No, you are anthropomorphisizing the dog; what you are describing is a textbook case of anthropomorphisizing an animal. "Friendly" may be a human only trait, it may be shared with dogs; we don't know, and cannot not truly prove that what we feel as "friendliness" is a shared feeling by the dog.
This is why anthropomorphisizing is actually considered a harmful thought pattern in science (furry is art, so we're okay); we want, instinctively, as humans to share our feelings with others, including dogs. However, science demands proof, not want.
Furthermore, you can anthropomorphisize anything; it doesn't have to be an animal. The word "anthropomorphic" is actually most likely to in religious discussions; the Greek gods are very anthropomorphic, because they basically are humans with some extra superpowers. The Egyptian gods are actually less anthropomorphic because of their animal qualities. Meanwhile, if you prefer your Bible stories, the book of Genesis is basically two creation stories; one is from a group of early Israelite priests who see there God as very inhuman, very not anthropomorphic (this is the "darkness over the deeps," God, kind of an ineffable, hovering, well, force of creation), and the other has a bit more of the common touch, and literally "walks" (anthropomorphic!) with Adam and Eve and "talks" (anthropomorphic!) with them and tells them they are his own. This version of God even has a gender (anthropomorphic!), if you notice.
The book of Genesis is really (at least) these two versions of God's stories as told by various groups of ancient Jews welded together with a really obvious set of seams running up the middle. The level of anthropomorphisation of God is just one of the more obvious ways to check which thread you're currently on, though, seriously, the threads in Noah's story don't even keep the number of animals he took with him the same. Fundamentalists are stupid, is what I'm saying.
Anyway, the whole completely (or at leat mostly) unanthropomorphic God from the "priestly" thread of the creation story is kind of one of the things that set the "Abrahamaic" religions (basically Judaism and its offshoots Christianity and Islam and their offshoots, like Mormonism) apart from other early religions; Zoroastrianism did have an obvious influence on the beliefs of the early "Abrahamists" or whatever you call them, but the Zoroastrianist or whatever you call them did have a very anthropomorphic creator God. That's kind of the thing that Judaism added to the table; a God that is not like us.
Which is kind of what the Wired guy is talking about with the "if horses had Gods" philosophising; we want our gods (and dogs) to be like us. A god (or dog) that is ineffably different from us is, well, scary.
Ironically, the "if horses had gods" thought experiment is also anthropomorphisizing, again, because we don't know if horses have gods, and if they would "equimorphisize" them if they did, or if seeing ourselves in things that aren't us is only a human thing.
No, you are anthropomorphisizing the dog; what you are describing is a textbook case of anthropomorphisizing an animal. "Friendly" may be a human only trait, it may be shared with dogs; we don't know, and cannot not truly prove that what we feel as "friendliness" is a shared feeling by the dog.
This is why anthropomorphisizing is actually considered a harmful thought pattern in science (furry is art, so we're okay); we want, instinctively, as humans to share our feelings with others, including dogs. However, science demands proof, not want.
Furthermore, you can anthropomorphisize anything; it doesn't have to be an animal. The word "anthropomorphic" is actually most likely to in religious discussions; the Greek gods are very anthropomorphic, because they basically are humans with some extra superpowers. The Egyptian gods are actually less anthropomorphic because of their animal qualities. Meanwhile, if you prefer your Bible stories, the book of Genesis is basically two creation stories; one is from a group of early Israelite priests who see there God as very inhuman, very not anthropomorphic (this is the "darkness over the deeps," God, kind of an ineffable, hovering, well, force of creation), and the other has a bit more of the common touch, and literally "walks" (anthropomorphic!) with Adam and Eve and "talks" (anthropomorphic!) with them and tells them they are his own. This version of God even has a gender (anthropomorphic!), if you notice.
The book of Genesis is really (at least) these two versions of God's stories as told by various groups of ancient Jews welded together with a really obvious set of seams running up the middle. The level of anthropomorphisation of God is just one of the more obvious ways to check which thread you're currently on, though, seriously, the threads in Noah's story don't even keep the number of animals he took with him the same. Fundamentalists are stupid, is what I'm saying.
Anyway, the whole completely (or at leat mostly) unanthropomorphic God from the "priestly" thread of the creation story is kind of one of the things that set the "Abrahamaic" religions (basically Judaism and its offshoots Christianity and Islam and their offshoots, like Mormonism) apart from other early religions; Zoroastrianism did have an obvious influence on the beliefs of the early "Abrahamists" or whatever you call them, but the Zoroastrianist or whatever you call them did have a very anthropomorphic creator God. That's kind of the thing that Judaism added to the table; a God that is not like us.
Which is kind of what the Wired guy is talking about with the "if horses had Gods" philosophising; we want our gods (and dogs) to be like us. A god (or dog) that is ineffably different from us is, well, scary.
Ironically, the "if horses had gods" thought experiment is also anthropomorphisizing, again, because we don't know if horses have gods, and if they would "equimorphisize" them if they did, or if seeing ourselves in things that aren't us is only a human thing.