂

[u/ZePample]

They dont. No dogs successfully pass the miror test in controlled condition and the reason is simple : dogs barely see. Dogs first interract with the world trough smell.

They have been tested through smell and some of them seem to have passed but there is no scientific consensus.

On the other hand, many fish actually pass the miror test.

[u/Shoddy-Wishbone → u/ZePample]

Dogs barely see … you know there’s literal sight hounds, right? You’re being daft. Have a nice day, tho!

[u/Luxalpa → u/Shoddy-Wishbone]

What an incredibly stupid comment to make. Yes, there's sight hounds, great, amazing even, although none of the dogs here are such dogs. And of course, that doesn't make them amazing at seeing things.

In summary, while the visual system of dogs may be consid- ered to be worse than that of humans in many ways (P. E. Miller & Murphy, 1995), it is evident from our review that, in some ways, their vision is superior, or at least different. It seems that the visual acuity and color perception capabilities of domestic dogs are less sensitive than those observed in humans, but the observed flicker-fusion rate, and their ability to function in dim light, surpass those of human capacities. Of most relevance here is that many aspects of dog vision remain substantially understudied. Moreover, many studies have used extremely small sample sizes, often comprising a single breed, and, as a result, individual, breed, and morphological differ- ences have rarely been considered (for a review see Arden, Bensky, & Adams, 2016).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29143248/

(note I didn't read the actual paper, because I have better things to do than spend several hours to disprove random people on reddit who are too lazy to google shit)

[u/throwaway_acc746 → u/Luxalpa]

If you didn’t actually read it then why are you taking what it says as 100% true and calling others stupid?

Also that’s from 10 years ago and it seems that they’re quoting something from 1995?

[u/Luxalpa → u/throwaway_acc746]

why are you taking what it says as 100% true

I am not. I am considering a scientific paper to be more credible than something some rando on reddit says with no evidence whatsoever.

Also that’s from 10 years ago and it seems that they’re quoting something from 1995?

And? I read the wikipedia article about sight hounds, it says nothing about their vision, so the most sensible assumption here is that the person I responded to made shit up, unless they are a researcher themselves or they have some other source that didn't even make it into wikipedia.

So instead, I had the AI lookup for some papers. The AI is pretty convinced that the guy I responded to is wrong, but as you probably don't know, AI is pretty hit-or-miss on these things. So instead, I asked it to give some actual information.

My goal also was never to disprove the person I responded to. I simply wanted to verify it. The fact that the 2016 paper and the 1995 paper both appear to disprove the person is just what it is. I posted it in the hopes that the idiot could maybe respond and defend their standpoint by posting things I didn't know about.

Also that’s from 10 years ago and it seems that they’re quoting something from 1995?

General Relativity is also about 100 years old and guess what? It's still true today. Why would it be wrong all of a sudden?

Again, if you think that the evidence is wrong, bring your own evidence.

But it seems to me that you just LOVE misinformation and lies and much rather listen to what some rando says on the internet than actual verified information.

and calling others stupid?

You mean do literally the same thing that the other guy did? "oh look cats exists therefore all dogs have great eyesight" <- that's what we call conclusion does not follow from the premises. One of the most common misinformation strategies out there.