Why Do Sighthounds Tend To Be Timid/sensitive?

[kinsella]

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.

Thank you so much for the first laugh I've had in this shoddy example of "research on the cheap" The original survey I half finished but saw no value in wasting my time completing it. It was either so broad a brush stroke as to be ambiguous or so narrow a choice as to be totally incorrect.

I'll stand up here and now with a sighthound who disdains outside contact. He never trembles or quivers - simply refuses to be handled by riff raff. Partly due to a lesser amount of socialisation that is desirable and the rest comes from genetics eg very old, obscure Irish lines bred sparingly and for purpose only - hunting. Is he timid? Not what I would call him but he isn't the usual any more in IW. And yet, it used to be the norm.

Back to this travesty of a paper, would like a copy in case I run out of firestarters again. So far from truth and balance as is possible.

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.

[Aidan3]

Seems more painstaking when you have to make it all up instead of taking in knowledge that's already out there.

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. Researchers can and do challenge the existing literature every time they undertake a research project, to either support or reject what has gone before in some way. Maybe by finding that sighthounds are not "bold", but that they also aren't "shy", you challenge that construct? Corvus wishes! More likely there is a problem with the way the data was collected (e.g because they are racing greyhounds).

[poodlefan]

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.

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[kinsella]

I'm pleased to be corrected on that score.

[Alyosha]

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...

[SkySoaringMagpie]

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.

[poodlefan]

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.

[Aidan3]

Kinsella, you have nothing to worry about, this is not a paper, it's a survey. You put all the data into the computer and the computer says "hey, look at this!". Then you have to figure out why there is a number with too many zeros to ignore. That often doesn't lead anywhere.

I think the topic title is regrettable, and corvus could have communicated these concepts better, but the level of paranoia is way out of proportion to the threat to anyone's breed group.

[Rebanne]

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?

[Alyosha]

I would've hoped, that dog people, undertaking research into dog behaviour, might be a little progressive and perhaps even challenge some of these pre conceived titles and terms instead of just finding new ways to jam information into the same tired old boxes.

[poodlefan]

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.

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[poodlefan]

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.

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[Alyosha]

I don't think that trying in vain to make a point and being paranoid are the same thing.

Timidness is a PHYSICAL FAULT in these breeds.

If you started a thread asking why all of another group of breeds tended to have some particular physical fault, you would have owners and breeders of those breeds on the defensive.

These breeds mean the world to people, some people consider themselves custodians of these breeds into the future. To be asked why our breeds as a collective tend to display a major fault gets our backs up. Can that be any clearer?

[Aidan3]

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...

On the contrary. If corvus thinks she could show a way that those pesky hounds DON'T fit onto that axis she would be rubbing her hands together with glee! That would get published. More likely is the possibility that her research methodology didn't take into account certain factors, but it would be foolish to make that assumption.

[Alyosha]

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.

[poodlefan]

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.

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[kinsella]

Kinsella, you have nothing to worry about, this is not a paper, it's a survey. You put all the data into the computer and the computer says "hey, look at this!". Then you have to figure out why there is a number with too many zeros to ignore. That often doesn't lead anywhere.

I think the topic title is regrettable, and corvus could have communicated these concepts better, but the level of paranoia is way out of proportion to the threat to anyone's breed group.

Is it a paper from a survey? Whatever.

The level of paranoia (your term) is in line with flawed research tools and abysmal communication skills. Euphemisms give me the sh*ts and I'm too old to play semantics.

This whole episode has been provocative with no balance at all.

[Alyosha]

If a new descriptor or "axis" was required, what is wrong with doing some research and reading the breed standards' and extensions' comments regarding temperament of these breeds? Surely that is pretty base level research, and might give a clearer picture of common descriptive terms used for the temperaments of these breeds - sometimes for centuries.

But, what would I know of research, being a stroppy dog owner who chucks tantrums when told stuff I don't like. :rolleyes:

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I think the topic title is regrettable, and corvus could have communicated these concepts better, but the level of paranoia is way out of proportion to the threat to anyone's breed group.

I'm seeing aggravation but I'm not seeing paranoia. People are passionate about their breeds and there is a lot of bullshit out there about correct temperament in many breeds.

I'm a big believer in good science, but bullshit dressed up as faux science is everywhere in dog world, and it makes people's work and lives with dogs harder in the long run.

[Aidan3]

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.