6 ms·

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 ov

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.

rcpt 5y ago
On top of that it was published in Science. I'm completely stumped.
- User23 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    You should spell it out, or stay silent. This middle ground is cowardly and contributes nothing.
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      "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 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        > 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 5y ago
        None of this is true, there are no known human subspecies, not to mention human subspecies differentiated by geography.
        barry-cotter 5y ago
        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.
        5y ago
lin83 5y ago
The conclusion I would draw is that dog owners are unable to objectively analyse their pets behaviour.
TameAntelope 5y ago
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-experience/202102/doubling-down-why-people-deny-the-facts https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-pathways-experie... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance [2] http://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2015/12/11/doubling-down/ http://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2015/12/11/doubling-down/ [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/05/politicians-reject-evidence-that-conflicts-with-their-beliefs-and-if-you-give-them-more-evidence-they-double-down/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/0...
- cameronh90 5y ago
  If a study came out showing the sky was purple, would you believe it or would you look out the window?
- defen 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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.

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.

rcpt 5y ago

On top of that it was published in Science. I'm completely stumped.

User23 5y ago
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 5y ago
  You should spell it out, or stay silent. This middle ground is cowardly and contributes nothing.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    "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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        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 5y ago
        > 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 5y ago
        None of this is true, there are no known human subspecies, not to mention human subspecies differentiated by geography.
        barry-cotter 5y ago
        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.
        5y ago

lin83 5y ago

The conclusion I would draw is that dog owners are unable to objectively analyse their pets behaviour.

TameAntelope 5y ago

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-experience/202102/doubling-down-why-people-deny-the-facts https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-pathways-experie... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance [2] http://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2015/12/11/doubling-down/ http://aphilosopher.drmcl.com/2015/12/11/doubling-down/ [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/05/politicians-reject-evidence-that-conflicts-with-their-beliefs-and-if-you-give-them-more-evidence-they-double-down/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/10/0...

cameronh90 5y ago
If a study came out showing the sky was purple, would you believe it or would you look out the window?
defen 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.