poodlefan

Sighthound owners were very open and willing to give information regarding Corvus's hypothesis, nobody took great offense to such a loaded statement and were willing to give examples to prove/disprove the theory, there was no need to get annoyed when what was said didn't suit the study

I am sick of my chosen breeds of dogs being maligned by researchers and the media, I am off to take my Bold/bumptous Whippet and my sweet and gentle Bull Breed for a walk and watch the result of biased studies and media hype as people try to avoid the Bullie and pat the Whippet ;)

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?

Sighthound owners were very open and willing to give information regarding Corvus's hypothesis, nobody took great offense to such a loaded statement and were willing to give examples to prove/disprove the theory, there was no need to get annoyed when what was said didn't suit the study

I am sick of my chosen breeds of dogs being maligned by researchers and the media, I am off to take my Bold/bumptous Whippet and my sweet and gentle Bull Breed for a walk and watch the result of biased studies and media hype as people try to avoid the Bullie and pat the Whippet ;)

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.

well if what I wrote classes as stirring, what you wrote most definitely does ;) - or doesn't it because you are echoing the majority of opinions here?

I will articulate what I find disappointing about many of the reactions in this thread:

I think it is always useful to consider the other point of view. We all have biases, and these biases often prevent us from seeing things as they really are. Part of challenging your bias is to neither outrightly reject or adopt an idea, but to stop and consider it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see much of that going on here. It seems to me that the reactions have been on an emotional level.

I don't see how this sort of group think does anything to benefit our knowledge about dogs.

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?

Actually you might be surprised to know that some big winners have tested ok with cats and small dogs.

Has prior socialisation played a part?

And here we have the fundamental problem with communicating these concepts, Rebanne. Does the dictionary definition look the same as the one I posted? Not really.

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. ;)

And here we have the fundamental problem with communicating these concepts, Rebanne. Does the dictionary definition look the same as the one I posted? Not really.

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.

Does this say to us that there is a misconception from pet owners regarding the behaviour of sight hounds? Not being studied by Corvus but interesting to me because I am so passionate about educating pet people about their dogs! Is this an area that I might now focus on when talking to people with sight hounds- probably because I find human perception of dog behaviour fascinating. Are these dogs actually timid/unbold or are they very bold and their owners are selling them short, are owners misscomunicating what they mean in the survey or are they misunderstanding their dogs behaviour.

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??

i did not say there where no nasty cockers just that I had never met one. im also not to sure about the lap dog bit Zorro would cuddle allday if he could!!! if im sitting on the floor he has to be in my lap right in the way lol oh and the picture is look i get when i say no not that it last long he will walk away flop on to the floor and do a little cry so he ends up on my lap anyway

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. ;)

A breed standard is what dog breeders of just one breed are supposed to be breeding towards. It does not describe personality dimensions across all breeds within a species. A researcher could pull out an adjective from a breed standard and work with it, but no doubt the word "aloof" (for e.g) already fits within some existing construct which has been validated.

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???

instead of just finding new ways to jam information into the same tired old boxes.

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.

.

Oh, and add to that - then to dismiss our concerns as not being anything to do with proper research, or us not being interested in science, or us just being reactive, then huff off. Real productive.

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

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.

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.

I dont know about all Sighthounds but I can tell you that there's no way known I'd be on SSM's property if there was no one home and Jadir was on patrol.

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.

That's the point, though, the boldness/shyness axis would have been used (I say 'would have' because I'm not privy to these details so don't take my word for it) because it's already out there in the scientific literature.

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.

Oh, and it wouldn't have anything to do with poking pf with a stick last week, would it corvus? I'd hate to think a researcher let personal opinion colour any attempt at a paper that will change the way we see sighthounds.

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.

I think it goes more like...

Dog people: we chuck tantrums when we're told stuff we don't like

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

You can't infer anything from self-report survey data. Especially on-line data. Especially on-line data taken from members of special interest fora. It's essentially exploratory data.

The thread topic is regrettable, but who is going to take that seriously? It becomes evident from page 1 that this is a conception of an idea extrapolated from the data that requires extra input, because on face-value it seems implausible.

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

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.

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.

I saw it and filled it in.

Maybe you peeps didn't bother with it because you don't value science. If you didn't bother with it then you wouldn't remember it.

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.

Flawed studies still get published and quoted by the media, hopefully the resulting paper will acknowledge the issues raised here.

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:

I have actually been working, so I'm sorry if I couldn't answer everyone's questions instantly.

Most of the questions I used in the survey have been validated by previous studies with a couple of methods. It's about as sound as survey questions in animal behaviour get. Which is not to say that it's sound.

Where were you all when my survey link was posted here if you are all the ones with sighthounds most representative of good sighthound temperament? If you did the survey, your good sighthound temperaments are in the dataset where they can do the most good. If you didn't, then talk to the hand, people.

Greytmate, I suggest you go back to page 1 or 2. I didn't answer your question because I had already answered it when you asked it. Even when you do go back and check, you will still not know what my perception of bold is because I have deliberately not told anyone. It's not a discussion I want to be involved in at this point and I won't be dragged into it.

No, I do not need your opinions, although it was nice to get them. If you are bored or annoyed, then go away. I don't feel that I have an obligation to entertain you.

I'm bowing out now, folks. Thanks again for the ideas.

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.

does anyone know of a dog chiropractor near wagga wagga NSW

Not one I'd recommend

Closest I know that I'd use is Yass.

Corvus still hasn't answered my questions about what use will the results of this study be to anyone if the starting point information is widely considered completely incorrect?

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.