Miscellaneous desk
< September 23	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 24

Subsidiary owning parent company

What happens when a subsidiary company owns shares in a parent company? For example, A. Inc. owns B. Inc, which owns C Inc, and then C. buys shares of A. inc. Is there an advantage to such a situation? Disadvantage? Who would make the decisions in such a situation? For a real world example, I've noticed in the article on Cathay Pacific that it is a shareholder in Air China at the same time Air China holds shares in Cathay Pacific.

Duomillia (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not uncommon for businesses to hold shares in other businesses - so it must be very common for A to own a few shares of B and vice versa. But your question seems to imply a wholly-owned subsidiary having shares in the parent company. That's not the same relationship as Air China and Cathay Pacific. In order for the subsidiary to make decisions about the parent, it would have to own at least 50% of the parent's shares...which means that it's not a parent/subsidiary relationship so much as a merger of two companies. It seems like an unlikely situation. SteveBaker (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in our article on the Pac-Man Defense, in which a company facing a hostile takeover attempts to thwart it by acquiring its would-be acquiror. If you are thinking instead of situations in which the subsidiary is a wholly owned subsidiary, its portfolio holdings of its parent's shares are functionally treasury stock. John M Baker (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are dogs capable of jealousy?

I was at my friend's house, and he had two dogs who like to roughouse, they're very cute. I poured myself a bowl of cereal and he more rambunctious one raced into the kitchen and begged me for some Chex, so I gave him one. Then I gave him another because he was still begging. The other was just watching, and I didn't want him to feel jealous so I gave him a Chex too.

Later in the day, while nobody was around, the more passive one bit the ear of the rambunctious one so badly he drew blood. Was that my fault? Did he notice that he only got one Chex compared to his friend getting two? 2600:1012:B108:ADEE:5FB:F7FF:DFBC:571C (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs do exhibit jealousy,[1]; however, dogs do not remember events for more than a few seconds.[2] So the passive dog's action "later in the day" was almost certainly not an expression of jealousy over the cereal incident. Marco polo (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your second link about short memory spans is true (I doubt it, personally), then repeated acts that induce the jealousy reaction would result in a learned behavior that could result in long term problems. If (for example) your "eating a bowl of Chex" action were to become permanently associated with feelings of jealousy - then I could imagine it ending badly. But I agree with Marco that it's unlikely in your situation. A long-term preference for feeding one dog over another might become problematic - but even then, dogs understand "pack hierarchy" and abide by it - so the one who doesn't ever get Chex might simply regard this as a pack hierarchy thing and let it slide.

I doubt the "20 second memory" thing because I can easily do an experiment that disproves it. If I put my dog into his crate and go outside for a few minutes, then return and release him - he just wanders out of the crate and goes about his business. If I crate him, then go on out of the house for an hour, then when I get back, I get a massive waggy welcome when I let him out of the crate. If his memory was only 20 seconds long, he'd have no way to know how long I'd been gone. Associative memory can't account for it because in both cases he's being released from the crate...what is being associated with what? Learned behavior also can't account for it.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some research with the snappy title Effects of Age on Measures of Complex Working Memory Span in the Beagle Dog (Canis familiaris) Using Two Versions of a Spatial List Learning Paradigm. I'm not sure that I really understand all of it, but it seems to support the "20 second" hypothesis, at least when it comes to "landmark discrimination" tasks. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find the 20 second thing bizarre. Here is a report of some other research which suggests they have rather better memories than that. Dogs imitate novel human actions and store them in memory, Deferred imitation and declarative memory in domestic dogs abstract. DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs are capable of jealous acts. My German shepherd was very gentle, she had no problem with strangers, kids, etc. But once when she had puppies she was given a ham bone to gnaw. When one of the puppies nibbled at the bone, she jumped up, grabbed its head violently by the mouth, and tossed it a few feet away, which shocked us in the extreme. (The puppie and their relationships was unharmed.) But jealousy on the human level? Like a dog wishing he lived in the yard next door and resenting the dog that did live there? That's a rather complex thought train and it probably requires an ability to reason conceptually rather than just a moment of possessiveness. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jealousy in Dogs Here is a recent paper. DuncanHill (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, there's a difference between a jealous dog (wanting to keep its own bone) and and envious one (wanting another dog's Chex). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is a matter of definition applied to fact. My dog never complained my sister had nicer hairdos. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learned behavior is not the same as memory of events. The studies that show dogs can learn behaviors have no bearing on their memory of events. Similarly, the different reaction of a dog to its owner's return after 10 minutes as opposed to after 10 days does not require a memory of events. It just requires the dog to be able to think, "Saw/smelled owner not too long ago, no need to go crazy greeting him," versus "Haven't seen/smelled owner in days, time to go crazy". The dog doesn't need to remember the circumstances in which he last smelled and saw the owner, just a vague sense of the length of time the dog has been without that experience. (I'm emphasizing smell because that sense is primary for dogs.) So, this difference in behavior does not indicate a memory of events. (By the way, I am a dog lover and a keen student of my dogs. One of the things I love about them is their ability to live in the moment, unburdened by memories or thoughts of the remote future.) Marco polo (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But a memory of a person? Is that not memory? DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs have associative memory. They can remember that a certain thing was in a certain place, or that a certain person (with a specific scent) is their owner. They can remember that when the owner puts his shoes on, he is probably going to leave the house, or that when they hear the unique sound of a particular car's engine approaching, the owner is likely to arrive. What they lack is what might be called narrative memory, or a memory of specific events. Marco polo (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the memory of a thing (or person, other dog, etc) called? The memory that they must have in order to make those associations. DuncanHill (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Associative memory is an IT term, or a Japanese learning method. Memory is memory, and the vet is talking through his/her hat. Underestimating the intelligence or memory of a dog is the road to insanity, especially if you live with more than one. Yet vets and "trainers" habitually do, and encourage owners to do the same. They need to read this. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]