• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

The hobby/science of hifi vs the hobby/science of dogs

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,383
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
The #1 breed for dog bites is Cocker Spaniels.

Pit Bulls owned by assholes will be assholes. If you outlaw Pit Bulls, assholes will find another breed to turn into assholes.

A friend had a wolf/shepherd hybrid since it was 6 weeks old. Watching that canine was very interesting as it was a good contrast to fully domesticated canines. You never notice how much regular dogs naturally pay attention to and try to please the humans. Until you see one that doesn't.

Welcome to the world of Great Pyrenees. They are very smart, understand human commands perfectly, and have no interest in obedience. They are bred as guardians and that's what they'll do, irrespective of what you're telling them to do.

Yes, I've owned Pit Bulls and Great Pyrenees (current dog and also my wife's last dog before we got married and my father in law's two dogs). Also a Dachshund, a Dalmatian, and a German Shepherd.
 
Last edited:

mansr

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 5, 2018
Messages
4,685
Likes
10,700
Location
Hampshire
So all the human deaths caused by PitBulls, German Shepherds, Rottweilers and American Staffordshire Bull Terriers as compared to labradors, poodles, border collies, silky terriers and daschunds and not valid?
All of those can become either friendly or dangerous depending on upbringing. Maybe some need more rigorous training (I don't have the knowledge or experience to say), but no dog is inherently evil.
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Nature vs nurture.

Maybe genes and pack dominance urge have a place in the behaviour. Maybe mental condition due to bad breeding .
 

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,200
Likes
16,982
Location
Riverview FL
 

StevenEleven

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
581
Likes
1,188
Our dog is some kind of mix that we got as a puppy at the pound. She seems to be some kind of mix with Australian Shepherd (actually an American sheep-herding breed I think) and Black Lab and part Border Collie and some other things.

She sits beside me while I listen to music (so definitely an ASR topic). She has only chased the mailman across our yard once.

I usually tell people she is half Pitbull, half Rottweiler, and half German Shepherd. People look concerned at me for a second, first because that makes 1.5 dogs, and second because they are a little concerned. But then she looks up at them so sweetly they just start laughing.

One thing I find fascinating is the theory that dogs and humans evolved along side one another in a mutually beneficial process and, the theory goes, if I understand correctly, that is why dogs and people have such deep empathy for one another. FWIW, YMMV, etc.
 
Last edited:

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,072
Likes
16,605
Location
Central Fl
Biggest issue, and saddest, with pedigreed dogs is once they become popular the unscrupulous breeders with puppy farms interbreed them into psycho, ill-health messes.. I hate to think of how many wonderful dog breed reputations have been destroyed by this practice. :(
 
OP
oivavoi

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,934
Location
Oslo, Norway
What jury? The jury deciding whether the owner of a dangerous dog should go to jail? Some dog breeds (or mixed breeds) are simply dangerous. Ask any doctor which dog breeds cause the most injuries he needs to stitch up on little old ladies and children. Ask the plastic surgeons which dog breeds result in the most catastrophic facial injuries on children and babies.

So all the human deaths caused by PitBulls, German Shepherds, Rottweilers and American Staffordshire Bull Terriers as compared to labradors, poodles, border collies, silky terriers and daschunds and not valid?

Purebred or mixed-breed American Staffordshire bull terriers have killed at least four people in Australia this year (2019) and they were either the owners or immediate family in 3 cases.

Nah, this is actually a myth. The available studies indicate that differences between breeds in aggression are very small. You need to control for the fact that different owners often choose different dog breeds, and raise them in different ways.

While breed in itself does not seem to explain most of the dog attacks, here is what does:
- keeping dogs in cages or on a leash outside the house (strong effect)
- raising dogs with punishment-based methods, instead of reward-based methods (moderate effect)
- just irresponsible dog ownership in general (very strong effect)

What is needed is not to regulate or forbid breeds, but rather to regulate the humans who own dogs. I think it would be a good idea to introduce a dog exam/dog certificate for people who want to have a dog in their house. Also, when a dog attacks someone their owner needs to be held legally accountable. This has actually been shown to reduce dog attacks, unlike the dog breed legislation, which has been shown to have absolutely no effect. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208393
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Last edited:

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
All we need is now is the music preferences of dogs and why it matters.
 
OP
oivavoi

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,934
Location
Oslo, Norway
Here is the homepage of a Finnish reseach project about behaviour of dogs and cats. You will get a report of how your dog "qualifies" in regard to same breed and generally. Also mixed dogs can attend.

https://petsofi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Sciencewall_dogbeh.pdf
https://petsofi.com/

View attachment 30959

It's interesting, but those kind of studies also have many limitations. The fundamental thing one needs to account for is that different people choose different dogs, and raise them in different ways. Mixed-breeds are more likely to be shelter dogs for example - hence increased levels of fear and aggression. There is for example absolutely no logical reason why different kinds of collies, who are extremely closely related genetically, should have different levels of aggression.

The only thing that can account for that, besides owner selection issues, is if some breeds have strong levels of inbreeding, with some dogs getting lots of offspring (the djenghis khan effect), and if those dog djenghis khans have a genetic propensity for fear and aggression. That could indeed be a possibility. But one should expect this to vary by country/region, if so, given that dog breeding usually is very regional.

EDIT: that said, I probably wouldn't get a miniature schnauzer or a lagotto if I lived in Finland. But I wouln't take for granted that it also applies to lagottos in Norway, without seeing data
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
It's interesting, but those kind of studies also have many limitations. The fundamental thing one needs to account for is that different people choose different dogs, and raise them in different ways. Mixed-breeds are more likely to be shelter dogs for example - hence increased levels of fear and aggression. There is for example absolutely no logical reason why different kinds of collies, who are extremely closely related genetically, should have different levels of aggression.

The only thing that can account for that, besides owner selection issues, is if some breeds have strong levels of inbreeding, with some dogs getting lots of offspring (the djenghis khan effect), and if those dog djenghis khans have a genetic propensity for fear and aggression. That could indeed be a possibility. But one should expect this to vary by country/region, if so, given that dog breeding usually is very regional.

Being treated like subservient humans must get up their wet noses.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,579
Likes
38,280
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Nah, this is actually a myth. The available studies indicate that differences between breeds in aggression are very small. You need to control for the fact that different owners often choose different dog breeds, and raise them in different ways.

You are attempting to dismiss incontrovertible facts as a "myth". Certain breeds of dogs kill humans on a regular basis. Other breeds do not. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

Obviously, dogs can be trained, but they also can, and do, kill and maim indiscriminately, sometimes without any prior indication of instability and often they attack people who are close to them.

There is absolutely zero need to maintain bloodlines or breeds that were specifically bred to kill, attack or otherwise menace, in this day and age, particularly in domestic, suburban or other environments where they are likely to come in contact with other animals, small children, babies, or simply a person going about their business going for a walk.

As population densities increase and the human desire for 4 legged companions continues, certain breeds will be excluded, made illegal and ultimately disappear. This is a good thing. Most of these so-called mutant "breeds" were unnatural, artificial cross-breeds made by humans in the first place.
 
OP
oivavoi

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,934
Location
Oslo, Norway
You are attempting to dismiss incontrovertible facts as a "myth". Certain breeds of dogs kill humans on a regular basis. Other breeds do not. To suggest anything else is ridiculous.

Obviously, dogs can be trained, but they also can, and do, kill and maim indiscriminately, sometimes without any prior indication of instability and often they attack people who are close to them.

There is absolutely zero need to maintain bloodlines or breeds that were specifically bred to kill, attack or otherwise menace, in this day and age, particularly in domestic, suburban or other environments where they are likely to come in contact with other animals, small children, babies, or simply a person going about their business going for a walk.

As population densities increase and the human desire for 4 legged companions continues, certain breeds will be excluded, made illegal and ultimately disappear. This is a good thing. Most of these so-called mutant "breeds" were unnatural, artificial cross-breeds made by humans in the first place.

I think you partly misunderstand my point. I'm not a fan of breeds. Not at all. I think one should just stop having closed stud books with dog breeds, which creates inbreeding and suffering among dogs. But my point here is simply that we should look at the data and the research on dog attacks and see what it tells us. So I'll try and explain it again:

Yes, some breeds are more commonly involved in attacks on humans than others. But the question is whether that is because these breeds are more aggressive - or whether it's because of other reasons? We encounter these questions all the time in society, not only with dogs. As an example: In most societies, some ethnic groups are more involved in crime than others. Is this because of their ethnicity or genes, or because of their social positioning in society? (poverty, involvement in some economic sectors, or perhaps group culture, etc). If it's because of their ethinicity or genes - well, tough call on what to do. If it's because of societal conditions this group lives under, or elements in culture, then the best policy for reducing crime would be to change these conditions.

Concnering dog attacks, similar questions apply: A person who wants to have an aggressive dog, or a watch dog that will just be leashed outside all day, will typically choose certain breeds. This means that when these breeds get illegal, this aggressive dog owner will just choose other dogs. The research done so far strongly suggests that this is actually the case. Outlawing breeds will therefore have no effect at all. And yes, the research does suggest that breed bans really don't help. Furthermore, breed bans probably actually do damage, and make dog attacks more likely. The reason is that it perpetuates the idea that dog attacks reflect some inner aggressive nature of certain breeds. That takes the focus away from what has repeatedly been shown to matter a whole lot - how humans treat their dogs. Because breeds are outlawed, their human owners get off the hook.

As I said, introducing a dog license would be an excellent idea. Along with legal responsibility among owners for their dogs, this would probably have an enormous effect on reducing dog attacks. I don't disagree that dog attacks are a problem, quite on the contrary. I just think that one should choose research-based policies which actually have the best chance of doing away with them.
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
I think you partly misunderstand my point. I'm not a fan of breeds. Not at all. I think one should just stop having closed stud books with dog breeds, which creates inbreeding and suffering among dogs. But my point here is simply that we should look at the data and the research on dog attacks and see what it tells us. So I'll try and explain it again:

Yes, some breeds are more commonly involved in attacks on humans than others. But the question is whether that is because these breeds are more aggressive - or whether it's because of other reasons? We encounter these questions all the time in society, not only with dogs. As an example: In most societies, some ethnic groups are more involved in crime than others. Is this because of their ethnicity or genes, or because of their social positioning in society? (poverty, involvement in some economic sectors, or perhaps group culture, etc). If it's because of their ethinicity or genes - well, tough call on what to do. If it's because of societal conditions this group lives under, or elements in culture, then the best policy for reducing crime would be to change these conditions.

Concnering dog attacks, similar questions apply: A person who wants to have an aggressive dog, or a watch dog that will just be leashed outside all day, will typically choose certain breeds. This means that when these breeds get illegal, this aggressive dog owner will just choose other dogs. The research done so far strongly suggests that this is actually the case. Outlawing breeds will therefore have no effect at all. And yes, the research does suggest that breed bans really don't help. Furthermore, breed bans probably actually do damage, and make dog attacks more likely. The reason is that it perpetuates the idea that dog attacks reflect some inner aggressive nature of certain breeds. That takes the focus away from what has repeatedly been shown to matter a whole lot - how humans treat their dogs. Because breeds are outlawed, their human owners get off the hook.

As I said, introducing a dog license would be an excellent idea. Along with legal responsibility among owners for their dogs, this would probably have an enormous effect on reducing dog attacks. I don't disagree that dog attacks are a problem, quite on the contrary. I just think that one should choose research-based policies which actually have the best chance of doing away with them.

https://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11612/

Comment?
 
OP
oivavoi

oivavoi

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Messages
1,721
Likes
1,934
Location
Oslo, Norway

Just from the abstract, that's more or less in line with what other studies often show. Heritability estimates for dogs are usually estimated at between 0.05 and 0.25, but the only meta-analysis that has been done implied that many estimates might be too high: https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2015-hradecka.pdf

Heritability has been shown to be higher for highly instinctual behavior (like chasing prey instinctually) than for complex traits like trainability, temperament etc. Still, even the highest heritability estimates are on the low side. 25 percent heritability would imply that 75 percent of the dog's behavior is unique to that particular dog and the environment he/she grows up in.

For reference, humans have a much higher heritability, probably closer to 50 percent for many important traits. Why are dogs so much more malleable than humans, then? One reason is probably that the environment differs much more for dogs than for humans. Almost all kids in advanced societies go to school (and often kindergarden) for example, whereas dog don't have similar common institutions which mold them. Furthermore, dogs are formed and shaped by their owners to a much larger degree than human babies are formed by their parents, given that humans have much more individual agency and autonomy than dogs do. ADDITION/EXPLANATION: What this leads to is then that the underlying biological tendencies more easily get expressed in humans, because they face less constraints in their environment.
 
Last edited:

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,253
Just from the abstract, that's more or less in line with what other studies often show. Heritability estimates for dogs are usually estimated at between 0.05 and 0.25, but the only meta-analysis that has been done implied that many estimates might be too high: https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/heritable/2015-hradecka.pdf

Heritability has been shown to be higher for highly instinctual behavior (like chasing prey instinctually) than for complex traits like trainability, temperament etc. Still, even the highest heritability estimates are on the low side. 25 percent heritability would imply that 75 percent of the dog's behavior is unique to that particular dog and the environment he/she grows up in.

For reference, humans have a much higher heritability, probably closer to 50 percent for many important traits. Why are dogs so much more malleable than humans, then? One reason is probably that the environment differs much more for dogs than for humans. Almost all kids in advanced societies go to school (and often kindergarden) for example, whereas dog don't have similar common institutions which mold them. Furthermore, dogs are formed and shaped by their owners to a much larger degree than human babies are formed by their parents, given that humans have much more individual agency and autonomy than dogs do. ADDITION/EXPLANATION: What this leads to is then that the underlying biological tendencies more easily get expressed in humans, because they face less constraints in their environment.

As you probably know, I am intrigued by research that takes the tools of one science for application in another. Sometimes a certain common sense is needed though, which economists didn’t display when they applied energetics to social phenomena. Such cross-breeding of research tools could potentially uncover weaknesses that previously were omitted, out of plain sight.

Since we’re all animals, using the tools from your professional devotion to social science to your interest for dogs could be both entertaining and interesting. But keep in mind, do not be careless and step on the feelings of dogs!
 
Top Bottom