TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Study of pet dogs shows breed does not predict behaviour

40 点作者 lnyan大约 3 年前

21 条评论

ShockTohp大约 3 年前
From the source: &quot;The team found that some traits were more common in certain breeds. For example, compared with a random dog, German shepherds were more easily directed; beagles, not so much. And the authors’ genetic studies revealed that mixed-breed dogs with a particular ancestry were more likely to act in specific ways. Mutts with St Bernard ancestry, for instance, were more affectionate, whereas mutts descended from Chesapeake Bay retrievers had a penchant for wrecking doors.&quot;<p>They then go on to say that the variation is only around 9%, but it does seem to suggest the opposite than what the title claims. If you can estimate behavior of a stray based on assumed breed and be right more than wrong, it would seem that while breed does not predict entirely, it does correlate. It would be nice to see what the actual study was instead of a blurb.
评论 #31251787 未加载
评论 #31255991 未加载
评论 #31251540 未加载
评论 #31256098 未加载
synaesthesisx大约 3 年前
To be frank, this &quot;study&quot; is absurd &amp; invalid, and there is 100% an association between breed and behavior (we literally breed dogs for certain behavioral traits!).<p>On that topic, I realize it&#x27;s controversial but think pitbulls should be banned outright - they are responsible for the majority of fatal dog-related attacks and there is a wealth of evidence indicating that they are not a desirable breed.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;BanPitBulls&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;BanPitBulls&#x2F;</a>
评论 #31251988 未加载
评论 #31252795 未加载
评论 #31253554 未加载
评论 #31251757 未加载
评论 #31254835 未加载
评论 #31253435 未加载
评论 #31253266 未加载
onphonenow大约 3 年前
This is such a weird turn in new science.<p>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.<p>Now we have nature coming out with a study that shows breed does NOT predict behavior?<p>What&#x27;s interesting is I&#x27;m not sure some breeds can even mechanically behave in certain ways. Can miniature poodles even hamstring you if they wanted to?<p>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).
评论 #31251581 未加载
评论 #31251588 未加载
评论 #31251650 未加载
评论 #31251793 未加载
jimhefferon大约 3 年前
Isn&#x27;t this study flawed because they asked people to report on their dog&#x27;s behavior? When I talk to other dog owners, they discuss the dog with respect to their perceived breed standard, &quot;Oh, Kelly is much more calm than I expected from a Rotty&quot; or &quot;Joy is pretty dumb for a Collie.&quot; If they somehow got neutral observers that would be much more persuasive, in my mind.
评论 #31253625 未加载
评论 #31251525 未加载
评论 #31251279 未加载
jamesash大约 3 年前
The Siberian silver fox study makes it very difficult to avoid the conclusion that behavior (e.g. tameness) in canines is a heritable trait that can be selected for.<p>Beginning in 1952 wild silver foxes have been bred in Siberia selecting solely for friendliness. Notable changes were found after 6 generations. By the 30th generation, 70-80% of the selected population were &quot;domesticated elite&quot;, which &quot;are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs.&quot; Similar experiments were performed in the opposite direction, selecting for aggression. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Domesticated_silver_fox" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Domesticated_silver_fox</a>
评论 #31252179 未加载
bpodgursky大约 3 年前
This is one of those studies where the conclusion is so obviously wrong that I don&#x27;t even want to open it, and it makes me discount the credibility of Nature overall.
评论 #31251508 未加载
评论 #31251377 未加载
评论 #31251289 未加载
ryandvm大约 3 年前
Mmmm. I call bullshit:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_t...</a><p>Funny how you never hear about a golden retriever mauling anybody...
pupppet大约 3 年前
Stats that reveal breeds like pitbulls causing the majority of attacks seem to contradict this, no?
评论 #31251339 未加载
评论 #31251239 未加载
评论 #31251229 未加载
评论 #31251496 未加载
评论 #31251484 未加载
评论 #31251259 未加载
zarkov99大约 3 年前
This is obvious nonsense to anyone that breeds, owns or even regularly interacts with dogs. But gas lighting has always been a preferred tactic of those proselytizing &quot;the message&quot;.
323大约 3 年前
Actual study link:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.science.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;full&#x2F;10.1126&#x2F;science.abk0639" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.science.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;full&#x2F;10.1126&#x2F;science.abk0639</a>
vmception大约 3 年前
Any problems with the study? Control group is &quot;random distribution of dogs&quot; and the other group is &quot;18,000 but of a no specific breed&quot;. Is that a problem or does it even out.
评论 #31251149 未加载
hepinhei大约 3 年前
Everyone who had dogs knows that this is a not correct. There are behavioral characteristics that you see in races like Labradors Rottweilers, etc
abdel_nasser大约 3 年前
this is political dogma. there is a strain of dogma asserting that behavior is 100% nurture. if they accept the idea that breeds of dog have certain traits then they would be forced to reconcile with the hypothetical concept that different races of humans have different inherent behaviors or ways of thinking. people complain about science being under threat but i never see people talk about this particular dogmatic landmine that threatens to destroy any scientist who dares to approach that region of genetics. the fact of the matter is that you can never create a complete and perfect atlas of the human brain or genetics without touching this topic -- as a person who suffers from diseases that are tangential to these areas i would very much appreciate less dogma and more progress...
评论 #31252279 未加载
评论 #31254281 未加载
more_corn大约 3 年前
This is obviously wrong to anyone who has observed dogs. Some breeds are much more vocal. My boxer would only bark to communicate (she’d bark once to be let in. Only ever twice if she didn’t hear you getting up). I’ve never seen anyone else’s boxer bark. Some breeds are hugely vocal. Hounds for example because sounding is beneficial for hunting. We literally breed dogs for certain behaviors. You can see a sheep dog’s instinctive herding behavior. You can watch a bird dog breed point having never seen the behavior before. Goldens are absurd key attention seeking. Chows very territorial.<p>You can literally see these things with your own eyes. Science means looking at the evidence. The evidence is all around us.<p>Sometimes science shows us bias and misconception. This time I beg to differ.
ensan大约 3 年前
I have not had the time to read the paper and see how the authors address this, but the biggest flaw of this study is relying on subjective reports by the owners. Almost all dog owners I know are used to playing down the severity of their dog&#x27;s aggressiveness.
thephyber大约 3 年前
I’m curious how the method of collecting data is biased away from dogs who are less likely to be talked&#x2F;bragged about by their owners. Also, that suggests it is likely more likely to represent a person’s&#x2F;family’s _current_ dog and to ignore previous dogs. Dogs which are given back, thrown away, currently homeless, in a rescue organization, or were put down are likely to not be represented in this survey. Those are likely to have less breed-predictable temperaments, so I would assume the results here are a ceiling, not necessarily accurate.
daniel-cussen大约 3 年前
That&#x27;s like the whole point of breeding. For instance breeding against pit bulls who attacked their master, that&#x27;s a behavior, I guess they wasted time and dogs culling those dogs instead of breeding them.<p>So I guess kids who want a specific dog type should just go by weight? Hey Timmy how much dog biomass you want for your birthday?
sinuhe69大约 3 年前
For study like that, its extremely important to design and evaluate the questionnaires carefully because people’s descriptions of temperament can vary significantly. Besides, like any society, dogs in a household also affect each other, thus not taking that into consideration can alter the result considerably.
randomblast大约 3 年前
Science: “Here is some science”<p>This Website: “NO! THE SCIENCE IS WRONG BECAUSE IT DISAGREES WITH MY ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE”
jdalgetty大约 3 年前
This is click bait.
qiskit大约 3 年前
&gt; But, as Karlsson points out, “anyone who’s owned eight dogs from the same breed will tell you all about their different personalities”.<p>Even within a single litter, you can obviously track different personalities. The bigger dominant ones to the submissive runt. The more dominant or adventurous ones will come up to you while others remain a bit back and the runt remains all the way back.<p>&gt; Particularly low was the connection between breed and how likely a dog was to display aggressive behaviour, which could have implications for how society treats “dangerous” dog breeds<p>Even within a litter, there will be more aggressive and less aggressive. And it isn&#x27;t just &quot;aggressiveness&quot; that determines how society treats &quot;dangerous&quot; dog breeds, it&#x27;s the size and ability to cause damage. Every pitbull owner will shout from the rooftops that a chihuahua is more aggressive than a pitbull and more people are bitten by chihuahuas than pitbulls. Of course they completely ignore the fact that a pitbull&#x27;s bite will cause far more damage than a chihuahuas.<p>&gt; Breeds as we think of them today — distinctive canines such as beagles, pugs and Labradors — are a by-product of more recent evolutionary meddling. Starting around 200 years ago, dog enthusiasts in Victorian England began inventing breeds by actively selecting for canine traits that they found aesthetically pleasing.<p>But dog breeds go back far thousands of years. Are they limiting dog breeds to just the last 200 years? Even so, certainly you can predict some behavioral differences between a labrador and a beagle. Of course being dogs they will share a lot of common behaviors like wagging the tail, sniffing each other, barking, etc, but certainly there are differences.<p>&gt; But, on average, breed explained only around 9% of the variation in how a dog behaved, a number “much smaller than most people, including me, would have expected,” says Karlsson.<p>What did she expect? Dog breeds to behave 100% differently from each other?<p>&gt; “We talk about breeds like they’re categorically different,” he says. “But in reality, that’s not the case.”<p>They are categorically different. Also why does the article talk about behavior then switch to personality then to temperament as if they all mean the same thing.<p>We have too many eaters in academia, media, etc. Nothing of value in the article. This study and article is a fine example of &quot;publish or perish&quot;. People who have nothing to say or contribute but forced to say something and waste everyone&#x27;s time because they need to justify their paychecks. This is why I support UBI. Cut down on the useless and wasteful white collar busy work.