[HN Gopher] Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behav...
___________________________________________________________________
Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour
Author : lnyan
Score : 31 points
Date : 2022-05-03 16:56 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| ShockTohp wrote:
| 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 from Chesapeake Bay
| retrievers had a penchant for wrecking doors."
|
| 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.
| echelon wrote:
| 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!
| spike021 wrote:
| 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.
| thephyber wrote:
| 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?
| Maximus9000 wrote:
| 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-...
| shard972 wrote:
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| It seems that every day we are getting one step closer to
| Lysenkoism [1].
|
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
| tkahnoski wrote:
| Lots more details from the authors on twitter.
|
| https://twitter.com/eenork/status/1520450288095797251
| defen wrote:
| 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
| randomblast wrote:
| 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.
| thephyber wrote:
| 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...
| defen wrote:
| 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?
| randomblast wrote:
| 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.
| defen wrote:
| Fair enough, but I think it's safe to say you're an
| extreme outlier.
| thephyber wrote:
| 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.
| robonerd wrote:
| 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.
| thephyber wrote:
| > 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.
| randomblast wrote:
| Science: "Here is some science"
|
| This Website: "NO! THE SCIENCE IS WRONG BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH
| MY ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE"
| zarkov99 wrote:
| 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".
| onphonenow wrote:
| 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).
| loceng wrote:
| Is it as simple as a symptom of clickbait for views that's
| propagating this type of poor "science"?
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| 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.
| daenz wrote:
| 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.
| worik wrote:
| > 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
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| 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.
| astrange wrote:
| 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.
| daenz wrote:
| 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."
| s0rce wrote:
| Paper was actually published in Science and this is just an
| editorial about the article.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| 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).
| daenz wrote:
| >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."
| InitialLastName wrote:
| 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.
| daenz wrote:
| 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.
| astrange wrote:
| 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-...
| qiskit wrote:
| > 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.
| jdalgetty wrote:
| This is click bait.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| 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.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| 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...
| mixedCase wrote:
| 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".
| ryandvm wrote:
| 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
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Not thousands, more like 150.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| This is very wrong, there have been clearly defined dog
| breeds for thousands of years: https://penelope.uchicago.
| edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/mi...
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Defined dog breeds? Yes. Yorkshire Terriers (and dog
| breeds as we know them or as was studied in the
| submission)? No.
| kbelder wrote:
| >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.
| tsol wrote:
| 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.
| dTal wrote:
| 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.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| 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.
| dTal wrote:
| 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.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| 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".
| defen wrote:
| 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.
| randomblast wrote:
| 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.
| defen wrote:
| 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.
| rcpt wrote:
| On top of that it was published in Science. I'm completely
| stumped.
| User23 wrote:
| 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.
| dTal wrote:
| You should spell it out, or stay silent. This middle ground
| is cowardly and contributes nothing.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| "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."
| TameAntelope wrote:
| 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.
| rajin444 wrote:
| 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?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| 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).
| barry-cotter wrote:
| > 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.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| None of this is true, there are no known human
| subspecies, not to mention human subspecies
| differentiated by geography.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| 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.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| 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.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| 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.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| 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.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| > 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.
|
| That's kind of my point. 5,000 years ago there were no
| people who looked like Swedes. Now there are because of
| selection pressures. A new genotype came into existence
| by working on standing variation and some _de novo_
| mutations. If we agree that selection pressures can
| radically change the appearance of a people then there's
| not much to disagree on. Evolution can work on many
| things apart from physical appears.
|
| Different places have different selection pressures, with
| the obvious consequences.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| > 5,000 years ago there were no people who looked like
| Swedes. Now there are because of selection pressures.
|
| 100% false. You need to realize that. 5,000 years is not
| enough time to do anything significant, genetically.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| Are you saying that there have always been people who
| looked like Swedes in Sweden? Because from my reading of
| the literature 5,000 years ago there people living there
| had blue eyes but dark hair and a complexion we'd
| associate with Mediterranean peoples.
|
| Most dog breeds were created in less than 150 years. Call
| it 150 generations. 5,000 years is 200 generations at 25
| years per generation. Enough time to change quite
| dramatically.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| There is no such thing as a genetic "Swede". Literally
| every trait you could name is neither exclusive on its
| own or in any particular combination with Swedish people.
|
| And no, humans were not bred like dogs, so your math is
| both offensive and completely useless.
|
| At this point I'm beginning to think you're being
| intentionally hateful.
| User23 wrote:
| It absolutely is if there is a severe population
| bottleneck that selects for some trait in the survivors.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| ...which has never happened in human history.
| Bottlenecks? Yes. Bottlenecks that selected specifically
| for a specific gene? No.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| Tibetans and Andeans both have adaptations for living at
| high altitudes. The Tibetan ones are better because they
| come from Denisovans, predating the existence of modern
| humans. There's been massive positive selection on
| lactose persistence. 5,000 years ago no human adults
| could digest lactase. The differences in diabetes among
| human populations track closely with length of time they
| have been using agriculture.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| That is not an example of a bottleneck, nor is it an
| example of a genetic adaptation occurring recently, as
| both happened more than ten thousand years ago.
|
| And _none_ of this has _anything_ whatsoever to do with
| the cultural concept of race. There are people who are
| not "Tibetans" who have this genetic adaptation, and
| there are "Tibetans" who do not have this genetic
| adaptation.
|
| Further, the pairing of this genetic trait with other
| genetic traits does not exist. Having this genetic trait
| does not make you more likely to have a set of other
| genetic traits, and none of the genetic traits add up to
| a specific "Tibetan" set of features or traits, all of
| which you would need to have to be called "Tibetan".
|
| There is no such thing as "genetic race".
| User23 wrote:
| Please stop violating the HN guidelines. I get that
| you're emotional about the subject and have a religious
| zeal for it, but that's no excuse for name-calling.
|
| There is no evidence that anyone you're replying to is
| writing in bad faith. They may be wrong, although you've
| failed to show that in any way that satisfies
| intellectual curiosity, but that doesn't justify personal
| attacks and slimy rhetoric[1].
|
| [1] http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/erist32.htm
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Who are you?
| User23 wrote:
| > 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.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| 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.
| astrange wrote:
| 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.
| User23 wrote:
| 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.
| astrange wrote:
| 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.
| tsol wrote:
| 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.
| barry-cotter wrote:
| 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.
| astrange wrote:
| 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.
| lin83 wrote:
| The conclusion I would draw is that dog owners are unable to
| objectively analyse their pets behaviour.
| hepinhei wrote:
| Everyone who had dogs knows that this is a not correct. There are
| behavioral characteristics that you see in races like Labradors
| Rottweilers, etc
| aaron695 wrote:
| jamesash wrote:
| 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
| sacrosancty wrote:
| 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.
| jamesash wrote:
| 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.
| thephyber wrote:
| 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.
| abdel_nasser wrote:
| 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...
| weezin wrote:
| > 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.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| 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.
| 323 wrote:
| Actual study link:
|
| https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.abk0639
| vmception wrote:
| 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.
| pboutros wrote:
| Importantly... the behavior is self-reported (by dog owners),
| who almost certainly have some bias about their dogs. I know I
| do. :)
| BurdensomeCount wrote:
| 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.
| synaesthesisx wrote:
| 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/
| scollet wrote:
| Just straight up linking to a dog whistle sub... okay...
| 0x737368 wrote:
| What's wrong with the sub?
| randomblast wrote:
| 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.
| 0x737368 wrote:
| 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.
| randomblast wrote:
| 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.
| 0x737368 wrote:
| > 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.
| randomblast wrote:
| 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.
| srveale wrote:
| 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.
| loceng wrote:
| 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.
| mythrwy wrote:
| 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.
| sarpeedo wrote:
| 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/
| 0x737368 wrote:
| 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.
| jimhefferon wrote:
| 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.
| tkahnoski wrote:
| 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.
| rcpt wrote:
| Exactly right.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I can only assume some pitbull/Rottweiler owner group paid
| for this publication.
| antisthenes wrote:
| 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?
| robonerd wrote:
| > _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.)
| ryandvm wrote:
| 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...
| pupppet wrote:
| Stats that reveal breeds like pitbulls causing the majority of
| attacks seem to contradict this, no?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| No? It just means people teach pitbulls to attack other people.
|
| Ban pitbulls and those people will teach some other breed to
| attack.
| caterpi11ar wrote:
| Pitbulls have been banned in various places. Any data to
| suggest this phenomenon has happened anywhere that pitbulls
| are banned?
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Pitbulls are not banned in areas where pitbulls are a
| problem, so no.
| [deleted]
| caterpi11ar wrote:
| squidbeak wrote:
| 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_i
| n_t...
| TameAntelope wrote:
| 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.
| dymk wrote:
| No, it just means the breed ban isn't being enforced.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| How does a dog that isn't a banned breed killing someone
| mean a breed ban isn't getting enforced?
| mindcrime wrote:
| 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.
| rcpt wrote:
| 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.
| rozap wrote:
| 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.
| rajin444 wrote:
| not finding something is a lot different than finding something
| lin83 wrote:
| 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
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-03 23:02 UTC)