raineth Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 ... 1. That most of the sighthounds in my survey were ex-racers is a massive assumption and one that can't be supported. .... I still haven't come to terms with this statement above given it has been acknowledged most of the sight hounds in the survey were greys. So greyhounds now are a good representive sample of all sight hounds and only non racing greys were surveyed? or no-one bothered to find out whether the greys surveyed were ex racers as the vast majority of pet greys are but we will then make the assumption that they aren't ex racers as it suits our "research" better. Given the accuracy of this statement, and we are only hearing about sight hounds (what assumptions are being made about other groups, I would have to say I am concerned about the validity of anything that comes out of this survey. I've seen stuff, maybe it was survey's, put up by Corvus in the past, no idea if I saw this one, but no way I would reply to anything put up by them as I have never had any confidence they knew what they were talking about and this just proves it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. if this is science then you can keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I think I did do it, and have been kicking myself about that since this thread started. No more surveys for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raineth Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 From the breed standards and the Saluki extension: Afghan Hound: The Afghan Hound should be dignified and aloof with a certain keen fierceness. Azawakh: Quick, attentive, distant, reserved with strangers and may even be unapproachable, but he can be gentle and affectionate with those he is willing to accept. Borzoi: A coursing hound which must be courageous...sensitive, alert and aloof. Deerhound: Gentle and friendly. Obedient and easy to train because eager to please. Docile and good tempered, never suspicious, aggressive or nervous. Carries himself with quiet dignity. Greyhound: Intelligent, gentle, affectionate and even tempered. Ibizan: Reserved with strangers, not nervous or aggressive. Dignified, intelligent and independent. Irish: "Lambs at home, lions on the chase". Pharaoh: An intelligent, friendly affectionate, playful and alert breed. Saluki: The expression should be dignified and gentle with deep, faithful, farseeing eyes. Characteristic temperament is reserved with strangers, dignified, intelligent and independent, neither nervous nor aggressive. Adolescents should be handled with sensitivity Sloughi: Quiet, of dignified bearing. Noble, haughty and extremely expressive with the instincts of a hunting hound. Loyal to owner, affectionate with family. Aloof with strangers. Whippet: An ideal companion. Highly adaptable in domestic and sporting surroundings. Gentle, affectionate, even disposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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 when we are told stuff that isn't true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 (edited) 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. Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 you know, I wonder how all those ex racing greyhounds ever manage to not only find homes but thrive in them when they are all so timid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I still haven't come to terms with this statement above given it has been acknowledged most of the sight hounds in the survey were greys. So greyhounds now are a good representive sample of all sight hounds and only non racing greys were surveyed? or no-one bothered to find out whether the greys surveyed were ex racers as the vast majority of pet greys are but we will then make the assumption that they aren't ex racers as it suits our "research" better. Given the accuracy of this statement, and we are only hearing about sight hounds (what assumptions are being made about other groups, I would have to say I am concerned about the validity of anything that comes out of this survey. No-one says anything about self-report surveys so I think the concerns that people have are blown way out of proportion. Oprah is not going to be telling us all that sighthounds are "timid killing machines on a leash" next week as she introduces her nobel prize winning guest, corvus You take a survey when you want a lot of data on the cheap. Then you want to drill down and figure out which factors appear to be significant. Then, if you are inclined, you do something more objective to determine the truth of the significant bits. To do this you start with the idea that what you saw was a chance event, someone farted in the wrong direction and stank up your data. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. As a research scientist who has done dog cognition studies I can vouch for how much I value science. What I don't value is flawed research and bad attitudes and misreporting in the media. My first port of call when working on a new species is to suck the brains of the keepers or enthusiasts, to do so eliminates errors such as you've seen. It wasn't by accident that I got an international award from an honours project, I know my stuff when it comes to experimental design. I see some major problems with this study from what has been posted here. Now more than ever we need to counteract erroneous media reports as purebred dogs are in crisis due to some researchers agendas. So when did you publish your last paper raineth, you seem quick to support corvus despite knowledgeable people's concerns, you must have some research experience no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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 We can decide for ourselves whether ultimately the research is valuable or damaging or ineffective. We've been told our dogs tend to be timid. We have been told timid, oops, shy is the opposite of bold. We have been told that a group of guardian breeds (not one or two in particular) tend to be bold. We have also been told that toy dogs tend to be timid because their size means they are under more pressure? It isn't making any sense, and instead of explaining further, Corvus has decided to spit the dummy, not us. We are still discussing it. Love the variety of words and subtle differences of expression in those breed standards. It shows thought, study and and appreciation for the various behavioural traits and mannerisms. Some breeds of dog might be bold. Some breeds are dignified and laid back and their tendency to behave in this very desirable manner deserves a better label than timid or shy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. To quote from page 1: "The most timid group is toy breeds. That kinda makes sense to me because they are very small and aren't really expected to handle much pressure. The boldest group is guardian breeds, which makes sense to me because they are very large and you would think guardian breeds would do better if they were more bold than timid. But sighthounds... Not sure about that one" The other thing to understand is that this is a doctoral dissertation. Sometimes these things can attract a bit of attention, especially if the author is good at self-promotion and full of enthusiasm, but it would take a brave academic to begin their career by trumpeting the results of self-report on-line survey data. Especially when corvus has a much more interesting component to her research into dog optimism that relies on experimental data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. If the thread topic was regrettable to Corvus it would've been edited and not left as it was after it was shown to be incorrect and offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidan3 Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Some breeds are dignified and laid back and their tendency to behave in this very desirable manner deserves a better label than timid or shy. That's probably true, but corvus will need to draw on validated, previous research which uses terms such as the "boldness/shyness axis". Construct validation is painstaking work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Sensitive is not an issue indeed, look at the Borzoi standard where it couples with the word courageous, and a very, very different meaning is conveyed than when it is coupled with the word timid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alyosha Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Seems more painstaking when you have to make it all up instead of taking in knowledge that's already out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now