As a Labrador swam by me out to sea his owner said I hope he doesn't meet a seal

Idk if the "herding behaviour" is a useful way to think of this. Imagine that we didn't speak the same language, you went for a swim in the ocean and I would go after you and dragged you back to shore while shouting (in my own language) "Oh my, that is so dangerous. Do you even know how many people drown like that? Stop this lunacy at once". Would you describe my behaviour as "herding"? Would you talk about generations, and dominant genes? Or would you just say "this person has some fear for my safety (well grounded or baseless) and seems to care enough about me to save me from the danger he perceives, while I can't convince him that it is fine because we don't speak the same language."

This analogy might work in a universe where dogs speak foreign languages in which they learn about concepts like danger, persuasion, and language itself. Sounds fun.

This sort of "herding behavior" isn't just noticeable when you go out to swim, but any time 1+ people are apart from each other. You can spot these dogs extremely easily when you have a bunch of young children playing together, and you can see the family dog paying attention and as soon as one strays away from the group, the dog will start engaging and carefully nudge the stray kid back to the group.

There is no inherent danger in those situations, yet the dogs prefer if everyone was together in a group. If that's not "herding", I might just not understand what herding really is.

Herding behaviour is so distinctive and so apparent in certain breeds that it's nonsense to dismiss like this. Peak HN arrogance.

> it's nonsense to dismiss like this

I'm not dismissing herding behaviour. It is a thing. But genetics is simply not a good explanation for the story here. Here we have two dogs of the same breed (Arthur and Lenny). One lets their owner swim freely the other doesn't. The difference here is not genetics (they are the same berad), this in my opinion is a personality difference between the two dogs.

Which is why I'm starting my comment with "Idk if the "herding behaviour" is a useful way to think of this." Calling it "herding behaviour" doesn't explain the difference between the two labradors.

> Peak HN arrogance.

So lovely. Would you say that to my face closewith? I was nothing but polite to you and everyone else. I'm a human here you know. Can you treat me like one?

It is not polite to assume that you, after a brief amount of thinking with no background knowledge, have overturned centuries of empirical and scientific knowledge of canine behavioural heredity. It is astonishingly presumptuous. And it is, indeed, peak HN arrogance to make that assumption.

> in which they learn about concepts like danger, persuasion, and language itself.

Dogs definitely know about the concept of "danger". Roaring fire, a raised stick, or loud noises. These are all things which doesn't cause immediate pain but they react to avoid them. It seems from the story Lenny includes in the things he want to avoid the ocean while Arthur doesn't. That sounds more like an individual difference than a genetic predisposition.

You don't need to speak a foreign language to have this concept.

I don't know what is your definition of "persuasion". If it involves the behaviour of standing in someone's way and bothering them until they turn back then we can agree that Lenny seems to have the concept despite not having a language.

We had an Old English Sheepdog called Bob who let kids climb trees but only up to a certain height. If you went higher Bob grabbed your ankle and gently pulled you back to the height he previously "let you". Otherwise you could do whatever you wanted to do on the tree and he didn't care. Otherwise never herded anyone ever.

My point is not the language. More that if a chinese coast guard would drag you out of the sea you wouldn't be saying "yeah the chinese have a strong herding reflex". You would say "this person doesn't want me to swim", or "this person thinks I'm in danger and I can't communicate that I'm not".

How does the dog infer that swimming in an ocean is dangerous?

> It is not polite to assume that you, after a brief amount of thinking with no background knowledge, have overturned centuries of empirical and scientific knowledge of canine heredity.

I do not claim any such thing. Simply that the difference in behaviour between two dogs of the same breed cannot be explained with genetics. Lenny and Arthur share a genetic background. They do not share the behaviour. There is some other difference between Lenny and Arthur (or between the two swimmers!) which drives the difference in the observed behaviours.

I'm not saying genetics is not a thing. It is simply not the right lens to inspect this situation here.

> And it is, indeed, peak HN arrogance to make that assumption.

Which I'm not making. In any of my comments. So we are good then. :)

How do you infer swimming in an ocean is dangerous?

Gets a face full of water and it stings its nose. Looses footing as it gets deep and doesn't like it. Hears the distant waves roaring and doesn't like it. Sees its human breath differently and move differently and doesn't like it. Looks at its owner and sees them getting small (just a bobbing head on the water) and doesn't like it.

Can be so many things.

What do you describe sounds like herding behaviour, yes. When I say it is not a good description for "this" I mean the behavioural difference between Arthur and Lenny. Maybe you read it as if I don't believe in herding in general? That would be indeed silly on my part.

Is that something people think? As far as I remember, I never felt unsafe swimming in any large body of water, give the conditions are alright. Based on my own experience, I would assume people default to thinking bodies of water are not dangerous, but probably depends a lot on the location of your upbringing (which for me was on an island).

You don't know anyone who drowned?

No, is that common where you're from?

The behavior you're describing is instinctual. Difficult to relate to because we only see tiny remnants of instinctual behavior in humans. But I'd venture to guess that acting on instinct does not require any understanding of abstract concepts (or indeed the language in which such concepts would exist).