Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 191 posts

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

#71

Post by defen »

randomblast wrote: post #68
defen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bi…

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 con…

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?

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

#72

Post by mythrwy »

synaesthesisx wrote: post #29

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…

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.

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

#73

Post by rajin444 »

TameAntelope wrote: post #62
bpodgursky wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

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

#75

Post by antisthenes »

jimhefferon wrote: post #4

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?

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

#76

Post by barry-cotter »

TameAntelope wrote: post #62
bpodgursky wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> 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.

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

#80

Post by randomblast »

defen wrote: post #71
randomblast wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

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.
Post reply on HN