Not at all.
Your assumption here seems to be that animals that can't be trained, can't learn and THAT is preposterous.
What the fuck are you talking about? I just said that animals can and do learn. Didn't you even
Intelligence, last time I checked, is not (just) the ability to learn, it's also the ability to apply what has been learned and the ability to determine when it must be applied. A trained animal has learned perfectly what it must do.
But when it is put into a situation where several (or even only one significant one) of the parameters differ from those of it's training, it will be in trouble if it still relies blindly on it's training. A truely intelligent animal (for instance a human) will be able to analyse the situation and determine where what it has learned still applies and where it doesn't.
Except that you are wrong. Dogs and other animals can and do analyze situations and respond to variables while humans can and do have trouble as well with variables. The difference is the speed and ability to respond to these variables. Humans, as a general rule, respond much much faster than a dog to a change in a situation or a variation. That is why humans are more
intelligent than dogs. However, just because humans are much smarter than dogs doesn't mean that dogs completely lack intelligence or capacity to problem solve.
Ease of training is not a sign of intelligence, it's a sign of lack of common sense.
A dog is like a Fundie: He'll rely blindly on what he's been 'told', because the first thing he's ever been told is to rely blindly on what he's told.
A wolf is like a free thinking person: He applies what he's 'told' to every situation he encounters and determines how much of it is valid for each situation.
That's funny. A human child who can easily learn new skills and be trained it called "smart" and "talented", but a dog who can easily learn new skills and be trained is "lacking in common sense". How much sense does that make?
For one thing, dogs and wolves are the same when it comes to obedience, it's who they are obedient to that matters. You obviously don't know very much about how wolf packs if you think that wolves are free thinkers. Wolf packs have rigid
social structures where wolves of lesser status are largely utterly obedient to their alphas so long as they preceive the alphas as in charge. If an alpha snarls, they leap. That's how it works. I've watched documentaries showing a lesser female in a wolf pack actually drive her cubs away because of the alpha female in the pack, which adopted them. Such free thinkers!
With dogs, the alpha is changed. Dogs (and wolves, when raised by people) make the abstract leap between species when figuring out "who's in charge" in their pack, family, or clan. Humans don't look, act, and most especially don't smell like a dog, but dogs can make the mental leap to accept humans as part of the crew and as the boss. That's an important mental leap that many animals aren't even capable of making. Wolves as well, you raise a wolf domestically, and the wolf will act the same. I know people who own wolves and wolf-dogs, and if anything, they are unusually obedient and well-behaved because they need stricter rules when raising.
Oh and what you take as a sign of excellent social intelligence just plain isn't. It's not social intelligence, it's social naïveté. Afterall, a dog identifies a cat as a social creature... but a cat ISN'T a social creature, atleast not in the way that dogs are. Nevertheless dogs DO have large amounts of social intelligence ... because they easily interpret the social actions of other species (they know that a raised voice is a sign of anger and that petting is a sign of affection, despite the fact that dogs do not pet each other).
Once again, you are funny. A human child who's good at making friends and establish relationships with other people, even unfriendly ones, is called "outgoing" and "a people person" and "smart", but a dog who does all that is "naive". That's what social intelligence is; the ability to relate and interact well with others.