Moving beyond the dominance myth

[Roxy's CD]

Thanks Doberluv, but a few questions.

How was me yelling and pretty much looking ridiculous, POSITIVE punishment? Because it wasn't physical? I guess I'm just confused why you've labelled it positive. LOL

Plus, it didn't work. Is positive punishment supposed to work? Or is it just a tactic that has a name, but doesn't?


I agree, that the change in my leadership isn't all of it. Of course it has to do with the way her mind was working. Your idea of, a dog does what it has to, to get what it wants. But IMO, the key to a lot of changes that were a negative in my mind of Roxy was the change in how I reprimanded, rewarded and how I acted when she did something that I did not want her to do.

Those changes were a mindset I put myself into, but obviously they complimented the way Roxy's thought process was in a positive way, in our household at least. LOL

 

[whatszmatter]

positive punishment means you're adding, giving, punishment, negative punishment is when you remove something. Dog barks give correction, its positive punishment.

and yes it works, very well in fact if you apply it correctly.

 

[Doberluv]

Plus, it didn't work. Is positive punishment supposed to work?

Yes, you're right. It is only punishment if it works to stop a behavior. But I think your intent was to attempt to stop the behavior by yelling, a potentially "scary" thing to a dog, although not physical. (BTW, I'm not condemming you for this. LOL.) I holler out at my dogs sometimes, not viciously, but I do use verbal "corrections" like, "knock it off!" It stops them pretty well, but I would prefer it if I weren't so lazy and would utitlize a distraction, a re-direction and reward/reinforcement for some lousy piece of behavior. It generally makes the modification of a behavior stick better and is more pleasant for the dog than, "no, no, no, no" and collar corrections and other positive punishment (lol) attempts. I think too much "no, no, no, no" stuff has undesireable side effects. But it's indeed difficult to approach every piece of behavior in that way. It is more important to me in training.....generally to be a little more sophisticated in my approach.

Technically, positive and negative is like mathematics. It's adding and subtracting. It does not mean good and bad. So, negative punishment is that a good thing ends. Negative reinforcement is when the bad thing ends.

 

[Angelique]

I personally view training, social, and behavioral concepts as all having merit in our interactions with our dogs. If this wasn't the case, there would be no behaviorists or talk of how leadership and the social dynamic can influence our relationships with our dogs.

IMO, in order to best understand social and behavioral concepts, it's important to step out of the "training" box and look at the relationship between dog and human, and dog and dog with more than the training eye. If someone is unable to do this, all interactions will have to be put into a "training" perspective, in order to be understood.

The social perspective allows us to use leadership to "lead" the activities and communicate what is and is not appropriate social behavior before that behavior occurs (or escalates) through direction, boundaries, and clear communication. Otherwise, you may simply end up using conditioning methods after the desired or undesired behavior occurs to shape that behavior or shaping through luring. Not that there is anything wrong with this, but dogs are capable of understanding so much more, and I think this sells them a bit short.

Dogs are perfectly capable of instruction and direction from a leader and will comply with your direction if you are seen as the leader. True leaders are neither submissive beings, nor are they angry and challenging. A dominant (in terms of heirarchy), confident animal has nothing to prove. A dog will know if you are in the "show 'em who's boss" mentality which will come across as unstable and untrustworthy. This is based on the dog's perspective, and a dog should never feel they've been "attacked". The problem arrises when people do not understand the difference between "follow the leader" and "show 'em who's boss".

I view the word "dominant" three different ways:

Dominance and submission are froms of communication within a social group to determine who's who, where do *I* fit in, and who is the leader. A dog who jumps up on you may not be trying to take the dominant position away from you or put you in your place, but may simply be telling you by their social behavior that *they* are the dominant animal in the relationship because they feel free to jump on you. There is no plotting, planning, or conspiring to overthrow you, just a communication of the current social status.

Dominance is also a natural born personality "trait". Some dogs are simply born more dominant in terms of being more equipped by birth to be leaders. The same is true of people. The fact that there are far less naturally dominant animals born and more naturally subordinant ones, is probably a wise choice by nature to keep fighting for the top dog position, to a minimum. It could get pretty ugly if we were all born dominant by nature and would not benefit either species as a whole.

Dominance is also used to establish breeding rights. This is where dominance and leadership are two different concepts. Establishing breeding rights often involves conflicts between the same sex members of a given species (usually males) so that only the strongest will pass on their genes. The contests are both rutualistic and aggressive, and often violent during the breeding season. Once the breeding season is over these conflics subside in many species.

Here are a couple of sites where dominant behavior in dogs is described. As with all descriptions, philosophies, and methods - there are areas where I agree and areas where I do not. But independent thinking requires collecting information from many points of view and deciding what's true and useful based on your on personal experiences and reality.

The Humane Society of the United States
www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/our_pets_for_life_program/dog_behavior_tip_sheets/Dominant-Dogs.html

Bro&Tracy Animal Welfare INC
www.joycefay.com/articles/dominantdogs.shtml

In regards to comments by Lee Charles Kelley, I have read plenty of this guys posts and beliefs all over the net. Quite an aggressive individual with a one track mind, IMO.

Doberluv,

Who is the author of the quotes in post #19? It sounds like Jean Donaldson, but there was no author mentioned.

 

[SeniorPetLover]

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.

Good point.

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.

Another good point.

A dog's refusal to obey a command isn't an attack on one's authority. Often times, the dog just doesn't understand.

Can you guys give me some methods of conveying understanding to a dog? This is more complicated than child rearing...Is the best way through positive reinforcement? Very thought provoking post...I want my dogs to be happy, healthy dogs...I would like to think that they respect me as being the "Mom" of our family, and they seem to, but since they don't have the capacity to reason, that is probably all in my head They do not fear me nor would I want them to...to me there is nothing better than a bed full of chi's!

 

[Angelique]

...there is nothing better than a bed full of chi's!

Until the "hotflash" hits you! :yikes:

Must be 50 year old hormonal "thing" on my part. :lol-sign:

 

[Doberluv]

The training "box" is not a box. It is not void of social interaction. I do not see training as some sterile set of instruction and response with no social interaction. It's all inclusive, one big happy family. However, that aside, "leadership" is not a specific term to convey how you're communicating to the dog. LOL. Say you don't want your dog to jump up on you when you come home. (incidentally, this is not challenging authority or the dog saying that he has the "right" to stoop so low (lol) as to jump so high. This is what the dog comes with as his greeting behavior....like we shake hands with people.)

If we went to some other planet where the aliens didn't use shaking hands as greeting behavior and found it obnoxious and distasteful, what could they do to stop us from shaking hands but instead greet them their way, say, with a little hip bump? Would some social, attitude or body posture, body language, neck correction, weird sound, look teach us in a clear, concise, rapid and pleasant way not to shake hands? Or would ignoring our shaking hands, showing us the "hip bump" and reinforcing that with something good, show us what to do in the future? How anti social would that be? Where is the absense of socialability?

If we don't want the dog to greet us in HIS happy way, but our alien way, we need to teach him our way.) So, again....tell me what is going on with leadership (specifically, step by step) which is your way of teaching the dog not to jump up. What is it in your "attitude" or social interaction which is causing him to learn not to jump up. I guarantee you it is using the scientific laws of learning.

Again, biologically speaking, aggression or dominance is not genetic. It is epigenic. There are no genes for aggression or dominance. You'd have to read some biology where this is concerned I guess. I can't write enough (believe it or not) to go back to the beginning and go through it sufficiently to explain it any better in just a few paragraphs. However, nature and nurture does influence behavioral outcome.

Have you read Jean Donaldson Angelique? It's interesting that you recognized her. What have you read by her? I didn't go back and check #19, but I think I'm recalling what you mean.

 

[Roxy's CD]

That's a great way to break it down Doberluv.

I understand so much better, but there's always a but, LOL. It seems that even if I do reinforce good behaviour and once she already knows what behaviours I want (Ex) As a human I already understand that shaking hands is not how I greet someone), she will still push the envelope, hence why it appears being a good leader in this "seirous" 24/7 hardcore manner will never end with her. If that makes any sense.

 

[whatszmatter]

If we went to some other planet where the aliens didn't use shaking hands as greeting behavior and found it obnoxious and distasteful, what could they do to stop us from shaking hands but instead greet them their way, say, with a little hip bump? Would some social, attitude or body posture, body language, neck correction, weird sound, look teach us in a clear, concise, rapid and pleasant way not to shake hands? Or would ignoring our shaking hands, showing us the "hip bump" and reinforcing that with something good, show us what to do in the future? How anti social would that be? Where is the absense of socialability?

.

if I went there and they pushed my hand aside gave me a disapproving look and showed me the hip bump, i'd probably learn a heck of a lot fast than by them sitting there ignoring my gestures. Then in a seperate context taking me aside and showing me a hip bump in the midst of 1000 other things that would be going on. I could probably learn it in about 10 seconds or less and have a fairly good idea that I should shake my hips rather than extend my hand. Its amazing how learning encompasses both sides of the coin.

 

[Angelique]

I took a look at Culture Clash once, and couldn't stand to read much as I found her platform to be based on a very closed minded view with too many emotional references and misrepresentations of methods outside of her belief system. The "lemon brain" part was a clue along with the obvious lack of understanding of Cesar's philosophies.

I just find emotional verbage (something about "strangulation" sticks out in reference to choke chains), personal agendas, and the misrepresention of other methods too much of a turn off in several dog book authors' representations of what they believe.

I'm sure I'll get around to reading more of her work eventually, but there are far too many other authors (whom I respect) above her on my booklist who can represent their views without basing them on a platform of emotion, misrepresentation, and personal agendas.

Personal choice on my part.

 

[Doberluv]

It seems that even if I do reinforce good behaviour and once she already knows what behaviours I want (Ex) As a human I already understand that shaking hands is not how I greet someone), she will still push the envelope, hence why it appears being a good leader in this "seirous" 24/7 hardcore manner will never end with her. If that makes any sense.

There are things you're leaving out where it comes to learning behavior. There is more to it. There is schedules of reinforcement to consider. There is something which is making her "push the envelop"....making her not repeat the desired behavior on her own, consistantly. This is a common complaint about "posititve reinforcement." (I hate that term) Anyhow, you are not alone. People find out a few things about how to go about teaching or interacting with their dogs. But they haven't learned the whole story. I haven't learned the whole story either. It's often enough to get started, but sometimes something doesn't work because the method has holes it somewhere. If your dog is still attempting the undesirable behavior...or just about to, it means that NOT attempting the behavior has not worked well enough for her. The motivator and reinforcer may not have been consistant or ample. It takes many reps to condition a muscle. It takes many reps and reinforcers to condition a behavior. A reward is not necessarily a reinforcer. It must be something that the dog values more highly than the competing motivator. There has to be a sufficient history of reinforement, effective reinforcement. There are a number of facets; rewards, (number and type) motivators, timing, scedules of reinforcers. Again, I see what CM (for instance) calls leadership. He equates it with force and punishment. This is not in sync with interacting with dogs, our social bond with dogs OR training.

if I went there and they pushed my hand aside gave me a disapproving look and showed me the hip bump, i'd probably learn a heck of a lot fast than by them sitting there ignoring my gestures.

Learning fast is not all there is. What would you feel like if they rudely pushed your hand aside when you were just trying to be friendly? If a dog jumps on me, I don't feel like being rude and abrupt (well....sometimes I do. LOL). Besides, sometimes pushing the dog down is just attention, whether it's OK to the dog or unpleasant. It's attention. It doesn't give a dog much information to take in if he's busy thinking about your hands touching him. I think ignoring (not giving attention) to the dog when he jumps, but giving attention when he sits shows a dog what behavior to use. It's a little hard to compare exactly how we would feel as compared to how a dog would feel, having different brains. But, that's sort of my take on it anyhow. I see what you're saying too. It's Ok. But I think there's a better way.

 

[Doberluv]

I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing how one feels emotionally about something they consider morally wrong. Bashing included. Her methods are based on scientific learning and needless to say, I have respect for that. Lemon brains means the brain size. Their brains are about the size of a lemon and are rather smooth, like a lemon. This is biology, not an emotional bash. The fact that their brains, neuro-biology, chemistry, etc on how dogs think, behave and learn has been studied by experts, is her platform and so is it with many other modern day behaviorists.

 

[Roxy's CD]

And this is where the whole motivation factor comes in with Roxy.

Her wants do not involve, toys, treats and attention.

Her wants are barking and scaring off that man by the house. Making that person who smells funny and is sitting in her spot leave.

It's a cycle that brings me round and round.

To end the unwanted behaviours I need a motivator.

Verbal praise works sometimes, if it's something she likes. Food only works for certain aspects. Toys only work if she's in a playful mood etc.

There is no one motivator that can be used at all times with Roxy. She's so darned finicky!

 

[dr2little]

I took a look at Culture Clash once, and couldn't stand to read much as I found her platform to be based on a very closed minded view with too many emotional references and misrepresentations of methods outside of her belief system. The "lemon brain" part was a clue along with the obvious lack of understanding of Cesar's philosophies.

You took the "lemon Brain" part to be something it simply is not. It was as far fom an emotional reference, pure science based on anatomy..nothing more.
As far as Cesar's philosophy, what exactly IS his philosophy? He says one thing then does the complete opposite. As far as rehabilitation goes, he merely stifles behavior symptoms, he does nothing to address the route cause due to his glaring lack of understanding of canine body language or even the basics of animal behavior.

I just find emotional verbage (something about "strangulation" sticks out in reference to choke chains), personal agendas, and the misrepresention of other methods too much of a turn off in several dog book authors' representations of what they believe.

The fact is that strangulation is exactly what is happening in many episodes of Cesars show. I've seen countless episodes where I sit in absolute stunned amazement that owners don't intervene/flatten him for using such unnecessary force on their dogs.
As far as Jean's use of the word (strangulation), you may want to look into her many years of history...she used them too and regrets that she didn't try harder in her earlier years to use her brain instead of reaching for this lazy, not to mention dangerous alternative...these devices are not necassary.



I'm sure I'll get around to reading more of her work eventually, but there are far too many other authors (whom I respect) above her on my booklist who can represent their views without basing them on a platform of emotion, misrepresentation, and personal agendas.

Strange, so many educated people in the dog world find her books to be top shelf, maybe I'm missing something. There's a vast difference between Jeans first and second edition of Culture Clash, you may want to actually read them.

I'm amazed that someone using words like misrepresentation and personal agendas is actually a Cesar fan

 

[sam]

I took a look at Culture Clash once, and couldn't stand to read much as I found her platform to be based on a very closed minded view with too many emotional references and misrepresentations of methods outside of her belief system. The "lemon brain" part was a clue along with the obvious lack of understanding of Cesar's philosophies.

I just find emotional verbage (something about "strangulation" sticks out in reference to choke chains), personal agendas, and the misrepresention of other methods too much of a turn off in several dog book authors' representations of what they believe.

I'm sure I'll get around to reading more of her work eventually, but there are far too many other authors (whom I respect) above her on my booklist who can represent their views without basing them on a platform of emotion, misrepresentation, and personal agendas.

Personal choice on my part.

Culture Clash was written long before Cesar was on the scene well- he was probably still a groomer. I think Jean Donaldson (PhD) has a pretty complete understanding of dominance and pack theory. She's also well versed in credible wolf studies ie the ones done by people including David Mech.

In the new version of Culture Clash released last year she toned down alot of the vocabulary you're referring to. I've read both versions and I actually prefer the old version- it's more entertaining. She certainly does use inflammatory language and certainly does have an agenda and IMO it's a good one- to get people to stop blaming dogs for being dogs, stop anthropomorphising and learn better, more humane, more effective ways to train. A choke chain certainly does have the capacity to strangle and has done so to many dogs. I think she's spot on describing methods "using pain and/or startle". Sure she's dramatic, but she's 100% right and it helps make the point.
I'm not sure what you don't like about 'lemon brains'? Dogs do have smallish, lemon shaped, smooth brains which is important to know from a biologist, ethologist or dog trainer's point of view. They are amoral (not moral or immoral) and far too often we assume their motivations come from motivations that they don't have such as spite. I thought her explanation was excellent and her love of and respect for dogs is clear. I think that chapter is one of the most important ever written about dogs.
It's nice to think of our dogs in the Disney "little fur angels" or "furkids" sense but it does a great disservice to dogs . Dogs are DOGS and that's a good thing.
If you read the book or see one of her seminars it would be clear she adores dogs (which is probably why she is so vehement about the use of "strangle collars" in training, apart from the fact that punishment isn't particularly useful in training dogs) The best thing about Jean Donaldson is her call for science based dog training. Her book is not full of HER opinions it's born out of and substantiated by scientific studies which is what makes her so credible and why Culture Clash is on pretty much every modern dog trainer's book shelf.

 

[sam]

Dr2little - looks like we were posting at the same time. If I'd come along 5 mins later I wouldn't have needed to post!

 

[IliamnasQuest]

My thoughts as I read through the various posts:

I find behavior fascinating. I love watching dogs interact and often get together with other dog people in order to let the dogs loose to play and/or not play (depending on the dog .. *L*). I feel that the dogs are my teachers in much of what I do.

But when I read through the stuff here I find myself skimming over things. Yes, I've read the books and remember a point (more than a decade ago now) when I feverishly devoured everything I could find on behaviorism and dogs.

And then I tried to teach it to other people and found that the vast majority (VAST!!) don't give a crap about behaviorism overall. They don't want to have to think about what "positive punishment" means. To them, positive means "good" and negative means "bad". Yes, I can explain the terms as they apply to behaviorism, but then I'd see this glazed look in their eyes. They just don't care that much about the words. They want what works.

I see that in forums like this too. The terminology only serves to confuse the vast majority of people. Yes, there are a few who find it interesting but most just find it overwhelming. They just want easily understood terms and philosophies. They want simple instructions on how to get their dogs to do ______ (fill in with behavior of choice .. *L*).

Since "pack", "dominance", "leadership" are all going to continue to be used, I don't figure fighting it is going to make any difference. We're not going to stop the use of these words. But if we push people to stop using them and then try to use terms like "positive punishment" we are just going to end up with people walking away confused. And then these people will see someone like Millan, who simply forces the dogs into compliance, and Millan will look like someone easy to understand.

I will continue to use "family pack" as my term for the family group. I will continue to talk about leadership and rules for avoiding dominant behavior in dogs. These are terms that people are comfortable with, and I can change the way they think about these terms easier than I can teach the people the concepts of behaviorism.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[sam]

Since "pack", "dominance", "leadership" are all going to continue to be used, I don't figure fighting it is going to make any difference. We're not going to stop the use of these words. But if we push people to stop using them and then try to use terms like "positive punishment" we are just going to end up with people walking away confused. And then these people will see someone like Millan, who simply forces the dogs into compliance, and Millan will look like someone easy to understand.

I will continue to use "family pack" as my term for the family group. I will continue to talk about leadership and rules for avoiding dominant behavior in dogs. These are terms that people are comfortable with, and I can change the way they think about these terms easier than I can teach the people the concepts of behaviorism.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

I see your point and agree in large measure but

the problem I have with that is allowing people to believe that their dogs behavior comes from staus seeking or "dominance" when what they are is undertrained and undermotivated (and often understimulated and under exercised). I agree that joe-average dog owner has no need to hear all about operant conditioning and the technical terms that go with but I do think it's harmful to let people believe their dogs are blowing them off or trying to take over the pack when they are just undertrained. I don't find the words or concepts of dominance or pack necessary in dog training and I think perpetuating myth is detrimental to dogs. I also don't want people to think they need to act like a dog (alpha roll /jab at the neck etc) as Cesar suggests when he desribes 'diciplining a dog they way a dog would' -which is largely false anyway. I think people need to learn humane and effective ways to train their dogs and yes, trainers need to keep it short and sweet. I see peoples eyes glaze over sure, but I also see them light up when they see the progress in thier dogs and the improvement in the relationship.

 

[Doberluv]

Dr2little and Sam, I don't need to post. My tendonitis gets a break. Yeah! Your words are my words verbatim. "Play it again Sam!"

 

[IliamnasQuest]

I see your point and agree in large measure but

the problem I have with that is allowing people to believe that their dogs behavior comes from staus seeking or "dominance" when what they are is undertrained and undermotivated (and often understimulated and under exercised). I agree that joe-average dog owner has no need to hear all about operant conditioning and the technical terms that go with but I do think it's harmful to let people believe their dogs are blowing them off or trying to take over the pack when they are just undertrained. I don't find the words or concepts of dominance or pack necessary in dog training and I think perpetuating myth is detrimental to dogs. I also don't want people to think they need to act like a dog (alpha roll /jab at the neck etc) as Cesar suggests when he desribes 'diciplining a dog they way a dog would' -which is largely false anyway. I think people need to learn humane and effective ways to train their dogs and yes, trainers need to keep it short and sweet. I see peoples eyes glaze over sure, but I also see them light up when they see the progress in thier dogs and the improvement in the relationship.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just looking at it from a different angle, I think. I don't want people to think they need to act like a dog - but they certainly can't expect their dogs to think or act like humans, which is much more the problem with most people.

The reality is that there ARE dogs that have a more dominant personality than others (just like there are in people, as can easily be seen in this forum .. *L*). But these more dominant personalities can learn to act less dominant. While John Q Public may not be interested in the science of behaviorism, it doesn't mean that they're dumb. They can see that their dog is pushy and they can learn that they've allowed it to get worse. And then they can learn how to change those behaviors.

Leadership, to me, is an absolutely valuable concept when dealing with the public. It gets them out of the idea that they're mommy or daddy to little foo-foo, and makes them realize that they need to be aware of their actions and how they may be reinforcing poor behaviors in their dog. I don't have any problems with using the term "leader" to people. What I do, though, is pair the concept of being leader to reinforcing good (wanted) behaviors and using proper maintenance to avoid bad (unwanted) behaviors with their dogs. This is what a leader does. I don't encourage people to use force or corrections - I encourage them to be firm, however, and to not give in to those pleading brown eyes .. *L*

We're really not working that differently. I just don't find that the terminology is the problem. Worrying about that is useless to me, because I can't change everyone else out there using the same terminology. All I can do is take those terms and put a meaning to them that is useful, kind and effective for the typical dog owner who just wants a dog that does the basics and doesn't create huge problems.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska