Little by little the NDT thesis is trickling into common understanding. Stanley Coren recently took note of the Mammoth Megasite interpretation by Pat Shipman and wrote a very good article in summation.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201406/dogs-and-mammoths-new-glimpse-early-canine-history
However this understanding of the canine mind I discovered simply by studying the behavior of dogs without reading human thoughts into their minds. From the vantage point of this immediate-moment manner of analysis that I began in the seventies, hunting as the basis of the emotional bond between humans and dogs became clear. And I arrived at this conclusion in contravention to the prevailing scientific consensus that dogs had been fundamentally altered by the hand of man, that submissiveness and docility was the key to the domesticated dog, and that to understand the animal mind one had to study specimens in the wild. What struck me in particular about Dr. Coren’s article was his concluding passage:
“Still, the idea that the little dog at my feet started off as a mammoth hunter is intriguing.”
One needn’t travel to an exotic place to peer at gorillas to get closer to nature; it exists by our feet, great wonders of nature–an important link between man and the wild kingdom. Don’t take dogs for granted; study them closely, and when they’re scratching at the back door, let them in, and let nature in with them.
“Natural Dog Training” 1992
If dogs are not “intelligent” by reason, but are intelligent by feel, can one dog or breed of dog be more “intelligent” than another? I’m not referring to what a dog is bred to do better than another. Is there such a thing as not being intelligent in the nature of dogs? Many dog owners say their dog is TOO smart.