the parrot in question was an African Grey parrot named Alex (I can’t remember where the research was done). They seemed to show that Alex has learned the concept of attributes.
Here’s a bunch of stuff. Alex, which are red? Alex, which are soft? Alex, which are square? Etc. He could pick out the items by attribute from a previously unseen assortment. pretty interesting.
See what I mean? This of course is entirely anecdotal and does not take into account the many individual, anecdotal dogs you are not familiar with. (All dogs have “an amazing retrieving instinct.”) All dogs have the same potential behaviors. It’s been my experience that the narrower a person’s breed familiarity (e.g., labs and beagles), the more likely they are to ascribe specific behaviors to their favorite breeds. (Go into any petstore, go to the breed-specific books, scan the intro: every breed enthusiast will tell you how uniquely loyal, uniquely intelligent, etc., their chosen breed is.)
The artificial inbreeding of dogs (and cats, and pigeons, and goldfish, etc.) to emphasize “desirable” passive traits at the expense of dominant (i.e., naturally selected for the health and strength of the organism) traits is called eugenics, and is paradoxically considered one of the greatest conceivable horrors when applied–even theoretically–to humans.
There is very, very little empirical evidence to support the pseudoscience of sociobiology.
And breeding for behavioral traits has no scientific basis whatsoever.
Note to Random
Please excuse the exasperated tone of my response: I’ve had this discussion hundreds of times and I see I let that weariness color my post, and I don’t have time right now to rewrite for style.
Yes, I did mean you, lissener. Sorry about the mix-up. With regard to the rest of your post, no offense taken. I hope you’ll be similarly generous when I say that that your most recent post is nonsense.
First, it helps when you challenge the evidence contrary to your position as anecdotal if you can cite some non-anecdotal evidence in your favor. I don’t see any in your posts.
Second, you make it sound like I’m some besotted pet owner who’s convinced that my breed is better than all others. Far from it. I’m not saying my Lab is “uniquely loyal” or “uniquely intelligent.” Actually, although he’s fairly bright for a Lab, most border collies are smarter, and lots of dogs are just as loyal. Show me where I said anything different in my posts. Actually, you’ll notice that I said that Labs make poor guard dogs.
Third, if you’re correct, then all of the experienced trainers who school working dogs for various specialized duties (guard dogs, bomb sniffers, dogs who sniff luggage for smuggled food and plant material, companion dogs for the handicapped, herders and hunting dogs) are flat-out wrong, because almost invariably, those trainers choose their candidates from just a few breeds. Some roles are dominated by only one breed.
Sure, some breeds are ruled out of a particular role for physical reasons. No one is going to train a bulldog as a drug sniffer, a dachshund as a sheep herder, or a Chihuahua as a guard dog. But there are lots of breeds that have the physical makeup for each of these roles, yet are never chosen by veteran trainers. That’s because they don’t have the needed instinctual behaviors.
Take guard dogs, for example. Rotts, shepherds and Dobermans, right? I could name a dozen breeds that are just as big, if not bigger, and which have the teeth to bite plenty hard for the role. Yet those breeds are rarely or never trained as guard dogs.
Let’s talk about the herding role. Border collies and a few others, right? Lots of breeds are smart and agile enough for this role, but just have no herding talent or interest.
Sniffing tasks? Some are suited to beagles, others are dominated by bloodhounds, and yet more are handled by other breeds. If you want food (or rabbits) sniffed out, use a beagle. Tracking that escaped prisoner or seeking explosives? The beagle has no interest.
Yeah, maybe you can with intensive training make up for that lack of the needed instinct, but it’ll be a lot easier if you start with the right breed.
Let’s try an (non-anecdotal) experiment, which you’re welcome to verify if you are in the Chicago area. I’ll go to one of the Lake Michigan beaches well-attended by dogs on Saturday. Typically, I’d expect to see about 30 dogs, of which about 25% will be Labs. Most of the dogs have little or no interest in the water. The exception? I don’t think I need to say. Anyway, back to the experiment. I’ll throw a ball into the water and note which breeds jump in in an attempt to retrieve it. I’m betting at least 75% of the dogs that do will be Labs or Lab mixes, despite the fact that they make up far less than half of the breeds there. And I bet that something approaching 100% of the dogs which win the race for the ball will be the Labs.
Random, your proposed experiment wouldn’t do anything to eliminate the variable of training… As lissener said, certain dogs are expected to show some behaviors, and are therefore trained in them. If you want a counter-annecdote, I used to have a half-Lab, half Vishla (sp), which is also a bird-dog. His idea of “fetch” was much closer to “keep-away”, and we had to literally force him to learn to swim. Meanwhile, however, he wouldn’t let anyone near the house, not even close friends, unless a family member was present and awake. I’m prepared to go either way on this, but it’ll take more than annecdotes or uncontrolled experiments to convince me.
I know relatively little about canine genetics but your above statement sounds like well…errant nonsense to put it mildly. With your stated experience in training dogs and being versed in the debates concerning canine “eugenics” you have obviously constructed an informed point of view regarding this issue that flies in the face of what most people would consider to be common sense.
Your point is well taken that dogs are intelligent and intellectually plastic and that pet owners will tend to reward and reinforce behaviors that conform to their idea of proper breed behavior and this will tend to make for self fulfilling prophecies re expected and manifested behaviors. Even with this in mind, however, it is manifest, that well beyond the spin of random chance, certain breeds tend to have breed specific behavioral tendencies.
Labs do like to swim more than other dogs. Border Collies are wired to herd things - even small children and I’m sure there are other examples that will stand the test of being more than mere observational apocrypha. I understand your point about not over emphasizing the behavioral tendencies of specific breeds but I think you are going rather too far in the opposite direction.
You are essentially saying that you cannot select for specific behavioral tendencies in breeding dogs, which to a certain extent, is the whole point of breeding dogs to perform certain tasks.
You’re obviously knowledgeable about dogs and per your previous message and I know you’ve had this discussion dozens of times, but please elaborate on your perspective. I just can’t see how an intelligent person would come to the conclusion you state at the top of this page.
Sorry lissener, but I have to agree with those who say you can breed for behavior. Case in point: dogs (as a group). These critters ALL started out as wolves if you go back far enough. Yet the behavior of modern dogs towards humans, with or without training, is VERY different from what you would get from a wolf, EVEN a wolf trained to act like a dog. (Would you ever trust a wolf with a child after any amount of training?) All the differences between dogs and wolves are a result of selective breeding by man.
Obviously, selective breeding of dogs has changed their innate behavior from that of their ancestors.
Also - and I realize it’s anecdotal but that seems to be all we have to go on - I have seen film of a border collie that was raised in the city as a companion dog. It was just somebody’s pet. This dog was taken to a sheep ranch and that little guy immediately started barking his head off and herding the sheep, which he had never seen before. His lack of training showed in that he wasn’t good at it, but he was certainly showing herding behavior. I’m skeptical that similar spontaneous behavior could be found with, say, a mastiff.
Also, I had a cousin that had a really beautiful dog who was a pain in the ass. He was some breed that was bred as guard dogs in France, IIRC, specifically to bark a lot and so keep trespassers off the grounds. His barking had a hair trigger; he would bark if the wind blew, or an ant walked by, or a leaf fell from a tree. He would bark for no less than an hour at a time. This was DESPITE energetic efforts to train him NOT to bark incessantly.
Finally, natural selection breeds for behavior all the time! Literally. The behavior of the entire animal kingdom is a result of NATURAL selective breeding. Why should it then be impossible for us to mimic that process?
I think there has to be a case that some dogs are plain thick.
This may or may not be breed related but things such as resistance to certain illnesses, propensity to put on weight, ability to live to a great age definately are.
I have seen families of humans where stupidity seems inherent, even when the siblings have been raised separately.
My sisters and I were all raised seperately and in very differant circumstances. We have hardly ever seen each other but our outlooks and need to make our way succesfully in the world are stikingly similar but other parts of the family in similar positions have pretty much fallen by the wayside.
The thing that my sisters and I have in common is analytical minds and a drive to overcome difficulties.
I doubt that dogs are much differant and that certain sorts of temperament lend themselves better to some tasks than others.The one thing you can say about pedigree dogs is that you have an idea of the nature of the animal before you even see it but of course it is not 100% accurate.
I think lissener has an interesting point, although it is hard to believe.
WHEREAS the scientific case for the validity of sociobiology is, at best, still up in the air–WAY up in the air: current scientific knowledge would tend to suggest that except for the most basic instinctive behaviors, sociobiology is bunk;
AND WHEREAS the popular consensus is, in spite of this, that breeding dogs for behavioral traits is perfectly valid;
THEREFORE: it seems to me the burden of proof is on the sociobiologists.
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is not proof. Not working from any official definitions here, just my understanding: *proof is a negative result, not a positive result.* Proof doesn’t say only that “this is true,” it says that “all other possibilities have been eliminated.”
Anecdotal evidence--again working from my own understanding here--is evidence that supports, positively, the theory at hand, but makes no contribution to the process of eliminating alternative explanations.
What I’m suggesting is this: that all of your observations are perfectly valid. But your conclusions are based simply on anecdotal evidence: you’ve only taken into account evidence that appears to support your conclusions, without properly eliminating--nor yet even seeking out--evidence to the contrary.
For an extreme example of this kind of reasoning, from all appearances the theory that the sun revolves around the earth would be a good starting point for investigation. But as we all know from such examples, the scientific process is not a two-step process (*observe, conclude*).
Nonetheless, I’m going to put forth a theory that may go some way to resolving these disparate . . . means of understanding.*
All canine traits exist in all breeds of dog (actually, that’s not theory but fact: all dogs are the same species and carry, for all intents and purposes, the same genetic information). Inbreeding causes weakening of many heritable traits. If, for example, the individual Border Collies you have known seem smarter to you than the average dog, perhaps it’s because Border Collie breeders refuse to be governed by the AKC (precisely because the AKC pedigree laws promote inbreeding and ignore the health issues raised by canine eugenics). It’s entirely plausible that inbreeding leads to a lessening of intelligence in other breeds. This would suggest that Border Collies may simply be “smarter by default,” a theory which more closely conforms to current scientific knowledge. But even this theory can only explain why Border Collies may seem more intelligent than some other breeds: no scientific attempt has been made here to compare Border Collies with all other breeds, to eliminate their possible competition for the title.
The same can be said for all the other traits discussed. The herding behavior that is seemingly exaggerated in some breeds does indeed exist in wolves: it can be seen in certain aspects of their pack behavior, and in the careful, organized way a mother wolf keeps her cubs from straying too far into danger. If inbreeding has caused a weakening in these behaviors, that wouldn’t surprise me. (The stupidest dog I ever trained was a $1,500 blue merle collie, inbred to within an inch of total retardation.)
Keep in mind that purebreeding is, by definition, inbreeding. This is how certain specific traits are emphasized. The problem I have with it is that this can only be done by a process of elimination--of deterioration, rather than improvement. That’s why inbreeding in humans causes illness and birth defects. When breeding for certain specific traits, you are not creating new traits, you’re suppressing existing traits through inbreeding, bringing out (but not creating) recessive traits. Where are these traits you’re breeding for coming from? Are you supplementing the DNA off the shelf, acessorizing it, like adding RAM chips? No; you’re inbreeding to *eliminate* dominant traits in order to allow recessive traits to come to the fore. It is entirely and absolutely a negative process.
Random responses to some challenges in preceding posts:
. . . it helps when you challenge the evidence contrary to your position as anecdotal if you can cite some non-anecdotal evidence in your favor. . . *
** First of all, the burden of proof is not on me, as I have said. Second, and far less compelling as an argument, I’m speaking from a knowledge base accumulated over a long period of reading and experience, several years ago (currently I work in medical administration, with long-time side job as a fact checker for an education publisher). In addition to this, I recently moved to a new city shortly after all my books were lost in a fire at a storage facility that has since gone bankrupt. I have no ready cites; I’d have to do all the research over again from scratch. A thin excuse, but then–Third—I quote from the “Scientific Method” page at Biology for Kids: "One of the cool things about science is that other scientists can learn things from what has already been proven. They don’t have to go out and prove everything again and again.”*
. . . you make it sound like I’m some besotted pet owner who’s convinced that my breed is better than all others. . . Actually, you’ll notice that I said that Labs make poor guard dogs.
This is still a generalization reached by personal observation, which is only one step in the scientific method; not a valid argument in your attempt to disprove the current scientific knowledge base which has found no compelling evidence for the validity of sociobiology. Again, all you’ve done is provide a piece of evidence which has no scientific weight beyond simply not disproving your own theory; it in no way disproves any other theory.
. . . if you’re correct, then all of the experienced trainers . . . are flat-out wrong. . . .
As an argument, this is a fallacy (Argumentum ad verecundiam): It is of course entirely possible for all such people to be wrong. In fact, I argue that it’s these [your breed here] aficionados who are primarily responsible for propagating the myth of breed superiority.
. . . [Non-] Rotts, shepherds and Dobermans . . . are rarely or never trained as guard dogs.
You’re arguing common practice, not scientific fact.
. . . Lots of breeds are smart and agile enough for [herding], but just have no herding talent or interest.
Again, common practice, not science. Have you tried and failed to teach non-traditional breeds to herd? (No talking pig remarks here, please.) You’re repeating traditional stereotypes–cultural artifacts–not providing empirical evidence.
Let’s try an (non-anecdotal) experiment. . . .
The experiment as described wouldn’t prove anything, because it wouldn’t disprove anything. I couldn’t imagine an experiment with weaker controls. You’d have to eliminate the owners’ prejudices in raising the dogs; you’d have to account for the fact that you’re starting with a group of dogs whose owners make it a practice to take them down to the water in the first place; etc. A more valid experiment would be, for example, a number of dogs who have verifiably never had contact with water; dogs of the same age and of the same set of experiences; dogs of the same general physical characteristics; and then throw your ball. Or a group of purebred labs, same conditions as above, compared statistically to a breed with similar physical characteristics, same conditions. Even these experiments would need to be reproducible to be considered valid, and would be subject to subsequent experiments which may contradict them.
. . . [ I] have obviously constructed an informed point of view regarding this issue that flies in the face of what most people would consider to be common sense.
**Needless to say, this is not now, nor has it ever been, proof of scientific validity. “Common sense” is a cultural artifact completely outside the province of science. (Argumentum ad populum) **
[My] point is well taken . . . pet owners will tend to reward and reinforce . . . self fulfilling prophecies. . . . [But] Even with this in mind . . . certain breeds tend to have breed specific behavioral tendencies.
Simply restating the argument does not further it. (Argumentum ad nausem)
. . . [Dogs] started out as wolves if you go back far enough. [There’s actually pretty convincing evidence that there has never really been a true speciation dividing dogs and wolves, and that properly they should be considered a single species.] Yet the behavior of modern dogs . . . is VERY different from . . . [that of] a wolf. . . .
Insofar as this is true, I maintain that it’s due to the weakening of certain instincts brought about by inbreeding in dogs.
. . . [A cousin’s dog of a] breed that was bred as guard . . . would bark if the wind blew, or an ant walked by, or a leaf fell from a tree. . . . This was DESPITE energetic efforts to train him NOT to bark incessantly.
Energetic, but ineffective. I have never failed at an attempt to train a barker not to bark. (Looka me, Ma! Fighting anecdote with anecdote!)
. . . natural selection breeds for behavior all the time! Literally. The behavior of the entire animal kingdom is a result of NATURAL selective breeding.
You’re referring to species-specific potential behaviors; “hardwiring” in the current popular usage: a bird is not likely to lay eggs in the muddy substrate of a lake; a fish is not likely to build a nest in a tree. All members of a single species–barring of course mutations, physical disabilities, etc.–possess the same potential behaviors. All dogs are members of a single species: they all have the same potential behaviors hardwired. Certain genetically isolated, inbred subgroups of dogs may have some instincts weakened by inbreeding, but the potential behaviors are still there, in the wiring.
Why should it then be impossible for us to mimic that process?
Get back to me after say 50 million years of concentrated, organized, human-directed breeding. No; I’ll be generous. Say 5 million.
My point is it’s *your* claims that require proof, not mine. Your observations are entirely valid, but they’re not proofs adequate to alter established biological fact.
You’re asking me to provide empirical proof that something is *not* the case, when the burden is entirely on you to prove that it *is*.
Here’s the bottom line: my experiences and (nonexhaustive, slipshod, entirely theoretical and book-larnin’-type) “research” have led me to one conclusion, a conclusion which *happens* to be entirely in line with (and reached through extensive, if amateur, study of) established biological fact; yours have led you to another, diametrically opposed conclusion, which *happens* to fly in its face. I’m not the one who should be defending here.
*Never forgetting, of course, that of the two means under discussion, one is the product of careful, codified, established scientific method; and one is what feels right to a bunch of people with dogs.;)Gosh durn, you shoor do use a whole passel of big words there, lissener. Too bad the substance of your argument isn’t as impressive.
You make a lot of vague references to “current scientific knowlege” and “established biological fact” without even one reference or citation. You then argue that, because this so-called “science” is on your side, it is up to us to disprove your claims, and you therefore don’t need to cite your authorities. Sounds like a big ol’ circular argument to me, lissener. (Sorry, I don’t know the Latin for that particular logical falacy.)
You know, I think I’ll stick with what “a bunch of people with dogs” have observed until you come up with something a bit more convincing than an argument that boils down to “I have a different claim. Prove me wrong.”
Yeah, sometimes the accepted view based upon observation can turn out to be mistaken. You mention the once commonly-held belief that the sun revolves around the earth as an example. True enough. But when Copernicus and Galileo came forward with their (at that time) novel theories to challenge the accepted wisdom, I submit that the burden of proof was on them. Most of us have better things to do with our time than to disprove every wild claim that comes along.
But you see that’s just it. The wild claim is yours to prove.
You’ve observed, you’ve concluded, but you’ve left out all the steps in between.
Your only “proof” is that a lot of other people hold the same belief, or that you refuse to accept any proof to the contrary.
You insist that opinions have as much validity as deductive scientific reasoning.
Until you–or whoever–the Lab Supremecists of the world–conducts a series of controlled experiments to prove your “wild claims,” I’ll take the side of established science.
Especially because my own experience–with many, many different purebreeds and many, many different mixed breeds–tends to support it, and to contradict your opinions based on limited experience.
Even discussing this outside the laws of science, which is where you seem to insist on discussing it, my own anecdotal experience would lead me to conclude that mixed breeds are smarter, healthier, and easier to train in ALL the so-called breed-specific behaviors.
Please tell me what dictionary you are using. I can’t find that definition in mine. :rolleyes:
I’m not going to bore everyone here by dissecting your lengthy post. It was a nice shot, but your arguement is flawed.
Opinions are valid. As are observations. It seems to me that your entire arguement here is based on your opinion and observations. Unless you are purposefully trying to be superior, allow that we can observe also, and are entitled to our opinions.
Now this pisses me off. Who died and made you Grand High Poobah of doggie observation??
How the heck do you know how much experience I or anyone else here has? What experience have you proved to us that you have, besides your comments in this thread? Why the heck should any more weight be given to your opinion, Hmmmmmm?
I see here what appears to be contradictory assertions. You claim that one “cannot select for specific behavioral tendencies in dogs,” then admit that domesticated dogs behave differently then wild wolves, then “maintain that it’s due to the weakening of certain instincts brought about by inbreedings in dogs.”
Where’s the problem? You readily admit that dogs have different behavior patterns due to breeding. That is what everyone here is trying to say. Why does inbreeding that reduces and suppresses insticts not count as “breeding dogs for behavioral traits.”
Of course you can’t breed a dog to play poker, but you can refine their natural instincts through selective breeding to the point where the dogs will exhibit specific behaviors, without training, that their wild cousins would not have.
Look, I realize it seems like I’m saying “I’m right, you’re wrong. Prove it yourself, nyah nyah nyah.” But honest, I’m not.
You say–it little matters that this is not an originaly theory, nor yet an unpopular one–that it’s possible to breed dogs for specific behaviors. I say “prove it.” (Old as this theory is, it has in fact never been proved. If you know different, please point me there.) You then say “No, you prove my theory is wrong.” It doesn’t matter which of us weighed in first: you’re attempting to ascribe causality to a perceived effect: the burden of proof is yours: I can’t prove a negative.
The scientific validity of sociobiology and eugenics has been debated, debunked, and even dishonored, time and time again in regards to one mammalian species (Homo sapiens. How can you expect that huge, hotly debated, closely examined body of work to be stood on its ear as regards another mamnmalian species (Canis familiaris) based solely on the anecdotal observation of non-scientists?
Just because a theory’s remained popular for years (and years and years: Argumentum ad antiquitatum) without such proof doesn’t meant that it’s true. Exactly the same theories about “breed-(read: race)”-specific human behavior has been the “prevailing wisdom” for far longer than it’s more recent state of pseudoscience and simple prejudice. (You want a cite? Read The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen J. Gould, and the collection of essays in reaction to the publication of The Bell Curve, an anthology whose title I forget.)
That’s one small part of the “established science” that I have been referring to.
In any case, you think you’re asking me to prove my “assertions” in re: the established base of scientific knowledge, but you’re really asking me to educate you on the history of science and scientific method. It’s not up to me to supply with the tools you need in order to make your argument.
Regarding my conflation of purebreeding and inbreeding: That's simply the case. Individual members of a given breed are, in effect, artificial twins. Why does a Saint Bernard look like so much more like a Saint Bernard than like a Chihuahua? After all, they're the same species. Through inbreeding. The two hypothetical Saint Bernards, if they're purebred, are very likely to be very closely related. (Read any two randomly chosen pedigrees of the same breed. You're likely to find the same dogs in their ancestry. You're even pretty likely to find the same dog turn up more than once in a single pedigree: as the dog in question's maternal uncle, for example, as well as paternal grandfather, etc. Ofen even closer.) This is called inbreeding. No breeder will argue with this.
Regarding the validity of opinions: they're extremely valuable at the onset of the scientific process, but must be set aside when you've reached the stage of drawing concrete conclusions. Of course you understand that I was not discounting the value of opinions in your life, or my life; only defining their place in the scientific process.
Regarding my description of others' experience in comparison to mine: I was contrasting to a Random's own stated experience with certain breeds to my own wider experience with many specific breeds and mixed-breed dogs; I was not stating a universal superiority of experience. I was responding to the specific argument at hand. That said, I have no compunction in suggesting that someone who spends their life devoted to a single breed or two has disproportionate experience of that breed, and therefore less experience with all the other breeds out there. (There's some sense in there somewhere.)
For the most part, aenea, where you assumed I was speaking generally I meant to convey that I was speaking specifically.Tell me, where did you get the idea that “I’ve devoted my life to one breed” or that I’m a “Lab supremisist?” Yes, I’ve said that I own a Lab now, and that I believe that Labs tend to be better swimmers and retrievers than your average dog, but neither statement even comes close to supporting either of your conclusions, especially when I also said previously that there are other desireable skills or traits that Labs tend not to have.
lissener, it seems to me that until you can provide some sort of cites or references, the burden of proof is on you. Maybe current scientific thinking does back you up… but for all we know, maybe it doesn’t. Cite, or don’t claim scientific agreement.
As for the methodology of breeding for behaviors, I’ll grant that there’s a lot of potential behaviors in dogs, such as fetching, guarding, and herding. Now, suppose I want a dog for guarding… If I breed so as to suppress the fetching and herding behaviors, so that my dogs aren’t distracted from their primary task of guarding, then how is that not breeding for a particular behavior? Such a dog will be more tempermentally inclined towards guarding than will a dog that has had its violent instincts suppressed. This seems to be what everyone else is arguing, here.
Look, I think I got what lissener was saying. Chronos, as to your example, look at it this way. I want to breed a good guard dog dog out of the 6 puppies in the litter I just received in the mail (don’t worry, there were holes punched in the box). so of the six, I pick the most agressive female and the most agressive male. When they come of age, I breed them. They have another six puppies. I repeat the process, over and over upon the succeeding generations, until I wind up with a great guard dog.
but i wouldn’t. I would wind up with an inbred sickly pup who is more agressive than normal. Now, although I have bred a puppy with a specific trait that i want, the trait itself is expressed less than would be in a normal mutt. there is no way to make a purebred surpass a specific ability of caninekind. i can just filter out other behaviors and traits.
so sure, I am breeding for behavior. but in a much different sense than is being assumed in these posts.
liss, am i even on the right track?
You may not think that’s what you are saying but it’s essentially what your silly goulash of an argument has
become. The principles of animal husbandry are well known and scientifically rigorous. Billon dollar industries are based on the ability of scientists to breed for certain desired and marketable physical characteristics. To make the assertion that it is possible to select out and breed for physical characteristics but that behavioral characteristics are immutable and beyond the reach of selective breeding is astoundingly ignorant.
To the extent that you do recognize behavioral differences you say…
“Yet the behavior of modern dogs . . . is VERY different from . . . [that of] a wolf. . . . Insofar as this is true, I maintain that it’s due to the weakening of certain instincts brought about by inbreeding in dogs”
SO WHAT!? Aside from the fact that you were apparently scared by a socio-biologist as a small child, selection is selection. If I breed to a behavioral goal by weakening or supressing instincts it’s still selection.
And finally… re your comment
“In any case, you think you’re asking me to prove my “assertions” in re: the established base of scientific knowledge, but you’re really asking me to educate you on the history of science and scientific method. It’s not up to me to supply with the tools you need in order to make your argument.”
Trust me lissener with your “creative” use of definitions, your old-school, Gould-centric- fear/mis-understanding of socio-biology and tissue thin, pedantic latinate cloakings of what is, at it’s root, an incomprehensible and insensible assertion… no one is asking you for a single argumentative screwdriver our of your mighty box o’ tools.
Folks, this thread is getting a little, uh, vigorous.
Could everyone please turn it down just a half-notch or so?
Thanks.
That’s it, in essence. That’s the closest you can get to “breeding for behavioral traits.”
That’s a very important distinction. The earlier example of Border Collies: they may seem more intelligent, but essentially there just as smart as they should be; most other breeds have just been inbred into idiocy, lowering the general standard.
It’s always been my experience that, the more inclusive a dog’s genetic background–the less inbred, the more mixed–the more likely he/she is to be really good at being trained, for whatever you want to train them for.