Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
corvus

Why Do Sighthounds Tend To Be Timid/sensitive?

315 posts in this topic

Aidan3   
To say science is flawed is to say humanity is flawed (which it clearly is), since the society we have built is inextricably linked to the discoveries made using the scientific method.

I should have just waited for the more articulate artillery to arrive :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CBL   

I am a scientist (an ecologist) though I have strayed into environmental education

What, with the general public? Ewww, gross! Why??!?

:laugh:

I know right - what sort of scientist talks to the public *gasp* :laugh:

Oh and I have sighthounds!

Edited by CBL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to go back to the bad old days of research free for all that was harmful. But the pendulum has swung way too far and unis are worried they are going to be sued by disgruntled subjects. Some of the objections they raise are basically ridiculous and some things they want would totally invalidate your work. I'd rather not do a project under those conditions. Far worse when I'm doing human based work, not as bad for animal stuff, though when I did some personality in apes data collecting it was not too bad. It was part of a major survey and I feel dirty even writing that :laugh:

In regards to using the human personality dimensions that is ok and what we do in comparative psych. But you need to know how to cater for whatever species you are using in terms of experimental set up and have your definitions very carefully thought out. People do additional work to add or amend the dimensions all the time, so you can do change them. Personality research in animals is so hot right now :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weasels   

I should have just waited for the more articulate artillery to arrive :)

Aw thanks Aiden2 :) I guess no-one likes being called a weirdo outsider just because of what they do for a portion of their day :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have just waited for the more articulate artillery to arrive :)

Aw thanks Aiden2 :) I guess no-one likes being called a weirdo outsider just because of what they do for a portion of their day :laugh:

It's a bit like being called emotional and biased because your observations are based on experience, not data. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kinsella   
To say science is flawed is to say humanity is flawed (which it clearly is), since the society we have built is inextricably linked to the discoveries made using the scientific method.

I should have just waited for the more articulate artillery to arrive :)

I find this a rather charming comment. I'm trying to work out who it was you were hoping to offend.

Edited by kinsella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To say science is flawed is to say humanity is flawed (which it clearly is), since the society we have built is inextricably linked to the discoveries made using the scientific method.

I should have just waited for the more articulate artillery to arrive :)

I find this a rather charming comment. I'm trying to work out who has just been offended.

I find it a refreshing admission. The question is of course is THIS science flawed? Some of us think so and why is that so heretical?? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raineth   

I should have just waited for the more articulate artillery to arrive :)

Aw thanks Aiden2 :) I guess no-one likes being called a weirdo outsider just because of what they do for a portion of their day :laugh:

It's a bit like being called emotional and biased because your observations are based on experience, not data. ;)

well ofcourse you're biased, we're all biased. What I was getting at was that its beneficial to be aware of them :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weasels   

I should have just waited for the more articulate artillery to arrive :)

Aw thanks Aiden2 :) I guess no-one likes being called a weirdo outsider just because of what they do for a portion of their day :laugh:

It's a bit like being called emotional and biased because your observations are based on experience, not data. ;)

Nothing wrong with being emotional and biased, in fact I quite enjoy it in my off hours :cool: All I was saying is that scientists can't use anecdotes in a statistical analysis (except maybe sociologists, but I'm not sure how they do that).

I think I have the same level of common sense, life experience and emotionality as the average person my age, the only difference is that when I see wild animals I have a strong desire to extract their DNA! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
megan_   

PF - We really don't know enough about corvus' research (her data set, analysis, what she plans on doing with her initial insight (sighthounds are timid) - is that her final conclusion or an interesting tid-bit that is going to be further explored?) to judge whether it is flawed or not.

I'd also suggest that 99.9999999999% of DOL members (myself included) aren't qualified enough to judge whether her science is flawed or not, even if we had all the details regarding her research - and I have a statistics degree *hangs head in shame*.

Edited by megan_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weasels   
To say science is flawed is to say humanity is flawed (which it clearly is), since the society we have built is inextricably linked to the discoveries made using the scientific method.

I should have just waited for the more articulate artillery to arrive :)

I find this a rather charming comment. I'm trying to work out who it was you were hoping to offend.

Who's trying to offend, me or Aidan2? I don't want to offend anyone, just trying to spread a little love (particularly in the direction of scientists), and break down the 'us and them' approach.

Edited by Weasels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keshwar   

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.

They become Emeritus professors. The bane of many University IT staff. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alyosha   

I'd also suggest that 99.9999999999% of DOL members (myself included) aren't qualified enough to judge whether her science is flawed or not, even if we had all the details regarding her research - and I have a statistics degree *hangs head in shame*.

Corvus's original assertion has been shown, on the basis of evidence and experience, to be flawed - qualifications or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PF - We really don't know enough about corvus' research (her data set, analysis, what she plans on doing with her initial insight (sighthounds are timid) - is that her final conclusion or an interesting tid-bit that is going to be further explored?) to judge whether it is flawed or not.

I'd also suggest that 99.9999999999% of DOL members (myself included) aren't qualified enough to judge whether her science is flawed or not, even if we had all the details regarding her research - and I have a statistics degree *hangs head in shame*.

Seriously??? We learnt about good study design in high school. You are not looking to judge "her science" but the validity of her hypothisis, study design and conclusions. Many study designs are flawed (skewed) and the person conducting the study needs to take the inherent study design bias into account when forming conclusions. A well designed study aims to eliminate bias, but it is just about impossible to remove it entirely!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aidan3   
To say science is flawed is to say humanity is flawed (which it clearly is), since the society we have built is inextricably linked to the discoveries made using the scientific method.

I should have just waited for the more articulate artillery to arrive :)

I find this a rather charming comment. I'm trying to work out who it was you were hoping to offend.

It was clearly a self-deprecating comment. I was trying to explain scientific concepts to a lay community, and believed that Weasels was far more articulate in doing so.

It appears that I don't have to "hope" to offend anyone, they'll take offence regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps for example, the hypothesis here "Why do sighthounds tend to be timid/sensitive" has a huge bias, as it assumes that sighthounds are timid/sensitive. A better study design would allow the respondant to decide this for themselves, or rely on research instead of a generalisation ie "why do you thing the X&M Inc study on sighthound behaviour found 26% to be 'timid' on the Blahdy Blah scale of canine behaviour?"

But really, neither of these are questions that can be asked - they need to be researched. If you were building a bridge you would research the stresses and strains of the design, not send out a questionairre to the general public on whether they thought the bridge would stay up!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It bugs me that this has drifted into a discussion about the worth of science, because most of the sighthound owners I know value the contributions science has made to their life and to their breed. Now not only will our dogs be timid, but we'll be flat earthers who are anti-science. Neither is true.

Corvus is a long standing member of this forum who regularly initiates and participates in casual discussions about dog behaviour, often offering anecdata about her dogs' behaviour. When she jumps to her scientific work there's no badging of her movement from pet owner to behavioural scientist and to be frank, it's a bit hard to follow where one starts and the other ends and I've long since given up trying. That doesn't make me anti-science, quite the contrary.

I'm also not convinced the behaviour of adopted greyhounds will say anything significant about the other sighthound breeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
megan_   

ps for example, the hypothesis here "Why do sighthounds tend to be timid/sensitive" has a huge bias, as it assumes that sighthounds are timid/sensitive.

But how do you know that is her hypothesis? It is just a topic name she started on DOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps for example, the hypothesis here "Why do sighthounds tend to be timid/sensitive" has a huge bias, as it assumes that sighthounds are timid/sensitive.

But how do you know that is her hypothesis? It is just a topic name she started on DOL.

I don't think we're imagining it.

Corvus:

It's a huge generalisation, but it's a significant one according to my survey results. I'd rather not debate whether they are timid or not. Obviously there are timid and bold individuals as there are in any breed group. But my data indicates sighthounds in general are more timid than many other breed groups, and that's what I'm left with at the end of the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×