This is kind of off topic, but Cesar reminds me of this . . .
My new puppy is going to be a working sheep dog. It's the general opinion of a lot of top sheepdog trainers and breeders that the "cold" way of training by shaping behaviors with food and then applying one specific cue to those behaviors will interfere with the dog's ability to think on its own. Sheepdog people want their dog to see what their
intentions for the dog are, rather than simply perform a trained behavior in response to a cue.
I resisted this for a long time. The training methods I’ve used, on my own dogs and a number of shelter dogs, work for me. I set the dog up for success, the dog succeeds, the dog learns. I didn't think that dogs had a very deep understanding of our intentions, but this example that Eve's breeder sent me really brought things into perspective for me:
The most striking example I can cite is Roy Johnson. A farmer and very successful trialer (when he can get away to do it) on both sheep and cattle, he is not what I would call a very good dog trainer. He knows stock and he connects emotionally very strongly with his dogs. To hear him say to his dog, "Sonny, over yonder." and then watch Sonny go to the perfect place to do the task, realizing that "over yonder" is a different place and direction each time Roy says it, is to understand what I'm trying to explain. But maybe just reading it will help. As an aside, Roy has no arms. They were cut off in a hay baler years ago. He truly needs and depends on his dogs to help him. Perhaps this strengthens the bond.
After a great deal of research and observation on this, I really can't say I believe that the behaviorism model (very little attention paid to the mental/emotional state of the individual) fits dogs to a "T". Some dogs, yes it does. But in the case of this breed, in working sheepdogs, there is a lot going on inside the minds of these animals that science cannot explain.
Anyway, I guess I apply all this to Cesar by observing that the people who raise sheepdogs to be beautifully behaved, extremely responsive, spirited freethinkers have a very natural approach to things. They do use corrections in daily life, they do give dogs a lot more credit for emotion, bonding and understanding than most behaviorists do, and they often are vague and demanding of their dogs. However, when a dog makes a mistake, it's just that - a mistake. If a dog has been conditioned to display aggressive behavior, if a dog pulls on the leash or jumps on people or shoves its way out the door, it is under trained - not
dominant.
This is where I feel that Cesar's "theory" falls completely apart and why I believe he hasn't a clue about dog behavior or how they learn. The man is so hung up on dominance that he makes dogs out to be overly ambitious creatures that will gladly take over our lives if given the chance. They really aren't power-hungry; they just do what works for them. Cesar certainly has some points about exercise, that dogs are dogs (not people), etc. However, I tend to disregard whatever he says and advise others to do so as well, because I feel that the entire basis of his theory is flawed.
Dogs can be trained to be beautifully behaved without the use of a clicker, treats, choke chains, "TSST" or, in Roy Johnson's case, arms. There is a very natural approach to raising, living and working with dogs that works off the bond and connection between the dog and handler . . . That, IMO, can be likened to true “whispering”, and it DOES work. Cesar is just a brute who pushes dogs around and interprets shutting down as compliance. He has no credbility whatsoever as far as I am concerned, and I would *love* to see a competing show with someone like Karon Pryor or Ian Dunbar who can teach pet owners how to have a well-behaved companion without coercing them into a confused stupor.