Well, my family’s dog when I was young was a rescue dog, no purebred (should be illegal anyway) or “targeted mix”. Tbh, no one ever knew exactly which breeds she was from, and I will probably never understand why people are so fixated on this shit.
A friend who had two breds from the same parents (different litter) said that you can predict the personality better in breds, while with unknown mixes you can get a manic dog and that they all have behavioral problems.
As you might have guessed by now, I am very much not a dog person. And I have no place to judge her statement. But I can imagine that there are a lot of dog owners who think like that.
Btw I’m in Germany, so is the friend. There is some Nazi joke in all of this that I am too lazy to make.
“Nature vs nurture” is an old debate that has not yet been concluded and data is hard to obtain. But it seems at the moment that how you training and upbringing has more impact on how an animal develops.
Also, i was more speaking ofphysical traits like a flat back for shepards or stubby noses for pugs etc. Generally, “purebred” pets are far more prone to develop detrimental traits and illnesses, i don’t see it worth the risk and more like torture than anything else.
Dog breed stereotypes are frequently used to inform people’s expectations about canine behavior, despite evidence that breed is largely uninformative in predicting individual dog behavior.
Thanks for the article. From further down the introduction:
This is despite numerous studies demonstrating that variability within a breed is greater than among breeds7,11,12. While heritability for certain behavioral traits such as human sociability and biddability have been convincingly demonstrated7,13,14, breed is largely uninformative when it comes to predicting behavior in an individual dog7.
So it looks like while breed stereotypes might not be helpful in predicting an individual dog’s behavior, they could still have an effect on the average behavior of that breed. I’ll have to look more into this, the subject is less concluded than I had thought.
Edit: It looks like this study is just self-reporting on how people feel about different breeds?
Edit: It looks like this study is just self-reporting on how people feel about different breeds?
It is, but the statement I cited is not a conclusion of this study but a reason why the study was conducted. The study itself wants to learn how strong the bias is that leads to these stereotypes, because one of the issues of gathering data is bias. Basically, people buy certain breeds expecting a certain behavior and then train these breeds to express said behavior, which makes it difficult to examine whether said behavior is due to the nature or nurtured or how big a role either plays.
Basically, people buy certain breeds expecting a certain behavior and then train these breeds to express said behavior, which makes it difficult to examine whether said behavior is due to the nature or nurtured or how big a role either plays.
All the authors need to do is go to a handful of working dog breeders and watch the puppies. They will see quite clearly that breeding dogs for traits works.
Ah, I see. Still, that doesn’t really say anything either way about the actual behavioral differences between dogs (and the studies they cited are blocked for me-- thanks, Elsevier!)
Well, my family’s dog when I was young was a rescue dog, no purebred (should be illegal anyway) or “targeted mix”. Tbh, no one ever knew exactly which breeds she was from, and I will probably never understand why people are so fixated on this shit.
A friend who had two breds from the same parents (different litter) said that you can predict the personality better in breds, while with unknown mixes you can get a manic dog and that they all have behavioral problems.
As you might have guessed by now, I am very much not a dog person. And I have no place to judge her statement. But I can imagine that there are a lot of dog owners who think like that.
Btw I’m in Germany, so is the friend. There is some Nazi joke in all of this that I am too lazy to make.
“Nature vs nurture” is an old debate that has not yet been concluded and data is hard to obtain. But it seems at the moment that how you training and upbringing has more impact on how an animal develops.
Also, i was more speaking ofphysical traits like a flat back for shepards or stubby noses for pugs etc. Generally, “purebred” pets are far more prone to develop detrimental traits and illnesses, i don’t see it worth the risk and more like torture than anything else.
Is this take based on anything? There are significant and specific behavioral differences between dog breeds.
Yes, it is based on this.
Thanks for the article. From further down the introduction:
So it looks like while breed stereotypes might not be helpful in predicting an individual dog’s behavior, they could still have an effect on the average behavior of that breed. I’ll have to look more into this, the subject is less concluded than I had thought.
Edit: It looks like this study is just self-reporting on how people feel about different breeds?
It is, but the statement I cited is not a conclusion of this study but a reason why the study was conducted. The study itself wants to learn how strong the bias is that leads to these stereotypes, because one of the issues of gathering data is bias. Basically, people buy certain breeds expecting a certain behavior and then train these breeds to express said behavior, which makes it difficult to examine whether said behavior is due to the nature or nurtured or how big a role either plays.
All the authors need to do is go to a handful of working dog breeders and watch the puppies. They will see quite clearly that breeding dogs for traits works.
Ah, I see. Still, that doesn’t really say anything either way about the actual behavioral differences between dogs (and the studies they cited are blocked for me-- thanks, Elsevier!)