Why Do Sighthounds Tend To Be Timid/sensitive?

[m-j]

Good Question Corvus!!

They approached new things with caution but were certainly not fearful. They have a careful, calculated way of dealing with new situations and objects.

This is how I see the majority of Greys I work with. Only fools rush in

Why they are like this, dunno.

A quick guess off the top of my head. They don't have a powerful bite or weight so maybe they see their first line of defence being in their speed as opposed to their strength. If that is the case getting close to an unknown situation and possible conflict without sussing it out first could take away the flight option.

[Aidan3]

I wasn't trying to communicate my intent in the OP. I was trying to open the way for sighthound people to comment without leading them. I am happy with how people responded and continue to respond. It gave me the different perspective I was seeking.

If I had data that showed gundogs were more often overweight than other breed groups, I think "Why are gundogs fat?" would be a good question. It gives people the opportunity to say "They're not if fed properly" or "they do seem to have a tendency to get fat easily" and an opportunity to offer explanations for why it might appear that they are, which is basically what I got from the sighthound people. If some gundog people get offended along the way, well, that's a shame because I wasn't saying their gundogs were fat. However, I would like to point out once again that there's nothing wrong with being shy or "less-bold". There is something wrong with being fat.

As far as statistics is concerned, we like to pretend that our samples are representative of the population, but I think realistically that is highly unlikely. In my view, there will be skews. It doesn't mean the research is codswallop. It just means there are pieces missing and I get to try to guess what they are and how to fill them in, which is uber fun and challenging. From here I hit the literature again and try to find support for some of the things people here have said. If I find it, it goes into the paper and I get to discuss it. If I don't find it, it's difficult to justify discussing it. Journals don't like a lot of speculation.

Academic speeak for " we make it up as we go along "

We generally prefer to start with a preconceived idea then try to shape our data to fit that. Making it up as we go along allows the data to have it's own say (like here), and that doesn't get the really big grants.

[Aidan3]

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.

[WreckitWhippet]

Corvus, imagine doing a study on canine nutrition and coming in here and starting a topic "Why are gun dogs so fat?"

All of your research will be wasted if people don't want to hear it.

I was thinking about this and agree with you Greyt. But even more so, think the implication of timid/shy is offensive because it's a physical fault in so many Sighthound breeds. So it's equivalent to doing a study on health issues and coming in asking something similar to "Why do working breeds tend to have hip dysplasia?"

It's insulting to insinuate broad sweeping generalisations about a group of dogs that, if correct, would constitute bad breeding.

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?

Since when has that stopped anyone from pursuing their agenda.. McGreevy comes to mind.

[Rebanne]

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?

[Aidan3]

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".

[poodlefan]

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.

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[Aidan3]

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 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.

If the generalisation is getting up this population's nose, you can only imagine how badly it would be savaged in academia The sort of statistical analysis that corvus is using picks this sort of thing up pretty easily so I'm not going to jump the gun in assuming that the other sighthounds in the study were any different to the greyhounds. How many other breeds were represented? I don't know. It's something for corvus to address in her paper's discussion section.

[Alyosha]

Is this paper targeting academic circles who have in depth knowledge of the behavioural traits of different breeds? I can't imagine that many would be so easily offendable as owners/breeders, but many these academics are as fanatical about our breeds as we are?

[Greytmate]

I wasn't trying to communicate my intent in the OP. I was trying to open the way for sighthound people to comment without leading them. I am happy with how people responded and continue to respond. It gave me the different perspective I was seeking.

If I had data that showed gundogs were more often overweight than other breed groups, I think "Why are gundogs fat?" would be a good question. It gives people the opportunity to say "They're not if fed properly" or "they do seem to have a tendency to get fat easily" and an opportunity to offer explanations for why it might appear that they are, which is basically what I got from the sighthound people. If some gundog people get offended along the way, well, that's a shame because I wasn't saying their gundogs were fat. However, I would like to point out once again that there's nothing wrong with being shy or "less-bold". There is something wrong with being fat.

I think it is naive to suggest that boldness is not a complimentary quality and timidity is.

As far as statistics is concerned, we like to pretend that our samples are representative of the population, but I think realistically that is highly unlikely. In my view, there will be skews. It doesn't mean the research is codswallop. It just means there are pieces missing and I get to try to guess what they are and how to fill them in, which is uber fun and challenging.

From here I hit the literature again and try to find support for some of the things people here have said. If I find it, it goes into the paper and I get to discuss it. If I don't find it, it's difficult to justify discussing it. Journals don't like a lot of speculation.

So what are we here for again? Are you going to answer my question, which is '"which particular breeds scored highly as being bold?" I have refrained from saying a lot because I'm still waiting for an answer on that. Then I will have more of an idea of what your perception of boldness is, in order to discuss what this thing is that you are talking about.

It is, and I should have said 'shy', but actually somehow thought 'timid' was practically the same thing and might be easier to swallow. Oops!

Yes oops. Its sad that scientists get no training on how to avoid problems with their communication style alienating/boring/confusing people. I am interested in yoru research Corvus, but this sort of thing is just getting annoying. Do you really need our opinions at all?

[faytiges]

x 2

[Greyt]

Corvus at least has the opportunity to make adjustments given the feedback here. That can only be a good thing if the conclusions in the paper are to be used for anything important.

As well, the feedback may assist in framing the objectives and parameters for future papers so that any conclusions become more scientifically defensible and more importantly, useful.

So perhaps a little ray of sunshine here.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Once the data is collected it is too late to change the definitions given to the owners. All she can do now is outline her errors in the discussion. Unfortunately speaking outside the data as done here can be damaging if the media pick it up. Maybe change the title corvus to reflect what data you are talking about, greyhounds rather than sighthounds in general.

[Maddy]

Maybe change the title corvus to reflect what data you are talking about, greyhounds rather than sighthounds in general.

"Why Do Greyhounds Tend To Be Timid/sensitive?"

Because if you're concerned about causing damage, changing the title to directly mention one breed (that is already struggling to overcome misconceptions) is a good idea?

[Are You Serious Jo]

I guess that's not much better, but at least then she's only smearing one breed instead of a whole group! I'm not worried about DOL as much as the general media, we've seen how they lap up anything with McGreevy attached.

[Rebanne]

it's all just a crock, my greyhounds are as sensitive as my German Shepherds were. And more bold. My greys think people were put on earth to love them, the GSD's, no way, prove yourself first before they would be bothered with you.

[Maddy]

I guess that's not much better, but at least then she's only smearing one breed instead of a whole group! I'm not worried about DOL as much as the general media, we've seen how they lap up anything with McGreevy attached.

The group could probably handle the bad publicity. Greyhounds already have misinformed reputations as being highly-strung, aggressive, nervy and they really don't need scientific "proof" that they're "timid" (or whatever word you want to use) dogs on top of that. Especially when the group selected to represent them are dogs more prone to temperament flaws owing to rearing methods.

The reality is, there are some that might have issues because of improper socialisation but they don't represent what the breed should be like at all.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Preaching to the converted here, I love greys and always recommend them as pets, but the one you need to convince is corvus. Good luck with that

[corvus]

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.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Yep, good luck with that SH peeps