poodlefan

do you really think people avoid your Bully because of studies? No, they avoid the Bully because of their lack of knowledge of the studies. Where are the scientists taking a stand against Breed Specific Legislation? I can't think of anyone in this country who's expressed an opinion on the subject. Dr Kirsti Seksel wrote probably the strongest critique of BSL to date. Dr Seksel is a practicing vet behaviourist. I don't consider her as a scientist in the general meaning of the term. She does more than research and theorise. She's in the trenches of dog behavioural work. The AVA have taken an open, public stand against BSL. Where are the research scientists in this?

do you really think people avoid your Bully because of studies? No, they avoid the Bully because of their lack of knowledge of the studies. Where are the scientists taking a stand against Breed Specific Legislation? I can't think of anyone in this country who's expressed an opinion on the subject.

Oh here we go.. its 'group think' now. I'll tell you what doesn't benefit 'our' knowledge of dogs.. skewed data interpreted from a narrow base to make a conclusion about a range of dogs, many of which were not at all well represented in the survey and some not at all. If 'bias' means rejection of conclusions based on such research and made by a person with zero personal knowledge of living with sighthounds I suppose I'm 'biased'. I don't think my ddogs are perfect but I won't own an inaccurate statement about their temperament regardless of the credentials of who's making it. I don't "echo" anyone's opinions thanks. I have my own. The fact that a significant number of sighthound people hold similar opinions about their dogs temperament would be considered indicative of an issue to be explored by some researchers.. rather than dismissed as 'group think'. That would be some researchers but apparently not all. And speaking of drawing wide conclusions from a narrow base. you might like to re-examine your conclusion that people are skeptical of scientific studies of dogs because they're skeptical of Corvus's research. I know I've seen plenty of Corvus's theories about dogs on here over the years and frankly I think many of them are total rubbish but that doesn't mean I don't think science has plenty to offer my knowledge and understanding of dogs. Not all science is "good" science now is it?

Has prior socialisation played a part?

Anyone who'd say that many sighthounds aren't willing to take risks has never seen them after prey. And that includes a lot of pet owners in the burbs. To be honest I've not noticed that they are not particularly interested in approaching novel objects though? Definitely willing to take risks in pursuit of prey, but they aren't usually looking for trouble unless it's moving away from them. That's the tricky part in all this, we have to accept that the boxes don't fit everyone. Believe me, psych classes are full of students picking the fault with every little detail of every definition or theory we are given - and it is encouraged and expected. We also have to find the stuff we agree with, too, of course... Stick a novel object on the line for lure coursing and you'll find a few sighthounds willing to approach it. ;) Not giving a damn about things otherwise isn't "timid". I sure as hell Corvus concludes that the boxes don't fit every breed. How does 'bold' v 'timid' work on phlegmatic breeds that don't react either way to novel objects. It's like Volhard puppy testing pups on the umbrella. Some come over for a look, some shit themselves and some really don't give a damn because they've found something more interesting to do than watch what some stranger is doing with a novel object. ;)

Anyone who'd say that many sighthounds aren't willing to take risks has never seen them after prey. And that includes a lot of pet owners in the burbs. There's a reason younger Greyhounds end up in GAP... injury is one and lack of desire to chase is another. Those who test well with cats and small dogs (if they haven't been socialised with them) will be those with lower prey drive. That's another factor that may affect the "boldness" quotient many pet Greyhound owners observed in their dogs.

Or can sighthounds be incredibly 'bold' for the most part at what they were bred to do and disinterested in conforming to scientists' construction of canine temperament at other times. Dogs that will go over or through barbed wire coursing are not "timid" or "shy" in that context. If they don't give a stuff about meeting new dogs or new people then comparing them to Labradors or Rottweilers isn't really advancing the understanding of the boldness/shyness paradigm as I see it. Outside the hunting context, most don't need to be 'bold'. Just like outside the 'guarding' context, guardian breeds don't need to be bold. If size is an issue, the largest breed of all is in the Sighthound group. Extending Corvus's view about size being an issue for boldness, by that reckoning the IW would be a very bold dog. How does that sit with using the Greyhound data to explain IW temperament??

Gundogs need exercise (a lot of it) and a job to do. Lapdogs jobs are to be .. lapdogs. I would argue that Cockers need exercise and something to do to be 'happy'. Where they sit when they aren't working is another matter. ;)

So what's the point of attempting to describe personality dimensions across an entire group of breeds? I'm not being a smart arse - I genuinely don't get the point. What's the point of attempting to draw conclusions about the personality of an Irish Wolfhound based on surveys completed by Greyhound owners???

Those tired old boxes are very useful. By making those boxes you stop a lot of hand-waving and speculation; you have a clearly defined tool. I think most researchers recognise that they are also limiting, contrived, and that no individual fits neatly into a [metaphorical] box. It's a bit like "positive reinforcement". We only call it that because we need a label. Giving a dog some food, and tossing a ball are completely different things, but we apply the same label (if it fits the definition). We recognise that the difference between tossing a treat and tossing a ball matters, but it still gets put in the same box. We can research positive reinforcement fairly confidently and draw conclusions about it and everyone knows what we are talking about. I think it's far easier to get people on the same page when we're talking about objective concepts and using non emotive, indeed non pejorative terms. 'Timid' or 'shy' may not be particularly negative terms outside the world of dog breeding but they sure as hell are within it. "Timidity" and "shyness" are listed as temperament faults in many breed standards. Scientists may not see the words in that context but when they talk to the dog fancy, it might pay to be cognisant that certain terms do have those connotations within that group. .

You purebred dog breeders.. you need scientists' input to sort out your dogs for you. It's not like you'd understand them otherwise.

but who really knows? I'm confident I know that much. Imagine being the scientist who turned all the accepted "wolves have a linear pack status" studies on their heads.

He's always been a complete pussycat with me and very biddable. However; I boarded him once and only the kennel owner could get into the run with him and my bitch - he wouldn't let any of the staff in and they weren't going to try it. I had no idea he'd be like that otherwise I wouldn't have boarded him. Live and learn. I disagree with Keshwar :D I think the Zac, our IW, would be the one to watch, not Faxon. A guy came up to the gate a little while ago, said he was lost. Zac just appeared out of the shadows and started walking deliberately to the gate. No carrying on, but holy crap if it was me on the other side of the gate I wouldn't come in. They have a very deliberate, "don't f*** with me" vibe and the guy visibly blanched when he saw him. I get that vibe off Jadir. He is King of all he surveys and you'd better be part of the kingdom, have accredited diplomatic status, or stay the hell out LOL. I've only seen Zac with you and mostly as a pup. But I know what you're describing with that body posture. Its the dogs that aren't carrying on like pork chops that are the ones to REALLY watch.

So as that axis exists, we better make damn sure we find a way to jam these pesky hounds into that box. Otherwise, if they don't fit into the pre determined axis?? Total chaos may well reign... I honestly think a lot of folk don't 'get' sighthounds. No doubt a lot of people say that about their dogs.

Corvus and I 'debate' issues often. Very occasionally we agree. We're not card carrying members of one another's fan clubs but that's OK. I don't think she'd let a personal opinion of me colour any attempt at her research though Kinsella. I think her ethics are better than that. I don't doubt she enjoys being provocative but I'd not doubt her research is objective in that sense.

Just thought I might add that most posters agreed sighthounds WERE sensitive. I think many have quite strong startle reflexes.

I wish I shared your confidence Aidan. Clearly the OP doesn't think its implausible.

except Corvus actually thanked everyone and told them their input was valuable I think it goes more like... Dog people: we chuck tantrums when we're told stuff we don't like You really ARE trying to stir. Yay for you. :rolleyes: I'm sure Corvus is just thrilled. I don't enjoy seeing very limited data interpreted to generalise about different dog breeds. That's not "chucking a tanty". The only tanty chucking I've observed is from the author of the study in her last post in this thread. Corvus admitted most of the respondents to the survey owned Greyhounds. Seems she either didn't ask or didn't note their origins. What that's got to do with OTHER sighthounds beats me. But I'm sure that won't stop findings being published based on very little data. She hasn't "told" us anything.

Oh wow - give yourself a medal for contributing to these findings. Are you deliberately trying to be offensive or is that just accidental? Don't value science.. yeech. Why the hell else would I quote research all the bloody time???? I've done other surveys posted here. I'd have done it if I'd seen it.

Where/when was the survey posted by the way? I honestly can't recall seeing it.

Gotta love it. Scientist: What do you think of my hypothesis? Sighthound folk: It's flawed. Scientist: Who cares what you think - it's not like I need your opinions.

I love a dreamer. God forbid people might be turned away from dogs that are probably better suited to being pets in urban settings than many others. But as we all know from 'research' purebred dogs are screwed anyway. :rolleyes:

Didn't see it or I'd have filled it out. As it is you're extrapolating data in a direction it simply shouldn't be forced to go. Hope your supervisor's on the ball Corvus. I can think of a lot of variables that would influence "shyness" and breed is but one of them. Perhaps you could read the research about how whelping environments and the first few weeks of life impact on attitudes to strangers. But you won't.

Not one I'd recommend Closest I know that I'd use is Yass.

If the construct ("timidity") isn't valid, nothing will be published and corvus knows this. It's one of the many, many pieces she will have to put together before she gets anywhere which is, I imagine, why she asked here. In between all the speculation she got some pretty good answers as to why owners of sighthounds are reporting that their dogs are not bold. and what's the definition of bold? This is one of the problems with self-report surveys, you more or less rely on the individuals interpretation of the survey questions (or worse, what they think they should say). That's one of the reasons why when you fill in one of these surveys you'll feel like you're answering the same question, worded differently, over and over. The good news is that anyone who will do anything with the data knows this and no-one will infer anything from it other than "that's interesting, we could look more closely at that using methods designed to test it more objectively". How the responses of owners of mostly ex-racing greyhounds can be expanded to cover a group of dogs bred on different continents for different purposes and with different whelping and early environmental experience might be one threshold question to address. The fact that all sighthounds share some physical similarities doesn't mean they were bred from the same genetic material or that they performed identical functions. Comparing the early experiences of these animals would be different and comparing kennel raised dogs that still largely race (and not much else) to breeds that have been largely bred as companions for some time are also variables that the conclusion doesn't address. A timid greyhound with healthy prey drive will still race well enough. I think its the generalisation that's getting up people's noses, not the inference. Some sighthounds ARE timid. Fact is they shouldn't be and many of us have ones that arent. Starting with a study group skewed in favour of a particular breed selectively bred for one characteristic only and raised a particular way is going to provide atypical answers for the group of breeds as a whole.