science

If all dogs can be aggressive than most people still shouldn’t own large dogs because most people can’t train a dog worth shit. Everyone and their mother in my neighborhood owns a big ass pit mix which is fine except for the fact that they freak out anytime they see another dog on a walk because they’re not trained. My in laws used to have a great pyrennes that they refused to train until it almost took someone’s hand off. An untrained dachshund is a menace but any dog that you can pick up when it’s trying to attack the neighbors’ dogs isn’t really a problem. But that’s just me with a thing about big dogs because one took a piece out of my ear as a kid

Like my college friend has a lab mix rescue that’s insane and they refuse to acknowledge it. They live in a standard apartment building and because of unfortunate circumstances someone’s chihuahua walked out into the hallway as their dog passed their door and it actually picked it up and hat it in it’s mouth. That’s fucking horrifying. Don’t own these dogs if you can’t take care of them and can’t take care of the safety of other people around you. Cops use attack dogs for a reason

"We at Hexbear.net present to you the long awaited sequel to the outdoor cat struggle session."

Awesome, I guess I can just own a husky in my apartment just like a chihuahua and not worry about it, because its breed characteristics of being high energy and needing physical exercise (even compared to similar sized dogs) were just make believe! I guess retrievers being gentle, shiba inus being willful, and pitbulls having strong latching tendencies is all just a collective delusion.

Dog breed characteristics are absolutely real, and even considering them comparable to human genetic behaviors is basically doing race science believers' work for them. "Behaviors" among humans are completely different than an instinct driven animal like a dog, which is why evopsych and race science shit are trash science.

Looking at the actual study, the problems that cause the obviously bogus result are:

• They are going by survey responses. I can't even start to explain how this does nothing except aggregate beliefs. Who is gonna be like "oh yeah my sweet baby pitbull Cupcakes is extremely aggressive to other dogs and children and exhibits strong latching instinct!"
• Dangerous dog breeds often attack instinctually in ways that are completely different than their socialized nature. If you say your dog has never done something, that's not the same as saying the dog doesn't have a tendency towards it.
• They had to further muddle the data by trying to highlight a linear correspondence between breed DNA and reliability of that behavior. That's not how DNA works. For example, Corgi visual phenotypes are fairly dominant so breeding them with anything else will be guaranteed to look more like a Corgi. If you assume behavior is determined by DNA, the same idea applies.

If you want to insultingly compare this to human eugenic atrocities, then try going over to eastern Europe and do a survey of 20,000 people on what behaviors they've observed from different groups of people. Let me know how great the survey approach turns out there.

I think where this more likely applies is how every dog breed has a laundry list of ultraspecific behavioral tendencies that really tend to be nonsense in the same way wine tasting notes are often silly. They're way too specific and determined by limited subjective experience and bias. But you can absolutely identify broad characteristics among breeds.