
Friendly Foxes’ Genes Offer Hints to How Dogs Became Domesticated - dnetesn
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/science/foxes-tame-genetics.html
======
wollstonecraft
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](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0611-6).

------
yasp
Are there similar hints about how humans became domesticated?

~~~
will_brown
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.

~~~
mikestew
_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.

~~~
asdkhadsj
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"?

~~~
mikestew
_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.

~~~
asdkhadsj
> 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.

~~~
mikestew
_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".

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

------
sandworm101
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.

~~~
gambiting
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.

~~~
Djvacto
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.

~~~
exikyut
[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)

~~~
dropit_sphere
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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwyjWpP4XA)
(NSFW)

