5 ms·

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 c

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).

_aavaa_ 4y ago
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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    > 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_ 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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.
        robonerd 4y ago
        Yeah, but sometimes friendly looking dogs aren't so friendly. There are some general signs you can look for in a dog's body language and behavior, but unless you've spent a lot of time with that dog you just don't know for sure.
        _aavaa_ 4y ago
        Yes. But until then all you have with are the statistics.
daenz 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Paper was actually published in Science and this is just an editorial about the article.
InitialLastName 4y ago
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 4y ago
  >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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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 4y ago
        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-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...
loceng 4y ago
Is it as simple as a symptom of clickbait for views that's propagating this type of poor "science"?

_aavaa_ 4y ago

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 4y ago
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 4y ago
  > 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_ 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        Yeah, but sometimes friendly looking dogs aren't so friendly. There are some general signs you can look for in a dog's body language and behavior, but unless you've spent a lot of time with that dog you just don't know for sure.
      - _aavaa_ 4y ago
        Yes. But until then all you have with are the statistics.

daenz 4y ago

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 4y ago
Paper was actually published in Science and this is just an editorial about the article.

InitialLastName 4y ago

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 4y ago
>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 4y ago
  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 4y ago
    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 4y ago
      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-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...

loceng 4y ago

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