submitted 2016-04-27 15:35:27 by furvert_tailEquine, large canid
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 2 points on 2016-04-27 15:39:00
This seems relevant to our interests, but I'm not going to link directly to their thread because I don't want to encourage people to barge into other subreddits without awareness of their cultures. (I'm bad enough at that myself).
Swibblestein 4 points on 2016-04-27 16:56:51
I've never really been a dog-hugger, precisely because they seem uncomfortable about it. It seems pretty obvious to me that they would, as well.
If I'm trying to express my affection for a dog, I do it via thorough back-scratches, usually, where the dog is free to move if they want to (but usually they lean into the treatment, indicating the opposite).
That said, a lot of owners are pretty clueless about how their dogs feel about things. So the fact that this is news for many isn't really surprising either.
zetacola+ Rum 15 points on 2016-04-27 18:42:40
While I can agree it's probably best to teach inept people (especially children in this case) that a dog is not a plush toy in order to reduce the risk of very avoidable bites, the methodology of this study is very questionable.
Photos found on the Internet? The dogs looked uncomfortable? This is science now? Seriously?
A photo just isn't enough to properly assess the context of the situation. The dogs may have been stressed by some other, unseen factor. It's also important to remember than many dogs use calming signals simply as gestures of goodwill. You can't tell from just a photo.
It's borderline clickbait at this point. Just because you're a dog psychologist (lol) doesn't mean your word is gold.
30-30amator equae 6 points on 2016-04-27 19:06:41
That´s pretty much how I see this "study"....
Science is far from being ultimately objective...read R.A. Wilson´s "The new inquisition" for details. Study Wilhelm Reich´s vita. Study Imanuel Velikowsky´s vita.
Oh, did you know that Basketball is a sport where the protagonists hover over the playground for an hour? I researched it on the internet and all the pictures I researched showed some basketball player high up in the air...what a funny , gravity-defying sport it must be...;)
zetacola+ Rum 2 points on 2016-04-27 19:24:54
Well, science is objective (and I use that term loosely) when it succeeds in predicting things. One of the main reason the model of the Big Bang is accepted in the scientific community is that the theory predicted the existence and even frequency of background cosmic noise decades before it was actually discovered.
But in this case?... Yeah, dogs, as any other animal on the planet really, generally don't like being held against their will. If I go smother a strange dog with my embrace he's probably not going to enjoy it. That's about it.
I would like to conduct a study too: Dogs enjoy sex with humans! Look, I have photos form beastforum to prove it!
OmochanoshiAt her Majesty Mare service 1 point on 2016-04-28 06:50:58
Do not compare formal science and natural science.
There is just nothing common.
zetacola+ Rum 1 point on 2016-04-28 18:11:02
I don't know what this has to do with formal science, but in any case I'm not trying to compare the two. My point is that the empirical methodologies of the study are extremely dubious and no ground to claim anything about animal behavior.
zoozooz 4 points on 2016-04-27 22:16:26
In a study which analyzed 250 pictures of dogs as they were being hugged, eight out of 10 animals looked uncomfortable.
The new study was carried out by Dr Stanley Coren, a canine expert and professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia.
Fortunately for me, the Internet abounds with photographs of people and their pets. If you put the search terms "hug dog" or "love dog" into something like Google Image Search, or Flickr, you will get a virtually infinite scroll of pictures of people and their children hugging their pet dogs. I decided to look at a random sample of 250 such pictures. I used a variety of criteria to try to keep the data as clean and precise as possible. I only used photos where the dog's face was clearly visible. I also eliminated situations where one might expect the dog's stress level to rise because of factors other than being hugged (such as when someone lifts a large dog off the ground while hugging them).
It doesn't sound like it is trying to be a formal scientific publication.
I also can't find a relevant topic on /r/science so I guess it has been deleted because it's not really science?
This seems to be the actual conclusion of the author:
I suppose that one aspect of the data that struck me as interesting comes from the fact that the photographs that I used were obviously posts by individuals who wanted to show how much they cared for and shared a bond with their pet. This means that the people who were doing the Internet posting probably chose photos in which they felt that both the person and the dog looked happiest. Nonetheless, around 82% of the photographs show unhappy dogs receiving hugs from their owners or children. This seems consistent with other research which suggests that people, especially children, seem to have difficulty reading signs of stress and anxiety based upon their dogs' facial expressions.
zetacola+ Rum 2 points on 2016-04-28 00:51:33
So the title should be: Vast majority of dog owners don't know shit about dogs.
morenewsatsix
[deleted] 3 points on 2016-04-27 19:17:00
[deleted]
HeartBeatOfTheBeastHoof and Claw 3 points on 2016-04-27 19:22:10
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-04-27 20:13:10
Interesting links, thank you. :)
Aluzky 1 point on 2016-05-15 15:54:47
To me, it sounds like a lazy study (with erroneous methodology) A single frame is not the best source to analyze dog behavior to human interaction. You should use VIDEO evidence of a human hugging a dog.
Have you see how some times humans look really awfully because the picture took the frame in the worse moment possible and the human looks like if he where being staved with a knife or mentally handicapped? Last time I check, unlike humans, dogs don't know how to pose pretty for a photo.
I'm sure that with videos as evidence to be analyzed, that 81% would be much lower.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-05-15 16:35:34
Thanks for your link!
Have you see how some times humans look really awfully because the picture took the frame in the worse moment possible and the human looks like if he where being staved with a knife or mentally handicapped? Last time I check, unlike humans, dogs don't know how to pose pretty for a photo.
/r/zoophilia archive
This seems relevant to our interests, but I'm not going to link directly to their thread because I don't want to encourage people to barge into other subreddits without awareness of their cultures. (I'm bad enough at that myself).
I've never really been a dog-hugger, precisely because they seem uncomfortable about it. It seems pretty obvious to me that they would, as well.
If I'm trying to express my affection for a dog, I do it via thorough back-scratches, usually, where the dog is free to move if they want to (but usually they lean into the treatment, indicating the opposite).
That said, a lot of owners are pretty clueless about how their dogs feel about things. So the fact that this is news for many isn't really surprising either.
While I can agree it's probably best to teach inept people (especially children in this case) that a dog is not a plush toy in order to reduce the risk of very avoidable bites, the methodology of this study is very questionable.
Photos found on the Internet? The dogs looked uncomfortable? This is science now? Seriously?
A photo just isn't enough to properly assess the context of the situation. The dogs may have been stressed by some other, unseen factor. It's also important to remember than many dogs use calming signals simply as gestures of goodwill. You can't tell from just a photo.
It's borderline clickbait at this point. Just because you're a dog psychologist (lol) doesn't mean your word is gold.
That´s pretty much how I see this "study"....
Science is far from being ultimately objective...read R.A. Wilson´s "The new inquisition" for details. Study Wilhelm Reich´s vita. Study Imanuel Velikowsky´s vita. Oh, did you know that Basketball is a sport where the protagonists hover over the playground for an hour? I researched it on the internet and all the pictures I researched showed some basketball player high up in the air...what a funny , gravity-defying sport it must be...;)
Well, science is objective (and I use that term loosely) when it succeeds in predicting things. One of the main reason the model of the Big Bang is accepted in the scientific community is that the theory predicted the existence and even frequency of background cosmic noise decades before it was actually discovered.
But in this case?... Yeah, dogs, as any other animal on the planet really, generally don't like being held against their will. If I go smother a strange dog with my embrace he's probably not going to enjoy it. That's about it.
I would like to conduct a study too: Dogs enjoy sex with humans! Look, I have photos form beastforum to prove it!
Do not compare formal science and natural science.
There is just nothing common.
I don't know what this has to do with formal science, but in any case I'm not trying to compare the two. My point is that the empirical methodologies of the study are extremely dubious and no ground to claim anything about animal behavior.
Uhm... Is there an actual study? Googling a bit I only found this blog post: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201604/the-data-says-dont-hug-the-dog
It doesn't sound like it is trying to be a formal scientific publication.
I also can't find a relevant topic on /r/science so I guess it has been deleted because it's not really science?
This seems to be the actual conclusion of the author:
So the title should be: Vast majority of dog owners don't know shit about dogs.
more news at six
[deleted]
That's why dog hugs are oddly complicated.
[deleted]
What about the Thunder Shirt or the Hug Machine?
Interesting links, thank you. :)
To me, it sounds like a lazy study (with erroneous methodology) A single frame is not the best source to analyze dog behavior to human interaction. You should use VIDEO evidence of a human hugging a dog.
Have you see how some times humans look really awfully because the picture took the frame in the worse moment possible and the human looks like if he where being staved with a knife or mentally handicapped? Last time I check, unlike humans, dogs don't know how to pose pretty for a photo.
I'm sure that with videos as evidence to be analyzed, that 81% would be much lower.
washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/04/27/no-science-didnt-prove-that-dogs-hate-hugs/
Thanks for your link!
You've just reminded me of this photo: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-miliband-fails-to-look-normal-while-eating-bacon-sandwich-ahead-of-whistle-stop-campaign-tour-9409301.html