Wildly disingenuous characterization of the test. It’s not a test of unwarranted aggression. You took four words out of context without reference to the fact that it says “in the face of a threat.” Dogs are supposed to protect you (or themselves) when faced with a real threat. So are humans.
Are you implying there was a real threat to the owner if they dogs didn’t step in? RIP all the participants whose dogs weren’t able to save them from injury.
That is literally what this test is for, yes. Not all dogs are just pets, many are working dogs and part of their jobs is to protect their owners from real threats. This test simulates every possible circumstance.
I quoted one of the measures and it’s out of context? From a study that subjectively combines characteristics to create a meaningless “temperament” metric? Oh my bad. Sorry for being the disingenuous one here
That is not at all how context works. You can take a sentence out of context if you remove it from a book or article. What a bizarre thing to say.
What are you trying to say? That they didn’t measure protectiveness? I removed context because that’s how quotes work and I didn’t paste the whole article but are you saying I’m wrong?
You deliberately took a phrase out of context to completely change the meaning and are not working extremely hard to pretend you didn’t understand the meaning of the original article. It’s very clear you aren’t here to argue in good faith, but are more likely trolling.
It’s one sentence. Just read the entire sentence you snipped those four words from. You come to a completely different conclusion with that full context.
You’re reach a different conclusion from someone else based on your interpretation and can only conclude that they must be trolling. Go outside the world is far bigger than the one in your head
the test is on things such as strangers approaching the dog’s handler in various ways without the dog reacting>
Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog’s capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.
You might be misunderstanding what this measures
Wildly disingenuous characterization of the test. It’s not a test of unwarranted aggression. You took four words out of context without reference to the fact that it says “in the face of a threat.” Dogs are supposed to protect you (or themselves) when faced with a real threat. So are humans.
Are you implying there was a real threat to the owner if they dogs didn’t step in? RIP all the participants whose dogs weren’t able to save them from injury.
That is literally what this test is for, yes. Not all dogs are just pets, many are working dogs and part of their jobs is to protect their owners from real threats. This test simulates every possible circumstance.
deleted by creator
I quoted one of the measures and it’s out of context? From a study that subjectively combines characteristics to create a meaningless “temperament” metric? Oh my bad. Sorry for being the disingenuous one here
You didn’t even quote a full sentence, so yes it’s out of context. That’s how quoting things out of context works.
That is not at all how context works. You can take a sentence out of context if you remove it from a book or article. What a bizarre thing to say.
What are you trying to say? That they didn’t measure protectiveness? I removed context because that’s how quotes work and I didn’t paste the whole article but are you saying I’m wrong?
You deliberately took a phrase out of context to completely change the meaning and are not working extremely hard to pretend you didn’t understand the meaning of the original article. It’s very clear you aren’t here to argue in good faith, but are more likely trolling.
How? How did I take it out of context?? Explain the context already!
It’s one sentence. Just read the entire sentence you snipped those four words from. You come to a completely different conclusion with that full context.
You’re reach a different conclusion from someone else based on your interpretation and can only conclude that they must be trolling. Go outside the world is far bigger than the one in your head
the test is on things such as strangers approaching the dog’s handler in various ways without the dog reacting> Objective: These tests collectively evaluate the dog’s capacity to recognize an unusual situation, its threshold to provocation, its protective instincts, and its propensity to realize when the situation becomes a threat.
You should probably actually go read what the rest is bud