Cat People vs. Dog People | Hacker News Reader

Cat People vs. Dog People

research.facebook.com

91 pointsgeedzmo85 comments

I used to love dogs when I was a kid, now I'm definitely a cat person.

I find dogs superficial and too simple-minded. If you feed them often enough, they will like you (guaranteed) - I find this kind of relationship unsatisfying - You are the master and so the dog has no choice but to like you. Kind of like how people are inclined to laugh when their boss makes a not-so-funny joke - That's the kind of dynamic you get.

Cats are more mysterious and complex. Most of the time, when a cat shows affection, their real motives are usually pretty straight forward; like how they start rubbing themselves against you only when you're physically holding their food (they don't try to hide anything). Often you get the feeling that cats don't care about you at all. In fact, they probably don't really need you (they can usually fend for themselves catching mice, lizards, birds, get food from neighbours, etc...)

But sometimes, there are rare moments when a cat will show you affection without any obvious reason; and when they do, it feels a lot more genuine than the kind of affection you would get from a dog.

I like cats because I like to foster relationships between equals. My cat is my friend, not my subordinate - I don't really NEED the cat and the cat doesn't really NEED me - There are no ulterior evolutionary/survival motives between us.

I just don't like relationships where there is a power imbalance (even when I get to be the master). Though I suppose some could argue that it's not so different from a parent-child relationship - But then again, some parents are more strict than others...

From what I can tell, cats are just as simple-minded as dogs, but the main difference is that they are barely domesticated. So yeah, I'll take the creature that appears to love me over the creature that couldn't care less about me. I especially appreciate how present dogs are.. they don't seem to care about anything that's going on other than what's happening right now, and that's something I need more of in my life. And man, I love watching the videos of dogs being reunited with their owners after not seeing them for months.

Plus there are smart breeds of dogs if you're into that sort of thing.

>And man, I love watching the videos of dogs being reunited with their owners after not seeing them for months.

I could watch those forever.

What's amazing is it's almost like that, maybe on a slightly smaller scale, when you arrive home from work every single day!

It makes you feel like a celebrity. Hard to be sad when someone is so happy just to see you.

Most [all?] cultures agree. "Dog" is an insult across many languages, which indicates it's lower status. Never heard of "cat" being a standalone insult.

It is at least in Spanish, calling a woman "gata" is akin to telling them they're slutty.

Or poor, as in gata being slang for your housekeeper.

In american english, calling someone "catty" means they gossip maliciously.

Also, "cathouse" is another name for whorehouse.

Yea, but that's a variation on cat. Not a standalone "cat', while a standalone "dog" has enough of a negative connotation in most languages.

Seriously? you won't accept derivatives that disagree with your statement.

Also, see the response about the spanish usage of 'gata'

edit: this is much too serious of a response to this funny of a thread, I should throw some humor in here somewhere ;)

Of course not (which I indicated fairly clearly too). To make a fair comparison you want to consider what kind of a feeling or connotation "You're a dog" vs "You're a cat" invokes. Variations on the sentence are okay too, like, say "You're such a dog" or "Come here dog". I didn't contest 'gata', gender specificity does make it non-ideal, but I'll take it.

By "gender specificity", do you mean the word itself, or the people targeted by the insult? Using the word "gato" to describe a woman would be nonsensical, and I don't think that a word predominantly being used to insult only one gender (such as "bastard") makes it any less of an insult.

Just the fact that it's conjugated. And the female gendering of a word often having a diminutive effect in languages too. All in all it does seem fair (and suprising to me) given how similar the female form is, google says French has the same thing too. But yea, ideally you'd want the standard form being negative. Or both the male and female being negative.

As a side note - I've particularly become interested in the negativity of "dog" after trying to trace the origin of the proverb "The Dogs Bark but the Caravan Moves On", which is pretty common in my language (not common in English). Was surprised to find out it originated in Arabic and found it's way to many other languages.

"You're such a pussy" or "Don't be a pussy" can definitely be used in a derogatory fashion, especially in groups in which social status is dominated by masculinity.

It can mean, for example, variations on "Don't be so timid", "Stop expressing your fears", and "Take more risks".

Indeed, I have heard "Don't be a bitch" be used in almost the exact same way.

Let me introduce you to the word “pusillanimous”. It means showing a lack of courage or determination, or being timid.

So when you call somebody a 'pussy' for not having the courage to do something that has _nothing_ to do with felines or vaginas. (As most people commonly seem to think). Being a 'pussy' is short for 'pusillanimous', nothing to do with cats at all…

Haha, yes. Phrases like "sly dog" imply deception and a lack of morals.

What's up dawg? That pussy looks like a catty bitch.

I feel like it's a wash. Dogs have more favorable sentiments expressed about them, and more negative ones, because they have SUCH personalities that it's polarizing.

A cat that has an outgoing personality will often be compared to a dog, conversely, only a meek, quiet dog would be referred to as a cat.

"You're a pussycat", is a classic saying that you extremely gentle and nothing to worry about (not necessarily bad I know).

"You're a dog", is generally a comment about someone doing anything to get what they want, for entrepreneurs this is probably a good thing. I've often heard this used in a respectful way in meaning that even though you bent the rules, you came out on the winning end.

Because a dog has been a part of the human social hierarchy in many cultures. Calling someone a dog alludes to various social characteristics. Calling somebody a cat is just non-sensical.

I suppose there could have been cultures where a cat occupied a place in the day-to-day social hierarchy (and not just in a religious sense). But if so that sense has been lost to us. For obvious reasons I wouldn't expect such a relationship to have been anywhere near as pervasive as with dogs.

There's the expression that someone is "one cool cat"

I think at least some dogs are capable of genuine "altruistic" relationships too. My neighbour's dog for instance always get super excited when he sees me, jumps on me and everything, but I almost never feed him or look after him, I just play with him sometimes; we have more of a friendship dynamic than a master-slave relationship.

You might like a wolf. Not automatically subservient.

> ...and the cat doesn't really NEED me

Until you stop feeding your cat. Then it will eventually die of starvation.

Unless it's an outdoor cat (or has access to the outdoors), then it can catch it's own food, but will most likely be killed (outdoor cats generally don't live as long as indoor cats).

> Unless it's an outdoor cat

Well, yes, if you contain any living thing and then don't provide a food source, it will die of starvation.

I agree with your thoughts, but I also understand that different people like different pets. To me a cat is perfect because it's relatively self-sufficient and I can leave my cat alone for a few days without a problem. I don't want to have to run home early from dinner because I need to let the dog out.

>I find dogs superficial and too simple-minded. If you feed them often enough, they will like you (guaranteed) - I find this kind of relationship unsatisfying - You are the master and so the dog has no choice but to like you. Kind of like how people are inclined to laugh when their boss makes a not-so-funny joke - That's the kind of dynamic you get.

Disclaimer: I'm a 100% dog person. I hate cats. I had a beautiful dog during my childhood. Due to work arrangements, I ended up feeding a cat every day at one stage of my life. The little bastard would be friendly to me most of the time, he sat on my lap every day for a year, but for no reason some days would scratch me. Eventually I got sick of it and never let him on my lap anymore, fed him still because I had to but didn't pat him. He didn't care how I was feeling on a particular day, it was all about him and his feelings. I don't need that in my life.

>Cats are more mysterious and complex.

I don't find this, I just find them to be moody selfish assholes. Being a moody selfish asshole is not mysterious or complex to me.

This is what I love about dogs, they are so transparent that you know exactly where you stand. If they are growling, they don't like you. But if they like you, you are the most important person in the world! There's no mind games, no deception or moodiness.

If you're in a sad mood, they notice and understand that you're down (or at least acting different to usual) and give you special attention. They might not understand why you are sad, but they don't ignore it. They want you to be happy because then they are happy, and everyone is happy. It's a great feeling when everyone is happy!

If you're in a happy mood, they will feel that and be ecstatic to revel along with you in the joy of being alive and together at that moment.

Why shouldn't a pet like being around you and treat you well when you feed them and treat them well? I don't need an ungrateful dependent.

Remember, the only reason dogs are dependent on people is because of people. Without people, dogs would hunt in a pack like wolves anyway, they wouldn't need people. It is us that domesticated them, which was, and is, a mutually helpful arrangement.

A dog is a pack animal, they need other dogs or people to work together to hunt. This is not a one-way thing, a dog who is part of your pack will do anything to help you if they can. They trust in your judgement and will go with you to the ends of the earth, trusting that you feel that going to the ends of the earth is important for some reason, and being happy just that you are together... That's the kind of companion that I would do anything for as well.

I think that people who aren't dog owners might not understand also that a dog's love isn't completely unconditional either. If you treat a dog badly, they won't care for you in the amazing way that they care for a person who takes good care of them. Of course a dog is still dependent on a bad owner, just like a child may be dependent on a bad parent, but they won't bond with the owner in the same way, just like a child with a bad parent.

I don't understand the attraction with those little dogs that seem so stupid however. They seem like dogs with all the best parts removed, the loyalty and intelligence. They will be friendly to anyone, or scared of anyone. They will get distracted by something and run away if they're not kept leashed or locked up. They don't notice if you're sad, they're just ridiculously happy all the time. I guess for some people having a ridiculously happy all the time pet raises their mood, but for me that would feel a bit empty.

> moody

Isn't it mysterious why exactly a cat is in the particular mood it's in? It's a puzzle. Like dating a person with Borderline Personality Disorder is a puzzle. Some people love puzzles.

I don't find it mysterious. I just think that cats are inherently not social, so they only use people to suit their needs at a particular time.

Like when they're getting petted, it might feel nice for a while, then when it suddenly doesn't feel so nice anymore, that's when the scratching starts.

That's why they go to get food from neighbors or anyone else. They don't need the companionship, and only sometimes need the food. It doesn't really matter who supplies the food.

"Why do you scratch and hiss for no reason". What a shitty puzzle. Not a puzzle I'd choose to play.

I suppose some people are gluttons for punishment... or possibly suffering from toxoplasmosis.

>I don't really NEED the cat and the cat doesn't really NEED me

That is no different to a dog.

If we left the doors open a dog could easily kill and eat something as well. A dog isn't totally dependent on humans. We just don't allow that because it would be dangerous for children or other dogs who might be killed by a feral dog.

If a stray cat was large enough and capable of killing a child, then I bet our society would be much more serious about keeping cats locked up like we do dogs.

I loved OkCupid's analysis based on data from their site, and I liked this blog post too :) .

Facebook must be absolutely fascinating for researchers, I wonder if they make anonymized datasets available for universities? - Edit: they do

https://snap.stanford.edu/data/egonets-Facebook.html

http://www.michaelzimmer.org/2011/02/15/facebook-data-of-1-2...

I'm hoping for an analysis based on 23andme data :)

It's funny, I grew up with both cats and dogs and like them both (and one observation I've had is that most people I know tend to like whichever pets they had when they were younger, fear of the unknown and all that).

In my circle of friends in SF/Oakland cats are definitely more prevalent but I think a lot of that has to do with how expensive owning a dog here is. My roommate has two cats but I'd probably get a dog if it wouldn't cost me so much. You need:

1) An apartment/house that allows dogs. This means you either own your own property, pay out the nose for a newer development that allows pets, or if you're in the lucky few you may have a rent controlled place lets you have them

2) Something for them to do during the day. This means you either work at a place that lets you have pets, have enough money to pay a dogwalker, or have enough private indoor/outdoor space where you can leave them dog during the day (see #1)

3) Places to put them while you travel, but most of your friends can't have dogs at their places so this usually means paying a dogsitter

I imagine it's similar in places like NYC but it's weird for me to think of owning a dog as a status symbol

The book and movie comparisons throw me off. It looks like the majority of dog owners in this research are women, while the majority of cat owners are men. I'd have expected those to be reversed.

Idk women like the protection a dog offers, plus cats are easier to take care of so guys may be more willing to have one.

Regardless, I can't really give anything but my counter intuition; I wish I had the data Facebook has.

>I'd have expected those to be reversed.

Despite the 'crazy cat lady' stereotype. Cats are preferred pet for men in the past couple of years.

I don't think that is true universally (that men prefer cats). I think it's a cultural thing.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/republicans-dog-people-dem...

Where I live, it's definitely not true... or men at least don't admit to preferring cats.

If you did an a survey of men in Dearborn, Michigan you would probably find the opposite, with significantly more men preferring cats (due to religious or cultural reasons)

Unless I missed it, they failed to say which genders and ages and so on are more likely to own cats vs dogs. They only covered single people in those breakdowns.

The TV tendencies are even more confusing, where "dog people" watch both super-masculine (entourage, duck dynasty) and feminine (The Voice) shows (and cat people are apparently the stereotypical geek).

Simple really, just not a masculine/feminine thing. Dog people shows are terrible while cat people shows are interesting. (ok except maybe entourage, guilty pleasure)

The majority partners of women are men, and the majority of partners of men are women. I think for one-to-one companionship people look for compatibility rather than similarity.

My gut reaction to the book and movie comparisons is that people who share cat photos tend to be liberal and people who share dog photos tend to be conservative (for the US definition of liberal and conservative). Maybe I'm off base.

Also, note that the comparison is about people who share cat or dog photos and their Facebook friends -- not about cat or dog people and their actual friends. I'm a dog person and many of my friends are cat people, but I wouldn't be interested in seeing their cat photos on Facebook. Nor would I be posting dog photos anywhere...

It's also difficult to have a real dog if you're living in a city. Dogs need space, exercise, and attention, which are in short supply the more urban you go. Additionally, it can be almost impossible to find apartments that will allow dogs over purse-size.

Cats don't particularly need exercise, are small, tend to be able to entertain themselves, and for whatever reason, are easier to get permission to have in apartments[1]. So if you're a city person, it's magnitudes easier to be a cat person, if you're going to have pets at all. City people are more liberal than country people, on average.

[1] I cannot stand litterboxes, hairballs, or cat urine, so this baffles me...

Suburbs count as city, though, not rural. And to me, that's a dog's niche: the detached-home-plus-yard. Dogs don't fit in apartments, but they don't really "earn their keep" on farms, either (on ranches or pastures, sure, but not farms.) Meanwhile, it's traditional to have a barn-cat to keep away vermin, even if you've also got traps.

Hypothesis: this whole article ignores the selection effect of getting from "people with pets" to "people who talk about their pets on Facebook." Maybe dog-owning men, and cat-owning women, just don't think their pets need a social-media presence?

This seems like quite an intrusion into people's private data. If certain other large companies decided to crawl all over your data for shits and giggles, I'm fairly sure HN would have its pitchforks out.

What? This is orders of magnitude better than selling private data to ad companies, which is FB's main business. If of all things you choose to be outraged by aggregate statistics about cat vs. dog people, you may want to reconsider your priorities.

Is that what FB does? Or do they just use their data internally to target ads, without handing the data to the advertisers? I honestly don't know but I do know that people are always saying that Google sells your information to advertisers, and they don't. So I'm skeptical of this claim.

Anyway, maybe this whole analysis was based on public profile data.

If either of these companies actually sold the data they've collected they'd hurt their own competitive advantage.

In this case, I don't think the distinction is really that important; I think checking if someone is single or in a relationship to target them with an ad is more intrusive than checking if they're in a group of a few dozen thousand people who are single and like cats.

You'll probably find that they didn't use any data that's not available to 'public' viewing.

(Would be interesting to hear about their sampling methodology)

I'm not sure about that. The sentiment analysis in particular sounds like it might be using private updates.

> To answer these questions, we dug our claws into aggregate, de-identified data from a sample of about 160,000 people in the United States who shared photos of cats or dogs (or both) on Facebook.

How is looking at aggregate, de-identified data an intrusion into people's private data? ?? ?

This article is interesting, but it alludes to the level of profiling they do on their user-base, and that part is scary.

What is scary about using statistics on data your users knowingly give you?

Ready your pitchforks!

https://www.google.com/trends/

Ahah it's Facebook, what did you expect? They already sell your data and the new features like: Like/Love/HaHa Or tagging posts are just ways for them to know you better and show you relevant advertising or selling the data they have on you.

Here is Australia, I don't like cats because they kill the native wildlife. They're a pest.

I have also seen what cats can do after travelling to some Greek islands. Almost zero wildlife on lands. No prevelance of birds. You wake up to silence.

For this reason, I'll always be a dog person.

Dogs can get after the wildlife too, although they aren't quite as relentless and psychopathic.

My cattle dog was moling yesterday - I looked up from my lawn chair to hear frantic chittering and see the poor varmint whipped high in the sky.

I always think it's funny when citydwellers in Australia make this complaint. Somehow cats killing the native wildlife is a reason not to have them in suburbia, but no-one bats an eye at all the McMansions and asphalt everywhere destroying the previously native flora and fauna.

Also, the last house I lived in had a bloody wattlebird nearby. I'd much rather a cat eat it and wake up to silence than wake up to that thing at 4am every morning...

There is wildlife in suburbia. Also cats released in suburbia quickly make it into the bush. They don't stay in the suburbs.

Well, so does urban sprawl. Sure, you should still get your cats desexed, but seriously, cats have had less impact on native fauna than humans have (after all, even if nothing else in terms of our own impact, we brought cats... and cane toads... and foxes... and pigs... and rats... and and and...)

So what's your point? Cats are less destructive than humans? Are you suggesting that we ignore anything that is less destructive than humans? Or that people should live in smaller houses to lower their impact?

Sounds like a pointless statement to me.

We should do something about the low-hanging fruit of cat owners not being responsible for their "pets".

I put pets in quotes because if you have no control over it and just let it roam everywhere killing native fauna, can you really call it your pet? Just because it comes to eat your food sometimes?

Here in New Zealand feral cats are also the wrong animal in the wrong place. They decimate the local birds and fauna. We spend quite a bit of time trying to trap them though they are extraordinarily wily and hard to catch.

Dogs are even more destructive but they don't go feral, so you won't find them in remote places but always somewhere around their neglectful owners or feeders.

I am deeply opposed to cat ownership on ecological grounds. They cause massive damage when introduced to a country like Australia. Most cat owners are very irresponsible and allow their animals to roam but strenuously resist any moves to regulate their fluffy little predators.

Dog owners are required to tag and register their animals and face fines if their animals roam which is reasonable for the protection of stock or people from wild dogs. My takeaway is that dog owners are more reasonable and less selfish. I blame it on toxoplasmosis.

I am a cat owner and I agree that they shouldn't be able to roam and kill wildlife.

I wasn't aware of any proposed regulation though.

Unfortunately, feral dogs are a thing in my country, and in Australia too - look up Dingoes "The dingo is suspected to have caused the extinction of the thylacine, the Tasmanian devil and the Tasmanian nativehen from mainland Australia".

So, irresponsible pet owners are a problem, both for dogs and cats. I do agree that cats are more problematic since they're more independant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo#Ecological_impact_of_the...

I wonder how much of this is an introvert/extravert thing? I mean, the article already points out that dog people will likely have more friends and cat people are more likely to be single, so I suspect the difference in preferences may depend on that aspect of someone's personality.

Cats are perfect for introverts; they look after themselves, don't tend to do much in the day, don't need walks and hence can be mostly left alone (or left to sit next to you) while you browse the internet or work at home.

Dogs require more excercise, commitment, etc. So if you gain energy from being around others, what better way than to go for two walks a day round the streets/local park?

So extraverts likely choose dogs, and introverts likely choose cats.

I think this is the right track, but perhaps not intro/extro, and simply what people want from a pet. Want a constant companion? Get a dog. Want another thing sharing the space, that can look after itself? Get a cat. Want something pretty to look at that knows it's place? Get a fish...

I'm very much an introvert but I love my dog, and absolutely am not a cat person.

I'm the same. I'm generally introverted but I loved my dog (RIP) more than anything.

I feel like a battered spouse when I'm forced to take care of an ungrateful cat.

I walk my cat..

Meh.

There really is only one thing that makes me cat person: Cats don't need someone to take them out to POOP.

Somehow, cats made the intellectual leap that dogs can't seem to grasp. That is, shitting in a box and covering it up. Brilliant.

You could easily train a dog go in a litterbox, but that would be gross. Just as gross, actually, as it is to keep a litterbox full of toxoplasmosis in your house.

If cats are so amazingly intelligent to always go in a box, why is there so much cat poop in the gardens of my apartment complex? The gardeners have actually threatened to leave, strata has notified the cat owners (not that they care because they don't take responsibility for their "pets", they just roam free).

This is a really nice blog post; I hope we keep seeing more posts like this coming from Facebook.

I wonder why we haven't seen something similar from Google. Surely they have access to as much or more data? Perhaps Google does publish similar blog posts, and I'm just not aware of where to look for them?

In any case, the results presented definitely didn't match my expectations. Although upon giving it a bit of thought, I can see how introverted cat people are more likely to have classic "nerdy" interests like scifi, fantasy, anime, etc.

>I wonder why we haven't seen something similar from Google

I imagine google spends a great deal of effort to avoid the "we know everything about you" stereotype

A.K.A. "Don't Seem Evil."

I like dogs.

I like cats.

I'm just very allergic to cats. It has seriously been a barrier to whom I hang around with. The allergy is genetic. My father had a worse allergic reaction than myself.

My father found a person he liked enough to try to find a work around. This was quite a milestone for my dad. Growing up, my father was just a rigid guy. There were no "work arounds"

Well, when his girlfriend came over he had a separate set of clothes she would put on--free of cat allergens. Even with that preparation he ended up in the emergency room three times. I was there once when he had an Asthma attack. I used two epi pens, and he still couldn't breath.

A cat tried to be friends with me last summer. I was working on my transmission at 1 a.m.. This little cat started to meow behind my head. He actually startled me. Well I got up, and checked for a collar. No collar. He followed me around the house for the following week. What ever chore I did, he was there. For weeks he would show up at the door with a mouse in his mouth. "I brought dinner." The mice were usually alive, but in shock. I would let them loose on my Lawyers property. This cat wanted a new home so bad, he would climb up the side of the house and peer into Windows. I'm still not sure how he got so high.

Just when I decided he could live in the garage, he showed up one night with a collar, and a number. I called the number, and the owner said when they got a puppy a few years ago; he decided to look for a new home. The owner said he would be gone for a week at a time, but always came home.

This cat still visits a least once a month. He usually takes a nap, and leaves.

Cool analysis, but the results seem off to me based on my own social network (which line up with a lot of common stereotypes).

I think I know why. The majority of people I know who have cats don't post photos of their cats on social media, but it's pretty mainstream to post photos of a dog. This reflects social habits with pets in general: at work the dog people regularly talk about their dogs, e.g. how they took them to the park on Saturday. I rarely hear any discussion about cats at work even though I know more of my coworkers own them.

I think this leads to an "alternative", quirky, less social bias on the cat people. There's probably some bias on the dog people, but I imagine far less of one.

As a human-presenting, non-binary, therian (felinekin), I feel I must weight in.

Gender is a binary social construct used for oppression and it is disgusting to project your closed minded, heteronormative, racist ideas of gender on innocent animals who have no way of consenting.

Using the word "pussy" to refer to vaginal sexual organs OR to a feline animal is a micro-aggression against all womyn AND all feline-identifying otherkin and is the type of privileged, sexist language that enables our oppression.

Regardless of your choice, definitely adopt from a shelter!

I have two adopted animals, a cat and a dog (and a 2nd beagle from a breeder).

If you can provide a forever home to an animal, you will be rewarded for it.

Some of the comments here try to justify their love for either species by arguing that the other is inferior in some way. I find this very silly. Why can't you just like cats, or dogs or both? There doesn't have to be any objective reasoning behind it other than simple personal preference.

I wonder how many people are on Facebook without even knowing they're being profiled like this. Sure, this is an interesting article, but this minuscule piece alludes to how much they know about the people on their platform.

Here's some fun dinner party conversation you can source from this article: dog people like "Fifty Shades of Grey", cat people like "A Clockwork Orange". Discuss.

Actually, I was surprised at the number of dark movies vs. fun movies that cat people vs. dog people liked.

Based on that, I should be a cat person, but I enjoy dogs much more.

> "dog people are more outgoing, measured in terms of Facebook friends."

Or, perhaps, cat people just don't like adding friends on Facebook as much as dog people!

My understanding is research shows pets are good for well being and dogs are better than cats.

Which would imply part of these differences are causation.

Beyond creepy, and cute dog/cat images won't make it less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com