This is barely disguised racism. And it makes me angry. But then that was the point wasn't it? Dogs, like humans, are pack animals. They will follow the pack.

This is barely disguised racism. And it makes me angry. But then that was the point wasn't it? Dogs, like humans, are pack animals. They will follow the pack. Dogs like humans, exhibit higher intrabreed differences than intercommunity, just like humans. That is to say, dogs and humans will always follow their pack, and there are more differences in-between individuals, than there are between the color of your skin, or your coat. How did this malicious study find this significance? Sample bias. They didn't control for breed ownership. If you're more likely to learn violence as a survival skill (The paper calls this deviance, fuck off with that obfuscation) you're also, more likely to adopt a dog with that same reputation in your community. how did these breeds get this reputation? papers like this for one. but also you can breed a dog to do things mine likes to chase cows. which means he also likes to bite ankles... except mine doesn't. he doesn't give a shit about ankles. He loves balls though. The most classic example in my circles are pitbulls, breed to be fighters, they have a natural tendency to not let go after a bite. This is not viciousness. all the paper does is perpetuate a myth that these breed are dangerous. It should be rejected as junk the same way we reject statistics about [race] on [race] crime. If you need another reason to reject this trash, ask why this doesn't correlate well with dog trainers, and professional dog rescuers understanding about which breeds are more likely to bite unprovoked? (which is what viciousness actually is)