The bazinga is off the charts in this one.
You posted a science article to c/science. It’s not “bazinga” to criticize shitty (or in this case, poorly messaged) scientific research in a science comm.
the study speaks to this. it is present, but extremely limited. clearest example was hounds barking more and border collies being a bit more proficient at learning commands.
You and I both know that the main use of this study in discourse will be over pitbulls, whether they exhibit breed specific aggression and attack behavior (latching, etc.), and whether they overall pose a danger to own as a pet.
I didn’t shift. I just fully understand that there’s exactly one breed over which breed characteristics is a hot button issue, and so I’m just anticipating the discursive application of these results.
Whether or not eugenicists were involved in early dog breeding (which, if you look at breeds like German shepherds or pugs, is obviously evil) has no relevance whatsoever on the existence of dog breed behavioral characteristics.
The only people I’ve known with poorly socialized pitbulls have been white rednecks bragging about how their huntin pit needed a train chain to be kept away from other dogs at home. The only ones with well socialized pits who I still saw maul a kid were white suburban people. The danger from pitbulls is empirical, and trying to paint your opponents as bigoted is a despicable exploitation of racial tension for rhetorical purpose. And one that’s totally unnecessary given that the data is right there.