> 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. :)
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. :)