Why Do Sighthounds Tend To Be Timid/sensitive?

[Aidan3]

Let's look at the scientists who's research findings were that smoking was actually healthy, and there are many many more examples. Look at the scientists who sell out their ethics to the highest bidder, more often the pharmaceutical companies.

So a handful of scientists colours your entire view of science? Even though it was scientists who first started ringing the alarm bells on smoking, and who later were able to satisfy everyone (except the tobacco companies) that smoking was harmful? If you're going to pick a handful, why not the handful that benefited humanity?

[Nekhbet]

timidity and aloofness though are behaviours that are poles apart. The two are not interchangable really hence why I dont understand how so many can be painted with the 'timid' brush. It's not part of their personality really unless there is a real problem. I have seen a really unsocialised sighthound but even that wouldnt be timid due to breed - it acts no more different then any breed totally unsocialised during critical period when approached by things it doesnt like.

[Aidan3]

timidity and aloofness though are behaviours that are poles apart. The two are not interchangable really hence why I dont understand how so many can be painted with the 'timid' brush.

You're quite right, and I think corvus seems to have agreed that timid is not the right word. Not likely to investigate unique objects in the environment is probably quite fair, compared to, say, labradors.

[poodlefan]

Corvus' research (which I can't tell you much about because I don't know much about it) is looking at personality dimensions in dogs, specifically a bias for optimism. This probably has more application in human psychology but it's cool to know more about how dogs think (where for so long science has treated animals as machines). One of RevJo's research interests is also how dogs think; I think that's really positive stuff. The more you get into this stuff, the more you realise how useful this sort of research really is, not just for dogs but for people and other animals too.

Here's the thing though. We can theorise about how dogs think and we've been doing it for years. It doesn't necessarily mean we're right. So anyone suggesting that the science "must be right" and the observations of those who live and work with any particular breed of dog are 'biased' needs to reflect very carefully about that.

I'm all for furthering our knowledge of dogs. But theory needs to be tested. I hope that's the next step for Corvus because right now her theory doesn't hold water for me.

Science is not gospel. It's not immutable and it's sure as hell not always accurate. That doesn't mean its not worthwhile.

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[Weasels]

Wow. This thread has certainly fired up since I checked it last! I haven't read the whole thing, but I have some thoughts.

Ok... (dons flame suit)

Having recently completed a large project on an emotive subject and with community input, it can be a tough gig sometimes. If you say that 'on average, across the state of Qld, there are more of x species than y' then you will always get a handful of people saying "but I saw a y up the street just last week! Bloody scientists in their ivory towers don't live in the real world etc. etc.".

I always appreciated chatting to people 'on the ground' for my own interest, but there was no way I could use what they were saying because a) they aren't a statistically significant sample, b) I can't verify what they are saying and c) I can't integrate it with my other data. At best I could use it as a thinking point for further research, but since I was doing a nation-wide survey I didn't really have the scope (or the time) to focus on local issues. A broad study is just that, the details of individual samples are SUPPOSED to get ironed out so we can see what's going on without perception biases of things we have personal experience with.

Regarding scientists being poor communicators, honestly after a couple of years I pretty much gave up. The last straw was a media interview when I stated that 'there are more of x species in Qld than in other states' and they got a follow up interview with someone saying we therefore didn't have to worry about wiping them out. Of course people watching casually then assumed that I had said that and I was a horrible animal-hater. sigh.

If I could go back and give my first-year self some advice it would be to just shut up and tell everyone I'll discuss it after it's published. I'm not trying to give Corvus advice, it's just something that would have made my life a whole lot easier and let me focus on finishing my project instead of getting caught up in side-issues.

TLDR: Scientists are people too :D

[poodlefan]

Wow. This thread has certainly fired up since I checked it last! I haven't read the whole thing, but I have some thoughts.

Ok... (dons flame suit)TLDR: Scientists are people too :D

No flaming here.

[Weasels]

Wow. This thread has certainly fired up since I checked it last! I haven't read the whole thing, but I have some thoughts.

Ok... (dons flame suit)TLDR: Scientists are people too :D

No flaming here.

I was just being pre-emptive. It's still early in Perth and I'm a little sensitive until I've had a few cups of tea :D

[Aidan3]

Corvus' research (which I can't tell you much about because I don't know much about it) is looking at personality dimensions in dogs, specifically a bias for optimism. This probably has more application in human psychology but it's cool to know more about how dogs think (where for so long science has treated animals as machines). One of RevJo's research interests is also how dogs think; I think that's really positive stuff. The more you get into this stuff, the more you realise how useful this sort of research really is, not just for dogs but for people and other animals too.

Here's the thing though. We can theorise about how dogs think and we've been doing it for years. It doesn't necessarily mean we're right. So anyone suggesting that the science "must be right" and the observations of those who live and work with any particular breed of dog are 'biased' needs to reflect very carefully about that.

I'm all for furthering our knowledge of dogs. But theory needs to be tested. I hope that's the next step for Corvus because right now her theory doesn't hold water for me.

As I understand it she is trying to use experimental methods to determine optimism bias (not the survey). This will, of course, be open to debate. It's also a very challenging task, so I wish her well. What the public don't see is the hours and hours of research that doesn't show a significant or non-trivial result, and doesn't go anywhere.

[poodlefan]

Wow. This thread has certainly fired up since I checked it last! I haven't read the whole thing, but I have some thoughts.

Ok... (dons flame suit)TLDR: Scientists are people too :D

No flaming here.

I was just being pre-emptive. It's still early in Perth and I'm a little sensitive until I've had a few cups of tea :D

Science can also learn from people on the ground (no big revelation there I know). Anecdotal evidence can trigger research.

The raspberry cordial research on cures for bacterial contamination in water is a classic. I gather someone got onto the fact that farmers were using raspberry cordial as a cure for scouring in piglets and other young animals and tested the "why".

Turns out its very effective for some kinds of bacterial infection/water contamination and now the Australian Army use it to assist with water decontamination.

I keep a bottle in the fridge for when Darcy looks like he's about to succumb to haemorraghic gastro.. I think it may have assisted a couple of times. It has to be a minimum of 25% raspberries though - not the Cottees stuff. ;)

[dog_fan]

Let's look at the scientists who's research findings were that smoking was actually healthy, and there are many many more examples. Look at the scientists who sell out their ethics to the highest bidder, more often the pharmaceutical companies.

So a handful of scientists colours your entire view of science? Even though it was scientists who first started ringing the alarm bells on smoking, and who later were able to satisfy everyone (except the tobacco companies) that smoking was harmful? If you're going to pick a handful, why not the handful that benefited humanity?

I take all data into account when assessing a situation. I am not sure it is only a handful of scientists by the way, I think that is an understated amount.

I used the example to illustrate why public scepticism of scientists exists. If scientists choose to ignore this then so be it. All that does it to reinforce the public view that scientists live in a rarefied atmosphere out of touch with the community.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Science can also learn from people on the ground (no big revelation there I know). Anecdotal evidence can trigger research.

The raspberry cordial research on cures for bacterial contamination in water is a classic. I gather someone got onto the fact that farmers were using raspberry cordial as a cure for scouring in piglets and other young animals and tested the "why".

Turns out its very effective for some kinds of bacterial infection/water contamination and now the Australian Army use it to assist with water decontamination.

I keep a bottle in the fridge for when Darcy looks like he's about to succumb to haemorraghic gastro.. I think it may have assisted a couple of times. It has to be a minimum of 25% raspberries though - not the Cottees stuff. ;)

Huh, that's interesting. The breeder of my dogs has told me this before, and said to use a specific brand (Anchor) because other brands don't work. I confess being a bit of a skeptic I've never tried it and I just assumed it was an old wives tale.

[poodlefan]

Huh, that's interesting. The breeder of my dogs has told me this before, and said to use a specific brand (Anchor) because other brands don't work. I confess being a bit of a skeptic I've never tried it and I just assumed it was an old wives tale.

Cascade is also OK. The key issue is the % content of raspberries. I have syringed it neat down Darcy's throat before.

I think from my reading that the practice has its origins in SW NSW and Victoria but I can't swear to it.

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[Weasels]

Science can also learn from people on the ground (no big revelation there I know). Anecdotal evidence can trigger research.

The raspberry cordial research on cures for bacterial contamination in water is a classic. I gather someone got onto the fact that farmers were using raspberry cordial as a cure for scouring in piglets and other young animals and tested the "why".

Turns out its very effective for some kinds of bacterial infection/water contamination and now the Australian Army use it to assist with water decontamination.

I keep a bottle in the fridge for when Darcy looks like he's about to succumb to haemorraghic gastro.. I think it may have assisted a couple of times. It has to be a minimum of 25% raspberries though - not the Cottees stuff. ;)

Absolutely, and people are always looking at how animals use plants to find new drugs. It's just that you can only follow so many leads, I've seen many PhD students start out happy to take on any new project and do free work for people, but it's also a good skill to know when to just stick to doing your main project well.

I take all data into account when assessing a situation. I am not sure it is only a handful of scientists by the way, I think that is an understated amount.

I used the example to illustrate why public scepticism of scientists exists. If scientists choose to ignore this then so be it. All that does it to reinforce the public view that scientists live in a rarefied atmosphere out of touch with the community.

Now I have a mental image of us all living a hermetically sealed town with 'scientists only' written at the gate, looking mournfully out at a community we can never be a part of

[poodlefan]

oops

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[poodlefan]

Now I have a mental image of us all living a hermetically sealed town with 'scientists only' written at the gate, looking mournfully out at a community we can never be a part of

They already exist to some degree Weasels - they called universities. ;)

Some young folk go in to one end and never re-emerge. And they spend their lives learning more and more about less and less and lose the ability to engage with anyone other than scientists.

Hell, they've even developed a sitcom about it.

Edited October 11, 2011 by poodlefan

[dog_fan]

Now I have a mental image of us all living a hermetically sealed town with 'scientists only' written at the gate, looking mournfully out at a community we can never be a part of

They already exist to some degree Weasels - they called universities. ;)

Some young folk go in to one end and never re-emerge. And they spend their lives learning more and more about less and less and lose the ability to engage with anyone other than scientists.

That is a fundamental truth poodlefan

[Aidan3]

Let's look at the scientists who's research findings were that smoking was actually healthy, and there are many many more examples. Look at the scientists who sell out their ethics to the highest bidder, more often the pharmaceutical companies.

So a handful of scientists colours your entire view of science? Even though it was scientists who first started ringing the alarm bells on smoking, and who later were able to satisfy everyone (except the tobacco companies) that smoking was harmful? If you're going to pick a handful, why not the handful that benefited humanity?

I take all data into account when assessing a situation. I am not sure it is only a handful of scientists by the way, I think that is an understated amount.

I used the example to illustrate why public scepticism of scientists exists. If scientists choose to ignore this then so be it. All that does it to reinforce the public view that scientists live in a rarefied atmosphere out of touch with the community.

Take a look at weasels' post. Scientists are people too. You don't devote your life to frustration and crap pay because you're on the 'side of evil' and aren't deeply interested in whatever it is you research.

Tobacco companies used a handful of scientists to endorse the (entirely correct at one point) opinion that no causal link between smoking and lung cancer had been found. The rest was advertising (see http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera/2008/11/when_science_was_smoking_hot.php for examples). Calling these people "scientists" is like saying the white coats at the Ponds Institute are scientists. Any first-year stats or research methods text-book covers this topic in detail if you want to look at verified data.

[Weasels]

Now I have a mental image of us all living a hermetically sealed town with 'scientists only' written at the gate, looking mournfully out at a community we can never be a part of

They already exist to some degree Weasels - they called universities. ;)

Some young folk go in to one end and never re-emerge.

It's just a job tho - I consider myself a member of the public and community, my OH is a tradie, I mingle with all sorts of people.

I hope I don't end up finding a hidden cache of unemerged young people in the basement now Great there's some nightmares - 'night of the living undergraduates!'.

[Weasels]

Hell, they've even developed a sitcom about it.

Yeah but those are physicists. Totally different ;)

[Aidan3]

In this country anyone can go to a university, from any background, at any stage of life as an adult. Even me. If anything, it's too inclusive