4 ms·

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 cho

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 4y ago
If a study came out showing the sky was purple, would you believe it or would you look out the window?
defen 4y 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 4y 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.
  - defen 4y ago
    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.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
mixedCase 4y ago
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".
dTal 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority 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 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence 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 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy 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 4y ago
      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".
ryandvm 4y ago
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 4y ago
  Not thousands, more like 150.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    This is very wrong, there have been clearly defined dog breeds for thousands of years: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/canes/canes.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/mi...
    - TameAntelope 4y ago
      Defined dog breeds? Yes. Yorkshire Terriers (and dog breeds as we know them or as was studied in the submission)? No.
tsol 4y ago
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.
kbelder 4y ago
>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.

cameronh90 4y ago

If a study came out showing the sky was purple, would you believe it or would you look out the window?

defen 4y 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 4y 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.
- defen 4y ago
  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.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

mixedCase 4y ago

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".

dTal 4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority 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 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence 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 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy 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 4y ago
    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".

ryandvm 4y ago

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 4y ago
Not thousands, more like 150.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  This is very wrong, there have been clearly defined dog breeds for thousands of years: https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/canes/canes.html https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/mi...
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    Defined dog breeds? Yes. Yorkshire Terriers (and dog breeds as we know them or as was studied in the submission)? No.

tsol 4y ago

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.

kbelder 4y ago

>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.