Moving beyond the dominance myth
- Thread starter Doberluv
- Start date
I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. Its a bit long, but I think its important. I wish others on here would read it. What is the general message which made an impression on you? What did you like about it? What things stood out in your mind? What things struck you as suprising or did you have a "light bulb" moment anywhere in the writings? Just curious and would love more of a discussion....wish more people would read this. I think it would clear a lot of things up and would help dogs to not be so anthropormorphized....not so humanized and therefore people would have an easier time with their dogs and a better bond.
I'd be interested in what other trainers as well as other dog owners think.
Anyone?
I'd be interested in what other trainers as well as other dog owners think.
Anyone?
Thanks for posting. It took me some time to get around to it because I wanted to spend some time actually reading the article. It was a long read; but it was worth it. I like how the Monks were quoted, and then later in the message they were contradicted by another quote. I remember when their techniques and books were "the thing" to get/do... It almost (maybe I read it wrong, I did forget my glasses at work) seems as if the Monks introduced (?) or at least really emphasized the whole dominance/aggression and pack issues. If I would've known that, say 5yrs ago, I would've never put another thought to dominance in dogs like "Cesar's Way"
I honestly have a question... in wolf packs, the wolves in the pack are almost always mother, father, and pups (that may or not be from same litters), right? Then how can we compare them to our domesticated dogs? I mean, how many of us actually own dogs that are related to each other? Many people don't even have the same breeds when they have mult. dogs. And no one is stupid enough to claim what we are 'related' to the dogs. Is a pack not a family unit? Without anthropomorphizing can any of us claim that we are a true family unit?
I remember reading a post about the wolves being studied were those of captivity who's packs were also kind of thrown together. And in those packs more aggression was displayed than to what is considered 'normal'... What kind of controlled 'experiment' is that? It just kind of seems to me that our information can't possibly accurate.
Dogs are domesticated and wolves are not, for one. They have to live by our rules, not a pack in which they are related, understand the communication, or are born into even.
So a big BUMP to this thread. Though I'm afriad that people who *need* to read it probably won't...
I honestly have a question... in wolf packs, the wolves in the pack are almost always mother, father, and pups (that may or not be from same litters), right? Then how can we compare them to our domesticated dogs? I mean, how many of us actually own dogs that are related to each other? Many people don't even have the same breeds when they have mult. dogs. And no one is stupid enough to claim what we are 'related' to the dogs. Is a pack not a family unit? Without anthropomorphizing can any of us claim that we are a true family unit?
I remember reading a post about the wolves being studied were those of captivity who's packs were also kind of thrown together. And in those packs more aggression was displayed than to what is considered 'normal'... What kind of controlled 'experiment' is that? It just kind of seems to me that our information can't possibly accurate.
Dogs are domesticated and wolves are not, for one. They have to live by our rules, not a pack in which they are related, understand the communication, or are born into even.
So a big BUMP to this thread. Though I'm afriad that people who *need* to read it probably won't...
Since it is clear from the original post that "dominance is a myth" (and is also one of the angles used by those who oppose Cesar Millan's methods since they cannot punch holes in his success rate directly) it would be helpful if anyone who has already posted in support of this, to give their own personal definition of what "dominance" really means to them and why it is a myth with no bearing what-so-ever in our relationships with our dogs, or in a dog's relationship with other dogs.
I happen to use this word in three different ways, but will hold off until everyone else who has supported the content of the original post to explain their position.
I happen to use this word in three different ways, but will hold off until everyone else who has supported the content of the original post to explain their position.
Angles used by those who oppose Cesar...hmmm, so now science and research done by phd's who are and have been in the field for decades are wrong but Cesar, a self proclaimed "dog psychologist" has all the answers?
I should have known better when I read words like "rehabilitation" in your posts. My memory refreshed, I know where this is going.
I just got off the phone from yet another client who used Cesars way to "rehabilitate" their fear aggressive dog...another bite case!!
There are some who no matter how much research and actual proof is provided for them, will continue to support physical punishment. If Cesar ghost written book is all that you have to bring to this discussion, I don't think you really want to do anything but argue.
Your last few posts have shown your "slant" and I for one don't feel like playing...sorry.
I should have known better when I read words like "rehabilitation" in your posts. My memory refreshed, I know where this is going.
I just got off the phone from yet another client who used Cesars way to "rehabilitate" their fear aggressive dog...another bite case!!
There are some who no matter how much research and actual proof is provided for them, will continue to support physical punishment. If Cesar ghost written book is all that you have to bring to this discussion, I don't think you really want to do anything but argue.
Your last few posts have shown your "slant" and I for one don't feel like playing...sorry.
Angelique, my personal definition of dominance is basically authority, importance. A "dominant" dog wants to be in charge, make their own decisions and make decisions for others. He wants to be first and foremost in the group. I don't think dominance is a myth, I see it all the time between dogs.
I think the myth lies in the assumption that this dominance is the root of so many behavioral problems.
I think the myth is that we as humans must act like dogs and do our best to clumsily mimic dog behavior in order to put ourselves in a leadership position.
Cesar Milan thinks that dogs who bark, pull on the leash, resource guard, jump up, steal food, destroy things, protect their owners etc. are doing so because they think they're the "dominant one". I think the dogs do this because they haven't been taught not to. They aren't born knowing what we want them to do, and pushing them around, trying to make them submissive doesn't explain to them what we really want from them.
I don't believe that dogs are power-hungry maniacs that want to take over our lives. They just do what works. If a person lets their dog walk all over them, gives the dog no guidance and sends all the wrong signals, the dog will take control. Why wouldn't he? Nobody else is putting themself in a position of leadership. The dog can have anything he wants if he takes control. It works.
Speaking of leadership, I don't consider physical domination to be leadership at all. So my dog walks in front of me during walks. So he sleeps on my bed (on the pillows at that) and stands over me. He still does what I ask of him . . . He just can't do what I want unless he knows what it is.
I guess he's more of a partner than a subservient being. When he does what I want, he gets what he wants. If he doesn't do what I want, he doesn't get what he wants. Obedience is simply a result of cause and effect. If the dog has been reinforced for a behavior repeatedly in the past, he is likely to repeat it. If he has not been reinforced for a behavior in the past, or punished for it, hes less likely to repeat it. A dog's refusal to obey a command isn't an attack on one's authority. Often times, the dog just doesn't understand.
I think the myth lies in the assumption that this dominance is the root of so many behavioral problems.
I think the myth is that we as humans must act like dogs and do our best to clumsily mimic dog behavior in order to put ourselves in a leadership position.
Cesar Milan thinks that dogs who bark, pull on the leash, resource guard, jump up, steal food, destroy things, protect their owners etc. are doing so because they think they're the "dominant one". I think the dogs do this because they haven't been taught not to. They aren't born knowing what we want them to do, and pushing them around, trying to make them submissive doesn't explain to them what we really want from them.
I don't believe that dogs are power-hungry maniacs that want to take over our lives. They just do what works. If a person lets their dog walk all over them, gives the dog no guidance and sends all the wrong signals, the dog will take control. Why wouldn't he? Nobody else is putting themself in a position of leadership. The dog can have anything he wants if he takes control. It works.
Speaking of leadership, I don't consider physical domination to be leadership at all. So my dog walks in front of me during walks. So he sleeps on my bed (on the pillows at that) and stands over me. He still does what I ask of him . . . He just can't do what I want unless he knows what it is.
I guess he's more of a partner than a subservient being. When he does what I want, he gets what he wants. If he doesn't do what I want, he doesn't get what he wants. Obedience is simply a result of cause and effect. If the dog has been reinforced for a behavior repeatedly in the past, he is likely to repeat it. If he has not been reinforced for a behavior in the past, or punished for it, hes less likely to repeat it. A dog's refusal to obey a command isn't an attack on one's authority. Often times, the dog just doesn't understand.
Its not an angle to poke holes in anyones' supposed success rate. Success may mean different things to different people. That a dog stops doing an undesirable behavior may be enough for some to call that success. But how that behavior is modified, the way in which it was brought about may not signal success to others. How a dog's psyche is affected in the process means a lot to some people. In many, many good trainers' minds, CM or any similar type of trainer is using methods which are harmful to dogs.
That said, the definition of dominance is the supreme or most important. Dominance is, to me, more a relationship than a trait or characteristic.
Why is it a myth that dominance has any significant bearing on our relationship with domestic dogs is explained in the prevailing and most recent information brought on by science, by ethologists, biologists, archeologists, applied behaviorists....people who devote their lives and have for decades in studying this matter in a scientific way, with long term observational studies, brain studies, all kinds of in depth research. Some studies have gone on for decades with large comparison groups. Some of it was explained in those articles and its very well explained in the book called, Dogs; A Startling new Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. by Ray & Lorna Coppinger. It explains why dogs relationships to dogs and to humans may be the way they are. It is theory but they make a good case for it. And there is vastly more substantiated evidence as well as suggestion that the old dominance panacea is indeed inaccurate and grossly misplaced where dogs are concerned. Behaviorism is very effective in animal husbandry. If someone doesn't see that, then there is no point in discussing this at all. That is on a completely different plane. As it was said in one past article, a behaviorist talking to a Cesar fan is like an paleantologist trying to explain evolutionary changes to a creationist. There are two completely different planes. There is no point in an argument.
It's just a shame that the very people who need to read material which has some basis for it, in order to know......don't.
I don't have anything against anyone who trains their dogs using occasional mild corrections. I do have a problem when I see something which I cringe at and see a dog being shut down and subdued, mistreated. If it is my opinion, then that's tough. If I bash CM or anyone who I feel is mistreating an animal, I think I have every right to criticize that. And so do all the other trainers who utilize behaviorism to train rather than dominating their dog to the point of intimidation.
Our dogs are a gift, no other like it....another specie and we have no moral right to squash them and jerk them around, to dominate them. That is NOT what is best for the dog. There are other ways. There is no debate about that. There's proof and results the world over. There are more and more people turing to a less forceful way of getting the behavior they want, the same behavior everybody want from their dogs and those dogs are being treated humanely, using "positive methods" and that is the way it is best for dogs.
That said, the definition of dominance is the supreme or most important. Dominance is, to me, more a relationship than a trait or characteristic.
Why is it a myth that dominance has any significant bearing on our relationship with domestic dogs is explained in the prevailing and most recent information brought on by science, by ethologists, biologists, archeologists, applied behaviorists....people who devote their lives and have for decades in studying this matter in a scientific way, with long term observational studies, brain studies, all kinds of in depth research. Some studies have gone on for decades with large comparison groups. Some of it was explained in those articles and its very well explained in the book called, Dogs; A Startling new Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution. by Ray & Lorna Coppinger. It explains why dogs relationships to dogs and to humans may be the way they are. It is theory but they make a good case for it. And there is vastly more substantiated evidence as well as suggestion that the old dominance panacea is indeed inaccurate and grossly misplaced where dogs are concerned. Behaviorism is very effective in animal husbandry. If someone doesn't see that, then there is no point in discussing this at all. That is on a completely different plane. As it was said in one past article, a behaviorist talking to a Cesar fan is like an paleantologist trying to explain evolutionary changes to a creationist. There are two completely different planes. There is no point in an argument.
It's just a shame that the very people who need to read material which has some basis for it, in order to know......don't.
I don't have anything against anyone who trains their dogs using occasional mild corrections. I do have a problem when I see something which I cringe at and see a dog being shut down and subdued, mistreated. If it is my opinion, then that's tough. If I bash CM or anyone who I feel is mistreating an animal, I think I have every right to criticize that. And so do all the other trainers who utilize behaviorism to train rather than dominating their dog to the point of intimidation.
Our dogs are a gift, no other like it....another specie and we have no moral right to squash them and jerk them around, to dominate them. That is NOT what is best for the dog. There are other ways. There is no debate about that. There's proof and results the world over. There are more and more people turing to a less forceful way of getting the behavior they want, the same behavior everybody want from their dogs and those dogs are being treated humanely, using "positive methods" and that is the way it is best for dogs.
Last edited:
Incredible. *shakes head in disbelief*
Dogs have small brains. They're not as complex as we make them out to be. They do not have the ability to have a deep perception of self image, according to most scientific data. There are some studies I've read about going on which are trying to re-evaluate that. I guess there are some who think they might have some concept of self image. But to date, that has not been conclusive.
They simply do what works. All behavior has consequences. What we call control is a human concept. Think about what that word means for a minute. The dog getting his own way, doing what works in order to get his own way is what we perceive or what resembles control. We understand control. It is our concept.
A dog growls or snaps at his owner for attempting to take a toy. The owner lets him keep the toy and backs away. Bingo! Dog just learned what works to keep his toy. He learns that that behavior of growling and snapping works also when the owner attempts to take his food bowl. He is not thinking that he is the dominant or most important member of the family. He is simply following the laws of learning. His behavior is reinforced by the consequence. (the owner backing away and letting him keep his stuff.) He is reinforced enough times that he repeats that behavior in order to get his resources. Its how he survives in the wild. That's as far as it goes. They have small, not very convoluted brains and they have instincts to do whatever works. They are not staging a coupe to over take their family.
If the owner adjusts the environment to be a situation where that behavior doesn't work for the dog, but something else does, then he will stop doing this thing that people call "control" or "dominance." He will stop doing these behaviors.
He learns through repititions of reinforcement. Conditions and responses. There is no hidden agenda, no trying to be supreme and in control.
That is my understanding at any rate.
Dogs have small brains. They're not as complex as we make them out to be. They do not have the ability to have a deep perception of self image, according to most scientific data. There are some studies I've read about going on which are trying to re-evaluate that. I guess there are some who think they might have some concept of self image. But to date, that has not been conclusive.
They simply do what works. All behavior has consequences. What we call control is a human concept. Think about what that word means for a minute. The dog getting his own way, doing what works in order to get his own way is what we perceive or what resembles control. We understand control. It is our concept.
A dog growls or snaps at his owner for attempting to take a toy. The owner lets him keep the toy and backs away. Bingo! Dog just learned what works to keep his toy. He learns that that behavior of growling and snapping works also when the owner attempts to take his food bowl. He is not thinking that he is the dominant or most important member of the family. He is simply following the laws of learning. His behavior is reinforced by the consequence. (the owner backing away and letting him keep his stuff.) He is reinforced enough times that he repeats that behavior in order to get his resources. Its how he survives in the wild. That's as far as it goes. They have small, not very convoluted brains and they have instincts to do whatever works. They are not staging a coupe to over take their family.
If the owner adjusts the environment to be a situation where that behavior doesn't work for the dog, but something else does, then he will stop doing this thing that people call "control" or "dominance." He will stop doing these behaviors.
He learns through repititions of reinforcement. Conditions and responses. There is no hidden agenda, no trying to be supreme and in control.
That is my understanding at any rate.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,083
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
My thoughts on dominance are a bit simplified - or maybe a bit complex, depending on how you look at it .. *L*
I agree entirely that a dog does what works. I've used those same words hundreds of times in trying to help people with their dog problems. But I also don't have a problem with terms such as dominance, aggression, alpha, pack, hierarchy, etc. I tend to call the family group the "pack" to put it more into animal terms than human terms. I find that this helps people to stop treating little foo-foo like a spoiled child and to start setting some rules for their dog. I also find it helps people to understand that little foo-foo IS a dog and can't think like a human - and is not acting out of anger, spite, vengeance, etc. Little foo-foo is just doing what works for him, which goes directly back to what he's been allowed to do by the owner.
In some ways, isn't dominance a learned behavior just like everything else? So why can't a dog learn to be dominant, and why can't we use that term in order to describe it? A pushy puppy learns that by being pushy it gets the toys and the food and the attention. We call the puppy dominant, and in fact it IS dominant in that way.
I guess my problem with all of this is that I don't find it's the terminology that's the problem. Using "dominance" or "alpha" is not a problem for me nor has it been for those I work with. It's what's taught to go along with those terms by people who (in my opinion .. *G*) don't know what the hell they're doing and think that by being overly strict or downright cruel that they're being "alpha".
I do think that being a proper leader is important. Being a proper leader includes not reinforcing behaviors you won't want to see again, and maintaining your home in a way that discourages a dog to do things you don't like. Being a proper leader means you will set rules and abide by them in order to provide consistency. There is nothing wrong with doing this, and everything right. I don't have any problem in using the term "leader" in working with people and their dogs. It helps draw them out of the anthropomorphic haze they're in, thinking they're the parents and these are their spoiled kids.
It's really easy to get wrapped up in the terminology and to start thinking that we can't use terms like pack and dominance and hierarchy. Sure we can, and we can use them in a way that works well. I don't advocate anyone do an "alpha rollover" but I sure advocate that they provide a strong secure leadership for their dogs (and for their kids, too .. *L*). I call the group of humans and dogs that live together a "family pack" and it works well for me. I don't have anyone feeling they need to force their dogs into compliance just because I use these terms.
People's problems with dogs nearly all stem from ignorance .. ignorance of how to avoid reinforcing behaviors they don't like, ignorance of how to read body language, ignorance of simple maintenance, ignorance of how to differentiate between a good trainer and a bad one. Unfortunately when someone on TV makes it look like he performs miracles (and, through their ignorance, they can't see the fear and pain the dogs are exhibiting) then it becomes difficult for us to get them to understand there are better ways. And changing the terminology doesn't make any difference to me, because each of these "dog whisper guys" is going to provide their own terminology to try to sound important.
By the way, I came across a website for a "dog whisperer" in Chicago who makes all sorts of guarantees and makes it sounds like her methods are the ONLY way. She uses a shock collar - calls it a "tapper" ..
Melanie and the gang in Alaska
I agree entirely that a dog does what works. I've used those same words hundreds of times in trying to help people with their dog problems. But I also don't have a problem with terms such as dominance, aggression, alpha, pack, hierarchy, etc. I tend to call the family group the "pack" to put it more into animal terms than human terms. I find that this helps people to stop treating little foo-foo like a spoiled child and to start setting some rules for their dog. I also find it helps people to understand that little foo-foo IS a dog and can't think like a human - and is not acting out of anger, spite, vengeance, etc. Little foo-foo is just doing what works for him, which goes directly back to what he's been allowed to do by the owner.
In some ways, isn't dominance a learned behavior just like everything else? So why can't a dog learn to be dominant, and why can't we use that term in order to describe it? A pushy puppy learns that by being pushy it gets the toys and the food and the attention. We call the puppy dominant, and in fact it IS dominant in that way.
I guess my problem with all of this is that I don't find it's the terminology that's the problem. Using "dominance" or "alpha" is not a problem for me nor has it been for those I work with. It's what's taught to go along with those terms by people who (in my opinion .. *G*) don't know what the hell they're doing and think that by being overly strict or downright cruel that they're being "alpha".
I do think that being a proper leader is important. Being a proper leader includes not reinforcing behaviors you won't want to see again, and maintaining your home in a way that discourages a dog to do things you don't like. Being a proper leader means you will set rules and abide by them in order to provide consistency. There is nothing wrong with doing this, and everything right. I don't have any problem in using the term "leader" in working with people and their dogs. It helps draw them out of the anthropomorphic haze they're in, thinking they're the parents and these are their spoiled kids.
It's really easy to get wrapped up in the terminology and to start thinking that we can't use terms like pack and dominance and hierarchy. Sure we can, and we can use them in a way that works well. I don't advocate anyone do an "alpha rollover" but I sure advocate that they provide a strong secure leadership for their dogs (and for their kids, too .. *L*). I call the group of humans and dogs that live together a "family pack" and it works well for me. I don't have anyone feeling they need to force their dogs into compliance just because I use these terms.
People's problems with dogs nearly all stem from ignorance .. ignorance of how to avoid reinforcing behaviors they don't like, ignorance of how to read body language, ignorance of simple maintenance, ignorance of how to differentiate between a good trainer and a bad one. Unfortunately when someone on TV makes it look like he performs miracles (and, through their ignorance, they can't see the fear and pain the dogs are exhibiting) then it becomes difficult for us to get them to understand there are better ways. And changing the terminology doesn't make any difference to me, because each of these "dog whisper guys" is going to provide their own terminology to try to sound important.
By the way, I came across a website for a "dog whisperer" in Chicago who makes all sorts of guarantees and makes it sounds like her methods are the ONLY way. She uses a shock collar - calls it a "tapper" ..
Melanie and the gang in Alaska
Good post Melanie, as usual. I agree with much of what you wrote. The only trouble with these terms I see, however....dominance, alpha, leader of the pack and so forth, is that they have historically been tied closely with what was formerly thought of how a wolf pack or a big, bad, fierce alpha wolf operates....that being aggressive and stern, physically throwing another member down on it's back....misinformation attached to wolves through faulty studies. People who don't know hear those words and think in terms of extreme compulsion and harshness.
Of course little foo foo needs rules and to be taught those rules with consistancy and he can't be allowed to have his own way about everything. And people need to understand that they don't think like people. And that's just it! Here we are thinking these human words, in this case English words...they have a rich encompassing meaning to us with all kinds of nuances and facets. Here we are trying to dissect their actual meaning. Its not even clear to us across the board. But they are human concepts. Now, take a dog with a little lemon brain. I don't think these ideas even cross his mind, not in any way. So, by using these terms, I think people conjure up a full, enriched picture and then assume the dog is capable of thinking that way too. (because people tend to think dogs are so much smarter than they are) That's where a lot of the anthropormophizing comes from I think. And then the heavy handedness. They're probably picturing a wolf in their head...big, wild animal with a bigger brain. LOL.
I think this flourishing mentality that compares dogs to wolves, and in fact compares to an extremely inaccurate picture of wolves at that needs to be broken off. I think people need to be educated in what domestic dogs are, their history, how they evolved and what they sprang from more directly, not a packing animal. And packing is more of a utilitarian function, at those times when it might be needed. The dogs our dogs evolved from (which evolved from a wolf-like animal) because of living in close proximatey to people did not need that function of a pack. Packing behavior isn't something genetic. There is no gene for packing behavior. That is epigenic.
Are dogs social and bond with us? Of course. Do they need rules? Of course. Are we a family? Yes. But a packing behavior (or pack) to me denotes an organized behavior to enable hunting large game, breeding and operate in a way which makes survival and reproduction possible along with plain old family status. At least that's what packing means to biologists and ethologists. Packing is more than what our dogs do with us in our family. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. But that's why terminology is important, I think....to keep things in order.
Being spoiled rotten, getting his own way is really nothing more than being reinforced for rotten behavior. Calling a dog dominant or an alpha implies that he is so much more than he is...a dog who is rewarded for lousy behavior.
I think because dogs are more juvenile in their adult stage than a wolf adult, they do not have the idea to dominate, be the most important or supreme member of the family. I don't think they even think about that. They just would like something and they find out what works or doesn't work to get it.
I can't seem to get myself to call that back and forth exchange between an operant and consequence (a behavior and reinforcement) being on the same level as the "alpha" or being "dominant."
I guess its our convoluted brains with little sparks going off all over the place and we're all different and see things differently. So of course, we're not going to be following the same nueral pathways. LOL.
Of course little foo foo needs rules and to be taught those rules with consistancy and he can't be allowed to have his own way about everything. And people need to understand that they don't think like people. And that's just it! Here we are thinking these human words, in this case English words...they have a rich encompassing meaning to us with all kinds of nuances and facets. Here we are trying to dissect their actual meaning. Its not even clear to us across the board. But they are human concepts. Now, take a dog with a little lemon brain. I don't think these ideas even cross his mind, not in any way. So, by using these terms, I think people conjure up a full, enriched picture and then assume the dog is capable of thinking that way too. (because people tend to think dogs are so much smarter than they are) That's where a lot of the anthropormophizing comes from I think. And then the heavy handedness. They're probably picturing a wolf in their head...big, wild animal with a bigger brain. LOL.
I think this flourishing mentality that compares dogs to wolves, and in fact compares to an extremely inaccurate picture of wolves at that needs to be broken off. I think people need to be educated in what domestic dogs are, their history, how they evolved and what they sprang from more directly, not a packing animal. And packing is more of a utilitarian function, at those times when it might be needed. The dogs our dogs evolved from (which evolved from a wolf-like animal) because of living in close proximatey to people did not need that function of a pack. Packing behavior isn't something genetic. There is no gene for packing behavior. That is epigenic.
Are dogs social and bond with us? Of course. Do they need rules? Of course. Are we a family? Yes. But a packing behavior (or pack) to me denotes an organized behavior to enable hunting large game, breeding and operate in a way which makes survival and reproduction possible along with plain old family status. At least that's what packing means to biologists and ethologists. Packing is more than what our dogs do with us in our family. I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. But that's why terminology is important, I think....to keep things in order.
Being spoiled rotten, getting his own way is really nothing more than being reinforced for rotten behavior. Calling a dog dominant or an alpha implies that he is so much more than he is...a dog who is rewarded for lousy behavior.
I think because dogs are more juvenile in their adult stage than a wolf adult, they do not have the idea to dominate, be the most important or supreme member of the family. I don't think they even think about that. They just would like something and they find out what works or doesn't work to get it.
I can't seem to get myself to call that back and forth exchange between an operant and consequence (a behavior and reinforcement) being on the same level as the "alpha" or being "dominant."
I guess its our convoluted brains with little sparks going off all over the place and we're all different and see things differently. So of course, we're not going to be following the same nueral pathways. LOL.
Hmm... I guess what this really clarifies is the definition of dominance, or being a good leader.
I never assumed that being dominant meant being physically dominant, but in my household, being a strong, clear and confident leader is imparative with a dog like Roxy. She's quick to take advantage of any mistakes made on my part. And Hades, well he is comforted by the fact that I am a strong, no fuss no muss leader.
I understand that not everything revolves around being a great leader, but it appears sometimes in my household it does, with Roxy at least. Especially with her human aggression issues, the extra edge that being the clear leader that I now am is kind of a safety issue I guess you could call it.
With how different my two dogs are, it could be very hard to find a happy medium. Hades is more than fine with being pushed around by everyone, he knows he gets love, food and attention, and that's all he really desires.
Roxy is on a different level, and it's only worsened since moving out further away from civilization.
Her main goal is to protect the household and me. Her wants are not as simple as Hades, therefore her tactics for getting what she wants are much more complex and harder to figure out.
This is getting confusing
Points.. ROFL.
Hades- wants: love, food and attention
-he gets it, he's happy, no "challenging of authority" no behavioural problems etc.
Roxy- wants attention, only sometimes
-24/7 protecting the home, and her only goal is to keep anyone and anything away
-if she doesn't like the "aura" of a visitor, she is snarky, saucy and even sometimes outwardly aggressive
and the list goes on... Roxy's wants are so much more complex, AND possibly could be dangerous to someone, that being THE LEADER gives me that extra edge to ensure her safety and everyone elses. If I stopped doing the things that IMO are what have made me this strong leader to her, I would lose that edge. And possibly instead of her thought process going something like this: I don't like the smell of this person, they are going to touch mommy! *Roxy, down* OK, I don't want to, but I will.
It would go more like this:
I don't like the smell of this person, they are going to touch mom.. SNAP!
I never assumed that being dominant meant being physically dominant, but in my household, being a strong, clear and confident leader is imparative with a dog like Roxy. She's quick to take advantage of any mistakes made on my part. And Hades, well he is comforted by the fact that I am a strong, no fuss no muss leader.
I understand that not everything revolves around being a great leader, but it appears sometimes in my household it does, with Roxy at least. Especially with her human aggression issues, the extra edge that being the clear leader that I now am is kind of a safety issue I guess you could call it.
With how different my two dogs are, it could be very hard to find a happy medium. Hades is more than fine with being pushed around by everyone, he knows he gets love, food and attention, and that's all he really desires.
Roxy is on a different level, and it's only worsened since moving out further away from civilization.
Her main goal is to protect the household and me. Her wants are not as simple as Hades, therefore her tactics for getting what she wants are much more complex and harder to figure out.
This is getting confusing
Points.. ROFL.
Hades- wants: love, food and attention
-he gets it, he's happy, no "challenging of authority" no behavioural problems etc.
Roxy- wants attention, only sometimes
-24/7 protecting the home, and her only goal is to keep anyone and anything away
-if she doesn't like the "aura" of a visitor, she is snarky, saucy and even sometimes outwardly aggressive
and the list goes on... Roxy's wants are so much more complex, AND possibly could be dangerous to someone, that being THE LEADER gives me that extra edge to ensure her safety and everyone elses. If I stopped doing the things that IMO are what have made me this strong leader to her, I would lose that edge. And possibly instead of her thought process going something like this: I don't like the smell of this person, they are going to touch mommy! *Roxy, down* OK, I don't want to, but I will.
It would go more like this:
I don't like the smell of this person, they are going to touch mom.. SNAP!
OK....now, to pick your brain, what to you is the definition, or rather, what exaclty are you doing to be a strong, clear, and confident leader? What specific things are you doing? Can you give me an example? Take one behavior she does that you don't want. How do you eliminate that behavior by being strong, confident and clear? Let's analyze what you're doing. And then we'll come back and compare those terms with behaviorism. This could be interesting.
LOL, we're getting to the bottom of this today Doberluv LOL
Ok, so a behaviour that I don't want, and what I do, that IMO makes me a clear strong confident leader that ceases the behaviour.
I'm going to try and pick something simple, that's been dealt with and worked.
Oh, I have a perfect one, the furniture issue! LOL Mwahahah
Problem: Roxy had unlimited access to the furniture. Sometimes I would have half a cushion while she took up the rest of a 6 foot couch! When told to get down, "Roxy off!". Her behaviour varied from:
Rumbling and slowly getting down.
Showing the teeth, snarling and not moving, until I continued to yell, and act out aggresively. (Roxy would act out aggressively. Which I now know is not the behaviour of a leader, who is calm and confident and collected, [I should not have yelled or gotten overly angry)
Ignoring me until I continued to "bother" her.
What I changed: For about a week, maybe a few days less, she was banished from the furniture completely. I changed my whole attitude about the furniture. I did not yell, I did not ask twice. This sounds stupid, but what I feel made the most difference, was stopping the yelling, changing my body language to a more confident stance (I took this from my horse training) and actually making cold as ice eye contact with her. Which now, is a good method for stopping ANY unwanted behaviours from her. If she gets that "look", she won't make eye contact with me and stops, stealing Hades bone, or chewing on a pillow etc.
I changed my heart felt behaviours, and realized that ROxy does not understand that she is allowed on the couch because I love her. I stopped asking twice. I stopped acting out like a leader would not. I took on a more confident leader body language.
NEVER did I hit her. I NEVER "alpha rolled" her.
I changed my outlook on being a leader. Instead of thinking that ROxy understood I was in charge no matter what, but that she got certain priveledges because I loved her, I instead began to think along the lines of:
I am the leader. I'm calm, I don't get overly angry. There is no asking twice. There is no "talking back" (Something that Roxy did a lot in an aggressive manner towards me, and still does playfully today)
I'm in charge of treats, food, love and attention. I'm in charge of the comfy, desired couch spot. I'm in charge of the yummy, high value bone. I AM IN CHARGE! LOL And I'm not taking any sh*t anymore!
I think I answered everything LOL
Just thought I would add, I'm not sure if it was Quest or Doberluv that mentioned that what can be viewed as "dominant behaviours" can be learned is a great point. I 100% agree that unwanted "aggressive"/dominant behaviours can be learned, and therefore, like any other learned behaviour, can with time and energy be un-learned.
LOLOk, so a behaviour that I don't want, and what I do, that IMO makes me a clear strong confident leader that ceases the behaviour.
I'm going to try and pick something simple, that's been dealt with and worked.
Oh, I have a perfect one, the furniture issue! LOL
MwahahahProblem: Roxy had unlimited access to the furniture. Sometimes I would have half a cushion while she took up the rest of a 6 foot couch! When told to get down, "Roxy off!". Her behaviour varied from:
Rumbling and slowly getting down.
Showing the teeth, snarling and not moving, until I continued to yell, and act out aggresively. (Roxy would act out aggressively. Which I now know is not the behaviour of a leader, who is calm and confident and collected, [I should not have yelled or gotten overly angry)
Ignoring me until I continued to "bother" her.
What I changed: For about a week, maybe a few days less, she was banished from the furniture completely. I changed my whole attitude about the furniture. I did not yell, I did not ask twice. This sounds stupid, but what I feel made the most difference, was stopping the yelling, changing my body language to a more confident stance (I took this from my horse training) and actually making cold as ice eye contact with her. Which now, is a good method for stopping ANY unwanted behaviours from her. If she gets that "look", she won't make eye contact with me and stops, stealing Hades bone, or chewing on a pillow etc.
I changed my heart felt behaviours, and realized that ROxy does not understand that she is allowed on the couch because I love her. I stopped asking twice. I stopped acting out like a leader would not. I took on a more confident leader body language.
NEVER did I hit her. I NEVER "alpha rolled" her.
I changed my outlook on being a leader. Instead of thinking that ROxy understood I was in charge no matter what, but that she got certain priveledges because I loved her, I instead began to think along the lines of:
I am the leader. I'm calm, I don't get overly angry. There is no asking twice. There is no "talking back" (Something that Roxy did a lot in an aggressive manner towards me, and still does playfully today)
I'm in charge of treats, food, love and attention. I'm in charge of the comfy, desired couch spot. I'm in charge of the yummy, high value bone. I AM IN CHARGE! LOL And I'm not taking any sh*t anymore!
I think I answered everything
LOLJust thought I would add, I'm not sure if it was Quest or Doberluv that mentioned that what can be viewed as "dominant behaviours" can be learned is a great point. I 100% agree that unwanted "aggressive"/dominant behaviours can be learned, and therefore, like any other learned behaviour, can with time and energy be un-learned.
I think what's also very important, is that most "aggression issues" are owner induced. As is Roxy's. I feel that rarely is a dog just aggressive. That everything was done properly from the beginning and that's just the way they are. Whilst saying that, I said "rarely" not "never".
A combination of personality and environment is what makes our dogs who they are. Roxy has just the wrong personality to be mixed with the freedom she was allowed. She is quick to take advantage and quick to use her teeth.
Hades is not. He would never take advantage and to this day I have not seen one iota of "aggression" or "dominance" in him.
I think to avoid these problems, being a good leader is the way. And of course IMO a good leader does not act out physically.
To fix these problems, in Roxy's case, I have to "overdo" the good leader tactic, it's in every aspect of her life. And continue. If I were to slip back into my old ways with the furniture for just a day, I'm sure Roxy would take advantage, and go back to her old ways as well.
A combination of personality and environment is what makes our dogs who they are. Roxy has just the wrong personality to be mixed with the freedom she was allowed. She is quick to take advantage and quick to use her teeth.
Hades is not. He would never take advantage and to this day I have not seen one iota of "aggression" or "dominance" in him.
I think to avoid these problems, being a good leader is the way. And of course IMO a good leader does not act out physically.
To fix these problems, in Roxy's case, I have to "overdo" the good leader tactic, it's in every aspect of her life. And continue. If I were to slip back into my old ways with the furniture for just a day, I'm sure Roxy would take advantage, and go back to her old ways as well.
anyone heard of the amichien bonding method? It's a training, behavior method created by jan fennell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Fennell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Fennell
Positive punishment.
Good thing ends....negative punishment
Asking twice would mean that you would be reinforcing her for not giving you the response you wanted. You reinforced her response of compliance upon giving her a single cue with a good thing. (?) Or you reinforced her not complying with a bad thing. (positive reinforcement or positive punishment) The behavior of getting off the couch was more beneficial for her than staying on the couch. Your eye stare was a bad thing. She avoided that further by getting off the couch. Positive punishment will stop behavior (and punishment is not always aversive or harsh. In fact, some punishments can be rather soft and easy.) Punishment is one part of operant conditioing.
Yes, you control her resources. Those are good things. She has to earn those things. Her behavior has to be a certain way (she has to do her part for you) and you, in turn reinforce her good behavior with those good things. (rewards or reinforcers) All behavior is contingent on reinforcement. (law)
Your being confident is the opposite of wishy washy. Wishy washy would not be reinforcing any desireable behavior. Wishy washy might be allowing a behavior to continue one second, then not the next....perhaps back and forth. Yelling would not be communicating any clear directions, providing no information for learning. Your behavior appears to include good timing, prompt reinforcement (whether you're technically adding punishment or reward) Avoidance (avoiding the eye stalk stare....a bad thing) works to stop behavior too. She is responding according to the laws of behavior and learning. You can call it anything. But when broken down and looked at closely, it is still (you can't escape it. lol) scientific behaviorism. She is obedient to the laws of learning.
Again, being wishy washy is inconsistancy. Inconsistancy confuses a dog. He cannot learn well because reinforcers are not coming in at a regular enough or ample rate. I think calling it leadership is fine. But not very technically descriptive. For example, when Cesar uses terms like positive energy, calm, assertve, pack leader, leadership and all the other cliches, these are broad terms and do not denote specifically what to do. I think this ambiguous terminology is sort of like the breakdown of the English language. It has the potential to do away with the meaning of things...to lose the important nuances. Without knowing what is happening really, there is more room for error.
It is terrific that your dog gets off the couch now without being aggressive. And of course, that's the point as long as she's happy and obedient. But how this happened, how this behavior was modified has more to it than leadership. A lot more to it. In some cases, depending on what's going on and there can be a huge variety of causes for problems, certain punishment can escalate the problem or cause other side effects. (I'm not talking about mild punishment, or what you used....mind you) That is why I think it is important to break things down more into scientific terms so one can see exactly what is happening, so timing can be effectual, so training can be taylor fit to each situation and each dog. I think this is stuff which IS being called leadership. (?) But "leadership" is only one word to describe a huge array of facets. I think those words; leadership, confidence definitely have their place. But I don't think that's all she wrote. LOL.
Good thing ends....negative punishment
Asking twice would mean that you would be reinforcing her for not giving you the response you wanted. You reinforced her response of compliance upon giving her a single cue with a good thing. (?) Or you reinforced her not complying with a bad thing. (positive reinforcement or positive punishment) The behavior of getting off the couch was more beneficial for her than staying on the couch. Your eye stare was a bad thing. She avoided that further by getting off the couch. Positive punishment will stop behavior (and punishment is not always aversive or harsh. In fact, some punishments can be rather soft and easy.) Punishment is one part of operant conditioing.
Yes, you control her resources. Those are good things. She has to earn those things. Her behavior has to be a certain way (she has to do her part for you) and you, in turn reinforce her good behavior with those good things. (rewards or reinforcers) All behavior is contingent on reinforcement. (law)
Your being confident is the opposite of wishy washy. Wishy washy would not be reinforcing any desireable behavior. Wishy washy might be allowing a behavior to continue one second, then not the next....perhaps back and forth. Yelling would not be communicating any clear directions, providing no information for learning. Your behavior appears to include good timing, prompt reinforcement (whether you're technically adding punishment or reward) Avoidance (avoiding the eye stalk stare....a bad thing) works to stop behavior too. She is responding according to the laws of behavior and learning. You can call it anything. But when broken down and looked at closely, it is still (you can't escape it. lol) scientific behaviorism. She is obedient to the laws of learning.
Again, being wishy washy is inconsistancy. Inconsistancy confuses a dog. He cannot learn well because reinforcers are not coming in at a regular enough or ample rate. I think calling it leadership is fine. But not very technically descriptive. For example, when Cesar uses terms like positive energy, calm, assertve, pack leader, leadership and all the other cliches, these are broad terms and do not denote specifically what to do. I think this ambiguous terminology is sort of like the breakdown of the English language. It has the potential to do away with the meaning of things...to lose the important nuances. Without knowing what is happening really, there is more room for error.
It is terrific that your dog gets off the couch now without being aggressive. And of course, that's the point as long as she's happy and obedient. But how this happened, how this behavior was modified has more to it than leadership. A lot more to it. In some cases, depending on what's going on and there can be a huge variety of causes for problems, certain punishment can escalate the problem or cause other side effects. (I'm not talking about mild punishment, or what you used....mind you) That is why I think it is important to break things down more into scientific terms so one can see exactly what is happening, so timing can be effectual, so training can be taylor fit to each situation and each dog. I think this is stuff which IS being called leadership. (?) But "leadership" is only one word to describe a huge array of facets. I think those words; leadership, confidence definitely have their place. But I don't think that's all she wrote. LOL.