Fascinating article. There is a lot of food for thought there.
One thing though. I may be missing a lot of insight in the behavioral sciences, but that statement makes absolutely no sense to me. Why should the ones more inclined to be social be any more interested in food?? One would think it is the other way around.
My dog, while eating, will come over to be petted if I call him.
Hey. What do I know?
My cats will wander off to eat while I'm petting them.
45 years and 45,000 fox sounds like a huge number, but think of the generations of humans and wild dogs/wolves that had to live side by side and slowly over time become the first domesticated dogs.
Just show that time, and human patience can do wonderous things.
Unlike the wolf dog hybred, they are not combinations, they are selective breeding for specific qualities, Like cattle, horses, and the numerous breeds of dogs adn cats.
Why should the ones more inclined to be social be any more interested in food??
Totally unscientific observation but we have two blue crown conure juveniles obtained from different sources. The more social one of the two is the one who is decidedly more interested in food. I suspect that it's an adaptation response linked to appetite.
I don't think that was their point. Both types, wild and domesticated, are probably equally interested in food. But the socialized one were much more skilled at picking up the non-verbal cues from humans, and therefore were able to locate the food. The wild foxes could not interpret what the humans were doing and just sat there in a confused or indifferent state.