this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
423 points (79.0% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
7389 readers
703 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ofcourse you can breed aggression, its so absurd to claim that you cant.
They literally did the opposite with foxes. Some guy kept breeding the nicest ones until he got a "breed" that wouldn't want to murder you on sight. I'm pretty sure levels of aggression absolutely are something innate in some animals.
"Some guy"
Come on now, let's not buzzfeed our facts here!
Dmitry Belyayev is the guy, though work continued long after his death
The program has been quite successful, although you still have a high-energy animal with a strong odor. I'd still like to have one, tho.
Thanks for adding the credit where it's due!
I had just gotten to work and was browsing Lemmy before I had to actually get started so I didn't spend the time to look up who actually did it lol
So, indeed, "some guy."
A specific guy whose name is not a mystery
"His name is Robert Paulson."
Russian silver fox im pretty sure
Also he did it both ways. On population selected for nice behavior became dog like. One population selected for aggression. The second population goes insane when someone enters the room trying to attack through the cage door.
Exactly. I mean, dogs are wolves that were bred to be less aggressive and more suitable to be companions to human. Of course it can go the other way.
Science and the American Veterinary Medical Association would love to have a word with you. But I guess you do love the literal pitbull hate community so who cares what you think on the matter.
Do you have a source for that? Because everything I've read says completely the opposite. The 'science' I'm aware of says that genetic tendency to aggression is very much a thing, even in humans.
It is a thing, but most controlled studies haven’t found pitbulls to be inherently more aggressive than other breeds, just more dangerous if they happen to attack. Any dog that is poorly socialized will probably attack someone sooner or later, they just weren’t bred to latch on and shred things with their jaws like pitbulls were. So maybe there is a discussion to be had about “dangerous” breeds, but it’s not a genetics one.
Can you cite any sources?
Isn't that the issue? From what I've heard, the big issue isn't just that they attack, but they lock on and it's hard to get them to release their target. Like, a small dog can absolutely bite you, but will it kill you? Is it going to rip a limb off? If you give it a good hit, is it still going to be holding on for dear life? You say other dogs just "weren't bred to latch on and shred things with their jaws like pit bills were." That sounds an awful lot like a dog that was bred to be aggressive or, at the very least, cause maximum damage when triggered. That's something that needs to be considered when adopting or breeding a pet that's supposed to not just be around people, but in the home.
I think another factor is the owner. Usually people who want agressive murder dog with the same name as the whitest rapper get it for a reason and don't train the dog.
Its often low income people wearing tracksuits and man purses.
It's both. It's insane to me someone can watch animals instinctively display insanely complex behaviors untaught (e.g. herding by australian shepards) and the scientific research to reduce aggression in a related species before coming to the conclusion that there is no way whatsoever that nature is a significant component. Oh, and just completely ignore breeds bred for traits and behaviors seemed desirable for every domesticated animal.
Nature has no place at all it's only nurture. Sure.
Its true. Just pitpulls don't caunt cause my nieces husbands best friends uncles relatives dog hasn't mauled anyone yet.
Really? "Science"? Hahaha
The "nature/nurture" debate is a question of how much influence each has - it's not a binary question, but a continuum.
And if the AMVA is saying aggression is solely taught, then they lack any credibility whatsoever - that's an utterly unscientific perspective.
I say this having worked with vets, competed in obedience trials, and trained numerous dogs (with the assistance of very successful trainers). Each dog is different, but there are very clear traits in breeds, achieved by... breeding for those traits.