Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

HuckleB

(35,773 posts)
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:02 PM Apr 2016

No, 'science' didn't 'prove' that dogs hate hugs [View all]

According to numerous outlets, a scientific study has found that the majority of dogs dislike being hugged, based on cues of distress found in a random assortment of photos pulled from the Internet. We at are not here to argue that you should go squeeze the life out of a puppy. But we are here to squeeze the life out of this misleading science coverage.
http://www.thegurdontimes.com/zz/lifestyle/20160428/no-science-didnt-prove-that-dogs-hate-hugs

"If you have an Internet connection, you've probably read at least one article in the past few days claiming that science has shown that dogs hate being hugged. We at are not here to argue that you should go squeeze the life out of a puppy. But we are here to squeeze the life out of this misleading science coverage.

According to numerous outlets, a scientific study has found that the majority of dogs dislike being hugged, based on cues of distress found in a random assortment of photos pulled from the Internet.

The problem here is that what's being reported as a "study" is, in fact, an op-ed written in the magazine Psychology Today by a single researcher.

"This is a set of casual observations," Stanley Coren, the retired University of British Columbia professor who penned the column, told The Post. He reiterated that his data collection wasn't part of a peer-reviewed study.

..."


---------------------------------------

Much like the recent study on fructose, where journalists misconstrued it with HFCS, we see that science coverage is often rather poor.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
General science knowledge is often rather poor PJMcK Apr 2016 #1
+1 HuckleB Apr 2016 #2
Thank you for your well-reasoned response. Delphinus Apr 2016 #4
Thank you, too (n/t) PJMcK Apr 2016 #6
K&R smirkymonkey Apr 2016 #3
My golden hated them so much.... Scruffy Rumbler Apr 2016 #5
I've never had a dog but Skittles May 2016 #10
. HuckleB Apr 2016 #7
Watch out! You will be waterboarded with HFCS for your transgressions! Monster corn stalks will now Rex Apr 2016 #8
I do enjoy a good magic show! HuckleB Apr 2016 #9
I've been enjoying your posts lately Fumesucker May 2016 #11
Thanks! HuckleB May 2016 #12
Yeah Science! Tommy_Carcetti May 2016 #13
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No, 'science' didn't 'pro...