Bullshit: you’ve shown a few geneticists who start with that as a hypothesis, but you’ve shown me no conclusive evidence yet achieved by any of them.
Still no cite from you, I see.
…yet that’s far stronger than anything you’ve shown, even if you were right, which you’re not.
You haven’t come up with countercites because they don’t exist. When you learn to admit you’re wrong, come back.
Daniel
At least we’re making attempts to provide evidence, even though you continually dismiss them. We have yet to see you provide any source that supports your denials other than yourself.
Dude, inherited canine behavioral traits is a hotbutton issue in the same way that “dogs sometimes bark at strangers” is a hotbutton issue. There’s a reason why this isn’t at the forefront of genetic research; there’s a reason why it only tends to get studied as parts of other studies (e.g., studying the dog genome in order to understand inherited diseases): it’s because it’s not controversial.
Incidentally, before you start, saying “dogs sometimes bark at strangers” is NOT the same thing as saying “black people sometimes bark at strangers.”
Daniel
Except the ones who have Tourette’s or are imitating Curly Howard. 
Well whaddaya know, I found one cite for lissener since he couldn’t be bothered to find any on his own. Problem is, the cite is at about.com.
Indygrrl, maybe I missed it in one of your posts, but what was the dog’s demeanor when he poked his head in your door? Did he look like he was looking for something to attack or did he look like he was just seeing if there was someone to visit and maybe get an ear scratched? Reacting calmly in either situation would have been preferable to freaking out.
All dogs have a sense of territory. Getting up and gently shooing him away would, most likely, have gotten him out of yours.
I agree.
My neighbor has a Jack Russell terrier. This breed tends to be extremely territorial. When I first moved here, the dog was unapproachable, even by someone as dog-loving and easy-going as me. Sitting on our building’s common deck, my neighbor always had her on a leash. Making any innocent move, even just moving your foot, would send the dog lunging as far as her leash would let her and barking maniacly. My neighbor finally took her into a training class and I can testify the difference in that dog even after the first meeting! My neighbor just had to learn to tell the dog what she expected of her. A month or so later, several of us went to look at something on one spot of the deck. I looked down and here was the dog happily milling about between us all without a trace of her former aggression.
I believe aggressive breeds can be trained to be gentle (with a few exceptions individually) and, unfortunately, gentle breeds can be trained to be aggressive.
True, they are strong, but pound for pound, I’d put my money on a Scottie dog as being even stronger. When I was grooming, we didn’t call them the Arnold Schwartzenegger of dogs for nothing. One managed to get his teeth around the mesh of a muzzle to bite me! Their entire bodies are nothing but solid (Solid!)muscle and I believe they’d make the ultimate guard dog if so trained. They’d be hard to see in the dark, are built low to the ground yet are fast, and have jaws like a bear trap. Yet no one considers them an aggressive breed, do they?
I actually lived below a guy like this. Only his dog was a small cocker. He just couldn’t be bothered to take him for a walk, so he let him pee over the side of the balcony. The dog was nice though.
Seems that many scientists are hallucinating:
For example, van den Berg et al. (2003 Behav Genet 33, 469 - 483) say:
“Aggression … is under polygenic control and environmental factors play a role in its development (Enserink, 2000; Mackenzie et al., 1986; Tecott and Barondes, 1996)” (pp. 469)
“Because aggressive behavior seems to occur more often in certain … family groups, it is likely that a genetic cause is involved.” (pp. 469)
Or, how about Takeuchi & Houpt (2003 Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 33, 345-363):
“The influence of hereditary and environmental factors is indispensable as the foundation on which the temperament of an animal is formed”.
And how about those drug-addled freaks, Kukekova et al. (2004 J Hered 95, 185-194)? The abstract in full:
“The silver fox, a variant of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), is a close relative of the dog (Canis familiaris). Cytogenetic differences and similarities between these species are well understood, but their genomic organizations have not been compared at higher resolution. Differences in their behavior also remain unexplained. Two silver fox strains demonstrating markedly different behavior have been generated at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Foxes selected for tameness are friendly, like domestic dogs, while foxes selected for aggression resist human contact. To refine our understanding of the comparative genomic organization of dogs and foxes, and enable a study of the genetic basis of behavior in these fox strains, we need a meiotic linkage map of the fox. Towards this goal we generated a primary set of fox microsatellite markers. Four hundred canine microsatellites, evenly distributed throughout the canine genome, have been identified that amplify robustly from fox DNA. Polymorphism information content (PIC) values were calculated for a representative subset of these markers and population inbreeding coefficients were determined for tame and aggressive foxes. To begin to identify fox-specific single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in the neurobiology of behavior, fox and dog orthologs of serotonin 5-HT(1A) and 5-HT(1B) receptor genes have been cloned. Sequence comparison of these genes from tame and aggressive foxes reveal several SNPs. The close relationship of the fox and dog enables canine genomic tools to be utilized in developing a fox meiotic map and mapping behavioral traits in the fox.”
Emphasis added.
Yes lissener, you are quite correct. We are profoundly ignorant of the scientific method, or we intentionally dismiss it. Just like the scientists working in the field of behavioral genetics. They are also ignorant of the scientific method and they only find links between genetics and aggression because they are spooned out of their gourds on top-quality hallucinogenics.
The general scientific consensus “looks down” upon sociobiolgy, or biological determinism, or inherited behavioral traits:
From a letter written by a bunch of Harvard geneticists to the New York Review of Books, protesting the growing popularity of sociobiology:
From The Monthly Review:
From The New Criterion:
The reason for all human-oriented examples is because, A), no such research has been done on dogs yet; B) if research on mice and rats–and dogs–is relevant to humans, then the reverse is true; C) I feel pretty confident that research conducted on humans would be about as rigorous as it’s possible for a scientist to be.
The best research the sociobiologists have is on ants.
And note that the writer of that article is a longtime dogtrainer, so if you want to argue with anecdotal evidence, she’d probably be able to shout you down pretty quickly.
Indeed she is, which makes her opinion on the causes of agressive behavior just as valid as yours. Unfortunately, we’re looking for facts, not opinions and about.com isn’t a very good source for either.
My point was simply that her position is equal, in weight, to yours.
Do not shoot the dog with a slingshot!!! What the fuck? Are you that fucking stupid as to believe that? Do not antagonize a viscious animal.
Do Not Carry A Knife to try to take out an out of control animal. Your not an ape or a caveman(woman), use the tools you have availible now. Do you have a video camera? Tape the guy out with the dog, or the dog out by itself. Call animal control, bug your landlord, do what you have to.
All this stupid Macho “kill the dog!” bullshit is going to is get you maimed, or arrested, or sued.
Interesting statement; I’d be interested in seeing the context, and the data that led to that conclusion.
[**Boldface ** is mine.] Still in the conjecture stage here.
Interesting statement; they hold the same opinion you do.
Pretty interesting. I’d like to see where this leads. The skeptic in me asks why they didn’t use dogs instead of foxes? Wouldn’t that have been easier?
Oh, if only your cites had anything to do with dogs, they’d be relevant! So sad, so sad.
a) Little research has been done on such behavior in dogs because it’s bleedin’ obvious what the results would be: it’s not an interesting question.
b) This is laughably bogus. If I discover, through research, that dogs can follow a human’s trail through their sense of smell, does this apply to humans? Of course not. Differences between humans and dogs makes some research on one not applicable to the other. For example, dogs have been the subjects of teleological breeding for millennia; humans have not.
c) Totally irrelevant, since the research on humans viz. sociobiology doesn’t apply to dogs.
Again, show me one geneticist who denies that there’s such a thing as inherited canine behavioral traits. Just one.
Note that, while research confirming the bleedin’ obvious doesn’t get much press, research contradicting the bleedin’ obvious does. Remember a few years ago the research showing that sugar doesn’t make kids hyper? THat got a lot of press, precisely because it contradicted accepted wisdom.
Research confirming the bleedin’ obvious in this case exists, but it’s more difficult to find, because it’s not particularly interesting.
Daniel
That’s not skepticism; that’s idle curiosity. Even if they used foxes because Dr. Evil Himself funded their research, in what possible way would that impugn their results?
Let me ask you some questions. Which of these statements do you agree with?
- There are no inherited conditions in humans that affect behavior–including depression and Alzheimer’s.
- Such conditions exist in humans, but do not exist in canines.
- Such conditions exist in canines, but humans are incapable of manipulating genetics in order to bring out specific characteristics in canines.
- Humans are capable of manipulating genetics in order to bring out specific characteristics in canines, but not behavioral characteristics.
- Humans are capable of manipulating genetics in order to bring out specific behavioral characteristics in canines, but have never bothered to do so.
- Humans actually have manipulated genetics in order to bring out specific behavioral characteristics in canines, but they have never done so in specific populations referred to as breeds.
- Other.
I really don’t understand how you arrive at your position.
Daniel
lissener, didn’t you say you were leaving this thread about 10 posts ago? If you’re wondering why people think you’re an ass, this thread is a prime example.
Lissener, are you saying then that golden retrievers have no more or less propensity to violence than bulldogs?
I just want to make sure I have you clear here.
No, her position is equal in weight to your own. We have posted lnks to facts, as best we could. She and you both have opinions but where are the facts to back up that opinion? You could at least find someone from the science community who shares the same opinion instead of just repeating there have been no studies.