Friendly Foxes’ Genes Offer Hints to How Dogs Became Domesticated | Hacker News Reader

Friendly Foxes’ Genes Offer Hints to How Dogs Became Domesticated

nytimes.com

64 pointsdnetesn23 comments

This is not just the same perennial article about the fox domestication experiment, they did some new sequencing https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0611-6.

Are there similar hints about how humans became domesticated?

You mean, by cats?

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/01/220113-snea...

I always liked the competing theory the wolves/dogs were responsible for domesticating humans. Mostly because I have seen first hand dogs train humans.

For example, my parent’s Goldendoodle knocks (punches) a sliding glass door when she wants to be let in/out. No one taught her this, she did it and got the response from the human she was looking for and continues the behavior getting the same expected result from the human everytime.

I never thought about it in that way, but my dog trained me too. When she's done with her business outside, she will scratch the carpet, I learned to open the door when I hear that noice, I never taught her that, so she trained me.

Well, the two questions are:

(1) Do dogs have more human-like behavioural traits compared to wolves? (2) Do humans have more dog-like behavioural traits compared to primates?

I have always thought it was a a sort of symbiotic domestication, both happening at the same time.

For example, my parent’s Goldendoodle knocks (punches) a sliding glass door when she wants to be let in/out. No one taught her this

Dogs do what works. You have no idea the plethora of other things the dog tried before tapping the glass. Training, OTOH, involves "I would like the humans to open the door when I tap the glass. Using positive training, I shall..." The dog would have been just as content to bark if it got the door to open. Edison didn't train a light filament to glow without burning up, his assistants kept trying until they found a method that gave the results they desired.

Is there a meaningful difference between

> "I would like the humans to open the door when I tap the glass."

and

> "I would like the humans to open the door so I'll keep trying stuff until it works"

? I say that because I feel like your description means training is a means of applying a specific input and obtaining the output. Where as, even humans often don't even train dogs - they try random inputs until they obtain the output they desire.

So what would you call it if a human tried random inputs to a dog, eventually getting the desired behavior? If that's not training, what is it? Is the input just as crucial as the output to "training"?

So what would you call it if a human tried random inputs to a dog

A waste of time? When I train a dog, I want the dog to respond to a specific input, for instance saying the word "sit". I'm not going to stand there trying different words until the dog's ass hits the ground.

The difference lies in that the dog cannot be said that it wanted the door opened when it tapped the glass. The dog simply wanted the door to open. Of the many things the dog (might have) tried, tapping the glass was the only thing that worked. So the dog goes with that from now on.

Is the input just as crucial? Yes, it is. If for no other reason than a standardization of language. Because teaching your two year old to just use whatever random word she makes up for what the rest of us call "strawberry" isn't going to get her very far in life. In a similar manner, standardization of language with dogs is just as essential. I've got two dogs, you think I'm learning a different language for each? Duh, no. Consistency of input/desired-output mappings is a key element to training in general.

> A waste of time? When I train a dog, I want the dog to respond to a specific input, for instance saying the word "sit". I'm not going to stand there trying different words until the dog's ass hits the ground.

Agreed, it's far from efficient - but it's what I've seen a ton of people do. Throw random inputs at the dog to try to get them to go pee, or go outside when peeing, or sit on command, or etc.

> The difference lies in that the dog cannot be said that it wanted the door opened when it tapped the glass. The dog simply wanted the door to open. Of the many things the dog (might have) tried, tapping the glass was the only thing that worked. So the dog goes with that from now on.

My question was mainly centered around the idea that, the way you describe it, I think is the same that a lot of people use in "training" dogs. They don't care what the input is, they care what the output is. Even during simple things like Sit. They don't pay mind to all the random variables they're throwing in like body language, tone, gestures, food, etc.

> Is the input just as crucial? Yes, it is. If for no other reason than a standardization of language. Because teaching your two year old to just use whatever random word she makes up for what the rest of us call "strawberry" isn't going to get her very far in life. In a similar manner, standardization of language with dogs is just as essential. I've got two dogs, you think I'm learning a different language for each? Duh, no. Consistency of input/desired-output mappings is a key element to training in general.

Well I think you misunderstand me. I'm not asking if input matters, I'm asking if input matters to your definition of "training".

Ie, if a dog tries random inputs and eventually figures out a way to get me to let it outside - it sounds like you did not consider that training. Yet, I feel like frequently people do the same to "train" dogs. Hence my question towards you.

Yet, I feel like frequently people do the same to "train" dogs.

Apologies, the concept is so foreign to me at this point (as a result of training <g>) I just didn't consider that. But you're right, folks do attempt to train dogs in that manner. I suppose it would be like lifting weights for that big marathon you have coming up. If you ask me, a runner, if that's training I would say no. But I'm fixated on the specificity. More accurately, I'd have to admit that it is, indeed, "training".

But without that specificity, it degrades to semantics. I mean, c'mon, who thinks solely lifting weights is going to get you to the finish line? When I say I'm training for a marathon, the vast majority of people would assume I'm spending most of my time running. And when I say I'm training my dog, I imagine most folks expect something along the lines of "when I say a specific command, the dog takes a specific action". Because the desired outcome of training generally is not "the dog's butt hit's the ground", the desired outcome is "I say 'sit', and the dog's butt hit's the ground". If folks are content to have a dog sit with non-specific inputs, they are free to call it whatever they like. But it is not what most people call "training", and no professional trainer would consider it to be "training".

>A waste of time? When I train a dog, I want the dog to respond to a specific input, for instance saying the word "sit". I'm not going to stand there trying different words until the dog's ass hits the ground.

And that’s what the dog does...a specific input (knocking). The dog never knocks to be let in/out when my mom isn’t on the patio to respond. When my mom ignores the knock, the dog doesn’t change to barking or another input to get attention, the dog waits a period of time for the desired response and then knocks again (a little harder).

It would appear to me the dog uses the same philosophy as you when you train a dog, when training my parents...a standardization and consistency in input/desired output.

I always find it interesting that domesticated foxes basically behave like large pups.

Interesting science, but I still say it should all stop. This long-running experiment uses foxes raised for their fur. I have read many articles over the years and I am unclear whether the study populations are still harvested for fur. If they are, the study needs to stop. Anything involving fur farms needs to stop asap.

I like that you can appreciate the science while being against the fur farming it was likely done to support. Dissecting those issues isn't really thing around here.

Foxes without the desired trait are put to sleep, because they have no other use. So....we could either burn their carcasses, or at least use the fur. Why is that a bad thing? The fur is a byproduct here - no one is breeding those foxes for it.

But why do you need to put the foxes to sleep? For a lot of people, that part is the immoral bit, whether the fur is used or not.

Because keeping them alive costs money. Same reason why dog shelters have to put down some dogs from time to time too.

What do you propose to do with them? You can't release them, through breeding these foxes are not suited for the wildlife. They are not as afraid as wild foxes and will become a danger to humans. Raising them is not sustainable. And why should using their fur be immoral in comparision to using farmed cows meat?

I mean you can personally object to both, but most of society disagrees with you and does not believe that killing animals for fur/leather/meat is immoral.

[moderate NSFW]

What I find immoral is not putting them to sleep.

Some fur farms do literally skin foxes alive. This is because, __if I remember correctly__, ripping the pelt off in one go produces something of the highest quality/grade because the fox was standing on its feet while the skinning took place. I think if it's lying down it flattens the pelt out, and there's some risk of tearing.

At least, I think this is what I read. I'm not trying to editorialize/dramatize, but all I can vaguely remember from that one random webpage I found showed a skinned fox('s insides), so that's what got mentally filed away... it wasn't (that) horrible (well, if you basically switch your emotions off), but that impression kind of took precedence over remembering anything else from the webpage, which I (unfortunately) cannot possibly remember where to find now.

In any case, I remember there being a legitimate reason other than pure maliciousness, and I think it was something to do with pelt quality.

I think some places use a two-electrode stun/kill technique; one probe end goes in the, uh, back; and the other probe (perhaps it's a ball? I've never cared to find out) goes in the mouth. Bang. I have, for the purposes of simplicity, decided that this method is reasonably humane. (Hopefully it doesn't burn the tongue?) I wouldn't mind hearing others' opinions.

(Written very late, excuse tiredness)

God forgive us.

Reading that you might get the impression that I am now off to bomb a fur facility or something. No; I get it; I eat meat, and I can understand how our use of animals contributes to the survival of their species (if cows weren't good to eat, we'd have far fewer of them, etc.). And I believe people when they say they try to kill in a humane way.

But 500 years from now, when we can grow meat and leather and what-have-you, they will look on us as barbarians.

I don't have a so-what. Just a sense that animal products are in some way sacred, and deserve our respect at the very least.

EDIT: I am reminded of the "stroggification" scene from Quake IV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwyjWpP4XA (NSFW)

Do you have a citation for the bit about foxes being skinned alive? (It's not that I necessarily doubt it, but I would hate to be misinformed about it in either direction.)

Wikipedia has a section at the bottom of the article on skinning about the live-skinning thing. Sounds like it is most likely a made up claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinning

Reply on news.ycombinator.com