Why Do Sighthounds Tend To Be Timid/sensitive?

[poodlefan]

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.

.

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[Aidan3]

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?

The point is it's not a new axis. It's a well defined one that has been validated over and over from many different angles. A construct should fit with stuff it would be expected to fit with, and not fit with stuff you wouldn't expect it to fit with, and predict things you'd expect it to predict, and explain stuff you'd expect it to explain. Construct validity is a very well developed field of science in it's own right.

When we're talking about personality dimensions, we use constructs that describe them, "boldness/shyness axis" for e.g

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.

[Aidan3]

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.

I'm seeing both. If people are worried about what happens if this ends up in the wrong hands, then that is paranoia. It's certainly justifiable to worry about that sort of thing (it can happen), but this time? Seems implausible to me and I've outlined my reasoning.

[poodlefan]

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???

[Aidan3]

'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.

Agreed, it's the same good point that Greytmate made and I echoed earlier. Communication is important. I'm lucky, I can see both sides, which is why I'm going to the trouble to explain (as best I can) the difference between the perception and the reality.

[Jumabaar]

Just another point of view.

Q- Why do owners of Sighthounds describe their dogs behaviour as not being particularly bold in a particular survey

A1- Because of the cohort that answered it- aka perhaps they are pet owners not breeders and thus do not truly understand the behaviours they are reporting back in the survey or they had obtained their dogs from a specific source

A2- Because its not because the animals are not bold just don't give a stuff about being bold in a conventional sense

A3- Because this group thinks differently to the other breeds that have been bred for different purposes (aka are more independent than guardian breeds) and so need their own spectrum

A4- Because the computer is stooooopid and has some attitude issues (having worked with some of the programs I believe this is a serious option! Although Corvus sounds like she does a better job with stats than I ever did).

All of these points will be examined (ok maybe not the last one) by Corvus because you have bought them up as reason why it appears from this survey that Sighthounds as a a statistically significant group rated lower in boldness to other breeds of similar size- since the first premiss made by corvus (rightly or wrongly) was that she didn't expect them to be unbold. Well at least this is what we had to do when we looked at how tall fenugreek plants grew. Unfortunatly behaviour is not as easy as growing seeds on cotton wool and so any information should be regarded as valuable.

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.

[Aidan3]

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???

I'm not sure that corvus will do that. Her computer told her it found something, she's now trying to find out why it found something. Some of the discussion here told her exactly where she needed to look, I suspect.

[Rebanne]

Just another point of view.

Q- Why do owners of Sighthounds describe their dogs behaviour as not being particularly bold in a particular survey

A1- Because of the cohort that answered it- aka perhaps they are pet owners not breeders and thus do not truly understand the behaviours they are reporting back in the survey or they had obtained their dogs from a specific source

A2- Because its not because the animals are not bold just don't give a stuff about being bold in a conventional sense

A3- Because this group thinks differently to the other breeds that have been bred for different purposes (aka are more independent than guardian breeds) and so need their own spectrum

A4- Because the computer is stooooopid and has some attitude issues (having worked with some of the programs I believe this is a serious option! Although Corvus sounds like she does a better job with stats than I ever did).

All of these points will be examined (ok maybe not the last one) by Corvus because you have bought them up as reason why it appears from this survey that Sighthounds as a a statistically significant group rated lower in boldness to other breeds of similar size- since the first premiss made by corvus (rightly or wrongly) was that she didn't expect them to be unbold. Well at least this is what we had to do when we looked at how tall fenugreek plants grew. Unfortunatly behaviour is not as easy as growing seeds on cotton wool and so any information should be regarded as valuable.

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.

what's the definition of bold?

[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.

I'm seeing both. If people are worried about what happens if this ends up in the wrong hands, then that is paranoia. It's certainly justifiable to worry about that sort of thing (it can happen), but this time? Seems implausible to me and I've outlined my reasoning.

I understand that, from way back at your Oprah comment, but it's a push button issue for many. Just ask Afghan people about Stanley Coren. Present things in a way that appeals to humans (doggie rankings yay! my dog is the smartest!) and it becomes the accepted wisdom awfully quickly. And it becomes a drag on the breed that doesn't go away. Perhaps rather than paranoid, I'd say people are protective of their breeds.

[poodlefan]

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??

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[Jumabaar]

Just another point of view.

Q- Why do owners of Sighthounds describe their dogs behaviour as not being particularly bold in a particular survey

A1- Because of the cohort that answered it- aka perhaps they are pet owners not breeders and thus do not truly understand the behaviours they are reporting back in the survey or they had obtained their dogs from a specific source

A2- Because its not because the animals are not bold just don't give a stuff about being bold in a conventional sense

A3- Because this group thinks differently to the other breeds that have been bred for different purposes (aka are more independent than guardian breeds) and so need their own spectrum

A4- Because the computer is stooooopid and has some attitude issues (having worked with some of the programs I believe this is a serious option! Although Corvus sounds like she does a better job with stats than I ever did).

All of these points will be examined (ok maybe not the last one) by Corvus because you have bought them up as reason why it appears from this survey that Sighthounds as a a statistically significant group rated lower in boldness to other breeds of similar size- since the first premiss made by corvus (rightly or wrongly) was that she didn't expect them to be unbold. Well at least this is what we had to do when we looked at how tall fenugreek plants grew. Unfortunatly behaviour is not as easy as growing seeds on cotton wool and so any information should be regarded as valuable.

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.

what's the definition of bold?

I no longer have access to the university library to go and try and find an answer for you. I am guessing going back and looking at previous studies of the bold/shy axis would be able to answer this question as I am guessing that previous studies have given it some definition that the scientific community is now trying to stick with. They do this so that they can compare studies.

There is no point having information on 'aloofness' if you only have info on a few hundred dogs, compared to calling it less bold where there is data from a few thousand dogs. Studies are meant to be repeatable so using methods/questions and definitions already previously used/defined/accepted means that research money/time can be spent finding new information (from the experiment) rather than spending it trying to define new terms. Yes these new terms might be valuable, but unless it is the main focus of the research I assume it would not be possible to do- I am guessing it would also be a nightmare to work out how to quantify and ask appropriate questions to determine this without having had anyone pioneer it before which again comes down to the focus of the research.

A few articles that use the term bold

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016815910200120X

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347204003392

I think the point is that Corvus isn't trying to invent the wheel with regards to naming something. She has found something that she didn't expect, thus wouldn't have done research on, and has done some research by asking you why her results popped this out. You provided her with some answers that she will now go and see fit in with previous sight hound data. If it does it means she has added to the pool of comparable information on dog behaviour/ sight hound behaviour, if not they why did it pop up? because of owners etc.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Jumabaar

[Aidan3]

From Svartberg & Forkman (2002):

"The shyness–boldness axis, a fundamental dimension in humans that can be defined as an individual’s general tendency to approach

novel objects and willingness to take risks (Kagan et al., 1988; Wilson et al., 1994)"

I have no idea what the survey questions were, but earlier corvus mentioned that they were also validated (meaning, someone has tested them to see if they convey the same information reliably).

[Rebanne]

google bold:

Adjective:(of a person, action, or idea) Showing an ability to take risks; confident and courageous.

Noun: A typeface with thick strokes.

Synonyms: daring - audacious - brave - courageous - hardy

hmm seems to be some words that are very similar or even the same as what was in some of the breed descriptions

[Aidan3]

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.

[Jumabaar]

google bold:

Adjective:(of a person, action, or idea) Showing an ability to take risks; confident and courageous.

Noun: A typeface with thick strokes.

Synonyms: daring - audacious - brave - courageous - hardy

hmm seems to be some words that are very similar or even the same as what was in some of the breed descriptions

But did the scientist bother to read the dictionary when made up their own definition lol

Agree Aiden!

ETA- how do you measure 'hardy', or 'brave' in a dog? by their behaviour and some scientist somewhere has defined how to quantify boldness on a continuum in a manner that can be compared.

Edited October 11, 2011 by Jumabaar

[poodlefan]

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.

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[Rebanne]

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.

so the dictionary is wrong?

[Aidan3]

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...

[Rebanne]

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.

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

[poodlefan]

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. ;)

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan