4 ms·

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 z

by 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]

by defen 4y ago

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]