Live data from Hacker News

Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

nature.com

31–40 of 191 posts

Re: Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

#32

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.red…

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.

Re: Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

#33
post #25

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 br…

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,…

Paper was actually published in Science and this is just an editorial about the article.

Re: Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

#34

From the source: "The team found that some traits were more common in certain breeds. For example, compared with a random dog, German shepherds were more easily directed; beagles, not so much. And the authors’ genetic studies revealed that mixed-breed dogs with a particular ancestry were more likely to act in specific ways. Mutts with St Bernard ancestry, for instance, were more affectionate, whereas mutts descended…

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!

Re: Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

#35

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 br…

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…

>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."

Re: Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

#36

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://…

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".

Re: Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

#37

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 br…

Is it as simple as a symptom of clickbait for views that's propagating this type of poor "science"?

Re: Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

#38
post #20
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

#39

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://…

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.

Re: Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

#40
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...
Post reply on HN