Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour(nature.com)
nature.com
Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01193-1
169 comments
This study/paper is ridiculous.
Anecdotal, but I've had lots of dogs growing up. We have five right now. This does not reflect the reality I know.
Shiba inu act like cats and prefer to spend time away from their person. They frequently get kicked out of dog parks for not being friendly to other dogs. It's documented and well-studied. They're not at all like other dogs.
Corgis are protective, commandeering, and can be aggressive. They'll bully other dogs away from food. But they're incredibly loving, needy, and prone to feeling lonely. Again, it's a breed characteristic.
Australian shepherds are outgoing, cheerful, and tend to be neurotic. A corgi might be needy, but they won't ever express it like an Australian shepherd. A corgi will nudge you. An Aussie will dance on top of you and sometimes freak out.
Look at which dog breeds are most likely to attack humans. There are histograms for all this data. It correlates strongly with breed!
Anecdotal, but I've had lots of dogs growing up. We have five right now. This does not reflect the reality I know.
Shiba inu act like cats and prefer to spend time away from their person. They frequently get kicked out of dog parks for not being friendly to other dogs. It's documented and well-studied. They're not at all like other dogs.
Corgis are protective, commandeering, and can be aggressive. They'll bully other dogs away from food. But they're incredibly loving, needy, and prone to feeling lonely. Again, it's a breed characteristic.
Australian shepherds are outgoing, cheerful, and tend to be neurotic. A corgi might be needy, but they won't ever express it like an Australian shepherd. A corgi will nudge you. An Aussie will dance on top of you and sometimes freak out.
Look at which dog breeds are most likely to attack humans. There are histograms for all this data. It correlates strongly with breed!
Also corgi owner here. Your description is perfect. I've owned two now. My first was pleasant like a nice family golden retriver. My second was exactly how you describe - I like the word "commandeering".
Even the queens corgis, who I'm sure got the best training money can buy, were still exactly as you describe. FTA below "For while the Queen adores them, others fear being a victim of their dark side."
https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/as-queen-elizabeth-iis-last-...
Even the queens corgis, who I'm sure got the best training money can buy, were still exactly as you describe. FTA below "For while the Queen adores them, others fear being a victim of their dark side."
https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/as-queen-elizabeth-iis-last-...
> Shiba inu act like cats and prefer to spend time away from their person. They frequently get kicked out of dog parks for not being friendly to other dogs. It's documented and well-studied. They're not at all like other dogs.
Came to these comments just for this breed.
Mine is identical to what you describe except he is pretty friendly to other dogs, but my SO and I had to do a ton or work socializing him when he was young.
Came to these comments just for this breed.
Mine is identical to what you describe except he is pretty friendly to other dogs, but my SO and I had to do a ton or work socializing him when he was young.
I have a shiba inu and you are exactly right.
A lot like cats.
Hugely stubborn.
Incredibly independent.
Exactly as described when I was doing my research originally and deciding to get one.
I haven't done a single thing to make him that way, either.
A lot like cats.
Hugely stubborn.
Incredibly independent.
Exactly as described when I was doing my research originally and deciding to get one.
I haven't done a single thing to make him that way, either.
I have an Akita and also my previous one was also an Akita, and I bring my dogs to dog parks pretty frequently, I also have a group of people who also have Akita, and my observation is that Akita tends to be loyal but lazy af… they literally been lying on the ground all days long, and not that interested in toys too…
what is wrong with this thread….
I have an Akita as well! mine is not active at all too… I really think it’s in their DNA…
lol yah I really don’t know why though, it’s such an comparison between Akita and shiba…
hey do you live in Bay Area we have a dog meet this weekend
we would go to the beach in SF, it’s all Akita
this is more than a test actually
this is more like a test
but if not that’s ok
I agree lol Shiba is chill af
they sometimes do be like Australian Shepard though, especially when I bring ‘‘em to parks ..
I don’t find the study ridiculous and I have met dozens of each breed you mentioned.
I find that most people assume the entire population of dogs grew up in a house and have been reasonably well looked after. In practice, I have seen lots of dogs that have that kind of history and lots of dogs that have had traumas that cause them to resource guard or be reactive to people and/or other animals (these behaviors are not bred, but are specific to individuals / life experience).
I totally agree that some behaviors that have been selected for have very high correlation with the breed, but lots of other behaviors are far less correlated. My Aussie will nudge me with his nose, more like the Corgis you mentioned and less like the Aussies you mentioned. Breed implies correlation of some phenotypes, not causation.
In the end, language matters. The title of the Nature article is a Rorschach. In practice, headlines are usually written by someone other than the author and almost always lose significant detail because they are short.
Definitions are really important here. I love herding breeds, but they were bred to nip at ankles and butts of livestock. Is that considered an “attack”? Does the person defining what behaviors are an “attack” have an incentive to exclude those small harm incidents? Chihuahuas are notorious for being aggressive and giving nips, but they present as small, quick incidents, whereas large breeds are more likely to bite down and/or swing the neck like a shark does. Does that difference bias the stats reporting/legislation choices?
Also, “Pit Bull” isn’t a breed. It is a vague intuition of some of the “bully breeds”. I always have to wonder if people pointing at attack frequency lists which show that inaccurate term are accurate. Did those lists gather data that actually investigated pedigrees or did they eyeball/guess breed based on assumptions?
I find that most people assume the entire population of dogs grew up in a house and have been reasonably well looked after. In practice, I have seen lots of dogs that have that kind of history and lots of dogs that have had traumas that cause them to resource guard or be reactive to people and/or other animals (these behaviors are not bred, but are specific to individuals / life experience).
I totally agree that some behaviors that have been selected for have very high correlation with the breed, but lots of other behaviors are far less correlated. My Aussie will nudge me with his nose, more like the Corgis you mentioned and less like the Aussies you mentioned. Breed implies correlation of some phenotypes, not causation.
In the end, language matters. The title of the Nature article is a Rorschach. In practice, headlines are usually written by someone other than the author and almost always lose significant detail because they are short.
Definitions are really important here. I love herding breeds, but they were bred to nip at ankles and butts of livestock. Is that considered an “attack”? Does the person defining what behaviors are an “attack” have an incentive to exclude those small harm incidents? Chihuahuas are notorious for being aggressive and giving nips, but they present as small, quick incidents, whereas large breeds are more likely to bite down and/or swing the neck like a shark does. Does that difference bias the stats reporting/legislation choices?
Also, “Pit Bull” isn’t a breed. It is a vague intuition of some of the “bully breeds”. I always have to wonder if people pointing at attack frequency lists which show that inaccurate term are accurate. Did those lists gather data that actually investigated pedigrees or did they eyeball/guess breed based on assumptions?
It's good that you have personalised experience with the topic but don't let that cloud you judgement around the study. 5 samples is not a good base to conclude anything.
It seems that every day we are getting one step closer to Lysenkoism [1].
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Yeah well the headline says the variation is exactly 0, then you read and it says 9%, which means if you look at their data it says like 38%.
[deleted]
Lots more details from the authors on twitter.
https://twitter.com/eenork/status/1520450288095797251
https://twitter.com/eenork/status/1520450288095797251
The author says "We found no support for policies targeting particular breeds" [1] which is completely absurd even if you postulate that their study's results were even stronger than they are. Imagine that their study found zero correlation between breeds and behavior. Even if that were the case, the outcomes of that behavior are wildly different. Some breeds will bite you and not even break skin. Some breeds will bite you, and you'll need stitches and antibiotics. Some breeds will literally rip your arms off. How could any reasonable person conclude that "no difference in behavior" leads to "no support for policies targeting particular breeds"?
Is there anyone here who would let their 6 year old child play, unsupervised, with a random pit bull? How about a random chihuahua?
[1] https://twitter.com/eenork/status/1520459786575396869
Is there anyone here who would let their 6 year old child play, unsupervised, with a random pit bull? How about a random chihuahua?
[1] https://twitter.com/eenork/status/1520459786575396869
> Is there anyone here who would let their 6 year old child play, unsupervised, with a random pit bull? How about a random chihuahua?
I fostered dozens of dogs. In my (admittedly small sample size) set of fosters, a Yellow Lab was the one with the most reactive response towards people and the “pit bull”/bully breed mixes were the most docile with little people in my family. The only “bites” in my family are from two different trained police GSDs.
I agree with other commenters that kids (and even adults who are not well versed in dog behaviors) should not be around strange dogs with unknown histories or behaviors.
I have seen two significant dog-attack-dog events. Neither showed obvious signs or gave noticeable warnings before the attack. Children should not be around dogs with unknown behaviors/ traumas/ conditioning and probably shouldn’t be around dogs when not supervised by a dog-savvy responsible adult. Obviously more time and exposure can lead to increased trust with an individual.
I agree with both the title (which is generally true but unspecific enough to the point of being useless). I also agree that some behavior phenotypes have significant correlation to breeds, while there are almost always counterexamples.
I fostered dozens of dogs. In my (admittedly small sample size) set of fosters, a Yellow Lab was the one with the most reactive response towards people and the “pit bull”/bully breed mixes were the most docile with little people in my family. The only “bites” in my family are from two different trained police GSDs.
I agree with other commenters that kids (and even adults who are not well versed in dog behaviors) should not be around strange dogs with unknown histories or behaviors.
I have seen two significant dog-attack-dog events. Neither showed obvious signs or gave noticeable warnings before the attack. Children should not be around dogs with unknown behaviors/ traumas/ conditioning and probably shouldn’t be around dogs when not supervised by a dog-savvy responsible adult. Obviously more time and exposure can lead to increased trust with an individual.
I agree with both the title (which is generally true but unspecific enough to the point of being useless). I also agree that some behavior phenotypes have significant correlation to breeds, while there are almost always counterexamples.
Agreed, that statement completely ignores the qualitative difference between dog bites. I was once bitten by some sort of yellow lab or golden retriever; it bit hard, but it let go before the pain signals even reached my brain. On the other hand, when pitbulls bite they tend to clamp down and shake, like they're trying to tear you apart. Likelihood of a bite is the wrong statistic, likelihood of a mauling is what really matters.
No. I wouldn't let a 6 year old play unsupervised with any dog. That would be incredibly irresponsible, and has lead to innumerable unnecessary child & dog deaths.
Would you leave a 6 year old unsupervised with a hungry rat? No - what a stupid question. A chihuahua can cause the same degree of injury (life-altering).
Is there a significant difference in behaviour between a pitbull and a chihuahua? No - this study confirms what has been known for years.
Breed-specific legislation is utter bullshit. It clearly doesn't work, isn't workable anyway (breed is judged based on looks rather than genetics), never had any scientific basis, and has been proven to be detrimental to its own aims time & time again.
Would you leave a 6 year old unsupervised with a hungry rat? No - what a stupid question. A chihuahua can cause the same degree of injury (life-altering).
Is there a significant difference in behaviour between a pitbull and a chihuahua? No - this study confirms what has been known for years.
Breed-specific legislation is utter bullshit. It clearly doesn't work, isn't workable anyway (breed is judged based on looks rather than genetics), never had any scientific basis, and has been proven to be detrimental to its own aims time & time again.
I’m not a fan of breed-specific legislation, but I’m more amenable to breed-selective homeowner insurance[1].
Interestingly most people misunderstand what a “pit bull” is. There are a few very similar breeds:
[1] https://forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/banned-dog-b...
Interestingly most people misunderstand what a “pit bull” is. There are a few very similar breeds:
- American Pit Bull Terrier
- Staffordshire Bull Terrier
- American Staffordshire Terrier
- American Bully
[1] https://forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/banned-dog-b...
Another statistical problem is almost any mutt that looks vaguely like a terrier labeled a “Pitt bull type.”
Hey it’s r/pitbulls trying to convince you that your kid’s face getting bitten off is totally your fault. Should have supervised better.
Chihuahua: face still attached.
Pitbull: lack of face.
Chihuahua: face still attached.
Pitbull: lack of face.
Ok, since you don't think a 6 year old can play with any dog unsupervised, how about a 12 year old? Would you let a 12 year old play unsupervised with a pit bull? How about with a chihuahua?
Depends on the dog, depends on the child. As per the paper, breed is a poor predictor of behaviour. I wouldn't let most adults in this thread play with my dogs unsupervised, based on the state of the comments.
Fair enough, but I think it's safe to say you're an extreme outlier.
As someone who fostered lots of dogs and had to interview people hoping to adopt a dog from me, I don’t care about what the vast majority of people. All people are ignorant until they aren’t.
Talking about non-outliers as if they have better knowledge of what the safety hazards are is a fallacy.
Talking about non-outliers as if they have better knowledge of what the safety hazards are is a fallacy.
"Is there anyone here who would let their 6 year old child play, unsupervised, with a random pit bull? How about a random chihuahua?"
Neither - they shouldn't be unsupervised with "random" dogs.
Neither - they shouldn't be unsupervised with "random" dogs.
That's why I presented a hypothetical question. It's like answering the trolley problem with "make laws against tying people to railroad tracks". Hypothetically speaking if you had to leave your kid with one or the other, which would you choose? Or would you say "doesn't matter"?
It's a false tautology and not representative of reality. There would be other traits and scenario details to observe that would be better indicators.
Never leave a child alone with any unknown dog. Or really any dog known or not. Children have the bad habit of getting in dogs faces, pulling their ears, etc and don’t always understand a dogs warninings.
Yes, a bigger, stronger dog has the potential for more damage if it becomes aggressive. Funny you use chihuahua as a counter example, because their reputation is for aggression. A chihuahua is less dangerous because it is smaller not because it is inherently less aggressive.
Yes, a bigger, stronger dog has the potential for more damage if it becomes aggressive. Funny you use chihuahua as a counter example, because their reputation is for aggression. A chihuahua is less dangerous because it is smaller not because it is inherently less aggressive.
> Funny you use chihuahua as a counter example, because their reputation is for aggression. A chihuahua is less dangerous because it is smaller not because it is inherently less aggressive.
I believe that was the argument made: presupposing a lack of correlation between breed and behavior, a tiny dog is less dangerous than a large one.
I believe that was the argument made: presupposing a lack of correlation between breed and behavior, a tiny dog is less dangerous than a large one.
So you agree that chihuahuas are less dangerous. That's my entire point.
To be frank, this "study" is absurd & invalid, and there is 100% an association between breed and behavior (we literally breed dogs for certain behavioral traits!).
On that topic, I realize it's controversial but think pitbulls should be banned outright - they are responsible for the majority of fatal dog-related attacks and there is a wealth of evidence indicating that they are not a desirable breed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/
On that topic, I realize it's controversial but think pitbulls should be banned outright - they are responsible for the majority of fatal dog-related attacks and there is a wealth of evidence indicating that they are not a desirable breed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/
From the study: "Owner survey responses are susceptible to rater bias, including the influence of breed stereotypes." That's all I could find acknowledging that this bias exists. I'm inclined to believe they know this type of bias completely invalidates the study, which is why they didn't want to explore it further.
Imagine a dog owner saying "Strongly agree" to something like "Dog has a tendency to attack (or attempt to attack) other dogs", or "Dog behaves aggressively towards children." (I believe these were questions in the surveys given to the dog owners).
> No no, not my precious Bulldozer, he's a sweety, just gets excited sometimes. I'll only put "neither agree nor disagree", because he only tries to attack dogs who are smaller than him.
I mean, I get it, nobody wants to think ill of their beloved pet, but that's the point. A study like this needs objective measures.
Imagine a dog owner saying "Strongly agree" to something like "Dog has a tendency to attack (or attempt to attack) other dogs", or "Dog behaves aggressively towards children." (I believe these were questions in the surveys given to the dog owners).
> No no, not my precious Bulldozer, he's a sweety, just gets excited sometimes. I'll only put "neither agree nor disagree", because he only tries to attack dogs who are smaller than him.
I mean, I get it, nobody wants to think ill of their beloved pet, but that's the point. A study like this needs objective measures.
To add to this here's a recent systematic review looking at rates of dog bites by and bite severity by breed. Consistently Pit-bulls and German Shepherds have higher likelihood of causing biting injury against people and have increased severity of injury [0].
Anecdotally, so far I have only seen bite injuries in the ER from Pit-bulls and German Shepherds (n < 5).
That being said, whether or not breed specific legislation works to minimize dog bites is a separate scientific question.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30579079/
Anecdotally, so far I have only seen bite injuries in the ER from Pit-bulls and German Shepherds (n < 5).
That being said, whether or not breed specific legislation works to minimize dog bites is a separate scientific question.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30579079/
I agreed with you on Pits but about a year ago one came to my house, no collar or tags so I kept him while trying to find owner. Which of course I never did.
Shelter is about at capacity here and most of these kind of dogs are put down which I didn't want to see. This dog was young (maybe 3) and friendly. My old border collie was bored and lonely and was very happy to have another dog. They get along great. Old border collie is the brains of the operation and Pit goes along.
So... now I'm a proud pitbull owner. Well, not proud, but an owner at least. It's maybe not as embarrassing as having a toy poodle, but going out for walks with a mean looking ghetto dog isn't something I aspired to and it's not what I would have chosen.
I took him to dog training because I was nervous about the breed. It's taught by a former police officer who specializes in handling dogs and is really great and I've learned a lot. We are now in the second advanced class and he's been doing well. I spend an hour a week in class with him and every week or so a "Pack Walk" on Saturday led by the instructor with a bunch of other dogs and people.
I know the breed is responsible for a lot of attacks (and deaths) so I don't disagree with your assessment and I felt exactly the same way but now I feel differently. According to the instructor the breed is not inherently dangerous if raised correctly but I feel extra precaution is warranted.
I live way outside town, very rural and have no neighbors so am in somewhat of a unique position to have a dog like this, I'm not sure I would have kept him if I lived close to other people. But so far no issues. He's very happy to have a home, gets along fantastic with my other dog and is pretty well trained at this point and he loves me more then my mom I think. Knock on wood he stays that way and honestly I don't mind a scary powerful dog watching the house but I am keeping a close eye on him for signs of aggression or violence. Which he has yet to exhibit so far.
The instructor says often: "We don't have a dog problem, we have a people problem".
Although pits were bred to be a fighting dog I wonder how much bad behavior can be attributed to the breed, and how much to the type of people that usually own and raise that breed.
Shelter is about at capacity here and most of these kind of dogs are put down which I didn't want to see. This dog was young (maybe 3) and friendly. My old border collie was bored and lonely and was very happy to have another dog. They get along great. Old border collie is the brains of the operation and Pit goes along.
So... now I'm a proud pitbull owner. Well, not proud, but an owner at least. It's maybe not as embarrassing as having a toy poodle, but going out for walks with a mean looking ghetto dog isn't something I aspired to and it's not what I would have chosen.
I took him to dog training because I was nervous about the breed. It's taught by a former police officer who specializes in handling dogs and is really great and I've learned a lot. We are now in the second advanced class and he's been doing well. I spend an hour a week in class with him and every week or so a "Pack Walk" on Saturday led by the instructor with a bunch of other dogs and people.
I know the breed is responsible for a lot of attacks (and deaths) so I don't disagree with your assessment and I felt exactly the same way but now I feel differently. According to the instructor the breed is not inherently dangerous if raised correctly but I feel extra precaution is warranted.
I live way outside town, very rural and have no neighbors so am in somewhat of a unique position to have a dog like this, I'm not sure I would have kept him if I lived close to other people. But so far no issues. He's very happy to have a home, gets along fantastic with my other dog and is pretty well trained at this point and he loves me more then my mom I think. Knock on wood he stays that way and honestly I don't mind a scary powerful dog watching the house but I am keeping a close eye on him for signs of aggression or violence. Which he has yet to exhibit so far.
The instructor says often: "We don't have a dog problem, we have a people problem".
Although pits were bred to be a fighting dog I wonder how much bad behavior can be attributed to the breed, and how much to the type of people that usually own and raise that breed.
What a beautiful story, thanks for sharing!
Indeed, there are intuitive or instinctual behaviours different breeds have - of course they can learn other behaviours from observing other dogs, and training can reduce or suppress instincts to some degree as well. Context matters too, so if the environment doesn't match what their instincts would lead them to do don't have the opportunity to get triggered then you're not going to see them, at least not as often or as strongly.
The most obvious to me are the breeds that were bred for herding, and where you see that behaviour in mixes of that breed as well - even if it's muted some.
And I tend towards agreeing with you re: pitbulls. I've seen perfectly friendly and generally very gentle pitbulls snap - there's no reason for this amongst the general population.
The most obvious to me are the breeds that were bred for herding, and where you see that behaviour in mixes of that breed as well - even if it's muted some.
And I tend towards agreeing with you re: pitbulls. I've seen perfectly friendly and generally very gentle pitbulls snap - there's no reason for this amongst the general population.
Agree RE herding. I've seen a Collie that has never even seen a sheep try to instinctively herd a bunch of school kids. It just came naturally.
My Golden Retriever on the other hand won't even chase a squirrel. He has finally learnt to guard my rabbits from the foxes, but it took a lot of training.
My Golden Retriever on the other hand won't even chase a squirrel. He has finally learnt to guard my rabbits from the foxes, but it took a lot of training.
If you want to ban pitbulls, look at the others in the study about risk rates by breed. If you ban pitbulls they'll likely be replaced by some of these and they would need to be banned as well. Of course, in the name of the environment we could ban dog ownership altogether making this a moot discussion, right?
"Number of different breeds with similar risk rates for dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) including: Malamutes, Chow Chows, Saint Bernards, Huskies, Great Danes, Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, Mastiffs, Pitbull-Type dogs, Akitas, German Shepherds, and Bulldogs."
https://www.fataldogattacks.org/
"Number of different breeds with similar risk rates for dog bite-related fatalities (DBRFs) including: Malamutes, Chow Chows, Saint Bernards, Huskies, Great Danes, Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, Mastiffs, Pitbull-Type dogs, Akitas, German Shepherds, and Bulldogs."
https://www.fataldogattacks.org/
Completely agree. Unfortunately a ban unless strictly enforced doesn't lead to much - in the UK all pit bulls are banned except for staffordshires(which imo should be banned too), and you still see owners walking their bullies and american pitbulls down the street as if it was nothing, sometimes witnout a leash even.
Just straight up linking to a dog whistle sub... okay...
What's wrong with the sub?
Based on a quick scan, there isn't much right with it. Just lots of people looking at pictures of dogs doing nothing and squealing about how dangerous that particular dog is - based purely on its looks.
The sub has stickies with pretty convincing evidence of the breed being dangerous. The posts by users mostly seem to be either news stories of someone getting attacked by pitbulls, users sharing their frustrations related to pitbulls and/or their owners, and a few social media screenshots where users claim that the way the dogs' owners behavior is unsafe.
Even if some users comment that the dog is dangerous based on how it looks, that doesn't refute the trove of evidence that pitbulls can be an inherently unsafe breed compared to non-fighting breeds.
Even if some users comment that the dog is dangerous based on how it looks, that doesn't refute the trove of evidence that pitbulls can be an inherently unsafe breed compared to non-fighting breeds.
Correlation is not causation. There could be plenty of reasons why pitbulls feature highly in the dog attack stats (severity making attacks more noteworthy, type of owner increasing likelihood, stigma causing human behavioural changes making a self-fulfilling prophecy). There is no evidence that genetics is a direct cause of dangerous behaviour.
> There is no evidence that genetics is a direct cause of dangerous behaviour.
Haha, I'm sorry but this is hilariously false. All other working-dog breeds have genetically ingrained behaviours that no one teachers them - retrievers retrieve without anyone teaching them, border collies corral ducks and children without anyone teaching them, pointers point without anyone teaching them.
However pitbulls are always the odd one out in the apologists' eyes - somehow them being purposefully bred for fighting bulls, rats and dogs and having behaviour and features that would make them successful in these pursuits is nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with their owners. Despite there being many cases of pits being adopted by very kind and caring owners and the dog still mauling them.
Haha, I'm sorry but this is hilariously false. All other working-dog breeds have genetically ingrained behaviours that no one teachers them - retrievers retrieve without anyone teaching them, border collies corral ducks and children without anyone teaching them, pointers point without anyone teaching them.
However pitbulls are always the odd one out in the apologists' eyes - somehow them being purposefully bred for fighting bulls, rats and dogs and having behaviour and features that would make them successful in these pursuits is nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with their owners. Despite there being many cases of pits being adopted by very kind and caring owners and the dog still mauling them.
Kind and caring != understands dog behaviour.
99.999% of agonistic behaviour is driven by fear. What a normal person thinks is a kind & caring behaviour can be terrifying for a dog.
Non-pointers point. Some pointer don't.
Non-retreivers retrieve. Some retreivers don't.
Non-herding dogs herd. Some herders don't.
Most dogs play-fight. "Fighting dogs" have to be trained to fight to kill.
Breeding is clearly a fantastic determinant of physical characteristics which pair well with the desired behaviour, and does contribute a little bit towards behavioural instinct, but (as per the *peer-reviewed long term study* in question) isn't on its own a good predictor of behaviour.
The ~.001%, by the way, is termed idiopathic aggression (sometimes called cocker rage, but again is NOT actually well-correlated with cocker spaniels). Idiopathic means of unknown cause.
Non-pointers point. Some pointer don't.
Non-retreivers retrieve. Some retreivers don't.
Non-herding dogs herd. Some herders don't.
Most dogs play-fight. "Fighting dogs" have to be trained to fight to kill.
Breeding is clearly a fantastic determinant of physical characteristics which pair well with the desired behaviour, and does contribute a little bit towards behavioural instinct, but (as per the *peer-reviewed long term study* in question) isn't on its own a good predictor of behaviour.
The ~.001%, by the way, is termed idiopathic aggression (sometimes called cocker rage, but again is NOT actually well-correlated with cocker spaniels). Idiopathic means of unknown cause.
"peer-reviewed long term study"
This is not a silver bullet, even for recently published Nature/Science papers. You need to convince 3-4 people to get your paper published in the end. For many controversial papers, there is a lot of back and forth about the validity of the results (e.g., "Matters Arising" in Nature).
The biggest flaw of this study is relying on subjective reports by the owners. Almost all dog owners I know are used to playing down the severity of their dog's aggressiveness.
This is not a silver bullet, even for recently published Nature/Science papers. You need to convince 3-4 people to get your paper published in the end. For many controversial papers, there is a lot of back and forth about the validity of the results (e.g., "Matters Arising" in Nature).
The biggest flaw of this study is relying on subjective reports by the owners. Almost all dog owners I know are used to playing down the severity of their dog's aggressiveness.
I was going to write up a lengthy reply arguing each of your points and then I realised your argument is just sophisms and nitpicking.
If you have to argue that:
- you actually need a PhD in dog psychology(or whatever "understanding dog behaviour" means) to have this specific breed
- that pretty much "yes breed determines traits and behaviours but also doesn't!"
- conflating play fighting with very pit bull specific action of biting down and shaking(a technique bred into them for bloodsports) to prove that no, pit bulls are actually not so dangerous and just like any other breed
...to prove that pitbulls aren't potentially inherently dangerous then I can't take your argument seriously.
Just the fact that pitbulls being a minority of the dog population in the US and UK and still causing the majority of maulings and dog attack fatalities should be evidence enough that something's fishy.
If you have to argue that:
- you actually need a PhD in dog psychology(or whatever "understanding dog behaviour" means) to have this specific breed
- that pretty much "yes breed determines traits and behaviours but also doesn't!"
- conflating play fighting with very pit bull specific action of biting down and shaking(a technique bred into them for bloodsports) to prove that no, pit bulls are actually not so dangerous and just like any other breed
...to prove that pitbulls aren't potentially inherently dangerous then I can't take your argument seriously.
Just the fact that pitbulls being a minority of the dog population in the US and UK and still causing the majority of maulings and dog attack fatalities should be evidence enough that something's fishy.
"There could be plenty of reasons why pitbulls feature highly in the dog attack stats (severity making attacks more noteworthy, type of owner increasing likelihood"
Well, the severity of their attacks is essentially a results of their genetics. As for the type of owner, it the same logic used against gun control, saying that they pose no danger if the owner is responsible.
Whatever the combination of factors, the end result on a large scale point to pitbulls as the most dangerous breed of dog to humans and banning them should be a no-brainer.
Well, the severity of their attacks is essentially a results of their genetics. As for the type of owner, it the same logic used against gun control, saying that they pose no danger if the owner is responsible.
Whatever the combination of factors, the end result on a large scale point to pitbulls as the most dangerous breed of dog to humans and banning them should be a no-brainer.
This is such a weird turn in new science.
For hundreds of years folks breed dogs for various traits. Labs are friendly (and not great guard dogs). Greyhounds can run fast and like to chase. Pitbulls can use their strong bite and a shake behavior to devastating effect. And the list goes on.
Now we have nature coming out with a study that shows breed does NOT predict behavior?
What's interesting is I'm not sure some breeds can even mechanically behave in certain ways. Can miniature poodles even hamstring you if they wanted to?
Science has taken a lot of hits recently with some of the covid stuff. This type of scientific conclusion is going to risk some more damage to folks faith in science (or at least in the accuracy of reporting on science).
For hundreds of years folks breed dogs for various traits. Labs are friendly (and not great guard dogs). Greyhounds can run fast and like to chase. Pitbulls can use their strong bite and a shake behavior to devastating effect. And the list goes on.
Now we have nature coming out with a study that shows breed does NOT predict behavior?
What's interesting is I'm not sure some breeds can even mechanically behave in certain ways. Can miniature poodles even hamstring you if they wanted to?
Science has taken a lot of hits recently with some of the covid stuff. This type of scientific conclusion is going to risk some more damage to folks faith in science (or at least in the accuracy of reporting on science).
I suspect part of it is a fear of the following slippery slope:
admitting of genetic differences between breads -> genetic differences between races -> providing scientific proof that some races are better than others -> therefor some races should be treated better/worse than others.
I personally find this line of argument flawed. Putting aside any discussion of the idea of race, it simply does not follow that a) one group being better at certain things means they are inherently better overall. Or that b) being better at certain things, or even overall, means that others must be treated worse.
admitting of genetic differences between breads -> genetic differences between races -> providing scientific proof that some races are better than others -> therefor some races should be treated better/worse than others.
I personally find this line of argument flawed. Putting aside any discussion of the idea of race, it simply does not follow that a) one group being better at certain things means they are inherently better overall. Or that b) being better at certain things, or even overall, means that others must be treated worse.
I can think of 4 things that would make a science-based discussion around those sensitive topics more palatable: 1) All data is in distributions, and so no predictions can be made about an individual based on distributions. 2) "Better" is a meaningless term in these discussions. 3) Any traits are the result of optimization for a particular environment. 4) Everyone should be treated with respect.
> 1) All data is in distributions, and so no predictions can be made about an individual based on distributions.
Good luck with getting people to accept that. It is obvious to any statistician, but I have had arguments with experienced researches who cannot grasp this simple fact
Good luck with getting people to accept that. It is obvious to any statistician, but I have had arguments with experienced researches who cannot grasp this simple fact
Maybe that means something different to me than it does to you, but you definitely can make predictions about individuals. Is that not what a prior?
If I hear that someone is 12 years old and I know nothing else about them, then assuming their height is the mode for that age group is as good of a prediction as you can make.
If I hear that someone is 12 years old and I know nothing else about them, then assuming their height is the mode for that age group is as good of a prediction as you can make.
A more important point is that the instant you meet someone, you have far more information about them than knowing their genetics would give you. So it'd be strange to meet a Dutch person and go "hah, by your genetics I predict you're 190cm tall" if you're looking at them and they're short.
Yeah, but sometimes friendly looking dogs aren't so friendly. There are some general signs you can look for in a dog's body language and behavior, but unless you've spent a lot of time with that dog you just don't know for sure.
Yes. But until then all you have with are the statistics.
What you describe goes against the narrative that any living thing in a species is just as X, Y, and Z as any other living thing in that species. It's part of the "equality of outcome" push because it denies the presence of innate advantages and characteristics, which is critical to enforcing the idea that everyone has precisely the same aptitudes.
The editors at Nature are brilliant in publishing a study like this, no matter how flawed it is, because it's such a sensitive topic for dog owners and people who see patterns in dogs mauling people. It's guaranteed clicks, reposts, retweets, and angry discussion along the lines of "see, science SAYS!" and "the study is flawed."
The editors at Nature are brilliant in publishing a study like this, no matter how flawed it is, because it's such a sensitive topic for dog owners and people who see patterns in dogs mauling people. It's guaranteed clicks, reposts, retweets, and angry discussion along the lines of "see, science SAYS!" and "the study is flawed."
Paper was actually published in Science and this is just an editorial about the article.
They aren't saying that there's no physical differences in dogs' capabilities.
Pits can bite and shake because they have ridiculous jaws and a powerful build. If a miniature poodle tried, it wouldn't have much effect.
The reporting on this is also sketchier than the science; the honest headline "Study of pet dogs shows breed is imperfectly predictive of behavior", which could be confirmed by anyone with multiple dogs of a certain breed.
The study gives 9% predictive, which (if interpreted as the chance that a dog of $breed has $(breed-specific behavior)) doesn't seem too far off base (netted over a wide range of breed-specific behaviors).
Pits can bite and shake because they have ridiculous jaws and a powerful build. If a miniature poodle tried, it wouldn't have much effect.
The reporting on this is also sketchier than the science; the honest headline "Study of pet dogs shows breed is imperfectly predictive of behavior", which could be confirmed by anyone with multiple dogs of a certain breed.
The study gives 9% predictive, which (if interpreted as the chance that a dog of $breed has $(breed-specific behavior)) doesn't seem too far off base (netted over a wide range of breed-specific behaviors).
9% predictive? This seems very low.
I hope folks who actually have dogs pay a LOT more attention to what their dogs breed is and what it needs. Some dogs, based on their breed, need a ton of outside time. Some do not handle being on their own very well and need to be with people or other dogs. Some become very protective and can become dangerous in various ways.
PLEASE do not believe this can be ignored.
Did they even talk to anyone working with dogs?
I hope folks who actually have dogs pay a LOT more attention to what their dogs breed is and what it needs. Some dogs, based on their breed, need a ton of outside time. Some do not handle being on their own very well and need to be with people or other dogs. Some become very protective and can become dangerous in various ways.
PLEASE do not believe this can be ignored.
Did they even talk to anyone working with dogs?
A 1/10 chance that a member of any given breed exhibits any given behavior based on breed doesn't seem unreasonable given a) how granular the behaviors are (they include "eating grass"), so there are a large number of specific behaviors that might all fit a larger pattern but which any given dog might or might not exhibit, b) that they included mixes, who you would expect to be less likely to fit a breed's specific behaviors, and c) the 9% predictiveness is on top of a base rate of exhibiting the behavior regardless of breed.
>Pits can bite and shake because they have ridiculous jaws and a powerful build. If a miniature poodle tried, it wouldn't have much effect.
They got that way because humans designed them that way intentionally with selective breeding. It's not so much "they do X because Y" than it is "they do X because they were designed to do X, and Y is the result of that design."
They got that way because humans designed them that way intentionally with selective breeding. It's not so much "they do X because Y" than it is "they do X because they were designed to do X, and Y is the result of that design."
For sure, but again, that's a characteristic that is enabled by a physical difference.
Literally nobody here is saying there's no physical difference between breeds of dog.
Literally nobody here is saying there's no physical difference between breeds of dog.
You would be surprised. I worked with a fellow that wouldn't acknowledge that there is a height difference in the average man's height and the average woman's height, because "everyone is different and there's no such thing as an 'average' man and an 'average' woman." To people that reason that way, anecdotes trump averages, and a very small pitbull and a very large corgi are proof that patterns are meaningless.
It's quite true that some distributions have no members of their average value.
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
Is it as simple as a symptom of clickbait for views that's propagating this type of poor "science"?
Isn't this study flawed because they asked people to report on their dog's behavior? When I talk to other dog owners, they discuss the dog with respect to their perceived breed standard, "Oh, Kelly is much more calm than I expected from a Rotty" or "Joy is pretty dumb for a Collie." If they somehow got neutral observers that would be much more persuasive, in my mind.
It isn't flawed, it's straight up garbage. The fact that the authors are preferring twitter to have a conversation about the study is pretty telling as well.
No idea how they got into Nature, I thought it was supposed to be a respectable journal?
No idea how they got into Nature, I thought it was supposed to be a respectable journal?
> No idea how they got into Nature, I thought it was supposed to be a respectable journal?
Prominent journal is a better way to describe it. They have a well known sensationalism bias (as does Science. This is the reason both journals are so widely recognized.)
Prominent journal is a better way to describe it. They have a well known sensationalism bias (as does Science. This is the reason both journals are so widely recognized.)
I came across this from one of the authors cited on the studies.
https://twitter.com/eenork/status/1520450288095797251?s=20&t...
My understanding is they use genomic traits across mutts to try and validate if its inheritable.
My understanding is they use genomic traits across mutts to try and validate if its inheritable.
Exactly right.
I can only assume some pitbull/Rottweiler owner group paid for this publication.
The Siberian silver fox study makes it very difficult to avoid the conclusion that behavior (e.g. tameness) in canines is a heritable trait that can be selected for.
Beginning in 1952 wild silver foxes have been bred in Siberia selecting solely for friendliness. Notable changes were found after 6 generations. By the 30th generation, 70-80% of the selected population were "domesticated elite", which "are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs." Similar experiments were performed in the opposite direction, selecting for aggression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Beginning in 1952 wild silver foxes have been bred in Siberia selecting solely for friendliness. Notable changes were found after 6 generations. By the 30th generation, 70-80% of the selected population were "domesticated elite", which "are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs." Similar experiments were performed in the opposite direction, selecting for aggression. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Heritability of traits is a really messy and difficult problem. Sere, you can breed tameness into wild foxes, but that doesn't mean you can easily breed more tameness into already tame foxes/dogs. There might be some low-hanging fruit that's easy to exploit and after that, it's mostly random chance and the environment that determines things. But that again depends on what the environment is like - if all dog owners routinely raise their puppies in the same extreme way, their inherited differences might either be invisible because none get the chance to express them, or even more significant because that's the only factor left that can sort out how they respond to their environment.
One can start with an already tame population of foxes/dogs and select for aggression. Aggression would be a useful trait in a breed desired for protection/guarding.
People have been doing that and yet somehow those aggressive breeds still frequently produce harmless puppies, so it's not obvious that breeders have actually achieved it. Maybe dogs have been domesticated for so long that we can't undo their behavior with just a couple of hundred years. Or maybe we can. It's hard, not obvious.
This is one of those studies where the conclusion is so obviously wrong that I don't even want to open it, and it makes me discount the credibility of Nature overall.
Trusting your gut over a paper published in Nature. Bold move!
Some people would use this as a moment to question what they know about dog breeds, but you choose to double down on your beliefs. Very human of you! [0][1][2][3]
[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-pathways-experie...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance
[2] http://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2015/12/11/doubling-down/
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/0...
Some people would use this as a moment to question what they know about dog breeds, but you choose to double down on your beliefs. Very human of you! [0][1][2][3]
[0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-pathways-experie...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance
[2] http://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2015/12/11/doubling-down/
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/0...
>Trusting your gut over a paper published in Nature. Bold move!
Not really bold, just sensible and rational when there is a large amount of evidence the paper is wrong. After all, many papers are found to be wrong. I believe there was even a study that measured the ability of people to predict which papers would turn out to be not replicable... I'll try to find a link to that and post it here.
Not really bold, just sensible and rational when there is a large amount of evidence the paper is wrong. After all, many papers are found to be wrong. I believe there was even a study that measured the ability of people to predict which papers would turn out to be not replicable... I'll try to find a link to that and post it here.
One study doesn't make established science. Look at nutrition science for example-- there are reputable studies in major journals that say dietary cholesterol is terrible for your blood cholesterol levels, and there are reputable studies in major journals that say dietary cholesterol has no effect on blood levels. People have this strange idea that if a study says something it's incontrovertible fact. That's not how science works. Studies must be replicated and over time through discussion a new consensus is reached.
Strange how over thousands of years we've been able to selectively breed incredibly specific variety in canine physical form but we've been completely unable to breed for specific behaviors... /s
Not thousands, more like 150.
This is very wrong, there have been clearly defined dog breeds for thousands of years: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/mi...
Defined dog breeds? Yes. Yorkshire Terriers (and dog breeds as we know them or as was studied in the submission)? No.
If a study came out showing the sky was purple, would you believe it or would you look out the window?
No, the issue is that the reporting on this study represents a general problem in science reporting. This study measured behaviors that for the most part have zero relevance to public policy. Whether a dog likes to eat grass, crosses its front paws, turns in circles before pooping, or enjoys life (Those are all real questions from the survey) are not things that the government or the general public has any conceivable interest in regulating. Nevertheless, this study, or headlines about it, will be trotted out by people to "prove" that a dog's breed has no influence over whether it is willing and able to kill or maim a person.
Did you read the paper?
They derived 8 behavioural factors from the survey questions, and there are a few which are very relevant to dog-human aggression.
#1: Human sociability #2: Arousal level #4: Biddability #5: Agonistic threshold (agonistic is the behavioural term encompassing aggression)
Those are probably the most relevant. There is an important consideration which does seem to be missing from the study, but only reinforces its conclusion:
Most, if not all of these factors can be altered with behaviour modification (training).
You can raise a dogs agonistic threshold with classical conditioning. You can increase its biddability with operant conditioning. You can lower its arousal level with both.
Does training rewrite DNA? Obviously not.
They derived 8 behavioural factors from the survey questions, and there are a few which are very relevant to dog-human aggression.
#1: Human sociability #2: Arousal level #4: Biddability #5: Agonistic threshold (agonistic is the behavioural term encompassing aggression)
Those are probably the most relevant. There is an important consideration which does seem to be missing from the study, but only reinforces its conclusion:
Most, if not all of these factors can be altered with behaviour modification (training).
You can raise a dogs agonistic threshold with classical conditioning. You can increase its biddability with operant conditioning. You can lower its arousal level with both.
Does training rewrite DNA? Obviously not.
I did; do you understand why I am saying "DOG leaves food or objects alone when told to do so" or "DOG is quick to sneak out through open doors, gates" or "DOG is slow to respond to corrections" (among many other questions) are utterly irrelevant when people consider why certain types of dogs are dangerous?
> Most, if not all of these factors can be altered with behaviour modification (training).
What percentage of dog owners know how to train a dog properly, or hire someone who can? It just seems like you're not thinking about how dogs exist in the real world.
> Most, if not all of these factors can be altered with behaviour modification (training).
What percentage of dog owners know how to train a dog properly, or hire someone who can? It just seems like you're not thinking about how dogs exist in the real world.
[deleted]
The article title says:
"Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour"
While the paper states:
"Breed is not a reliable predictor of individual behavior"
If it needs to be spelt out: The former implies no correlation between breed and behavior, while the latter explicitly says that breed does not reliably predict an individual's behavior, it could be a pronounced bell curve but you still have outliers.
So yes, the article title is obviously wrong and any sane person should trust their gut over it. And what is actually stated in the paper (not mentioning the conclusion because it doesn't have jack to do with the article title) in relation to this article's point is an obvious observation: It doesn't hurt to have data on, but is pretty much pointless for anything except producing bullshit, misleading, clickbaity pop science articles.
Even the article itself recognizes that there's a significant correlation between breed and certain behaviors, but merely dismisses it as "smaller than expected".
"Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour"
While the paper states:
"Breed is not a reliable predictor of individual behavior"
If it needs to be spelt out: The former implies no correlation between breed and behavior, while the latter explicitly says that breed does not reliably predict an individual's behavior, it could be a pronounced bell curve but you still have outliers.
So yes, the article title is obviously wrong and any sane person should trust their gut over it. And what is actually stated in the paper (not mentioning the conclusion because it doesn't have jack to do with the article title) in relation to this article's point is an obvious observation: It doesn't hurt to have data on, but is pretty much pointless for anything except producing bullshit, misleading, clickbaity pop science articles.
Even the article itself recognizes that there's a significant correlation between breed and certain behaviors, but merely dismisses it as "smaller than expected".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
If Nature put out a paper saying the sky is red, it would be entirely rational of me to question what on Earth is going on at Nature, rather than my years of experience of blue skies.
If Nature put out a paper saying the sky is red, it would be entirely rational of me to question what on Earth is going on at Nature, rather than my years of experience of blue skies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
They didn't put out a paper saying the sky is red, they put out a paper saying the magnitude of impact from breed on dog behavior is substantially less pronounced than previously thought.
It is not rational for you to double down on this belief.
They didn't put out a paper saying the sky is red, they put out a paper saying the magnitude of impact from breed on dog behavior is substantially less pronounced than previously thought.
It is not rational for you to double down on this belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
The headline does not say "substantially less pronounced than previously thought". The headline says "breed does not predict behaviour (nature.com)". Any fool who works with dogs will tell you that yes, it ruddy well does.
The headline does not say "substantially less pronounced than previously thought". The headline says "breed does not predict behaviour (nature.com)". Any fool who works with dogs will tell you that yes, it ruddy well does.
Not a Motte-and-bailey fallacy, because I said the paper, not the linked article about the paper.
And no, the "headline" (called a "Title") of the paper published in Nature says, "Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes".
And no, the "headline" (called a "Title") of the paper published in Nature says, "Ancestry-inclusive dog genomics challenges popular breed stereotypes".
The conclusion I would draw is that dog owners are unable to objectively analyse their pets behaviour.
On top of that it was published in Science. I'm completely stumped.
I'm not going to spell it out because it's one of those observations that's taboo even here, but it's pretty obvious why in the prevailing political climate this piece would get published in prestigious journals and a piece finding otherwise would not.
You should spell it out, or stay silent. This middle ground is cowardly and contributes nothing.
"It is currently politically unacceptable to make any claims that human behavior is primarily genetically influenced, and strong evidence in support of genetically-determined behavior in dogs will beg the question of why (or if) we don't see the same patterns in human populations."
The fact that people believe this demonstrates an egregious misunderstanding of how genetics works. People have never been "bred" in any meaningful sense (e.g. for a long enough or in a consistently isolated way for selection to be relevant) in human history.
What does being bred have to do with the pattern of genetics influencing behavior?
Are you saying there aren’t enough differences in human genetics to allow us to group them in a meaningful way?
Are you saying there aren’t enough differences in human genetics to allow us to group them in a meaningful way?
I'm saying it's sad people still think eugenics has merit, despite being profoundly debunked and disproven repeatedly over the past century (and more).
> a consistently isolated way
The San diverged from the rest of humanity ~200,000 years ago. Australian Aboriginals ~40,000 years ago. Amerindians ~12,000 years ago.
No one’s been breeding humans but there’s been plenty of reproductive isolation. Enough that differences in selection pressures could easily lead to differences in traits. For a visible example 5,000 years ago there were no populations that looked like Swedes. Humans that pale did not exist apart from albinos.
The San diverged from the rest of humanity ~200,000 years ago. Australian Aboriginals ~40,000 years ago. Amerindians ~12,000 years ago.
No one’s been breeding humans but there’s been plenty of reproductive isolation. Enough that differences in selection pressures could easily lead to differences in traits. For a visible example 5,000 years ago there were no populations that looked like Swedes. Humans that pale did not exist apart from albinos.
I don't see how one leads to another. The effect of living in Australia on a population of humans is entirely different than the effect of selectively being breeding dogs to be small and obedient. Just because both circumstances can exert selective pressure does not mean they are the same. Humans the world over, despite different geographies, have the same problems to contend with-- that's not the same thing as what we do when we selectively breed chihuahuas and great danes.
I’m not saying there are differences in (pick a trait, any trait). I’m saying that anyone who tells you that differences don’t exist has to prove it. Rice farming is a very different way of life to pastoralist is very different to hoe agriculture is very different to hunting and gathering. Some populations have been following the ~same lifestyle for over a thousand years. There’s no principled reason that can’t cause populations to diverge. If someone wants to say different populations are the same in some non-metaphysical way they need to prove it. They can’t just assert it. Religion works on faith. Scientists bring facts.
>Religion works on faith. Scientists bring facts.
What does religion have to do with this? I didn't say to to rely on faith, rely on the scientific institution that already came to a concensus a long time ago. The studies are out there, if you want to see proof. Just because I don't have them on hand doesn't mean they don't exist and need to be taken on faith
What does religion have to do with this? I didn't say to to rely on faith, rely on the scientific institution that already came to a concensus a long time ago. The studies are out there, if you want to see proof. Just because I don't have them on hand doesn't mean they don't exist and need to be taken on faith
> Just because both circumstances can exert selective pressure does not mean they are the same.
Selective pressure makes change. Different selective pressure makes difference. Reproductive isolation makes large differences possible. Humans have lived in very different environments and been reproductively isolated. There is no a priori reason to believe human populations are the same on every trait. And they’re not. Similar on most things but not on everything.
Selective pressure makes change. Different selective pressure makes difference. Reproductive isolation makes large differences possible. Humans have lived in very different environments and been reproductively isolated. There is no a priori reason to believe human populations are the same on every trait. And they’re not. Similar on most things but not on everything.
The main reason differences don't exist is that the group of people they always want to claim has the differences (black people) aren't genetically related to each other and have more diversity than the rest of humanity.
Skin color is a useful adaptation to getting enough Vitamin D and folate but predicts approximately nothing else about you or your genes, or how related you are to people with different skin color. A single generation more of population mixing and you can have a direct sibling with a completely different appearance.
All that is true. How does it relate to the possibility or not of large differences between human populations? Interbreeding will reduce variation extremely quickly but we know reproductive isolation was very high between continents for a very long time. Even individual villages in India have jatis that have been living next to each other for centuries that haven’t interbred for over 1,000 years.
Genes run in families, not villages. How are the traits spreading across the entire population in that 1000 years enough to make the "large difference" instead of being averaged out again? Existing cases of that are founder effects or mating with someone truly different like a Denisovan[0].
More importantly this knowledge would be useless if you found it, because the only reason to know things is to make predictions, and this doesn't let you predict anything about the next generation. We're in modernity now and they can just move somewhere else.
[0] which funny enough isn't considered a subspecies and doesn't have a Latin name because the scientist who discovered them thinks Latin names are pretentious.
More importantly this knowledge would be useless if you found it, because the only reason to know things is to make predictions, and this doesn't let you predict anything about the next generation. We're in modernity now and they can just move somewhere else.
[0] which funny enough isn't considered a subspecies and doesn't have a Latin name because the scientist who discovered them thinks Latin names are pretentious.
> How are the traits spreading across the entire population in that 1000 years enough to make the "large difference" instead of being averaged out again?
Mating isn’t random. People are more likely to mate with those who live near them. So Southern Chinese are more like each other than Northern Chinese. Geography matters. Distance matters. If there’s reproductive isolation difference can emerge and persist. If there isn’t it won’t.
Geography isn’t the only way populations stay distinct. Religion, language, means of sustenance can do it too but interbreeding can reduce difference very, very quickly as you note.
Mating isn’t random. People are more likely to mate with those who live near them. So Southern Chinese are more like each other than Northern Chinese. Geography matters. Distance matters. If there’s reproductive isolation difference can emerge and persist. If there isn’t it won’t.
Geography isn’t the only way populations stay distinct. Religion, language, means of sustenance can do it too but interbreeding can reduce difference very, very quickly as you note.
None of this is true, there are no known human subspecies, not to mention human subspecies differentiated by geography.
Who said anything about subspecies? All human groups can breed with no issue. Humans are clearly differentiated by geography. Swedes don’t look like Arabs. Arabs don’t look like Sub Saharan Africans. None of these groups look like Indians or East Asians. Quite visible geographic differentiation.
If the specific claims I made about the length of reproductive isolation are false you will find it easy to provide sources to that effect.
If the specific claims I made about the length of reproductive isolation are false you will find it easy to provide sources to that effect.
Polar bears and brown bears can breed and produce fertile offspring, but we reckon them to be not just subspecies, but separate species altogether. Whether to lump or split is rather arbitrary.
Thus, it's observably true that the position that there are no human subspecies isn't a scientific one, but rather a moral one. Personally I'm comfortable with that, because being Catholic I account all human beings to be created in the image of God and equal in worth in His eyes. Whether or not there are genetically determined differences in mean behavior between different ancestry groups in Homo Sapiens doesn't change that one bit. Neither for that matter does how scientists choose to classify them.
Thus, it's observably true that the position that there are no human subspecies isn't a scientific one, but rather a moral one. Personally I'm comfortable with that, because being Catholic I account all human beings to be created in the image of God and equal in worth in His eyes. Whether or not there are genetically determined differences in mean behavior between different ancestry groups in Homo Sapiens doesn't change that one bit. Neither for that matter does how scientists choose to classify them.
All of those people you've named can and do look like one another, depending on circumstance. Every trait you can think of that you'd list as a "characteristic" of one of the groups you've named can be found in abundance in numerous other places as well, or accounted for due to environmental factors. There is no "canonical" "Swede" or "Arab".
Your reliance on stereotype is not only racist but it's factually wrong.
This is well studied, and if you are actually curious, there are many, many sources of information about this topic you can find yourself.
Race does not exist, genetically. Period.
Your reliance on stereotype is not only racist but it's factually wrong.
This is well studied, and if you are actually curious, there are many, many sources of information about this topic you can find yourself.
Race does not exist, genetically. Period.
> Race does not exist, genetically. Period.
And yet ancestry.com can comfortably tell anyone which continental scale human population or populations they are descended from and that happens to map pretty neatly to the US Census Bureau's notion of race.
Being aware that major geographic features of the Earth such as the Atlantic Ocean, the Himalayas, and the Sahara Desert were more or less impermeable barriers to gene flow between continental human populations until about five centuries ago isn't racist and you should stop calling people names.
And yet ancestry.com can comfortably tell anyone which continental scale human population or populations they are descended from and that happens to map pretty neatly to the US Census Bureau's notion of race.
Being aware that major geographic features of the Earth such as the Atlantic Ocean, the Himalayas, and the Sahara Desert were more or less impermeable barriers to gene flow between continental human populations until about five centuries ago isn't racist and you should stop calling people names.
It can tell you which ancestral population you come from decently well, not totally accurately - on 23andMe "French & German" is a group but has really poor recall, and "Latin American" is not a group nor "Aboriginal Australian" despite how possible they look.
But that's just clustering and it would work on any random groups you chose. In particular, it would still work if they picked a group where none of the members were related to each other (and indeed that's how it works now). As long as you're related to one of them it'd still be able to show you're a member of it.
But that's just clustering and it would work on any random groups you chose. In particular, it would still work if they picked a group where none of the members were related to each other (and indeed that's how it works now). As long as you're related to one of them it'd still be able to show you're a member of it.
Ancestry.com simply does not do what you're claiming here. The whole "fun" of ancestry.com is that each person who does it shows up in surprising places across the globe, regardless of their supposed "race", because genetics don't adhere to any concept of "race" as it exists in culture.
And the this Barrier Theory was proposed by eugenicists in the 20s and thoroughly debunked by the 30s.
And the this Barrier Theory was proposed by eugenicists in the 20s and thoroughly debunked by the 30s.
I didn’t say anything about race. The word is useless, imprecise.
There’s no canonical Swede or Arab? You don’t say. As I mentioned no one who looks like a Swede existed 5,000 years ago. That there is overlap between population characteristics does not mean they are identical. Some populations don’t overlap though. Healthy Pygmy and Maasai adult men do not overlap in height distribution. If you restrict your sample of Swedes to those with all ancestors born in Sweden in 1800 and do a similar restriction for Congolese there will be no overlap in skin color.
There’s no canonical Swede or Arab? You don’t say. As I mentioned no one who looks like a Swede existed 5,000 years ago. That there is overlap between population characteristics does not mean they are identical. Some populations don’t overlap though. Healthy Pygmy and Maasai adult men do not overlap in height distribution. If you restrict your sample of Swedes to those with all ancestors born in Sweden in 1800 and do a similar restriction for Congolese there will be no overlap in skin color.
You definitely keep on talking about race. "Swede" is a race. "Arab" is a race, as you use it.
There absolutely were ancient people who shared genetic traits (and therefore some expressed characteristics) with modern Swedish people. There literally must have been, that's how genetics work, and 5,000 years is barely a blink, genetically.
What you are conflating (among many, many things) are environmental impacts on human maturation with genetics, and in exactly the same way that the eugenicists of the early 1900s were attempting to do.
Every single thing you've said so far has been thoroughly debunked in the ensuing 100 years. You are spouting old, racist tropes, and I assume don't even know it.
But maybe you do know it, and maybe that's the point.
There absolutely were ancient people who shared genetic traits (and therefore some expressed characteristics) with modern Swedish people. There literally must have been, that's how genetics work, and 5,000 years is barely a blink, genetically.
What you are conflating (among many, many things) are environmental impacts on human maturation with genetics, and in exactly the same way that the eugenicists of the early 1900s were attempting to do.
Every single thing you've said so far has been thoroughly debunked in the ensuing 100 years. You are spouting old, racist tropes, and I assume don't even know it.
But maybe you do know it, and maybe that's the point.
Mmmm. I call bullshit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_t...
Funny how you never hear about a golden retriever mauling anybody...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_t...
Funny how you never hear about a golden retriever mauling anybody...
Stats that reveal breeds like pitbulls causing the majority of attacks seem to contradict this, no?
There's a subreddit that campaigns on the issue. The research page has a link to lots of studies, most from respectable publications, which are really damning: https://old.reddit.com/r/BanPitBulls/wiki/research
It does. Once your pitbull mauls the neighbor kids you're not going to send it's DNA into their website. There's a huge sampling problem here.
It would contradict the headline as written, but headline is not actually an accurate statement of the article itself.
This headline, to a superficial reading, says "breed has NO predictive power with regards to behavior". What the study found was that breed is a weak predictor of behavior, not that it has no impact at all.
This headline, to a superficial reading, says "breed has NO predictive power with regards to behavior". What the study found was that breed is a weak predictor of behavior, not that it has no impact at all.
https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Health/DOHMH-Dog-Bite-Data/rsg...
Followed (not too closely) by Shih Tzu and Chihuahua which are...a little less life threatening. This is just raw data and obviously not controlling for population.
Followed (not too closely) by Shih Tzu and Chihuahua which are...a little less life threatening. This is just raw data and obviously not controlling for population.
No? It just means people teach pitbulls to attack other people.
Ban pitbulls and those people will teach some other breed to attack.
Ban pitbulls and those people will teach some other breed to attack.
Pitbulls have been banned in various places. Any data to suggest this phenomenon has happened anywhere that pitbulls are banned?
Pitbulls are not banned in areas where pitbulls are a problem, so no.
Pitbulls were banned in the UK in 1991. We still have fatalities from pitbull attacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_t...
I hope you see how that further demonstrates my point; the death volume would have remained at this value (approximately) regardless of the breed ban in the UK.
Bad owners are the problem, not bad dogs.
Bad owners are the problem, not bad dogs.
No, it just means the breed ban isn't being enforced.
How does a dog that isn't a banned breed killing someone mean a breed ban isn't getting enforced?
The dogs are banned but the bans are flagrantly flaunted and because of that, the dogs are still killing people.
[deleted]
not finding something is a lot different than finding something
This is obvious nonsense to anyone that breeds, owns or even regularly interacts with dogs. But gas lighting has always been a preferred tactic of those proselytizing "the message".
Actual study link:
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abk0639
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abk0639
Any problems with the study? Control group is "random distribution of dogs" and the other group is "18,000 but of a no specific breed". Is that a problem or does it even out.
Importantly... the behavior is self-reported (by dog owners), who almost certainly have some bias about their dogs. I know I do. :)
Also what would count as "no issues" by and large depends on the dog breed I'd say. If a rottweiler tried to attack a rabbit that wouldn't be out of the ordinary, but if a border collie did the same it would.
Everyone who had dogs knows that this is a not correct. There are behavioral characteristics that you see in races like Labradors Rottweilers, etc
this is political dogma. there is a strain of dogma asserting that behavior is 100% nurture. if they accept the idea that breeds of dog have certain traits then they would be forced to reconcile with the hypothetical concept that different races of humans have different inherent behaviors or ways of thinking. people complain about science being under threat but i never see people talk about this particular dogmatic landmine that threatens to destroy any scientist who dares to approach that region of genetics. the fact of the matter is that you can never create a complete and perfect atlas of the human brain or genetics without touching this topic -- as a person who suffers from diseases that are tangential to these areas i would very much appreciate less dogma and more progress...
Yep. It's stifling fore sure. Even the guy who discovered DNA (Watson?) got some awards retracted because of saying that. You definately can't trust any research showing that behavior is not heritable or that there are no cognitive differences between races.
One study even found clear differences between races but then wrote a conclusion saying the opposite! They justified that by discovering another variable they'd forgotten to control for that they guessed might have been responsible for the difference instead of race.
One study even found clear differences between races but then wrote a conclusion saying the opposite! They justified that by discovering another variable they'd forgotten to control for that they guessed might have been responsible for the difference instead of race.
> this is political dogma. there is a strain of dogma asserting that behavior is 100% nurture.
Unless it is sexuality, then it is 100% nature.
Unless it is sexuality, then it is 100% nature.
This is obviously wrong to anyone who has observed dogs. Some breeds are much more vocal. My boxer would only bark to communicate (she’d bark once to be let in. Only ever twice if she didn’t hear you getting up). I’ve never seen anyone else’s boxer bark.
Some breeds are hugely vocal. Hounds for example because sounding is beneficial for hunting.
We literally breed dogs for certain behaviors. You can see a sheep dog’s instinctive herding behavior. You can watch a bird dog breed point having never seen the behavior before.
Goldens are absurd key attention seeking.
Chows very territorial.
You can literally see these things with your own eyes. Science means looking at the evidence. The evidence is all around us.
Sometimes science shows us bias and misconception. This time I beg to differ.
You can literally see these things with your own eyes. Science means looking at the evidence. The evidence is all around us.
Sometimes science shows us bias and misconception. This time I beg to differ.
I have not had the time to read the paper and see how the authors address this, but the biggest flaw of this study is relying on subjective reports by the owners. Almost all dog owners I know are used to playing down the severity of their dog's aggressiveness.
I’m curious how the method of collecting data is biased away from dogs who are less likely to be talked/bragged about by their owners. Also, that suggests it is likely more likely to represent a person’s/family’s _current_ dog and to ignore previous dogs. Dogs which are given back, thrown away, currently homeless, in a rescue organization, or were put down are likely to not be represented in this survey. Those are likely to have less breed-predictable temperaments, so I would assume the results here are a ceiling, not necessarily accurate.
That's like the whole point of breeding. For instance breeding against pit bulls who attacked their master, that's a behavior, I guess they wasted time and dogs culling those dogs instead of breeding them.
So I guess kids who want a specific dog type should just go by weight? Hey Timmy how much dog biomass you want for your birthday?
So I guess kids who want a specific dog type should just go by weight? Hey Timmy how much dog biomass you want for your birthday?
For study like that, its extremely important to design and evaluate the questionnaires carefully because people’s descriptions of temperament can vary significantly. Besides, like any society, dogs in a household also affect each other, thus not taking that into consideration can alter the result considerably.
Science: “Here is some science”
This Website: “NO! THE SCIENCE IS WRONG BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH MY ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE”
This Website: “NO! THE SCIENCE IS WRONG BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH MY ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE”
This is click bait.
> But, as Karlsson points out, “anyone who’s owned eight dogs from the same breed will tell you all about their different personalities”.
Even within a single litter, you can obviously track different personalities. The bigger dominant ones to the submissive runt. The more dominant or adventurous ones will come up to you while others remain a bit back and the runt remains all the way back.
> Particularly low was the connection between breed and how likely a dog was to display aggressive behaviour, which could have implications for how society treats “dangerous” dog breeds
Even within a litter, there will be more aggressive and less aggressive. And it isn't just "aggressiveness" that determines how society treats "dangerous" dog breeds, it's the size and ability to cause damage. Every pitbull owner will shout from the rooftops that a chihuahua is more aggressive than a pitbull and more people are bitten by chihuahuas than pitbulls. Of course they completely ignore the fact that a pitbull's bite will cause far more damage than a chihuahuas.
> Breeds as we think of them today — distinctive canines such as beagles, pugs and Labradors — are a by-product of more recent evolutionary meddling. Starting around 200 years ago, dog enthusiasts in Victorian England began inventing breeds by actively selecting for canine traits that they found aesthetically pleasing.
But dog breeds go back far thousands of years. Are they limiting dog breeds to just the last 200 years? Even so, certainly you can predict some behavioral differences between a labrador and a beagle. Of course being dogs they will share a lot of common behaviors like wagging the tail, sniffing each other, barking, etc, but certainly there are differences.
> But, on average, breed explained only around 9% of the variation in how a dog behaved, a number “much smaller than most people, including me, would have expected,” says Karlsson.
What did she expect? Dog breeds to behave 100% differently from each other?
> “We talk about breeds like they’re categorically different,” he says. “But in reality, that’s not the case.”
They are categorically different. Also why does the article talk about behavior then switch to personality then to temperament as if they all mean the same thing.
We have too many eaters in academia, media, etc. Nothing of value in the article. This study and article is a fine example of "publish or perish". People who have nothing to say or contribute but forced to say something and waste everyone's time because they need to justify their paychecks. This is why I support UBI. Cut down on the useless and wasteful white collar busy work.
Even within a single litter, you can obviously track different personalities. The bigger dominant ones to the submissive runt. The more dominant or adventurous ones will come up to you while others remain a bit back and the runt remains all the way back.
> Particularly low was the connection between breed and how likely a dog was to display aggressive behaviour, which could have implications for how society treats “dangerous” dog breeds
Even within a litter, there will be more aggressive and less aggressive. And it isn't just "aggressiveness" that determines how society treats "dangerous" dog breeds, it's the size and ability to cause damage. Every pitbull owner will shout from the rooftops that a chihuahua is more aggressive than a pitbull and more people are bitten by chihuahuas than pitbulls. Of course they completely ignore the fact that a pitbull's bite will cause far more damage than a chihuahuas.
> Breeds as we think of them today — distinctive canines such as beagles, pugs and Labradors — are a by-product of more recent evolutionary meddling. Starting around 200 years ago, dog enthusiasts in Victorian England began inventing breeds by actively selecting for canine traits that they found aesthetically pleasing.
But dog breeds go back far thousands of years. Are they limiting dog breeds to just the last 200 years? Even so, certainly you can predict some behavioral differences between a labrador and a beagle. Of course being dogs they will share a lot of common behaviors like wagging the tail, sniffing each other, barking, etc, but certainly there are differences.
> But, on average, breed explained only around 9% of the variation in how a dog behaved, a number “much smaller than most people, including me, would have expected,” says Karlsson.
What did she expect? Dog breeds to behave 100% differently from each other?
> “We talk about breeds like they’re categorically different,” he says. “But in reality, that’s not the case.”
They are categorically different. Also why does the article talk about behavior then switch to personality then to temperament as if they all mean the same thing.
We have too many eaters in academia, media, etc. Nothing of value in the article. This study and article is a fine example of "publish or perish". People who have nothing to say or contribute but forced to say something and waste everyone's time because they need to justify their paychecks. This is why I support UBI. Cut down on the useless and wasteful white collar busy work.
They then go on to say that the variation is only around 9%, but it does seem to suggest the opposite than what the title claims. If you can estimate behavior of a stray based on assumed breed and be right more than wrong, it would seem that while breed does not predict entirely, it does correlate. It would be nice to see what the actual study was instead of a blurb.