Exactly, except not. They’re not the same, because human eugenics don’t have a history of having folks breed traits into people over thousands of generations, breeding very close relatives together.
Disagree? Prove it.
Daniel
No, we are ascribing a tendency toward certain behaviors to groups of breeds. For example, small dogs like Chihuahuas tend to be high-strung and St. Bernards tend to be large, lovable, slobbering beasts. Am I saying it’s impossible to have a calm Chihuahua and a mean St. Bernard? Hell no.
No, we are ascribing a tendency toward certain behaviors to groups of breeds. For example, small dogs like Chihuahuas tend to be high-strung and St. Bernards tend to be large, slobbering, and lovable. Am I saying it’s impossible to have a calm Chihuahua and a mean St. Bernard? Hell no.
Whew. So you finally agree with me.
You liar. From the first page, I’ve been saying exactly that, and you took issue with that statement.
Throughout this thread, you’ve misrepresented my position, you’ve accused me from arguing only from anecdote, you’ve argued only from anecdote and spurious logic, you’ve compared me to racists, and you’ve been, in general, an insufferable tool. Why am I still bothering with you?
Because I’m a stubborn git sometimes. But no more. I’m through with you until you gain a shred of integrity.
Daniel
More we’ve reached a point where we are no longer talking past each other. Would you mind scrolling up to #119?
That was supposed to say, “More like we’ve reached a point where we are no longer talking past each other.”
You should stick around, I think we’re close to a breakthrough here.
Aid breaking through my stomach lining, maybe, but I’m not willing to waste more time one someone so awful as Lissener is being. Best of luck, though!
Daniel
Um, no. You’ve been saying “The general fact is X, and the exception is Y.” And I’m saying, “No; the general fact is Y, and X is the exception, except for conditioning based on tradition and anecdotal observation.”
You’re saying, in essence, that ALL PIT BULLS ARE VICIOUS UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. I’m saying that individual variation within a race/breed, human or canine, is far greater than averaged variation between breeds.
I’m comparing it to the human “races” only scientifically, not morally. I will not state this again. It’s an interesting example of how moral issues cause us to interpret the same scientific phenomenon differently in species not ourselves. The same exact theories which, through rigorous scientific research, have been proven bogus in our species, you’re willing to accept as perfectly valid in another species, based, again, only on anecdote and tradition. I’m not calling you a racist; I have absolutely no reason to think of you as a racist. I’m saying your criteria for scientific fact should not vary, due to moral issues, from species to species.
covered this at least once; maybe twice.
I’m curious. Are your pants actually on fire?
Daniel
No, he’s saying the same thing I am.
Again, I flap my arms with the intention of flight; these dogs were bred as weapons. Two equally valid statements of intention. Those dogs were trained to be vicious.
Bull Terriers were also originally bred for bull-baiting. Unlike the Bulldog, which had already moved into the realm of show-dog by 1835, Bull Terriers went into pit-fighting. Given that “Pit” Bull Terriers and Presa Canarios have a longer history of being bred for their tenacity and strenghth, it stands to reason **[again, this makes for an interesting starting point for research; it’s not a valid conclusion, however] ** that they’d be more difficult to train to be unaggressive than breeds like the Bulldog. Not to mention that for a couple of centuries people have been trying to breed out traits **[or flap their wings] ** deemed not befit of fighting dogs, by your own reasoning it would be nigh impossible to reintroduce those traits that have been bred out.What about sickle-cell anemia?
[/QUOTE]
Sickle cell anemia is a physical trait. Behavior, except for instinctual behavior at the species level, which all members of a species share (with individual exceptions of course) is a different thing: it’s about the mind and the way it thinks, not the physical fact of a cell or a skin tone or long shaggy hair or webbed toes. Physical traits have been proven to be hereditary; behavior–matters of choice, even in dogs because they can be trained to choose one behavior over another–has not yet undergone the same kind of research, and so, again, I’ll err on the side of orthodoxy until you perform the experiments suggested by your observations.
Lissener, you are so far from the scientific canon that I fear you have been shot from it.
But, a suggestion: Try searching for Behavioral genetics, rather than ‘sociobiology’ which is (AFAIK) an outdated and mildly quaint term.
Now, if you follow the link above, you’ll see a few more helpful quotes. For example, under the heading ‘What indications are there that behavior has a biological basis?’, one indicator given is:
‘Behaviors often breed true. We can reproduce behaviors in successive generations of organisms. Consider the instinctive retrieval behavior of a yellow Labrador or the herding posture of a border collie.’
There’s some more interesting info at this Border Collie site. Reference is made to the book ‘Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog’ (Amazon ). Now, I’ve not read this book - more of a cat person, meself, like - but here are some more nuggets from the book, as presented on the Border Collie site:
In the context of crouching behaviour in two different breeds of dog:
‘The crouch itself could be shown to be controlled by two major genes, with the crouch (or sit) dominant over the stand. The quiet attitude was also controlled by two genes, with the Spaniel behavior (quiet) recessive to the more active. The whole pattern of quietly crouching, then, results from four genes altogether. The number of different genetic combinations that can be formed from 2 (2-factor) genes is 256!’
‘Basenjis are known as a breed that doesn’t bark; Cocker Spaniels are infamous barkers. But even Basenjis will bark; they merely need to be more strongly stimulated. The trait of being easily stimulated to bark, as exhibited by the Spaniel, is dominant and shows statistical inheritance close to what would be predicted for a single gene’
Of course - see the quote immediately above! However, it is possible to breed such that certain behaviours are more readily expressed. Again, the quote immediately above is an example of this. Breeding for specific traits increases the probability that such traits will be expressed; it does not guarantee it.
I must admit that engaging you in a discussion on this topic seems to be about as much use as trying to cultivate kumquats up one’s nose, but I always did enjoy the fruits of futility.
One step closer toward total agreement.
Now, lets see if we can finally put all this to rest. CanvasShoes summed it up nicely awhile back:
Everyone is saying in this thread that breeding is a significant part of a dog’s behavior and, to a certain extent, how dangerous (or not) they are. Chihuahuas tend to be high-strung, St. Bernards lovable, and American Pit Bull Terriers tenacious. Can we please finally put this to rest?
NO he’s NOT!! He’s been saying the same thing the rest of us have been saying. Are you blind? Or just unable to read english?
That’s stated much, much to strongly for my taste; too absolute. How about this.
All dog breeds–from Chihuahuas to St. Bernards–being merely different races of the same species, carry nearly identical genetic material. Traditional prejudices have resulted in various behavioral traits being emphasized in various breeds. It’s possible, but unproven, and contrary to scientific orthodoxy, that centuries of inbreeding may have affected some behavioral traits as well as physical traits. There is much anecdotal evidence to support this hypothesis, and much anecdotal evidence to contradict it. Using the utterly exhaustive research done on another intelligent and social mammal, Homo sapiens, as a starting point, it’s not likely[sup]IMHO[/sup]that this theory will be proven. Nonetheless it’s a hypothesis worth testing.
Ummm, how is “tend to be” stated too strongly and absolute?
Sure there are chihuahuas that are calm and relaxed. I’ve never met one, nor seen one on TV, nor known anyone who has seen one, even though I know they DO exist. Sheesh, even the information you get from breeders and breeder’s sites and books on the subject will tell you what traits “your” breed tends to have.
This is one of the reasons that you have people going for certain breeds among the purebred dog, they know basically what traits they can count on. People who love chihuahuas don’t CARE that they shake all over and are nervous little things.
I adore aussies, I don’t CARE that they are psychotic “MUST HAVE A JOB” little creatures, I love them for the traits I DO know that breed tends to have. Are there “duds”? Dogs that don’t follow the norm for their breed? No one is saying there aren’t. But to dismiss that certain breeds do have traits that are specific to their breed is to ignore hundreds of years of history and documentation.
Labs tend to be “throw the ball, throw the ball, throw the ball, throw it again” addicts. This EXISTS. To dispute this is to call into question how much experience you have had training actual dogs. I mean, just in the experiences that I’ve had with friend’s dogs, dogs that people on the net have described, dogs in my dog training classes, it’s easy to see which breeds have which traits figuring strongly in their personality. How can YOU, a dog trainer, you must have seen hundreds of representatives of certain breeds, have NOT seem these same tendencies?
Do you mean to tell us that of all the dogs you’ve trained, that they all exhibitted the exact same doggie tendencies until you trained them???
Now, I have no doubt that a person could, with enough time and patience, SOMEHOW manage to get a basset hound to herd sheep. Or to get enough chihuahuas to pull a dogsled (and if you don’t believe that certain breeds have certain tendencies, you need to come watch the start of the iditarod). But that is NOT the same thing as saying “all dogs have all traits, they just need to be trained”.
Um, no an aussie will be naturals for that training, they only have to be “reminded” in their training. (not trying to push aussies, they just happen to be the dog I know best). Are there dumb ones? Duds? Again, of course. But their natural tendency is that they are “herding ready”. Just as labs are "get the duck (or tennis ball) ready. You don’t have to “teach” most labs to love water.
You’re wrong about humans, too. Personality traits do have some genetic basis, e.g., Bouchard (1994) [Science 264 (5166), 1700 - 1701 ] provides a short reviewette. You might also like Legrand et al. (1999) [Behav Genet 29: 433 - 444] - their abstract, abstracted:
‘… Our sample consisted of 591 male twins from the Minnesota Twin Family Study. Their relative genetic risk was estimated from their parents’ substance-related diagnoses and their environmental risk … We hypothesized both main effects and an interaction between our genetic- and environmental-risk variables in the prediction of substance use by this young age. We further theorized that the boys’ inherited risk might take the form of temperament, specifically externalizing tendencies. Using regression analyses and biometrical modeling, we corroborated earlier research by finding evidence for a significant interactive effect in the etiology of substance use. Our results suggest that low levels of environmental risk may buffer against the potentially unfavorable effects of high familial risk; however, when environmental risk is high, the degree of familial risk is consequential.’
And, yet another dog cite for you to chew . Dammit, those Swedish cads are ‘using this data set quantify to what degree different behaviors can be attributed to genetics and also to model the complexity of genetics for different traits’. If only they had spoken to lissener, they could’ve been down the sauna instead.