# the Dominance Myth - interview, Adam Miklosi, PhD



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

The Dominance Myth | Through a Dogs Eyes | PBS Video


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Shame Sleepybones post was deleted!

Total contrast with the rational reasoned explanation of the PBS programme clip, with an abusive attack on academic research scientists.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Total contrast with the rational reasoned explanation of the PBS programme clip,
> with an abusive attack on academic research scientists.


it's easily found - been posted on PF-uk a dozen times or more.  
Miklosi OTOH while well-known in academic circles, is not a household name. 
he & other researchers in the same school have done many recent cutting-edge experiments in dog cognition, 
sensory limits, and so on.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Oh I have it, if anyone should want to see what was withdrawn. Waste of time watching it though... unlike the PBS programme clip.

It's funny, some of the dog owners who tell me it's important to be "pack leader" actually abhor force, when I check what they mean after some humming and harrring hearing the PL bit. I think quite a bit of it, is people know what they're meant to say. A bit like, I saw rescues with Questionairres, where you get asked if "eating before the dog is important" or "going through a doorway" and I've though, well I know what answers they want to hear here...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Animal Behavior Resources Institute of American Humane Association - 
an interview and his professional bio, current interests, etc.

ABRI on-line [abrionline.org/ ] is an excellent resource.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> It's funny, some of the dog owners who tell me it's important to be "pack leader" actually abhor force,


Whats funny & why? and *what has being "pack leader" got to do with force*??? being pack leader has nothing to do with force, yet another non factual, fictitious myth being spread around for someones commercial purpose. Who are these mysterious millions of people no one seems to come across using force to become leaders of their packs? just another load of non-sense being passed around.

I don't train pet owners anymore, but everytime I have during >> _emphasis_ this decade the dog has been higher ranking in the family relationship than the owner, how does that equate with high a ranking (dominant) dog?? I'll answer it myself, it does not.

There are many dogs which are high ranking (dominant) within the species and between other dogs, a rare element of these might have a high fight drive, common amongst some breeds but generaly quite rare amongst dominance dogs in general.

The only people I have seen who seem to equate a dominant dog as being an aggressive dog are commercial positive trainers & academics who are alnost always tied up with some commercial aspect of dog training.

As far as this crap about 'dominance reduction' programms being sold to pet owners, that is something NEW (if it exists) & seems to be one of the ever new changing lables commercial behaviourtists and commercial positive trainers use to sell yet another gimmick to pet owners who know no better.

As far as dominant dogs with a high fighting drive goes heres one example but these dogs are rare here except those with from European imports or the imports themselves.

YouTube - police dog training. STRONG DOGS!!!

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Oh I have it, if anyone should want to see what was withdrawn. Waste of time watching it though


That video was not about the Bristol study, if you had watch it you would have understood that, it was about the media releases made by Bristol uni, it went for extreme tabloid headlines and never mentioned any of the study data, the video was critisisng Bristols media release method compared to the non publicity seeking study by Cordoba University, which studied 750 dogs from 5 Spanish cites and selected them at random.

Anyway you have to do a google search of 'dogs cordoba university' to see the comparisons, there is a link to a free download of the Cordoba study, you have to buy the Bristol study.

Google search. dogs Cordoba university

.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Whats funny & why? and *what has being "pack leader" got to do with force*??? being pack leader has nothing to do with force, yet another non factual, fictitious myth being spread around for someones commercial purpose


If you knew the history of the pack leader theory you'ld know people advocating forceful procedures such as "alpha rolling" (lying a dog on side) in order to assert dominance.

What is odd, is that someone saying it's important to be Pack Leader, is implying subcription to dominance theory, yet in practice, the people I talk to often are more in line with a benevolent positive leader role.

As you apparently withdraw your post and link, I was responding to lfl, who seems knowledgeable enough to not need explicit historical explanation of link between assertion of "pack leader" and forceful dog handling, she is very aware of it.

Actually I well remember Sleepy's misrepresentation of previous papers which was well exposed and similar video clips posted, so I do not require re-watching, they remain irrational, nonsensical, propoganda garbage.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> being pack leader has nothing to do with force, yet another non factual, fictitious myth being spread around for someones commercial purpose.


This I think we all agree on.



> I don't train pet owners anymore, but everytime I have during >> _emphasis_ this decade the dog has been higher ranking in the family relationship than the owner, how does that equate with high a ranking (dominant) dog?? I'll answer it myself, it does not.


What evidence is there to assume that dogs create a social structure with humans in a family? And what behaviours make them more high-ranking?



> There are many dogs which are high ranking (dominant) within the species and between other dogs, a rare element of these might have a high fight drive, common amongst some breeds but generaly quite rare amongst dominance dogs in general.


But dominance hierarchies are ones that are competed for, built over time of agonistic interactions. 	Dominance is an attribute of a pattern of repeated, agonistic interactions between two individuals, characterised by a consistent outcome in favour of the same dyad member and a default yielding response of its opponent rather than escalation (Drews, 1993: 283). In species that are unrelated and therefore need to compete to reproduce etc (like Impala in harems) dominance relationships can be formed, but since canines are social animals, dominance hierarchies seldom come into play, IMO.



> As far as dominant dogs with a high fighting drive goes heres one example but these dogs are rare here except those with from European imports or the imports themselves.
> 
> YouTube - police dog training. STRONG DOGS!!!


Again, what makes these dogs dominant? All I see is highly trained dogs that enjoy their work- they don't see it as aggressive or are angry, I don't think, more that this is what they are supposed to do to get their rewards.

.[/QUOTE]



SleepyBones said:


> compared to the non publicity seeking study by Cordoba University, which studied 750 dogs from 5 Spanish cites and selected them at random.
> 
> .


I read that study and replied to your previous post of it before the particular thread was removed, I think. From what I can remember the study didn't even talk about the notion of dominance more than once, relating to Cocker Spaniels or something. But nonetheless, it was very small and I can't see how it was related to the Bristol study.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> I read that study and replied to your previous post of it before the particular thread was removed, I think. From what I can remember the study didn't even talk about the notion of dominance more than once, relating to Cocker Spaniels or something. But nonetheless, it was very small and I can't see how it was related to the Bristol study.


You are correct and you found the original paper which bore no relationship to Sleep's linked to webpage which misrepresented their work and appeared to not understand the study or the scientific method.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> [re POLICE DOG Video '*strong dogs*']
> 
> Again, what makes these dogs dominant? All I see is highly trained dogs that enjoy their work- they don't see it
> as aggressive or are angry, I don't think, more that this is what they are supposed to do to get their rewards.


here is a collection of videos from a BSD-Tervuren who has earned her Schutz-II - 
obviously she must be a complete marshmallow, because HER training was done with rewards - 
no prongs, chokes, shock, or applied punishment. :thumbup1: Raika looks happy - and responsive.

YouTube - team raika, denise fenzi


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Seems like the judge may have OD-ed on the food rewards 



Rottiefan said:


> Again, what makes these dogs dominant? All I see is highly trained dogs that enjoy their work- they don't see it as aggressive or are angry, I don't think, more that this is what they are supposed to do to get their rewards


Actually they're being submissive, doing the grunt work. A Dominant dog would be sending in the armed & armoured cops to do the danger work, then just pounce at the last to snatch the glory!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Amazon.com: Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition (Oxford Biology) (9780199295852): Adam Miklosi: Books 


> ...the first book to collate and synthesise the recent burgeoning primary research literature on dog behaviour,
> evolution and cognition. The author presents a new ecological approach to the understanding of dog behaviour,
> demonstrating how dogs can be the subject of rigorous and productive scientific study without the need
> to confine them to a laboratory environment.
> ...


now that it's not $125, i am tempted to get a copy...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

(BEC) Adam Miklosi "Dog-Human Social Interaction: Old Wine in New Bottles?" - UCLA Department of Anthropology


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Miklósi Á[au] - PubMed result

most of these are abstracts, not full papers.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Why your dog is smarter than a wolf / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Miklosi and imitation » TheOtherEndoftheLeash


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Babies And Dogs Make The Same Classic Mistake | WBUR & NPR


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

familydogproject

This is a great link to his page at the University of Budapest. Loads of articles for free if you click on the relevant sections!

I didn't know he'd done so much. I have read quite a few of the articles he's written and looked at the book you posted above, Terry, but never actually knew it was him


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Dominance statement from US vet society here
http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/images/stories/Position_Statements/dominance statement.pdf
I was interested to see they quote `Yin` a lot
I`m assuming that is Dr whose site is here?
Dog Behavior | Dr. Sophia Yin, DVM, MS


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

ClaireandDaisy said:


> Dominance statement from US vet society here
> http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/images/stories/Position_Statements/dominance statement.pdf
> I was interested to see they quote `Yin` a lot
> I`m assuming that is Dr whose site is here?
> Dog Behavior | Dr. Sophia Yin, DVM, MS


Yep, that's the same Yin. Interestingly, she does advocate the use of the term 'dominance aggression', I think. To describe spoilt dogs who guard multiple resources in the home. Seems a little contradictory to me though...


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Interesting teaser extracts, thank you for posting them, Terry!



Rottiefan said:


> Yep, that's the same Yin. Interestingly, she does advocate the use of the term 'dominance aggression', I think. To describe spoilt dogs who guard multiple resources in the home. Seems a little contradictory to me though...


Perhaps if you view it like dominating centre on a chess board then there's no issue with the phrase. Then dominance aggression would be for dogs who say guard key point in house and don't let ppl pass, and the multiple resources that aren't theirs and they can't use.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Interesting teaser extracts, thank you for posting them, Terry!
> 
> Perhaps if you view it like dominating centre on a chess board then there's no issue with the phrase. Then dominance aggression would be for dogs who say guard key point in house and don't let ppl pass, and the multiple resources that aren't theirs and they can't use.


Well this is my biggest irk with 'dominance'- it's all semantics and there are number of different interpretations and meanings for the word. We can view it as simply meaning possessing control or command, or we can see it in its ethological context of hierarchies maintained by force/agonistic gestures and then further still by single dyads which could have dominance/subordinate roles between animals of _any_ rank, e.g. the lowest ranking chicken could be seen as having dominance over the highest ranking in some contexts, or the low-ranking bitch that keeps a bone away from the high-ranking dog in a pack etc.,

Very frustrating and is the main reason I find it so annoying at times.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> Yep, that's the same Yin. Interestingly, she does advocate the use of the term 'dominance aggression',
> I think. To describe spoilt dogs who guard multiple resources in the home. Seems a little contradictory to me though...


'dominance aggro' as a descriptor has largely been replaced by 'owner-directed' [aimed at the owner by the dog] 
or 'conflict-aggro' [the dog is highly conflicted & bites due to extreme stress].

'owner-directed' happens around events like attempting to drag the dog off the bed or sofa for the umpteenth time, 
which is why it arises so often in the home & is rarely seen toward ppl the dog has no past history with - i can meet 
a dog who's bitten the owner, who needed stitches, yet s/he will comply with my cues without hesitation. 
_*anybody other than the owner or housemate will do, who is clear & polite about what they want - *_ 
these dogs do not 'want' conflict, they are often untrained or have been coerced their lives long, without being 
consistently told what to do or when to do it; they're sick of being hassled & have no idea what's right, since the rules 
often change & they are constantly on defense.

'*conflict-aggro*' is pretty self-explanatory - it can be directed at anyone, but is generally again mostly 
within the household. Major stresses arise at the same time, the dog is often being hustled or forced into some action, 
& bites - or air-snaps or lunges or snarks or _____ . 
conflict-aggro is a learned behavior, not an instinctive one: the dog has learns aggro works. It can STOP 
certain activities (petting, brushing, moving the dog, pulling tangles, clipping claws, etc) by housemates 
or it can GET specific resources (food, a resting area, etc).

*Punishment* creates the *conflict* - the dog grows anxious & uncertain how encounters will turn-out. 
sometimes the dog gets attn & sometimes, s/he is punished. 
this inconsistency makes it far-worse; consistency in interactions means the dog can relax. 
punishment can give us humans temporary control, but generally increases aggro. better ways include rewards 
for co-operation, teaching desired behavior, using NILIF to give the dog structure, walk away when conflict 
seems inevitable, ignore pesky demands & reward peaceful absorption [the dog lies on their bed & chews a toy; 
say their Sacred name, toss a small treat to land where the dog can reach it without getting up.]


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> ...its ethological context [is] hierarchies maintained by force/agonistic gestures and then
> further still by single dyads which could have dominance/subordinate roles between animals of _any_ rank,
> e.g, the lowest ranking chicken could be seen as having dominance over the highest ranking in some contexts,
> or the *low-ranking bitch that keeps a bone away from the high-ranking dog in a pack* etc...


i don't think dogs form packs except when they have a shared goal - like Beagles on a bunny's trail, or similar. 
when the goal is achieved or the shared behavior ends, the temporary 'pack' evaporates. 
dogs in a dog-park who pile into a 2-dog fight are not a 'pack' at all, that's a mob - like mob-violence in humans. 
these dogs often don't know one another well-enuf to be any sort of pack at all, they don't live together - a crisis 
with all these dogs, many excited by the presence of other dogs, & they are aroused to actions they normally 
would never think of, like seriously attacking a screaming dog who has been badly-bitten by another. 
it's what mobs do... egg one another into inconceivable behavior, like lynching, arson & looting.

chickens do have a hierarchy, but it is not as simple as it was once thought to be; take the #3 hen out of the flock, 
put her in another flock, she may be #1 there - or #6 or 10; put her back in the home flock, even a day later, 
and she may be #1 or #8, who knows? her former rank is negotiable.

as far as food or valued items like bones, *dog-law is that possession is 99.99% of the law.* 
it's why dogs are so confused when we are p*ssed-off at them for chewing the remote - after all, we are not 
USING it when the dog is chewing it, what's the problem?... dogs do not "get" property rights that persist.

for them, if no-one has it now, it's up for grabs - which is why it is OUR FAULT if we leave the bagel & lox 
on the coffee-table to answer the phone or the door - take it along, or put it in an inaccessible place.

it's also why a puppy can defend a bone from the biggest dog in the household; only a bully will take 
from another dog what is obviously *theirs - * altho guile is not unknown, a dog who races to the door 
barking madly at an imaginary intruder, then slips back & takes the abandoned bone to their own bed, 
is underhanded, but not a bully.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> i don't think dogs form packs except when they have a shared goal - like Beagles on a bunny's trail, or similar.
> when the goal is achieved or the shared behavior ends, the temporary 'pack' evaporates.
> dogs in a dog-park who pile into a 2-dog fight are not a 'pack' at all, that's a mob - like mob-violence in humans.
> these dogs often don't know one another well-enuf to be any sort of pack at all, they don't live together - a crisis
> ...


Totally agree. My example of dog packs was regarding the studies, like those conducted by Beach and Dunbar, who had large groups of domestic dogs which formed a group over a long time.

I too don't think dogs form 'packs'- just temporary aggregations where relationships are built on prior knowledge of 1) specific breed/sizes of dogs and 2) prior knowledge of specific dogs that they meet. But as soon as the encounter has finished, so has any structure that came with it, if any.

Dominance is so dynamic and, like you say, a high-ranking animal in a linear dominance hierarchy may not be in the same position if taken out and put in another, separate group.

It was nice to read recently in a textbook on animal behaviour a specific note about dog-dog structures and even dog-human structures under the concept of dominance hierarchies. It focused on saying that dog-human structures are highly superficial and purely a human construct, illustrating how dogs do not view us as fellow pack members. I always think it's a huge underestimation of a dog's intelligence to say they see us as a dog! The day I see a dog mistaking a predator for a pack member will be a funny one...but alas I don't think it's likely. 

The Resource Holding Potential was discussed in the animal behaviour textbook too, like Dr Bradshaw et al (2009) wrote about, in relation to dog-dog social structures, which I take you are referring to here Terry:



> as far as food or valued items like bones, *dog-law is that possession is 99.99% of the law.*
> it's why dogs are so confused when we are p*ssed-off at them for chewing the remote - after all, we are not
> USING it when the dog is chewing it, what's the problem?... dogs do not "get" property rights that persist.
> 
> ...


Resources are governed very much by who has what, who cares for what and when that item has been relinquished there's nothing stopping a 'subordinate' animal nicking it!


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> Resources are governed very much by who has what, who cares for what, and when that item has been relinquished
> there's nothing [to stop] a 'subordinate' animal nicking it!


yes - and the Who Cares factor is a big-one in dogs, *differential allocation of resources* is a favorite 
in domestic-dogs, they use it often: one dog loves bones, another adores a particular rubber-ball - 
the dog who loves the rubber-ball can be called off a bone by hearing it bounce in the next room, 
the dog who loves bones could care less.

each of them when they share the same household, or encounter one another on the beach, will quickly realize 
if they come across a bone or that particular rubber-ball, *which of them cares deeply-enuf to argue over what,* 
and in just a few moments the other will decide if they really want the item & want to argue, or simply defer.

*deference* among dogs runs encounters or relationships, far more often than genuine dominance; 
dumbinance is the human labeling of non-dominant behaviors incorrectly, like running out the door ahead of us, 
pulling on a leash [the dog wants to GET THERE & we move our human-butts way too slow!...], 
and similar simple behaviors that have zip to do with either resources OR status.

humans are nutz about status; so long as they are cared for & get some fun in their lives - exercise, social time, etc - 
dogs could give a hang about status re humans; most dogs cannot give a hoot about status re dogs! 
a bitch in heat or a bone at large are resources, neither more nor less.

_'them what has it, keeps it; them what wants it, gets it.' _ 
that pretty much sums-up dog law; there are exceptions, but few.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

humans are nutz about status; so long as they are cared for & get some fun in their lives - exercise, social time, etc - 
dogs could give a hang about status re humans; most dogs cannot give a hoot about status re dogs! 
a bitch in heat or a bone at large are resources, neither more nor less.

_'them what has it, keeps it; them what wants it, gets it.' _ 
that pretty much sums-up dog law; there are exceptions, but few.[/QUOTE]

What's your position on 'status-seeking' dogs, Terry? I've heard Patricia McConnell talk about status-seeking dogs and behaviours but I have yet to really believe in it. If there is status in dogs, I personally don't think dogs _*care*_ about it at all, and that's if they even know about it.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> What's your position on 'status-seeking' dogs, Terry? I've heard Patricia McConnell talk about status-seeking dogs
> and behaviours but I have yet to really believe in it. If there is status in dogs, I personally don't think dogs
> _*care*_ about it at all, and that's if they even know about it.


i'm not sure it exists, & if it does, it is so doggone rare that the chances of encountering such a dog are a bit like 
being struck by lightning while on one's cell-phone - it might happen, but rarely under a blue sky! 

i think the easiest way to avoid even the potential for such conflict is to make ourselves relevant & valuable: 
teach the dog that making us happy is the Key to the Treasure Chest! :thumbup: they can have anything, 
simply by making the human happy - co-operation equals huge rewards, day in & day out. 
and the rewards obviously are real-life rewards: the door opens for the walk, the meal arrives when the dog sits, 
the tug-game comes AFTER the recall...


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

I got my hands on a bootleg copy of Pattison's e-book, he misquotes and misrepresents Miklosi's several times in support of his view that dogs are dominant and dominance is - and I quote - "is the number one cause of the many dog problem behaviours" According to Pattison's take on Miklosi's work. Yeah, Pattiwack knows better than Miklosi


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Human kind have a track record of their beliefs only dying out with them, new schools of thought become orthodoxy as old school age.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

What is it with you guys - semantics, wordiness and holier than thou. Some of your posts would scare the hell out of 'normal' pet owners who worry enough about whether they are doing the right thing for their little beloved.

If you were to surmise the posts, not just here but across the forum, it would read as

Dominance doesn't exist in dog world - *in the wild somebody has to take the lead, dogs don't do by committee*
Dogs don't form packs - *and cows don't form herds nor crows commit murder - we name them as such and that's what*
Train a dog with rewards only - *so what will the dog do when the rewards aren't forthcoming*
Dogs don't need discipline - *discipline gives structure, structure gives direction and direction gives purpose to being*
Discipline is a dirty word - *only because you say so, what's in a word apart from your perception of the interpretation*

Don't know why, but this thread has got my goat, and they live in a structured herd/tribe or trip.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> What is it with you guys - semantics, wordiness and holier than thou. Some of your posts would scare the hell out of 'normal' pet owners who worry enough about whether they are doing the right thing for their little beloved.
> 
> Don't know why, but this thread has got my goat, and they live in a structured herd/tribe or trip.


This is a _real_ topic, in the _real_ world of animal behaviour, I'm afraid. Not something we've all just made up. And since this is a 'Dog Training and Behaviour' section of a forum and this is a _relevant_ and _contemporary_ issue in dog training (with Cesar and the average owner falling into the pit fall of believing they need to act like a 'dog' or 'wolf', but do so in a way that has no relevance to what dogs and wolves actually do), I feel well within my right to talk about this issue. I'm sorry if it's too heavy for you, but there's nothing saying we can't start threads about complex issues, is there?



> Dominance doesn't exist in dog world - *in the wild somebody has to take the lead, dogs don't do by committee*


Of course they do. But that doesn't mean it has to be a dominance hierarchy. In fact, dominance hierarchies are nothing to do with leading- they are to do with controlling resources.



> Dogs don't form packs - *and cows don't form herds nor crows commit murder - we name them as such and that's what*


I think this is a very interesting issue at the moment. Domestic dogs are very different to wild canids so a large group of them behave very differently, so it would be nice to have a new term. Furthermore, for domestic dogs to constitute a pack there would have to a large group- not you average human family and 2 dogs.



> Train a dog with rewards only - *so what will the dog do when the rewards aren't forthcoming*


Do we really need to discuss this? There's loads of info on this forum, all positive rewards based. Rewarding good behaviour and making sure undesirable behaviours are not overly rewarding or rewarding at all is tried and tested and gets results. Punishment is always used in some form or other in training, it's learning how to use that counts.



> Dogs don't need discipline - *discipline gives structure, structure gives direction and direction gives purpose to being*


It depends what you mean by discipline. If you mean having a daily structure, teaching your dog good manners which they can use in relevant contexts, sure. But if you mean having a firm ('but fair') hand and punishing dogs for bad behaviours when they haven't been taught any different, then no, I don't see this kind of discipline as good.



> Discipline is a dirty word - *only because you say so, what's in a word apart from your perception of the interpretation*


Who said discipline is a dirty word? Discipline, punishment, rewards...they could all be dirty words if used and applied incorrectly. It's how they are applied that counts.

I have liked this thread. If you look at some of the links there's some great information for everyone to read through if they like.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> This is a _real_ topic, in the _real_ world of animal behaviour, I'm afraid. Not something we've all just made up. And since this is a 'Dog Training and Behaviour' section of a forum and this is a _relevant_ and _contemporary_ issue in dog training (with Cesar and the average owner falling into the pit fall of believing they need to act like a 'dog' or 'wolf', but do so in a way that has no relevance to what dogs and wolves actually do), I feel well within my right to talk about this issue. I'm sorry if it's too heavy for you, but there's nothing saying we can't start threads about complex issues, is there?


Never said it was too heavy/above my intelligence level, just it *may* frighten off the weaker readers. I equally feel within my right to comment against what others have posted, and no nothing to stop you posting complex threads, even if it's the usual suspect doing so, as before - it's frightens the horses.



Rottiefan said:


> Of course they do. But that doesn't mean it has to be a dominance hierarchy. In fact, dominance hierarchies are nothing to do with leading- they are to do with controlling resources.


Agree in the human world, not in the animal world - generally



Rottiefan said:


> I think this is a very interesting issue at the moment.


 Absolutely



Rottiefan said:


> Domestic dogs are very different to wild canids so a large group of them behave very differently, so it would be nice to have a new term. Furthermore, for domestic dogs to constitute a pack there would have to a large group- not you average human family and 2 dogs.


Not in the dictionary and wiki references and until the Oxford Dictionary accepts a change, nothing will change across the board.



Rottiefan said:


> Do we really need to discuss this? There's loads of info on this forum, all positive rewards based. Rewarding good behaviour and making sure undesirable behaviours are not overly rewarding or rewarding at all is tried and tested and gets results. Punishment is always used in some form or other in training, it's learning how to use that counts.


Yes - but there's not much info to support those where positive rewarding is working.



Rottiefan said:


> It depends what you mean by discipline. If you mean having a daily structure, teaching your dog good manners which they can use in relevant contexts, sure. But if you mean having a firm ('but fair') hand


Yes - but 'firm and fair' is open to interpretation - again it's perception of the application of the firm but fair that gets people in a tizz.



Rottiefan said:


> and punishing dogs for bad behaviours when they haven't been taught any different, then no, I don't see this kind of discipline as good.


Neither do I



Rottiefan said:


> Who said discipline is a dirty word? Discipline, punishment, rewards...they could all be dirty words if used and applied incorrectly. It's how they are applied that counts.


Which is what I'm inferring. My application of *discipline* will be different to yours, but I won't be beating my dogs into submission. Discipline for me is providing structure, which others see as 'boundaries, rules and limitations' - he may speak non popular phrases but CM reflects a lot of the habits I practise. Somebody from outside may say that I don't practise the same way as CM but I sure as hell like the 'language and vocabulary' used by him, but I'm not a slave to his methodology. It's my linguistic interpretation of his words that resonates with me - I get it, but I don't alpha roll my dogs nor use prong collars nor expect a cowering dog to defer to my glance or 'sssht' or 'click fingers' for the same things as he does. I did it before I became aware that was his trademark. My 'ssssht' snaps the dog out of whatever his current frame of mind is, my click of the fingers means the same but in context is usually 'return to my side you gone too far ahead' - a bugger for setters who 'have' to be in front, always!

I like positive training, my husband doesn't practise this and the response he gets from the dogs is different to myself - they only have 'eyes' for him if there are both of us in the room. He primarily ignores them at work and physically b******s them when behaviour warrants it, they both know 'don't mess with him', he means what he says, so does it get results? Long ago he did attend dog training classes when I couldn't, he took my older dog to the KC Gold Good Citizens award assessment, he listens to what I tell him (sometimes, he is after all married to me!). 
He would argue that he practices discipline with the dogs and I train them. When they are put away in the kitchen during the evening he sees that as discipline, I see it as structure to our group/pack/family - whos' right or wrong?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> What is it with you guys - semantics, wordiness and holier than thou. Some of your posts would scare the hell out of 'normal' pet owners who worry enough about whether they are doing the right thing for their little beloved


So you saying that people interested in a higher level discussion should not disucss things in a "Dog training and behaviour" forum, but simply put loads of hours in answering mostly repetitive questions by ordinary pet owners who don't care to use the "search" facility or read stickys?

I really don't follow your point of view at all. You don't lose anything if other people discuss things that don't interest you, and if you tried to make a real positive explanatory contribution to this thread, you'ld see what care and thought is needed to express ideas clearly.

Just to pick out 1 post, which I found interesting and insightful; that would not have occured in a normal thread Terry on owner-directed or conflict-aggro [replaces former 'dominance-aggro']


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Never said it was too heavy/above my intelligence level, just it *may* frighten off the weaker readers. I equally feel within my right to comment against what others have posted, and no nothing to stop you posting complex threads, even if it's the usual suspect doing so, as before - it's frightens the horses.


Whilst you are welcome to contribute all you want, with or without contrasting view points, it's not good etiquette to have a go at us for talking about an interesting and relevant issue. Sorry, but your initial post very stroppy and was unwarranted.



> Agree in the human world, not in the animal world - generally


Some animals form dominance hierarchies, true. But dogs are not a good example of this and there are many instances that let this theory down in relation to wild canids. And even more in relation to domestic dogs.



> Not in the dictionary and wiki references and until the Oxford Dictionary accepts a change, nothing will change across the board.


True but 'pack' is already not being used by many professionals and scholars. Maybe it'll never change, but I rather not use it as it infers pack theory and therefore competition between dog and owner.



> Which is what I'm inferring. My application of *discipline* will be different to yours, but I won't be beating my dogs into submission. Discipline for me is providing structure, which others see as 'boundaries, rules and limitations' - he may speak non popular phrases but CM reflects a lot of the habits I practise. Somebody from outside may say that I don't practise the same way as CM but I sure as hell like the 'language and vocabulary' used by him, but I'm not a slave to his methodology. It's my linguistic interpretation of his words that resonates with me - I get it, but I don't alpha roll my dogs nor use prong collars nor expect a cowering dog to defer to my glance or 'sssht' or 'click fingers' for the same things as he does. I did it before I became aware that was his trademark. My 'ssssht' snaps the dog out of whatever his current frame of mind is, my click of the fingers means the same but in context is usually 'return to my side you gone too far ahead' - a bugger for setters who 'have' to be in front, always!


95% of what Cesar says it generally smokes and mirrors and very old. However, he does say some good things, e.g. Pit Bulls, Rotties etc., are not bad dogs under responsible ownership, dogs need affection at the right time, dogs need exercise. Where it lets him down is how he _performs_ and applies these philosophies. Using a 'shhht' may 'work' in the sense that it confuses the dog and stops them during a behaviour, but it's hardly a behaviour modification programme!



> I like positive training, my husband doesn't practise this and the response he gets from the dogs is different to myself - *they only have 'eyes' for him if there are both of us in the room. He primarily ignores them at work and physically b******s them when behaviour warrants it, they both know 'don't mess with him', he means what he says, so does it get results?* ...
> He would argue that he practices discipline with the dogs and I train them. When they are put away in the kitchen during the evening he sees that as discipline, I see it as structure to our group/pack/family - whos' right or wrong?


Dogs see _safe_ and _dangerous_, IMO. They may well have eyes for him and listen to him more- not because of his 'dominating' position in the 'pack' but through classical conditioning- when he's in the room, they may feel a little more on edge and expect some sort of command from him, which makes them look at him. Personally, it's not the way I train or would advise anyone to train. Results depend on many things. If I can train in a way that a dog will do the behaviours on command for any person- more or less- then it's a good deal. If dogs stop doing behaviours just because a particular person is around, that shouts to me that there's a history of positive punishment there.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> just it *may* frighten off the weaker readers. I equally feel within my right to comment against what others have posted, and no nothing to stop you posting complex threads, even if it's the usual suspect doing so, as before - it's frightens the horses


*Patronising, elitist or what???!!!!*


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

All of the above - but not necessarily me :nono: doing it


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

RobD-BCactive said:


> *Patronising, elitist or what???!!!!*





Irish Setter Gal said:


> All of the above - but not necessarily me :nono: doing it


I have to say, if there was ever a moment to talk about interpreting something incorrectly, calling other members 'weaker' would have to take the biscuit on this thread! 

And, Irish Setter Gal, I don't think we're doing it either. Why is having a discussion about 'dominance' about how it is used ethologically patronising, elitist or what ever else?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Ooh the poor dears, we'll dumb things down so noone finds themselves challenged by difficult words or concepts then 

PS. Sorry concept was a bit OTT, I meant idea!

I think I'll postpone the "Dumbinance" post till late on christmas, when everyone's had a nice calming sherry and mince pie so they won't worry.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> Whilst you are welcome to contribute all you want, with or without contrasting view points, it's not good etiquette to have a go at us for talking about an interesting and relevant issue. Sorry, but your initial post very stroppy and was unwarranted.


Couldn't agree more - which is why I've done it - I perceive others to receive this type of treatment from a small 'knowledgeable' collective who take challenge as a bear baiting exercise - giving as good as is given 



Rottiefan said:


> 95% of what Cesar says it generally smokes and mirrors ... snip ...Using a 'shhht' may 'work' in the sense that it confuses the dog and stops them during a behaviour, but it's hardly a behaviour modification programme!


Never said it was a modification programme - it is a distraction noise (VS uses it a lot but usually 'squeals/squeaks' , doesn't confuse my dogs!



Rottiefan said:


> Dogs see _safe_ and _dangerous_, IMO. They may well have eyes for him and listen to him more- not because of his 'dominating' position in the 'pack' but through classical conditioning- when he's in the room, they may feel a little more on edge


Never on edge, looks more like 'what can I do for you?'



Rottiefan said:


> Personally, it's not the way I train or would advise anyone to train. Results depend on many things.


You and me both - but we have to accept the things we can't change and change the things we can.



Rottiefan said:


> If dogs stop doing behaviours just because a particular person is around, that shouts to me that there's a history of positive punishment there.


And the point being - as I said earlier, the job gets done, not the way I'd like it - but who's right or wrong?


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Ooh the poor dears, we'll dumb things down so noone finds themselves challenged by difficult words or concepts then
> 
> PS. Sorry concept was a bit OTT, I meant idea!
> 
> I think I'll postpone the "Dumbinance" post till late on christmas, when everyone's had a nice calming sherry and mince pie so they won't worry.


Who's patronising now?


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Couldn't agree more - which is why I've done it - I perceive others to receive this type of treatment from a small 'knowledgeable' collective who take challenge as a bear baiting exercise - giving as good as is given


That's where you're dead wrong. The people you view as "small collective" actually enjoy an honest rational debate. What they don't like is misleading and time wasting pastiches on scientific papers, dishonest views, selective comparisons and personal attacks employed by self proclaimed experts.

If someone actually asks good questions, shows thirst for mor knowledge and genuine inquiry; they're if anything overwhelmed with helpful information in response.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Couldn't agree more - which is why I've done it - I perceive others to receive this type of treatment from a small 'knowledgeable' collective who take challenge as a bear baiting exercise - giving as good as is given


Sorry, still don't follow you. Point me in the direction of one post that I have came across condescending. I don't aim to. I take criticism on the chin and have said sorry, conceded what I said was wrong a number of times. I'm not here for conflict. If you want to give as good as is given, treat me with respect as this is how I treat everyone else on here.



> And the point being - as I said earlier, the job gets done, not the way I'd like it - but who's right or wrong?


IMO, you're right and he's wrong. We all know we can have dogs looking at us intently and 'for direction' using positive reward methods, without the need for any intimidation or physical/OTT discipline. The job may get done, but to what extent? A dog that is choked for acting aggressively may stop the behaviour- is that getting the job done? Is that all that matters?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

http://tinyurl.com/3tmy22v 
_"Dominance, Alpha & Pack Leadership: What does it really mean?"_ 


> _...the... longstanding theory which maintained that alpha wolves control through aggression & relentless management
> is more myth than fact: These theories have been refuted by wolf biologists and if this theory is no longer considered
> true for wolves, then how can it be considered true for our dogs? New research on canine learning patterns indicates dogs
> understand us far better than we understand them.
> ...


note that 2 of the 3 references cited on this vet-reference are _'Miklosi, et al'._ :001_smile:


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Not in the dictionary and wiki references and until the Oxford Dictionary accepts a change, nothing will change across the board.


This is the self imposed, active ignorance that I find so trying. The absolute refusal to adopt the language used in dog training and referring to OED as if had anything of value in the subject. A Vector is something very different whether you are a physicist or a virologist. RISC can mean RNA Induced Silencing Complex or Reduced Instruction Set Computing.

Each discipline has it's own language and more often than not it simply adopts common words to describe technical aspects that are only marginally related to the lay definition. The refusal of some people to learn this language and then compound that by going to the lay definition to defend their views is intellectually offensive.

IOW learn what PACK means in this context!!!


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> I like positive training, my husband doesn't practise this and the response he gets from the dogs is different to myself - they only have 'eyes' for him if there are both of us in the room.


If I was in a room with a person who rewards me and one who beats me, I too keep my eyes focused on the one who beats me.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

Corinthian said:


> This is the self imposed, active ignorance that I find so trying. The absolute refusal to adopt the language used in dog training and referring to OED as if had anything of value in the subject. A Vector is something very different whether you are a physicist or a virologist. RISC can mean RNA Induced Silencing Complex or Reduced Instruction Set Computing.
> 
> Each discipline has it's own language and more often than not it simply adopts common words to describe technical aspects that are only marginally related to the lay definition. The refusal of some people to learn this language and then compound that by going to the lay definition to defend their views is intellectually offensive.
> 
> IOW learn what PACK means in this context!!!


Sigh. Another thread derailed by LFL's playground bullies. Can anyone join this debate or is it for the exclusive few. You guy's really do have a strange way of taking the opportunity to educate people. Please read everything we say, be bemused by our intellectual intelligence regarding dog behaviour, but don't butt in, or offer up a question or even talk to us in a "of the people" language or even dread of all dreads offer an opposite opinion.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> like positive training, my husband doesn't practise this and the response he gets from the dogs is different to myself - they only have 'eyes' for him if there are both of us in the room.





> If I was in a room with a person who rewards me and one who beats me, I too keep my eyes focused on the one who beats me


What does OT beat him with Irish Setter Gal? sticks? boot in maybe? or just wack him with a fist?

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> If dogs stop doing behaviours just because a particular person is around, that shouts to me that there's a history of positive punishment there


& you attempt use negative punishments, so whats the difference with the outcome? they both suppress behaviours, they dont generate them under all circumstances and situations

.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> What does OT beat him with Irish Setter Gal? sticks? boot in maybe? or just wack him with a fist?
> 
> .


You been on the pop?

If I said he 'beats' him, _which I don't recall mentioning_, with his tone of voice you wouldn't believe me, so I'll say he beats him an ecollar attached to the end of cat'o'nine tails and have be done with it.

Corinthian : What's IOW - my book it stands for the beautiful Isle of Wight :glare:


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> you attempt use negative punishments, so whats the difference with the outcome? they both suppress behaviours, they dont generate them under all circumstances and situations


As explained many times before, positive-punishment, requires sufficient intensity, timing and proportionality to be effective; tough to get right, so leading to "set up" situations ie traps, to punish the dog. AVSAB position statement explains what's wrong with positive punishment.

Negative-punishment, simply means withdrawing/witholding something from the environment, which in future reduces the liklihood of a behaviour, another desirable behaviour is postively-reinforced. That is not suppression.

This means the dog succeeds and is thus calmer having discovered how to be rewarded and improve it's situation. R+/P- dogs enjoy training sessions and actually volunteer for duty. There is according to AVSAB/KC etc not similar risk of causing behavioural problems accidentally by doing rewards based training.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> *Negative-punishment* simply means withdraw or withhold something [desirable],
> which [will] reduce the likelihood of [an unwanted] behaviour, [so that a preferable] behaviour is positively-reinforced.
> That is not suppression.


yes :001_smile: the dog jumps-up, i turn away; the puppy mouths, i end the game. 


RobD-BCactive said:


> ...the dog succeeds and is thus calmer having discovered how to be rewarded & improve [her/his] situation.
> R+/P- dogs enjoy training sessions and actually volunteer for duty. There is according to AVSAB/KC, etc, not similar risk
> of causing behavioural problems accidentally by doing rewards based training.


i LOVE seeing a dog who is thrilled to start a training session, enjoys their lessons & gets to have a richer life; 
dogs who can't behave well in public stay home a lot more, which is a real pity.

and yes, pos-P is a lot more challenging; timing is pickier, intensity varies enormously, & Pavlov is always lurking - 
the dog can associate the punishment with the trainer, the setting, the training process, random superstitions...


----------



## LuvMyDog_Worldwide (Apr 1, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That's where you're dead wrong. The people you view as "small collective" actually enjoy an honest rational debate.


Really? So not bullying tactics and behind the scenes manipulation to target posters you simply can't deal with? Why you stereotype others views to being inhumane and dangerous while ignoring the obvious flaws in your recommended methods? Why you fail to address shortfalls in your methods by constantly changing the subject? Why you're incapable of objective research? Why you set a double standard and are in denial that you do it? Why you rely on unsubstantiated emotive posts when you're stuck for a reasoned reply?

That seems honest and rational, if you have an agenda to margionalise the boards and set one single acceptable view. The worrying thing Rob is that you believe it.

regards,

Austin


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Quick-view of a pdf-file 
Powered by Google Docs

_'Social behaviour of dogs encountering AIBO, 
an animal-like robot, in a neutral & in a feeding situation'_


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

grandad said:


> Sigh. Another thread derailed by LFL's playground bullies. *Can anyone join this debate or is it for the exclusive few. You guy's really do have a strange way of taking the opportunity to educate people. Please read everything we say, be bemused by our intellectual intelligence regarding dog behaviour, but don't butt in, or offer up a question or even talk to us in a "of the people" language or even dread of all dreads offer an opposite opinion.*


Anyone can join this thread. They can ask questions, they can ask what the f*** it is we're referring to, _*but what I don't get is people having a dig at us for discussing a hugely relevant topic, one that many scientists have researched and wrote up in published journals.*_

I'm sorry, but I don't see why we're getting balked on for discussing the misuse of the term 'dominance'. It is a real term in animal behaviour but is hugely misinterpreted and misapplied in dog behaviour. It is the misinterpretation and misapplication of 'dominance' that we are discussing here.

I don't mind people discussing. *Terry's first post was of a video *, so it wasn't like this thread began as a 'NO ENTRY' thread. It just naturally got onto the more complex parts of dominance as used in ethology.

Leashedforlife, RobD-Bactive and me (and whoever else are seen as a clique) offer help to a wide range of problems on this forum. We do not just sit here and discuss things that others may find less interesting and more scientific. I take it as great offense to read something like your post, Grandad, as all I have ever tried to do on here is help people, full stop.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> & you attempt use negative punishments, so whats the difference with the outcome? they both suppress behaviours, they dont generate them under all circumstances and situations
> 
> .


Negative punishment is not as severe as positive punishment. It ceases to make a behaviour self-rewarding. Positive punishment makes carrying out a behaviour painful and scary.

So, if we use negative punishment, a dog learns that they are not getting what they want from doing a behaviour. Paired with positive reinforcement of desirable behaviour, the dog learns what it should be doing instead.

Positive punishment teaches a dog that doing a behaviour is unsafe and sometimes downright terrifying. Who wants to train in this way? And if you can't see the difference between beating a dog and ignoring a dog, SleepyBones, then it's not even worth discussing the issue with you.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Powered by Google Docs



> Understanding Canine Behavior
> 
> Primary Textbook:
> Canine Behavior: A Photo Illustrated Handbook, by Barbara Handelman, M.Ed, CDBC;
> ...


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

_'*People and Their Pets*: A Relational Perspective on Interpersonal Complementarity 
& Attachment in Companion Animal Owners'_ 


> The current study evaluated the interpersonal circumplex as a theoretical model of companion-animal
> personality & companion animal attachment. To this end, the study surveyed 266 companion-animal guardians
> (owners) - 89 reporting their most recent pet a cat & 177 reporting their most recent pet a dog - to assess
> the relationships between interpersonal complementarity & companion animal attachment.
> ...


also, quote, 
_"Various research studies support the premise that attachment occurs in dogs (Gacsi, Topal, *Miklosi*, Doka, 
& Csanyi, 2001; Prato-Previde, Custance, Spiezio, & Sabatini, 2003; Topal, *Miklosi*, Csanyi, & Doka, 1998), 
primates (Novak, & Harlow, 1975), and humans (Bretherton, 1992; Thompson, 1991)."_

we get attached; they get attached. Why not take advantage of this, build a great relationship of trust & fun, 
and toss dumbinance in the trash? Not only do we not need it - it gets in the way, damages trust, slows learning, 
and adds stress. Dump it. :thumbup1:


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> If I said he 'beats' him, which I don't recall mentioning


,

Oh I did not see you say that, I saw Corinthian write it, as far as I am concerned what Corinthian writes is fact on tablets of stone material, I just wanted clarification see if I could pick up a few tips/ OK, so I shout blasphemies at him, got it 
.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

LuvMyDog_Worldwide said:


> Really? So not bullying tactics and behind the scenes manipulation to target posters you simply can't deal with? Why you stereotype others views to being inhumane and dangerous while ignoring the obvious flaws in your recommended methods?


Austin, you should read your own posts, you never followed rules of debate, personalised responses seeking to discredit, whilst making selective comparisons and not responding to questions.

It has *not been possible* to rationally debate with you, and it is *your own ranting, selective comprehension and putting words in other's mouthes* that causes loss of respect for your opinions and motivations.

I do feel the moderators were mistaken when they tolerated your personal attacks on those who responded and asked you questions, or provided links to other information in a polite way.

Frankly I feel it was obvious, you were going to carry on slinging mud, to confuse an issue, what was notable was how long people refrained from returning in kind.

Basically you're whingeing, because people disagreed with you, and you lost the rational argument.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Rottiefan said:


> I take it as great offense to read something like your post, Grandad, as all I have ever tried to do on here is help people, full stop.


I don't take it seriously, how can you? It's like when footballer's kick someone, and then when they get a response, roll around on the ground like they'd been shot.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> _'*People and Their Pets*: A Relational Perspective on Interpersonal Complementarity
> & Attachment in Companion Animal Owners'_





> Results indicated that cats - & people who identiﬁed cats as their ideal pet - were more hostile in their orientation than were dogs or people who preferred dogs.


Gosh! I wonder if our dogs are doing B-mod on the human guardians? After all regular trips out to parks and need to talk to people, as the dogs interact, mean meeting more ppl and enjoying the trip out.

When I took another person along on a walk recently, it was quite funny how many ppl said hello, and asked where my dog was!


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> I don't take it seriously, how can you? It's like when footballer's kick someone, and then when they get a response, roll around on the ground like they'd been shot.


Always seems to be the same offenders doing the kicking. Openly bumping threads, derisory remarks, twisting of peoples words, undermining their intelligence, patronising............And in open communication with each other in doing so. The Clique or as I prefer "playground bullies" even had me chacked out on other forums, because they thought i had associations with other posters on here.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> RobD
> As explained many times before, positive-punishment, requires sufficient intensity, timing and proportionality to be effective; tough to get right, so leading to "set up" situations ie traps, to punish the dog.


You need to go back to square 1 and look up Skinner again, if you have got the theory wrong then any application attempts cannot be deliberately correct, random chance maybe, that's not what positive punishment is.

A positive or negative punishment is when any of any animals behaviour is weakened and tends not to repeat as a consequence what the animal itself perceives is a consequence of ITS OWN behaviour,'that' behaviour then weakens and tends not to repeat.

A positive punishment is when the animal perceives something (anything) is added as a consequence of its own behaviour (+P), a negative punishment is when the animal perceives something is withheld as a consequence of its own behaviour (-P). Once the animal perceives the consequence is caused by its own behaviour 'learning' occurs!

Example;
This morning I stayed in bed around 20 mins longer than planned. I have an appointment at 10:30 so I will miss an extra cup of coffee, that's a positive punishment, missing the coffee will probably weaken the behaviour of overstaying in bed in mornings of appointments.

Simples - Its the animal itself who/which perceives it has caused either punishment(s) and learns not to repeat that behaviour.

Whats missing from everything I have seen you write so far is that you use Skinnerian terms prolificaly and yet I have never seen you mention the learning process directly related to these terms you so ften use from and about Skinners 'learning theory'.

.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Once the animal perceives the consequence is caused by its own behaviour learning occurs!


I do not believe dogs have mental concept of consequences or causal chains.

They repeat what worked well in past, and diminish what does not work out for them.

Now what has this to do with the "Dominance Myth", this seems like the same old re-hash of your obsession, featured in many other threads. You appear totally off topic to me.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> rottiefan
> Negative punishment is not as severe as positive punishment.


Another complete lack of accurate comprehension of Skinners learning theory. There were millions of people in Auswitch and in ordinary prisons around the world today whose freedom is withheld, not to mention dogs who are kept on leads all the time because they have unreliable recall or owners who'se reward of living with a well behaved dog is witheld because it ignores commands.

.


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

A few brief observations on this thread:

Living as I do with a "pack" of 12+ sled dogs and being in an incredibly privileged position to observe "pack" behaviour on a 24/7 basis, I feel somewhat confused by the arguments raging around dog training methods. For me, "pack theory" is actually everyday pack "fact." From my observations, pack leadership (or dominance, if you would like to call it that) is much more about status than resource allocation and very rarely involves any degree of violence or aggression. Our dominant male is, in fact, our most laid back male and tends to resolve issues within the pack with either a look, or by physically standing between the two (usually younger) dogs confronting one another.



> I do not believe dogs have mental concept of consequences or causal chains.


Maybe you should spend some time with a pack of very intelligent sled dogs - you might change your mind!

I also agree with Irish Setter Girl, that (no doubt despite their best intentions) some of the posts do unfortunately come across as intellectually arrogant and deeply patronising.

Speaking as someone who got my psychology degree almost 40 years ago, I also find it strange that the work of BF Skinner (which was already largely discredited 40 years ago) seems to be the basis of much of "modern" dog training methods.

Mick


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

raindog said:


> A few brief observations on this thread:
> 
> Living as I do with a "pack" of 12+ sled dogs and being in an incredibly privileged position to observe "pack" behaviour on a 24/7 basis, I feel somewhat confused by the arguments raging around dog training methods. For me, "pack theory" is actually everyday pack "fact." From my observations, pack leadership (or dominance, if you would like to call it that) is much more about status than resource allocation and very rarely involves any degree of violence or aggression. Our dominant male is, in fact, our most laid back male and tends to resolve issues within the pack with either a look, or by physically standing between the two (usually younger) dogs confronting one another.
> 
> Mick


You're description and interpretation of your dogs' behaviour is exactly what others have found and is the reason why this whole dominance concept is a controversial issue in the current literature.

The point I'm trying to make is that dominance, as an ethological concept, describes relationships that are dictated by agonistic gestures and aggression. It's a competition for resources. This is true of many species. If you see a herd of Impala during rutting season, for example, that is the formation of dominance hierarchies as used in ethology. However, like you say Mick, you're 'dominant' male doesn't need to do this and would never have to. There are many ways in which dominance doesn't apply to domestic dogs- dogs are neotenised wolves, canines form families that do not fight for power, in human homes dogs get equally distributed resources.

We're not denying that there are hierarchies; that's not the issue. The issue is that dominance does not just mean 'command or control' or whatever other definition you can get from a dictionary. It's more complex than that and doesn't really apply to canines, particularly domestic dogs.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

raindog said:


> ...the work of BF Skinner (which was already largely discredited 40 years ago) seems to be the basis
> of much of "modern" dog training methods.


History of psychology - Conservapedia

Pavlov's classical-conditioning & the more-recent work of the Brelands with operant-conditioning are far more 
relevant & recent than Skinner; *behaviorism* does not have to be invoked, any more than does divine intervention.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> History of psychology - Conservapedia


Do you have another link for that? It gets flagged up as a "poor reputation site" for some reason by WoT (Web of Trust) and the page linked to gives a 403 - message.

As to other, I do live with intelligent dogs, I said "mental concept", in fact I know they learn things by conditioning, when they are helpless observers eg) passing noisy traffic does not hurt them, and their actions are not consequent.

There's also operant conditioning and functional rewards, but I don't think there's much high level thought, only if I please then I get the reward ie good behaviour works. They certainly don't understand "being bad" or "wrong" and that's a very common error by many owners to mistake appeasement gestures for guilt and confusion for stubbornness.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

raindog said:


> For me, "pack theory" is actually everyday pack "fact." From my observations, pack leadership (or dominance, if you would like to call it that) is much more about status than resource allocation and very rarely involves any degree of violence or aggression


OK, so my 13 1/2 month old unneutered male, meets 4 yr old unneutered male a few hours back, both BC's my dog slight smaller greets dog & owner, does not do appeasement; there are balanced greetings. They walk about together tails up (CM would say "excited dominant"), like the cocky lads they are. They first met when my dog was a pup, and have met every few months since but not regularly.

They took turns to be out in front, were aware of each other's position when split up, and showed interest in what each other found.

There was not the slightest suggestion of any conflict.

That's against preduction of struggle for status, Dominance theory, with competitive males meeting; but fits in with loose groups.

Our interpretation is that there's no relevant ranking in such cases, they simply met up, know neither's a threat and simply act like peaceable social animals, knowing it's in their interests to do so.


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Our interpretation is that there's no relevant ranking in such cases, they simply met up, know neither's a threat and simply act like peaceable social animals, knowing it's in their interests to do so.


A correct interpretation. However, they were just two individuals meeting, they were not in any sense a pack. 
I can get on perfectly well with a stranger I meet in a shopping queue. If, however (for example) that person became my daughter's boyfriend and she invited him to come and live in my house as part of my family, it would not be anywhere near so simple and for the boyfriend to fit in peaceably and amicably with the family, there would need to be (spoken or unspoken) accommodations made, structures accepted and culture respected.

We foster for our rescue and some of these processes are very obvious when observing the way the pack accommodates new dogs

Mick


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

raindog said:


> A correct interpretation. However, they were just two individuals meeting, they were not in any sense a pack.
> I can get on perfectly well with a stranger I meet in a shopping queue. If, however (for example) that person became my daughter's boyfriend and she invited him to come and live in my house as part of my family, it would not be anywhere near so simple and for the boyfriend to fit in peaceably and amicably with the family, there would need to be (spoken or unspoken) accommodations made, structures accepted and culture respected.
> 
> We foster for our rescue and some of these processes are very obvious when observing the way the pack accommodates new dogs
> ...


I agree. Relationships are very dynamic and fluid. Most dogs just meet a few known buddies on a walk, but for a large group to live with each other, consistent relationships and rules are followed and generally deference is shown to the older individuals.

But again, this doesn't have anything to do with dominance really. If you bring a new dog into your group, I doubt any fighting is a 'jostling for position' or one dog trying to usurp another for power- there's just no need. It depends on the specific dog's personality, communication skills and their ability to get on amicably with other dogs. If they are none of these things, of course there's going to be hostility, but too many people attribute this to 'pack theory', when really its fundamentally to do with relationships on a personal scale.

Regarding your post saying you felt that some of our posts on here come across arrogant, I hope we can show you differently!


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> History of psychology - Conservapedia
> 
> Pavlov's classical-conditioning & the more-recent work of the Brelands with operant-conditioning are far more
> relevant & recent than Skinner; *behaviorism* does not have to be invoked, any more than does divine intervention.


I'm disappointed, going to conservapedia for information where there are more trusted and accurate sites. Out of sheer ideology they dismiss the role of evolution on psychology. Hell! According to them the origin of dogs ~16kya is an impossibility since the earth to them is only 6000-10000 years old.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> I'm disappointed, *going to conservapedia* for information where there are more trusted and accurate sites.
> Out of sheer ideology they dismiss the role of evolution on psychology. Hell! According to them the origin of dogs
> ~16kya [TRANS: approx 16-thousand Years Ago] is an impossibility since the earth to them is only 6k -10k years old.


don't whine, Cory :lol: i'm sorry i disappointed U, but i was on my way out the door to meet an SD-prospect & handler. 
i was not carefully researching any websites or looking for a highly-accredited impeccable academic source.

i was unaware of any 'ideology', simply looking for 'BF Skinner discredited', an unfamiliar site popped up, 
i read their *history of psych* which covered the basics adequately if sparsely, & i posted the link. 
i don't know squat about 'conservapedia' - but i know DAM*ED WELL that this planet is more than 10k years old.

what planet they live on?  who knows... maybe it's in another star-system, & they're Web-guests.


----------



## Corinthian (Oct 13, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> don't whine, Cory :lol: i'm sorry i disappointed U, but i was on my way out the door to meet an SD-prospect & handler.
> i was not carefully researching any websites or looking for a highly-accredited impeccable academic source.
> 
> i was unaware of any 'ideology', simply looking for 'BF Skinner discredited', an unfamiliar site popped up,
> ...


It's your own fault for continually coming up with such high grade work. Consider it a compliment because when I see you name attached to a post (and the name of others here too) I'm used to getting gold.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

raindog said:


> A correct interpretation. However, they were just two individuals meeting, they were not in any sense a pack.
> I can get on perfectly well with a strange


This encounter was particularly interesting to me, because they were not strangers, as a puppy appeasement was shown, and later on in adolescent I sensed my dog looking to the other, tending to follow. Today they seemed to interact as equals without objection. That seems to fit in with the "dogs don't really worry about status", the elder had not lost anything, he had gained a colleague rather than losing a follower.

This type of situation is more typical for every day casual dog meets, yet ppl casually talk about packs forming and dominant dogs, submissive signals by nervous placatory dogs and such.

There's also the common meme, that dogs struggle to "get one over" on owners, so you must be on your guard. Yet with small groups of dogs, who know each other, they're looking at us, not being "bosses" despite rejection of the Pack Leader theory. On large scale it looks something like this Video Cuts - A Different Breed Episode 3 Video: The Dog Whisperer the trainer has talked about pack in past, but was very explicit in his comments now in the programme that force & dominance is uncessary.

That said, my dog would wrestle and exert himself over a younger flat coat retriever, 4 months or so younger than him and some intervention was required on visits to stop one sided play indoors. This dog has now outgrown him, and on meet there was some surprise shown. I worried a little, that there may be some conflict. In this case, it appears age and greater intelligence and wit, has the Flattie following. I noticed in pictures (I wasn't present) that the Flattie is behind, and generally turned towards or looking at the older (but smaller) Collie.

Dumbinance theory, would say the BC was dominant and the Flattie submissive, and probably most casual dog walkers would agree.

I'm interested to see whether a ranking in some respects at least, is thought to exist in such cases, or if the watchful looks and focus on another (friendly) dog is simply regarded as curiosity? There was no conflict and no fear/nervousness reported.


----------

