New study may cast doubt on previous e-collar studies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

I'm appreciative of someone sharing articles on here, but the link you try to make between some meta data analysis and specific studies cannot be substantiated.

---

Really? Do you even know the study I'm talking about?

This metadata analysis raises questions about experimental design in past studies. If you're familiar with the leading e-collar study, which I've discussed here before, you'll be aware that there are questions as to how the researchers interpreted salivary cortisol and why they found it significant in one context but ignored it in another, and (frankly) whether the data used to make its findings was perhaps collected only after the authors' initial design failed to find the desired result. The points raised in this paper tend to validate those concerns.

This paper is doubly significant if you know who the lead author is. Do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

These studies are being taken seriously by people who are interested in the evidence. If you want to be taken seriously, you argue the evidence.

---

if someone were to read this post outside this thread, they might think you argue the existence of UFOs.

we all entertain some level of wishful thinking, but it would help if you were to list a few of those people you're talking about. in simple terms, show us how significant this paper is; i.e. how was it received and what were the ripple effects (if any) on a scientific level
to be clear; I don't get the feeling that you are looking for a scientific nor a sociopolitical discussion anyway.

as we have gotten already far enough off topic and encouraged by your accusational attitude, I have to say, after being absent from this forum for a few months, that I certainly did not miss your bitterness

Either you follow the research, the conversations around that research, and the use of that research in the political sphere, or you don't. I have better things to do than to count citations to prove a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vom Dufenshmirtz

Thanks, welsh. It'd be interesting to compare two groups of dogs. One trained with e-c and the other with "traditional methods".
The groups would have to be as similar as possible, esp. at the level of training, so no clicker trained ankle biters.

---

could you get enough similar traits even within the same litters? With so much said about how dogs are individuals? But I do see your point of testing with collars and no collars. You know how spun my dog is, I would actually venture that he is calmer with a collar on actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

Either you follow the research, the conversations around that research, and the use of that research in the political sphere, or you don't. I have better things to do than to count citations to prove a point.

---

would a study like this not have to be commissioned/funded by a group with a specific agenda? The suspicious side of me would think the people performing the tests would want to please the masters just like the dogs no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welsh

...
I have better things to do than to count citations to prove a point.

---

especially if there isn't much, right?
there is a good reason for it and that also tells me you're not involved in actual research of any kind

hey, not that there's anything wrong with reading papers out of personal interest, but you should be open/objective to other opinions. After all, that's how the scientific world kind of works (along with being able to back up your thesis with facts/references)

Uh, the reason I follow the research is that I'm open to other opinions. I'm always looking for new ideas and perspectives that may lead us to reconsider conventional wisdom. Indeed, that's why I have no patience for the arguments based on poisoning the well with who is on "the left" or "the right." Being open to other opinions requires that you consider the evidence. I'm not the one showing he's not open to new ideas here.

I don't expect to back up what I say here with facts and references, because in case you haven't noticed, this is a discussion board. It's not the norm to post a whole set of references every time you start a thread. You show me one other person on this board who you're holding to that standard.

I don't have very much to prove here. I didn't say the paper I linked to disproved anything. I said it cast doubt on some e-collar work that had relied on salivary cortisol. That is true: it raises questions about how well controlled those studies actually were. I also referred to one study in particular as the leading study; I refer to it as such because it is the one I have seen most often cited informally as the last word on e-collars. There have been no others since, that I'm aware of.

This isn't really a discussion over the implications the paper I linked to in the OP has for existing research (which I've cited here previously, in some cases). It's you trying to shout me down because you didn't like my pointing out that babbling about "the left" or "the right" isn't a feature of serious discussions among grownups.

Then there's the "hold my beer and watch this" scientific study....looks like a bunch of guys off the forum :)

They should have just measured his salivary cortisol level to see if he was stressed....LOL...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsX3pAmbBts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waftrudnir

especially if there isn't much, right?
there is a good reason for it and that also tells me you're not involved in actual research of any kind

hey, not that there's anything wrong with reading papers out of personal interest, but you should be open/objective to other opinions. After all, that's how the scientific world kind of works (along with being able to back up your thesis with facts/references)

---

You won't find anyone who does better real research and doesn't just spout off than Welsh. I can always count on that and enjoy all his posts.

I'd like to know what you edited Andrew . I bet i know. LOL

Hilarious post Mike. :)

Andrew is usually spot on and no BS.