Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Crepuscular

(1,068 posts)
3. Pretty meaningless
Fri May 10, 2013, 09:43 PM
May 2013

to try and infer any kind of a natural tendency on the part of a breed based on this kind of non-random testing. Unless you are assuming that the type of owners that actually take the time and make the effort to have their dogs participate in this type of independent testing are typical for all of the owners of that breed, the results would not mean much. All this test shows is that some breeds may be better suited for training than others but it's really not a very good measure of natural tendencies. Now if there was a controlled study done with a number of dogs of specific breeds chosen from random, from a variety of backgrounds, that might give a little bit better generalized evaluation of breed tendencies but this type of non-random testing? Not so much.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»ATTS official breed stati...»Reply #3