Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by thephyber » Tue, May 03, 2022, 10:09 PM UTC

defen wrote: post #88

randomblast wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#102

Post by randomblast » Tue, May 03, 2022, 10:11 PM UTC

0x737368 wrote: post #91

randomblast wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#103

Post by spike021 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 10:12 PM UTC

echelon wrote: post #34

ShockTohp wrote: post #7

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…

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.

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

#104

Post by weezin » Tue, May 03, 2022, 10:12 PM UTC

abdel_nasser wrote: post #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 l…

> 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.

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

#105

Post by barry-cotter » Tue, May 03, 2022, 10:15 PM UTC

tsol wrote: post #100

barry-cotter wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 S…

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…

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.

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

#106

Post by thephyber » Tue, May 03, 2022, 10:17 PM UTC

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…

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:

  - American Pit Bull Terrier
  - Staffordshire Bull Terrier
  - American Staffordshire Terrier
  - American Bully

In my experience, most people don’t specify which they mean, so they don’t actually care about the “breed” (the bloodline), but care more about their intuition of a breed based only on visuals.

[1] https://forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/banned-dog-b...

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

#107

Post by TameAntelope » Tue, May 03, 2022, 10:18 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #98

TameAntelope wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Th…

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 o…

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.

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

#108

Post by TameAntelope » Tue, May 03, 2022, 10:20 PM UTC

dymk wrote: post #99

TameAntelope wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

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

#109

Post by User23 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 10:20 PM UTC

barry-cotter wrote: post #90

TameAntelope wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#110

Post by 0x737368 » Tue, May 03, 2022, 10:24 PM UTC

randomblast wrote: post #102

0x737368 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.