4 ms·

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.

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-...
onphonenow 4y ago
9% predictive? This seems very low. I hope folks who actually have dogs pay a LOT more attention to what their dogs breed is and what it needs. Some dogs, based on their breed, need a ton of outside time. Some do not handle being on their own very well and need to be with people or other dogs. Some become very protective and can become dangerous in various ways. PLEASE do not believe this can be ignored. Did they even talk to anyone working with dogs?
- InitialLastName 4y ago
  A 1/10 chance that a member of any given breed exhibits any given behavior based on breed doesn't seem unreasonable given a) how granular the behaviors are (they include "eating grass"), so there are a large number of specific behaviors that might all fit a larger pattern but which any given dog might or might not exhibit, b) that they included mixes, who you would expect to be less likely to fit a breed's specific behaviors, and c) the 9% predictiveness is on top of a base rate of exhibiting the behavior regardless of breed.

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-...

onphonenow 4y ago

9% predictive? This seems very low. I hope folks who actually have dogs pay a LOT more attention to what their dogs breed is and what it needs. Some dogs, based on their breed, need a ton of outside time. Some do not handle being on their own very well and need to be with people or other dogs. Some become very protective and can become dangerous in various ways. PLEASE do not believe this can be ignored. Did they even talk to anyone working with dogs?

InitialLastName 4y ago
A 1/10 chance that a member of any given breed exhibits any given behavior based on breed doesn't seem unreasonable given a) how granular the behaviors are (they include "eating grass"), so there are a large number of specific behaviors that might all fit a larger pattern but which any given dog might or might not exhibit, b) that they included mixes, who you would expect to be less likely to fit a breed's specific behaviors, and c) the 9% predictiveness is on top of a base rate of exhibiting the behavior regardless of breed.