# Divergence in dog training schools of thought



## misterW (Apr 25, 2010)

As someone who has recently jumped into investigating the world of dog training concepts and philosophies, I am struck by the vast differences I see in the various schools of thought. 

Like many, I was first exposed to the ideas of dominance theory, via Cesar Milan and others. I found his ideas at first glance to make sense and fit in with some common sense observations I had made myself.

However, as I have explored this forum, I find the idea of dominance theory to be widely ridiculed as an archaic and ridiculous philosophy. Again, I am questioning things. 

In many fields, the pendulum swings between various schools of thought, but I find it interesting to see both dog training approaches promoted at the same time. I would have thought more of a consensus would have been arrived at by this point -- after all, dogs were the first domesticated animal; haven't we had plenty of time? 

What are the main scientific critiques of the dominance theory/Cesar Milan approach?


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

It's my understanding that the main scientific critique of dominance theory is that it isn't science. It was based on observations of wolves, which has three big problems with it (this is all my broad generalizations based on my understanding, which I do not profess to be perfect or even necessarily well-founded.)

First of all, dogs aren't wolves. Very closely related? Yes. Useful in understanding the other? Yes. But think about how people describe wolfdogs. High content wolfdogs act very little like full dogs. There are a lot of behavior differences, and they're pretty important. 

Second, all that about one alpha wolf who rules with an iron paw and brooks no disagreement and is only disposed by a fight to the death? Maybe not so iron clad. There's some indication (though I can't recall off the top of my head, I could probably find it if I searched. It might be work done at Yellowstone.) that wolf packs are really family groups. There's a breeding pair and then their pups that are a year or so old, and when the pups mature they move out and find their own territories. The "alpha wolves" lead because they have experience, not through force.

Finally, humans aren't dogs. Dogs know we aren't dogs. They might not totally understand what being a human means, but we are most certainly not dogs. Dog aggressive doesn't always mean human aggressive. And humans can never, _never_ hope to understand, interact, or "correct" a dog as well as an actual dog can. For one, the reflexes and anatomy just isn't there.

The biggest problem with dominance theory in practice is it doesn't teach a dog how to exist in a human world. It seems to say "Be the Alpha, and your dog will be a Good Dog." But a good, polite, well-adjusted dog in the dog world (say, a pack of strays who have had no human interaction from birth to death) is not the same as a good, polite, well-adjusted dog in the human world. Would you want a pack of stray dogs living in your house? They might be good dogs, but they just lack the knowledge about human things. Dominance theory, from my understanding and I have never delved deeply into it, expects dogs to know human things instinctively. And that's setting everyone up for failure.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Dominance theory is its name, however, it is only a hypothesis. It has not been proven with any living animal on the planet. So the main criticism would start there.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

As well there is a difference between "academic" dominance theory, as expressed by some obscure people in science decades ago and what you will see folks like the dog whisperer doing who probably never read those old theories or ever even heard of the studies or papers they spawned.

There's an even bigger difference between the people who can only see the word dominant or dominance as pertaining to this "academic" theory of decades past and normal dog owning people who have never even been exposed to this old wolf dominance theory, and use dominance in the terms you find in the standard dictionary.

So you often see a disconnect between people who cannot grasp the words dominant or dominance to mean anything other than relating to some old disproven theory, and people who use the word more technically correct in terms of a dictionary definition, and have no concept of this old wolf study and never heard of it, and neither can see the other's perspective because they are coming from such different places, with totally different meanings accosiated with the terminology.

For example. I have the food and the dog will starve and die if I don't feed it some of my food. Only I can open the door and the dog will never go outside unless I open it and allow it. So I am in a totally dominant position over my dogs, as dominant as is really possible by the defintion of the word.

Which has nothing at all really to do with some obscure wolf study in the 1940's and 1970's and dominant heirarchy theories that so many can't pry their minds apart from when they hear the word dominant or dominance.

It doesn't help that so many who despise dominance theory even get so much wrong about it, and wrong in what has been diproven or modified about it.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

As mentioned, the dominance theory was based on old observations of wolves, but more recent studies have shown that, among other things, wolves will never "alpha roll" another wolf (wolves initiate the belly-up posture on their own; they are never forced into it) and that adult wolves will never attack a younger wolf if it manages to grab some food before it's supposed to -- they will let the younger one keep it. There's a really good chapter on dominance in the book _The Other End of the Leash_ by Patricia McConnell, an applied animal behaviorist and dog trainer with more than 20 years of experience.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Crantastic said:


> As mentioned, the dominance theory was based on old observations of wolves, but more recent studies have shown that, among other things, wolves will never "alpha roll" another wolf (wolves initiate the belly-up posture on their own; they are never forced into it).


It's my understanding wolves initiate that belly up posture after learning to do so though. Through play and other means as pups and learning that social response from being pinned. 

That it becomes voluntary after it is learned through stimulus/consequence as a behavior in response to a stimulus, with a consequence, just like any other learned behavior..


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

TxRider said:


> It's my understanding wolves initiate that belly up posture after learning to do so though. Through play and other means as pups and learning that social response from being pinned.
> 
> That it becomes voluntary after it is learned through stimulus/consequence as a behavior in response to a stimulus, with a consequence, just like any other learned behavior..


Learning the posture as a pup is much different than being forced to as an adult, by someone who has been ignoring all the other signals you've been throwing at them. 

There is evidence that dogs have a social structure (Patricia McConnell's description of status seeking and high ranking dogs as well as dogs that are perfectly happy to let someone else take the reigns springs to mind), and it's a pity that the word "dominance" has come to be so polluted that more awkward language has to be invented to describe it.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Whether he is aware of it or not, Millan is actually very flexible with his definition of dominance. When he talks about dominance, he is not referring to the rigid scientific definition of dominance. Rather, he tends to bend things around so that it fits dominance. 

Quite frankly, you could describe anything as being dominant. Off of the top of my head, lets say I'm writing with a pen. You could say that my hand is dominant over the pen because I am making it do what I want. At the same time, you could say the pen is dominant over me because I cannot write without it and it hurts my hand when I hold it too long. See what I mean? For this reason, I think that describing relationships in terms of dominance is a waste of time; it's not specific enough.

There is some truth to the pack leader stuff. Just as a child needs their parent to be a leader, dogs need us to provide them leadership. The reason why both sides have not settled on a middle ground is because everybody is an expert in their own right. Dog ownership is so much like raising a kid. Every parent is an expert and there are an infinite number of ways to do it.


----------



## misterW (Apr 25, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> First of all, dogs aren't wolves. Very closely related? Yes. Useful in understanding the other? Yes. But think about how people describe wolfdogs. High content wolfdogs act very little like full dogs. There are a lot of behavior differences, and they're pretty important.
> 
> Second, all that about one alpha wolf who rules with an iron paw and brooks no disagreement and is only disposed by a fight to the death? Maybe not so iron clad. There's some indication (though I can't recall off the top of my head, I could probably find it if I searched. It might be work done at Yellowstone.) that wolf packs are really family groups. There's a breeding pair and then their pups that are a year or so old, and when the pups mature they move out and find their own territories. The "alpha wolves" lead because they have experience, not through force.
> 
> Finally, humans aren't dogs. Dogs know we aren't dogs. They might not totally understand what being a human means, but we are most certainly not dogs. Dog aggressive doesn't always mean human aggressive. And humans can never, _never_ hope to understand, interact, or "correct" a dog as well as an actual dog can. For one, the reflexes and anatomy just isn't there.


Yeah, those were some of the criticisms that I have come across as well. To me, it seems like each of those points are valid, important critiques -- but that they don't completely undermine the entire dominance school of thought. I guess I am just surprised that some type of middle ground hasn't been reached more often.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

because dominance based techniques and aversives have the potential to break a dog.

you cant ruin a dog by rewarding it. except for putting on a bit of pudge. the fix for that is easy...change up rewards, decrease meal size to account for any food rewards or up your dog's exercise.

you can ruin the dog by administering innapproriate, overboard or ill timed corrections. the fix for this can be very very very difficult.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> because dominance based techniques and aversives have the potential to break a dog.
> 
> you cant ruin a dog by rewarding it. except for putting on a bit of pudge. the fix for that is easy...change up rewards, decrease meal size to account for any food rewards or up your dog's exercise.
> 
> you can ruin the dog by administering innapproriate, overboard or ill timed corrections. the fix for this can be very very very difficult.


Who says dominance based techniques have to include physical corrections?

As far as I can see techniques like NILIF are pretty much explicit dominance. Explicitly bow to masters will and appease master with the proper display of behavior for every rewarding thing you ever hope to get right down to your life sustaining meals. Nothing is freely given.

But then that has nothing to do with some obscure wolf studies, or newer ones that still describe a group with dominant individuals, but simply a different method of becoming the dominant individuals by nature of parentage rather than direct competition.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

TxRider said:


> It doesn't help that so many who despise dominance theory even get so much wrong about it, and wrong in what has been diproven or modified about it.


A big problem is that people who are highly invested in their pet theory tend to dismiss those on the other side. Sometimes to the point where they accept any hearsay as gospel--as long as it confirms their firmly held belief. When someone tells me something I absolutely know to be untrue, I tend to tune them out. On the one hand, you have trainers who use correction making wacky statements such as: _"Feeding a dog by hand will make him aggressive"_. On the other hand, you have "positive" trainers making broad statements such as: _"Correction makes a dog obey out of fear"_. Granted, those are the more extreme ends of the spectrum.



RaeganW said:


> There is evidence that dogs have a social structure (Patricia McConnell's description of status seeking and high ranking dogs as well as dogs that are perfectly happy to let someone else take the reigns springs to mind), and it's a pity that the word "dominance" has come to be so polluted that more awkward language has to be invented to describe it.


Correct. And canine social hierarchy is more fluid/dynamic than many "dominance trainers" seem to recognize. Many people seem to have difficulty discerning the difference between a dominant dog and one who is merely pushy and persistent. A dog can be as soft as warm butter, and have no designs whatsoever on higher status, but be relentlessly assertive.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you cant ruin a dog by rewarding it. except for putting on a bit of pudge.


You can inadvertently, or incompetently, reward aggressive behavior thereby increasing it. It's pretty easy to do. In some jurisdictions, a serious bite may be a dog's last.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> As far as I can see techniques like NILIF are pretty much explicit dominance. Explicitly bow to masters will and appease master with the proper display of behavior for every rewarding thing you ever hope to get right down to your life sustaining meals. Nothing is freely given.


It can also be an explicit exercise in operant conditioning. 

Dog does behavior - gets reward - dog more likely to offer that behavior in that situation.

Dog doesn't do behavior - dog gets nothing - dog less likely to offer that behavior in that situation.

To use your food example:

Wally doesn't get food unless he gets on his spot in my room. No place, no food. He gets on, he gets fed - he's more likely to go where I want next time. All other behaviors are ignored. I just turn my back on him and I don't have a dog to feed. He gets on his bed - suddenly, I have a dog to feed and food appears in front of him.

You say dominance, I say R+/P-.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Looking for a middle ground or "general consensus" is pretty much impossible given the number of dog owners, number of trainers (both good and bad) and the absolutely astounding mass of information out there for people to look at (again some good, some bad..and some REALLY bad).

The problem with simple dominance theory (as defined by CM, for example) is that it is simple. Humans like the easy answer. Be more dominant and the dog will behave. Well, behaviour in any animal, including humans, is not that simple. Dogs are complex creatures in many ways. I personally believe that applying simple dominance theory and in totum can create more issues (some seen, some unseen) than using positive reinforcement based training. That being said, bad training is bad training and anyone can pretty easily reinforce the wrong behaviours, regardless of method. There are a lot more pitfalls possible in using correction based training, especially if misapplied (badly timed, overly forceful or used in the wrong contexts) than there are possible using R+/P- based training.

I do have problems with people who think ALL corrections/aversives are abusive and I have problems with people who think R+ is all about "cookie bribes". Both of these viewpoints are invalid and show a lack of information and knowledge. Good positive trainers are NOT permissive. Punishment (both negative and positive) is part of the operant learning theory and therefore CAN have a place in training as it does WORK if applied correctly. I just prefer not to use P+ and believe that it can backfire hugely. In this area I admittedly anthropomorphise and find no fault with that. I don't treat people that way so why would I treat an animal that way? If someone tried to issue physical corrections on me as a way of "teaching" me something...well they'd learn pretty damn quickly that I will defend myself as vigorously as necessary and I see animals as responding in kind (if you don't shut them down).

All I can say is I've done both, with many dogs, over the twenty years I've been working with them and I have had much more success with R+. So I crossed over,firmly sit on that side of the fence and will likely continue to do so. I try to keep it friendly and informative and believe that people should make educated decisions based on experience and knowledge and balance that with what their gut emotions say as well. I work from a position of empathy with the dogs and with their humans. My gut says dominance theory and the OVERT aversives used by many of their proponents is not the way I want to go.....

JMO.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Cracker said:


> The problem with simple dominance theory (as defined by CM, for example) is that it is simple. Humans like the easy answer. Be more dominant and the dog will behave.


I truly believe Millan understands that it is not as simple as "be more dominant and the dog will behave." From my viewpoint, the guy is not the archaic barbarian that positive trainers pigeonhole him as. Behind his sometimes dangerous methods and dominance talk is an extraordinarily stable and balanced human. He can pull off corrections because he's so zen. Most people, like me, let their frustration spiral out of control.

I started out using a lot of correction based methods because I didn't know any better, but these days I'm about 99% positive. The 1% is reserved for quick management situations, not for teaching. Even though I'm what you would consider a positive trainer, I really enjoy watching Millan operate. The guy has that spiritual connection with the dog world that can't be explained by operant conditioning.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

qingcong said:


> I truly believe Millan understands that it is not as simple as "be more dominant and the dog will behave." From my viewpoint, the guy is not the archaic barbarian that positive trainers pigeonhole him as. Behind his sometimes dangerous methods and dominance talk is an extraordinarily stable and balanced human. He can pull off corrections because he's so zen. Most people, like me, let their frustration spiral out of control.


Stay un-frustrated is key to any method, imo, especially if you have a dog sensitive to what you do and how you act. I know when I've gotten overly dramatic with P- in the past (especially before I really understood the extent of his fearfulness as it was then) he would really just turn off trying anything get all worried and scared.

I've learned to just turn all that off, and just keep it matter of fact and let my clicker/marker + reward or my silence and indifference do my talking.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I'm surprised, when I read the dreaded Milan name I figured this morning there would be at least 200 replies. 

The problem I have had is there are many dogs that when dropped off (board/train) for me to work that may not even eat for 2 or 3 days and will not ever accept reward crunchies. So reward has to be petting/stroking and soothing verbal sounds. 

The luring or modeling of these dogs using crunchies is most of the time impossible so other means are used. The dogs then must accomplish a task using other means before the petting/stroking can start. A dog trained at home will accept crunchies for the most part, and there is also no time crunch to worry about. Just thought I would drop that in here to confuse the issue.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Just thought I would drop that in here to confuse the issue.


And that attitude is exactly why you are the only aversive wielding trainer I know of who I would let near my dogs. Cesar would get kicked in the cojones if he even looked at my dogs..you...I'd be willing to to see...because you understand that terminology is irrelevant in the grand scheme..which indicates a logical and practical mind. 

Certain other posts in this thread I will reply to when I'm not posting from a cellphone waiting to take an essay exam...


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

qingcong said:


> I truly believe Millan understands that it is not as simple as "be more dominant and the dog will behave." From my viewpoint, the guy is not the archaic barbarian that positive trainers pigeonhole him as. Behind his sometimes dangerous methods and dominance talk is an extraordinarily stable and balanced human. He can pull off corrections because he's so zen. Most people, like me, let their frustration spiral out of control.


He may understand it is not that simple but John Q Public only SEES the simple. Tsst a bit, poke a bit, keep the collar high on the neck and alpha roll if necessary. Exercise the heck out of the dog etc.

I too think Cesar as a human is a pretty neat guy. His martial arts training has contributed to his zen demeanor and his pretty dang good timing and he is quite good with the clients. I was using him/his methods as an EXAMPLE.

Wvasko. Good positive trainers do not only use foods as rewards. It is the main one because MOST dogs are motivated by such, but many other rewards are used..all depending on the dog, for THEY decide what is or is not rewarding to them.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> And that attitude is exactly why you are the only aversive wielding trainer I know of who I would let near my dogs. Cesar would get kicked in the cojones if he even looked at my dogs..you...I'd be willing to to see...because you understand that terminology is irrelevant in the grand scheme..which indicates a logical and practical mind.
> 
> Certain other posts in this thread I will reply to when I'm not posting from a cellphone waiting to take an essay exam...


Zim
I am honored, euphoric and a little giddy even. 
Thank You



> Wvasko. Good positive trainers do not only use foods as rewards. It is the main one because MOST dogs are motivated by such, but many other rewards are used..all depending on the dog, for THEY decide what is or is not rewarding to them.


As do good Negative reinforcement trainers. (I hope)


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Stay un-frustrated is key to any method, imo, especially if you have a dog sensitive to what you do and how you act. I know when I've gotten overly dramatic with P- in the past (especially before I really understood the extent of his fearfulness as it was then) he would really just turn off trying anything get all worried and scared.
> 
> I've learned to just turn all that off, and just keep it matter of fact and let my clicker/marker + reward or my silence and indifference do my talking.


Yep, staying centered is the key to anything really. It is much easier to be zen using positive techniques than it is using punishment based methods. I think there is something about the act of inflicting physical discomfort that triggers the anger response in the brain. 

Before owning a dog and getting into training, I thought I was pretty unflappable. I took pride in my zen-ness. Dog training proved to be much more frustrating than I ever imagined. The combination of my lack of understanding and my use of correctional methods only intensified my frustration. Correctional methods really are not for beginners. Switching to positive methods allowed me to stay much happier.




Cracker said:


> He may understand it is not that simple but John Q Public only SEES the simple. Tsst a bit, poke a bit, keep the collar high on the neck and alpha roll if necessary. Exercise the heck out of the dog etc.


This is exactly the problem, as I was John Q Public at one point. I only blame myself for my misunderstanding though, not a TV show.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Who says dominance based techniques have to include physical corrections?


most dominance theorists i have worked with on training dogs...in fact all of the dominance theorists i have worked with on training dogs. and definately most of the ones ive merely talked to.



> As far as I can see techniques like NILIF are pretty much explicit dominance. Explicitly bow to masters will and appease master with the proper display of behavior for every rewarding thing you ever hope to get right down to your life sustaining meals. Nothing is freely given.


pshaw. nothing in life is freely given because that's the way nature works...there is no thing that you can get, no act that you can do that does not require some kind of expenditure even if its merely a fraction of an amount of energy to extend your hand to accept something. its not a dominance based thing unless you make it that. i give my dog plenty of choice. there is only one thing that is non negotiable that she has to do. everything else is open for "discussion". on the other hand...there are about at least 50 things that she requires of me that are non negotiable and if i screw up, ill regret it. and she never lets me forget it. those things range from feeding and basic care _in a prompt and timely manner_ to he being like "you cant talk to me with pain. tough isht." by laying down and going dead weight everytime someone has tried aversive methods with her. 



> But then that has nothing to do with some obscure wolf studies, or newer ones that still describe a group with dominant individuals, but simply a different method of becoming the dominant individuals by nature of parentage rather than direct competition.


i didnt say jack about wolves.


imho dominance is useless at its best. it serves no practical purpose in dog training except to stroke human ego. at its worst, its a killer...literally.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> A big problem is that people who are highly invested in their pet theory tend to dismiss those on the other side. Sometimes to the point where they accept any hearsay as gospel--as long as it confirms their firmly held belief. When someone tells me something I absolutely know to be untrue, I tend to tune them out. On the one hand, you have trainers who use correction making wacky statements such as: _"Feeding a dog by hand will make him aggressive"_. On the other hand, you have "positive" trainers making broad statements such as: _"Correction makes a dog obey out of fear"_. Granted, those are the more extreme ends of the spectrum.


you might want to think about this statement and how it includes you as well. you cant tune them out because you are one of them. middle of the road bias is still bias.






> You can inadvertently, or incompetently, reward aggressive behavior thereby increasing it. It's pretty easy to do. In some jurisdictions, a serious bite may be a dog's last.



disagree. it would take a monumental idiot to screw up marker/reward training to the point of a serious bite. and i do mean MONUMENTAL.

on the other hand. people CONSTANTLY screw up correction techniques. its not relatively easy. its *stupidly *easy to screw up correction training and elicit an inappropriate bite response.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you might want to think about this statement and how it includes you as well. you cant tune them out because you are one of them. middle of the road bias is still bias.


I never said I am without bias. I try to be biased toward anything that works to get the responses I want. I like to think so, at least. To a very large degree, the dog controls the method, pace, intensity, and duration of the whole magilla. Hammering square pegs into round holes is not productive.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> > You can inadvertently, or incompetently, reward aggressive behavior thereby increasing it. It's pretty easy to do. In some jurisdictions, a serious bite may be a dog's last.
> 
> 
> disagree. it would take a monumental idiot to screw up marker/reward training to the point of a serious bite. and i do mean MONUMENTAL.
> ...


Rewarding aggression is how guard dogs are trained. It really is that easy. Controlling the aggression is the hard part.

I don't believe the stupidity monument is quite as impressive an edifice as you think. Look, I didn't say what I do is foolproof. Anybody who thinks they've found something that is, should get out and meet a more enterprising class of fools. They'll amaze ya.

But think of it like driving a car or truck. At highway speed, your doing almost 100 ft./sec. in the slow lane. You let your attention lapse for a couple of seconds and very bad things happen very quickly. In dog training there's nowhere near as much going on simultaneously as there is on the highway. And the consequences of mistakes are rarely--if ever--so dire. It is my opinion that anyone competent to drive a car can learn to train a dog by any of the common methods. By my calculation, that would be about 30-40% of those who actually hold an operator's license. That's still a lot of people.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> most dominance theorists i have worked with on training dogs...in fact all of the dominance theorists i have worked with on training dogs. and definately most of the ones ive merely talked to.


And probably a great deal of non dominance theorists as well, punishment isn't restricted to dominance theorists.




> pshaw. nothing in life is freely given because that's the way nature works...there is no thing that you can get, no act that you can do that does not require some kind of expenditure even if its merely a fraction of an amount of energy to extend your hand to accept something. its not a dominance based thing unless you make it that.


There is a difference between having to run and catch a rabbit, or having to submit to anothers will who posesses the rabbit, and show that person a physical act of appeasement so the person will give you the rabbit.

Nature doesn't work that way, NILIF does.

Just as there is a difference between catching a $100 bill blowing down the sidewalk, and begging someone to give you $100...




> imho dominance is useless at its best. it serves no practical purpose in dog training except to stroke human ego. at its worst, its a killer...literally.


It depends on your definition. If you strictly confine your definition of dominance to some abstract "dominance theory" and stupid training methods that really don't have much to do with dominace theory really, depending on what that even is.

But there is nothing ego stroking about it. I have a dominant relationship with my employees. They work, or they don't get paid. They show up and do the work to my satisfaction, or they are fired and someone else given the opportunity. There are days I would rather be a simple window washer.

Same thing with the dog, nothing to do with ego at all, it's just how it is. I am dominant in the relationship, I can express that to whatever degree I choose to to get the behavior I want. 

I can exert that dominant position to control every aspect of the dogs life, or I can let the dog walk all over me and do whatever it wants. I can also misuse that dominant position just I could with my employees.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> There is a difference between having to run and catch a rabbit, or having to submit to anothers will who posesses the rabbit, and show that person a physical act of appeasement so the person will give you the rabbit.


Does the dog see it as submitting to another's will or see it as a modified hunting exercise?

Instead of chasing rabbits, the dog is lying down or sitting to get food. 

Does the dog see it as a hunting/predatory action or does the dog understand the concept of "I'm getting food because I'm submitting to what the person wants?"

That's how we humans often describe it - but is that just a human point of view or is it what the dog actually sees and understands?

I've read that a lot of reason why training works is that it's like a modified version of hunting (in the dog's mind) - taking actions to fulfill prey needs/desires. So our training basically just taps into nature's programming for hunting behaviors as well as the desire to fulfill prey drive.

It sounds just as plausible as saying he's doing it because "I said so" (dominance) or because the behavior has a history of making good things happen to him (R+)


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Does the dog see it as submitting to another's will or see it as a modified hunting exercise?


`

Speaking only for myself, I don't care. If I'm getting the responses I want from a dog, and the dog is showing me a (generally) high level of enthusiasm, I don't worry about what the dog may think is going on.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> `
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I don't care. If I'm getting the responses I want from a dog, and the dog is showing me a (generally) high level of enthusiasm, I don't worry about what the dog may think is going on.


+1 This is why I like the behavioral model. What is the dog doing? Do you like it? Reinforce it. Don't like it? Punish it.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Does the dog see it as submitting to another's will or see it as a modified hunting exercise?
> 
> Instead of chasing rabbits, the dog is lying down or sitting to get food.
> 
> ...


Well I know there is a difference to me in acting directly with the "prey" when hunting, just me and it where I am basically dominant and acting on the prey, or acting with an intermediate to get the "prey" as in getting the same item from someone else which means appeasing them with money usually and using my social behaviors.

If it was the same I would see you with prey, and just take it physically if I could, look elsewhere if I could not, as it is in nature. You have it, you are not prey, so I must engage social skills with you in order to get it. Submission is a social behavior.

I would have a hard time thinking a dog, or cat, or any animal would see the "scent, see, chase,kill, eat" chain as the same as the "beg, appease, eat" chain that requires social behaviors.

Training with a toy as in fetch, tug, retrieve though would seem to me to be more like the same prey behavior chain, see, chase, catch, kill, but only when I throw it, which requires interaction from me, which confuses the chain for many dogs. Ala they don't bring it back and engage the social skill part, as it is a different set of behavior, even though they know it's the only way to get another chase.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> `
> 
> Speaking only for myself, I don't care. If I'm getting the responses I want from a dog, and the dog is showing me a (generally) high level of enthusiasm, I don't worry about what the dog may think is going on.


I agree with you. Most times it is unnessecary.

But what if you are not getting the responses you want, and have no idea how to get those responses. Then would you maybe care to have a clue what or how the dog thinks?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Speaking only for myself, I don't care. If I'm getting the responses I want from a dog, and the dog is showing me a (generally) high level of enthusiasm, I don't worry about what the dog may think is going on.


That says it all.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> +1 This is why I like the behavioral model. What is the dog doing? Do you like it? Reinforce it. Don't like it? Punish it.


Pretty much my feeling as well - which is why I like looking at things with the OC and CC models

But if we're going to delve into "why" then it's interesting discussion.

After all, I don't think the behavioral model explains everything - it's just a nice handle on how we can 'program' the dog.

Knowing why the dog does something (whether I like it or not) can be helpful, imo. Could be a way to trigger the behavior to occur again in other situations so I can then R+ on it, etc.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Pretty much my feeling as well - which is why I like looking at things with the OC and CC models
> 
> But if we're going to delve into "why" then it's interesting discussion.
> 
> ...


Yup,

Like Hope, I would love to teach her to speak, but I can't get her to bark! I would love to have insight into her thinking so I could figure out a way to get her to. The only things she ever barks at are people approaching at night, and even then usually only one bark unless they act non normal, as in scared or something.

And it is interesting discussion, which is a forums purpose.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Like Hope, I would love to teach her to speak, but I can't get her to bark! I would love to have insight into her thinking so I could figure out a way to get her to. The only things she ever barks at are people approaching at night, and even then usually only one bark unless they act non normal, as in scared or something.
> 
> And it is interesting discussion, which is a forums purpose.


Hahaha I went through that with Wally! 

He just wouldn't bark at anything. Dogs, cats, food, me, nothing. Then one day he gave one REALLY REALLY LOUD bark (and just one) at some dog behind a fence. Ever since then, he started barking. 

But still, couldn't get it on cue - he still wouldn't offer a bark. But if I kept saying "Good boy" he would eventually bark. So I figured he'd have to be excited. So "why" he wouldn't bark - he had to be wound up - and repeating "good boy" did it. 

Then I could reward the bark - wait for him to offer more barks, etc.

But I would love to know why he just suddenly barked and why he never did before that day. I think that's something neither dominance nor OC or CC can explain. I couldn't force a bark out of him or withhold something until he barked or anything. Something in him just had to "turn on" barking. I wish I knew what that was and how I could use it to turn on other stuff.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well, 1st I would really like to know why I do certain things. Once I solve that I will start working on the mystery of doggy minds.

I just think there is a lot of over-thinking that occurs when some people train or try to train their dogs. I have stated this before on DF, it's not rocket science, it's common sense.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

wvasko said:


> Well, 1st I would really like to know why I do certain things. Once I solve that I will start working on the mystery of doggy minds.


ROFL, I hear you there.



> I just think there is a lot of over-thinking that occurs when some people train or try to train their dogs. I have stated this before on DF, it's not rocket science, it's common sense.


Certainly. I like to think and explore this kind of stuff. I don't think it really effects training or not.

You can call NILIF whatever you want, it can be dominance or not, it still is a simple concept and it works. Exploring whats and whys is all more or less academic to me, not that useful, just entertaining to delve into.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

TxRider said:


> But what if you are not getting the responses you want, and have no idea how to get those responses. Then would you maybe care to have a clue what or how the dog thinks?


I've found that the causes for poor response and/or poor attitude, fall into a few general categories.

1) Dog and/or trainer is uncomfortable and/or tired.

2) Dog and/or trainer is bored and/or distracted.

3) Dog and/or trainer is confused.

4) Dog and/or trainer is being cantankerous.

Sometimes you have to step back, and break things down into simpler tasks. Sometimes you have to keep plugging away. Sometimes you have pack up your training kit and go for a run at the beach. When in doubt, hit the beach.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

TxRider said:


> ROFL, I hear you there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wonder some times about things on DF and I have come to a conclusion that I will throw out to test the waters. 

I went out this morning to train a brand new dog that was dropped off 5/1, a 7 mths old Lab mix. I worked the dog 12 minutes and when done I had dog heeling, some sit-stays and last was an auto sit when I stopped. The dog's tail was up wagging and general attitude was decent. The walk back to Board bldg was totally civilized compared to the walk from Board to Train bldg.

It was nothing out of the ordinary, but at no time was I actually doing any heavy thought study on dog at all. My conclusion is that I have been doing this so long it's just everyday work and not to be compared with what people are about and trying to accomplish on DF.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> I just think there is a lot of over-thinking that occurs when some people train or try to train their dogs. I have stated this before on DF, it's not rocket science, it's common sense.


I don't know if just common sense would have helped me with his fear issues. I mean, does classical conditioning fall under common sense? Or the Look-at-that game? If they do, then check me down for lacking some common sense


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

wvasko said:


> My conclusion is that I have been doing this so long it's just everyday work and not to be compared with what people are about and trying to accomplish on DF.


I would say that is probably a pretty good conclusion.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> I don't know if just common sense would have helped me with his fear issues. I mean, does classical conditioning fall under common sense? Or the Look-at-that game? If they do, then check me down for lacking some common sense


I think fear issues are beyond training in the normal sense. I don't accept dogs with serious fear issues as rehabilitation is sometimes a much longer program and a behaviourist would be proper. 

I think when you were dealing with fear issues some common sense did play a part in it. Is not asking for help a common sense action. There are many owners without common sense that would have completely ruined your little dog.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Hahaha I went through that with Wally!
> 
> He just wouldn't bark at anything. Dogs, cats, food, me, nothing. Then one day he gave one REALLY REALLY LOUD bark (and just one) at some dog behind a fence. Ever since then, he started barking.
> 
> ...


it can be explained. just not at our current level. i can tell you what i suspect...but my suspicions dont really mean anything until i can prove them...

take what you will from it, here it is.

its been proven scientifically that dogs have what is called a "left gaze bias". this is an interesting thing because of how human facial expressions work. from what i understand there is a correlation between the right side of the human face and activity in the emotional centers of the human brain..this makes the left gaze bias thing very interesting because dogs ONLY do this with human faces. they look slightly to the left everytime they look at a human face(according to the research anyway..its a hard thing to determine without the technology the scientists had available...software and machinery designed to pick up even the slightest movement..) so they look to the left everytime they look at you...which would be your right side. this suggests an evolutionary adaptation predisposing dogs to be able to interpret human expression better. 


we know there are things about dog body language we have no way of defining. do they have object permanance? are they capable of displacement? questions like that arise. 

from what ive read, current research suggests that they are far better able to interpret us than we are able to interpret them.

i dont know about yall but to me that doesnt bode well for human dominance lol...

unfortunatly i cant cite references because i read those studies on my biology teacher's school library account. i cant pull up the studies without her. 

to be continued.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

y'all listen to wvasko. he makes more sense than any of us..including me.

but that might be a result of his time spent training wooly mammoths in the ice age


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> from what ive read, current research suggests that they are far better able to interpret us than we are able to interpret them.


I don't need a bunch of eggheads in lab coats to tell me that.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't need a bunch of eggheads in lab coats to tell me that.


im an egghead in a lab coat.  we tend to run in packs.

well...technically an egghead in training....but the point stands lol


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> y'all listen to wvasko. he makes more sense than any of us..including me.
> 
> but that might be a result of his time spent training wooly mammoths in the ice age


Yes and that's when I decided that alpha rolls were not good for ones health, those woolly mammoths were about as hard to roll as 100 lb Rotties. After the 1st dozen (mammoths) I decided a different approach was necessary.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> im an egghead in a lab coat.  we tend to run in packs.
> 
> well...technically an egghead in training....but the point stands lol


And I'm an ancient egghead, with a slightly cracked shell dripping a little out here and there..  but no labcoat, T-shirt and tennis shoes here.

I started when we eggheads used slide rules, and vacuum tubes powered electronics not silicon chips.

I run a software company that I founded that creates global computer military simulations that operate across the internet, and looking forward to retirement.

I have to create huge complex systems all based on the decision to write a 1 or a zero into a tiny speck of silicon, or rather billions of them, and I tend to carry that perspective into anything involving intelligence, as artificial intelligence is a part of what I do. How an intelligence can sense and perceive sight or sound in a virtual world, what else it can sense and perceive, how it can act on it. What is required for it to make a choice, or to remember a previous result, etc.

To the person in the simulation's perspective, none of that matters really as they are abstracted from it, to me there are few details that do not matter because it all has to function with as great a similarity to reality as possible.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> And I'm an ancient egghead, with a slightly cracked shell dripping a little out here and there..  but no labcoat, T-shirt and tennis shoes here.
> 
> I started when we eggheads used slide rules, and vacuum tubes powered electronics not silicon chips.
> 
> ...


skepticism is the fuel of science. i practice hardcore skepticism. my mom's family are all hillbillies...my dads family were physics and math professors. i was born an egghead lol...just started training in eggheadedness later than most...

computers arent my primary thing. i tend to go for the guts and the goo scientifically speaking. grossness fascinates me..its probably partially why i like dogs so much lol... anyways i understand what you are saying but i cant take something seriously without real world input so to speak. hence the opinions about dominance. i only say anything because the fact that some people are soooooooo dependant on it grosses me out(see previous statement for explanation of why this is not a bad thing). i see no quantifiable benefit in labeling behaviors beyond how it makes the human feel. im certainly interested in discovering why dogs do what they do...thats my field..that's why i am going to school...so i can make a REAL stab at finding out. but i can see how you might be why you are. computer science tends to have a more imaginative element than the biological disciplines. you are limited by the physical world. 

i refuse to use corrections for not spiritual reasons exactly but something similar. i generally advise against them because there is quantifiable risk. which is something about the things i say that i think some people dont get. probably because im a social moron. i spend all my time studying, working, working dogs or interacting with my son. i say dominance is at best useless because there's no evidence to indicate otherwise. nothing that is not merely anecdotal. talk to pavlov and skinner for evidence of conditioning being useful. i advocate r+ over adversives because there is evidence it is less harmful. that's all. 

my scientific interest lies in evidence that there are biological adaptations in both humans and dogs that we are in a functioning PHYSICAL symbiosis. not merely a convienience that worked out alright. the answer to the question that that implicates to me is the goal of my college career and future endevors.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i see no quantifiable benefit in labeling behaviors beyond how it makes the human feel.


It is beyond my understanding how a label can make someone feel. Dominance is term to me, it doesn't make me feel anything one way or the other. Interacting with my dogs makes me feel and sparks emotions, a word does not.

The issue lies in the fact I see a different definition of the term than you do I believe, with no emotional baggage or training methods attached, just a definition of an individuals standing in a relationship. Communication is then made impossible without common meanings.




> i advocate r+ over adversives because there is evidence it is less harmful. that's all.


As do I.



> my scientific interest lies in evidence that there are biological adaptations in both humans and dogs that we are in a functioning PHYSICAL symbiosis. not merely a convienience that worked out alright. the answer to the question that that implicates to me is the goal of my college career and future endevors.


Sometimes I wish I was in my 20's again with a lifetime ahead of me to do something like that.

I believe humans and canines evolved with many of the same evolutionary pressures, and evolved similar enough adaptations to succeed as far as social structures , cooperative hunting, and other adaptations in learning and behavior so that we are very compatible species for a symbiotic relationship with each other. I also believe it is likely not a total coincidence and interaction and observation may have played a part early in our evolution.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> It is beyond my understanding how a label can make someone feel. Dominance is term to me, it doesn't make me feel anything one way or the other. Interacting with my dogs makes me feel and sparks emotions, a word does not.
> 
> The issue lies in the fact I see a different definition of the term than you do I believe, with no emotional baggage or training methods attached, just a definition of an individuals standing in a relationship. Communication is then made impossible without common meanings.


label can indeed have emotional connotations. 

ill debate incentives vs aversives anyday of the week because its a workable debate. but there is no relevance whatsoever to the individual's standing in the relationship because all relationships are fluid. even in a single given scenario, by your definition dominant status can be exchanged back and forth over and over again in the space of seconds. why does it matter? what purpose does it serve to label something that you do not have enough data to quantify? im not really trying to debate dominance...just trying to make a point. 

an algebraic analogy

if you have an equation with multiple variables, you have to isolate each variable in order to solve.

what im saying is that when making observations about intangibles like how dogs think...any statement is subjective. all statements carry emotional coloration. the definition you choose as a workable one is based on what you feel is the best one...in other words...stroking your own ego. and i never said i dont do it too. i simply prefer a less...connotation laden approach(my dog beats me up because she's a meanie  )...speculate all you wish but when it comes down to it..you dont know..so work with what you do know. speculate for amusement...apply the process when speaking in real life terms.








> Sometimes I wish I was in my 20's again with a lifetime ahead of me to do something like that.


im a freshman in college and a hair shy of thirty. my bio lab partner is 82. seriously. how much time you have depends on what you choose to do with.



> I believe humans and canines evolved with many of the same evolutionary pressures, and evolved similar enough adaptations to succeed as far as social structures , cooperative hunting, and other adaptations in learning and behavior so that we are very compatible species for a symbiotic relationship with each other. I also believe it is likely not a total coincidence and interaction and observation may have played a part early in our evolution.



i dont believe it. i know it. 

fact. civilization as we know it would not have been possible without dogs. period. the rapid population expansion in pre agricultural times is directly correlative with the domestication of dogs. (granted correlation does not per se indicate causation but nevertheless the implication of the data stands)

i do not however believe that it was anything other than coincidence. somebody had a weird idea and it worked. other people were like "hey thats a good idea Ugg!" and expanded it. 

i have a suspicion that intelligence is not quantifiable in amount. i feel that it is classifiable by type and i would bet the correlations with species would shock most of the world.

think about it a second..what shapes the individual human and how the individual human think?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> fact. civilization as we know it would not have been possible without dogs. period. the rapid population expansion in pre agricultural times is directly correlative with the domestication of dogs. (granted correlation does not per se indicate causation but nevertheless the implication of the data stands)


That one I do not buy. Correlation yes, but many primitive cultures do fine without dogs. Civilization would have been quite possible.





> think about it a second..what shapes the individual human and how the individual human think?


Yes what indeed...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/250596/ukranian_girl_raised_by_dogs/


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> That one I do not buy. Correlation yes, but many primitive cultures do fine without dogs. Civilization would have been quite possible.


you missed the point.

a. primitive is an ethnocentric term...just saying

b. without dogs, the population would not have advanced to where we are today..today. as i said..civilization _as we know it_ would not have been possible without them.

(i tend to be very very very very very literal when i am in a clear mode of thought) 




> Yes what indeed...
> 
> http://www.metacafe.com/watch/250596/ukranian_girl_raised_by_dogs/


all that proves is that culture is a viable component in normal development.

anthropology defines culture as an adaptive strategy based on several developments that hard very hard to try and quantify in other species. the creation and use of symbols, the creation and use of complex tools and technology and the creation and participation in complex social organization and institutions. and all thinking about that does is give me a headache lol. 


i was speaking more on isolated components. there are genetic influences on behavior. thats an isolated component that is supportable as fact. what else?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I believe humans and canines evolved with many of the same evolutionary pressures, and evolved similar enough adaptations to succeed as far as social structures , cooperative hunting, and other adaptations in learning and behavior so that we are very compatible species for a symbiotic relationship with each other. I also believe it is likely not a total coincidence and interaction and observation may have played a part early in our evolution.


Sounds like each species used the other as a tool, hmmmmmmm!!! I've heard that's the 1st sign of intelligence.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> a. primitive is an ethnocentric term...just saying


"Primitive" is a comparative term, and a perfectly valid one. It implies no value judgment(s) beyond those the speaker or listener imparts to it. Calling the term ethnocentric is (ironically) ethnocentric...and paternalistic.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you missed the point.
> 
> a. primitive is an ethnocentric term...just saying
> 
> ...


Primitive is not always ethnocentric. Substitute "simple" if you don't find the term fits.

If your saying western civilization precisely as it exists at this precise time wouldn't be possible, sure but we wouldn't have advanced to where we are today very literally without the chicken, cow, or even the rat and flea or other species.

But there is nothing about our civilization that is impossible, or even improbable, without dogs. We are still what we are.



> all that proves is that culture is a viable component in normal development.
> 
> anthropology defines culture as an adaptive strategy based on several developments that hard very hard to try and quantify in other species. the creation and use of symbols, the creation and use of complex tools and technology and the creation and participation in complex social organization and institutions. and all thinking about that does is give me a headache lol.
> 
> i was speaking more on isolated components. there are genetic influences on behavior. thats an isolated component that is supportable as fact. what else?


Culture, genetics. Nature and nurture. Those are the general categories that define behavior as most describe it. 

I think you have to break those down into components to look at comparatives and both are supportable as fact. Study of, and trying to determine the line between those two categories has filled the careers of many scientists and will long after I'm gone.

Culture breaks down to more than symbols, tools and technology etc. Culture is defined as the shared behaviors, knowledge and beliefs of a social group.

Websters defines culture as "_the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations_" simply put, learned behavior and knowledge passed down to future generations. That learned and passed down knowledge and behavior can include tools, symbols or technology.

We can have a culture without a single tool, without a spoken language, without a symbol. Culture can be just a simple set of social rules, or knowledge, you can discard tools and symbols and technology and those rules and a culture will still remain, learned knowledge will accumulate and be passed to succeeding generations.

How much of our shared social rules, morals, beliefs and knowledge that make up our social behavior are purely genetically programmed instinct? How much is determined by our physical characteristics? How much is learned and therefore becomes "culture"? We can't answer that completely about ourselves.

But it does exist, and it is supportable fact that it exists in not only humans but other social animals as well who form social rules even if based on genetic tendencies and who pass down learned knowledge and behaviors over generations. Meaning clearly other social animals have what we define as a culture in some primitive (simple) form.

Take elephants who depend on the matriarch and older females to pass down knowledge and behavior, where is food and water in sparse environments along their long migration route for example. That is culture. Go shoot the matriarch and older females and the culture is destroyed, the knowledge gone and no longer passed down. The herd may even die without it of dehydration or starvation in attempt at their migration, or not even attempt to migrate at all.

Or these scientists, who are passing down learned knowledge and behavior, culture in it's simplest form, to another species... To then be passed down to their offspring.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123922&page=1

You can isolate the genetic elements of behavior, but intelligence and learning are just such a genetic element. Some of the learned knowledge becomes culture. And we are genetically programmed to build and pass on that culture, as are other animals to a simpler extent.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Primitive is not always ethnocentric. Substitute "simple" if you don't find the term fits.


primitive is rejected as proper terminology. hunter/forager would be the correct thing to say. 



> If your saying western civilization precisely as it exists at this precise time wouldn't be possible, sure but we wouldn't have advanced to where we are today very literally without the chicken, cow, or even the rat and flea or other species.
> 
> But there is nothing about our civilization that is impossible, or even improbable, without dogs. We are still what we are.
> 
> ...



no those are just social bonds. tool making is essential in culture. sorry. it defines culture scientifically. webster's definition is faulty. 

tools indicate imagining, a certain type of spacial reasoning, and the ability to manipulate your environment. symbols are also a vital component of culture. they indicate displacement, object permanance and a whole lot of other physical implications. cant have culture without tools and symbols. sorry. you can have social structure but not culture.


my contention is not that dogs have culture. my contention is that dogs have evolved an adaptive mechanism that serves a similar purpose..like culture...but not exactly culture. that contention is based on the idea that workable intellegence comes with certain mental toolkits and is born of the need to adapt to particular enviornments. 

kind of like saying if human evolution looked in a mirror, it would see dog evolution. not the same...mirror image..


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no those are just social bonds. tool making is essential in culture. sorry. it defines culture scientifically. webster's definition is faulty.
> 
> tools indicate imagining, a certain type of spacial reasoning, and the ability to manipulate your environment. symbols are also a vital component of culture. they indicate displacement, object permanance and a whole lot of other physical implications. cant have culture without tools and symbols. sorry. you can have social structure but not culture.


Does culture require more than one individual? If I was the only human alive, and I had never seen or heard another human, could I have a culture? Be part of a culture?

Tool making in and of itself has nothing to do with culture, it is a sign of a level of thinking, an ability. Sharing tool making knowledge and tool using knowledge among members of a social group is the sign of culture.

Symbols are necessary for human language, which is part of our method for transmitting knowledge and beliefs to others, and to following generations, but it isn't the only way of learning behavior and certainly isn't the only method we use. Imitation for examle is a huge means of diseminating culture.

Culture only requires symbols if you are limiting any definition of culture to only beings that can use symbolism, meaning symbolic language, to share knowledge and pass it on, namely pretty much humans alone.

I do not restrict the possibility of what we call a culture to requiring symbolic language and therefore to humans, nor do others as that is a pretty stacked deck.

Here is an interesting article about the question.

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/animal-culture-info1.htm

"_Culture is probably not rare in animals, although hard experimental evidence is lacking. The strongest case for culture is found in the species most amenable to experimental manipulation, rather than in nonhuman primates. Human culture is much more likely to be cumulative than animal culture, but the reasons for this are not well established. At this point, there is no reason to assume that cumulative culture depends critically on teaching, imitation, language, or perspective-taking. Currently, animals are being judged according to stricter criteria than humans._

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/104533381/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0



> my contention is not that dogs have culture. my contention is that dogs have evolved an adaptive mechanism that serves a similar purpose..like culture...but not exactly culture. that contention is based on the idea that workable intellegence comes with certain mental toolkits and is born of the need to adapt to particular enviornments.
> 
> kind of like saying if human evolution looked in a mirror, it would see dog evolution. not the same...mirror image..


I agree, we adapted similar social systems, similar cooperative hunting styles, hunt similar prey, and similar learning ability. Human just got more adaptation to abstract thought, enough to form symbolic language and pass on information and knowledge in a unique way. Common symbology we also teach to our dogs within their limited ability to grasp.

I see them as having a simple form of a culture. The biochemical processes are fairly identical. The basic tool kits are as well. For example both us and a dog transmit he same brain chemical a mother and child do when they imprint, when we pet our dogs.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

disagree. but no time to debate.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Does culture require more than one individual? If I was the only human alive, and I had never seen or heard another human, could I have a culture? Be part of a culture?


Sure. And if you found another creature, you could attempt to teach your culture to that creature.

To me, that sound like that "if a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" question. The answer is of course it does. 

So, yeah, I'd say you could be a one man/woman culture. It would just die out when you did unless you could find someone/some creature to pass it on to.



TxRider said:


> Tool making in and of itself has nothing to do with culture, it is a sign of a level of thinking, an ability. Sharing tool making knowledge and tool using knowledge among members of a social group is the sign of culture.
> 
> Symbols are necessary for human language, which is part of our method for transmitting knowledge and beliefs to others, and to following generations, but it isn't the only way of learning behavior and certainly isn't the only method we use. Imitation for examle is a huge means of diseminating culture.


Considering even animals can make and use tools, I wouldn't consider it all that outside of being a part of a culture if you want to argue animals have culture too. 

Same for symbols. Bees basically "dance maps" (the dances indicate where things are) and maps are both tools and symbols (tools made of symbols really). How could "bee culture" exist if they couldn't tell each other where food is? If imitation is a part of learning culture - why didn't the elephants in your earlier example learn by imitation? 




TxRider said:


> Culture only requires symbols if you are limiting any definition of culture to only beings that can use symbolism, meaning symbolic language, to share knowledge and pass it on, namely pretty much humans alone.


Language of any kind is a collection of common symbols that has a meaning. I'd argue that dogs basically use both sign language and spoken language - they use their bodies and their voices to communicate specific meanings and emotional states. 

Are their any social creatures that do not communicate and as such have no language? 

Besides, how do we KNOW that humans are the only creatures on this planet that can use symbolic language? We can't get inside an animal's head to know how they reason things and interpret things - so how can we say that with 100% absolute fact that humans are the only ones capable of symbols?

How do we know that when two animals communicate with each other, their brains aren't processing some level of symbols on their own level? How do we know they don't have "simple symbols" much in the way you believe they have "simple culture"?



TxRider said:


> I do not restrict the possibility of what we call a culture to requiring symbolic language and therefore to humans, nor do others as that is a pretty stacked deck.


I don't restrict the possibility that humans are the only ones capable of symbols, unless it's been absolutely proven that we are. Looking at Wally and watching him nose lick or look away or when he yawned at that fearful dog on Dog Whisperer - tells me he understood something and was trying to communicate something to me (or that dog, which, of course couldn't respond because it was only on TV) - pretty much using a canine's language (which I believe is symbolic like any language - sounds, shapes, and/or signals that mean something else).


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> I don't restrict the possibility that humans are the only ones capable of symbols, unless it's been absolutely proven that we are.


Nor do I...

Here's an example a 9 month old dog using symbols, in a rather abstract manner if you ask me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE8SLv6GMXE


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

its not the ability to use symbols that matters.

its the ability to create them.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Nor do I...
> 
> Here's an example a 9 month old dog using symbols, in a rather abstract manner if you ask me.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE8SLv6GMXE



LOL that's awesome. I want a Border Collie! 

I'm so going to have start teaching Wally the names of stuff.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> its not the ability to use symbols that matters.
> 
> its the ability to create them.



Perhaps they do.

Nose licking is a symbol of something as are all the calming signals. Their body language - we know that has meanings (which is why we can read it to determine a dog's intentions/emotional state).

Did the first dog ever automatically know how to do these, or did that come as dogs found each other, interacted with each other, and then developed these methods to help keep peace and allow cooperation without competition? 

Do our companion dogs develop "unnatural" ways to communicate with us? Wally spins around in a circle if he needs to pee really bad or sometimes whines and even starts shaking. Are these natural responses or are they ways of he developed to try to get my attention? 

If you have answers, I'd love to hear them because I got nothing


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

are those behaviors solely biological? or were they generated independant of biology. 

IOW are they mere instincts and drives or are they using communication that allows for displacement, object permanance and is a communication system that evolves? 

?????????????????????????

that is the million dollar question.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> its not the ability to use symbols that matters.
> 
> its the ability to create them.


Is it?

An amazon tribesman has ability to create symbols, as do I.

Put me and an amazon tribeseman on a desert isle, and even though we can each create symbols, we do not have a shared culture.

As we learn to use them, to communicate them to each other, we develop culture.

I can teach him my language, my symbols, and without him creating a single one, just learning them, communicate our social beliefs and rules etc, share knowledge, and we can now build and share a culture between us.

The ability to create symbols isn't part of a culture or neccessary then IMO, the communication of common meanings between individuals, and then the subsequent use of those meanings to share knowledge and form common behaviors and such makes it a culture. What differentiates say Chinese or American culture.

Symbology also is not restricted to language and writing, and can be body langauge. Pointing for example.

Me and the tribeseman are standing there, he points to his mouth and looks at me, is he asking for food, offering food or what? Say he is using to offer me food. We can work that out and come to understand that as a common symbol in no time through a little simple back and forth of basic expression and learning. We just created a symbol, and made it a common symbol, for "do you want food"? Me and a dog can do the same.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> are those behaviors solely biological? or were they generated independant of biology.
> 
> IOW are they mere instincts and drives or are they using communication that allows for displacement, object permanance and is a communication system that evolves?
> 
> ...


I draw a simpler line. Are they biological hard wired behaviors or are they dependent on the animals ability to learn.

A deep look at why we say not to take pups from the mom until 8-12 weeks of age should be a simple indicator. There is no real biological reason not to take them the instant they can eat food and survive.

We leave them there because they will learn valuable learned social behaviors do we not? That they will not be functional in dog society, or culture, without that learned behavior?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Do our companion dogs develop "unnatural" ways to communicate with us? Wally spins around in a circle if he needs to pee really bad or sometimes whines and even starts shaking. Are these natural responses or are they ways of he developed to try to get my attention?
> 
> If you have answers, I'd love to hear them because I got nothing


Dunno, but it makes me think about certain commucations, for example my dog Hope has learned the meaning of "show me".

She comes and gets my attention, standing right in front of me and maybe vocalizing to get my eye contact, deep stare into my eyes, fairly unique expression in her body langauge.. She wants something she knows I can get for her that she cannot get for herself. I have no idea what.

I say "show me"... and she has learned over the last year that means I intend to, or am quite likely to, give her what she wants if she can communicate it to me.

Normally it's either her ball is stuck under the sofa and she'll go to the spot, look under at it and then look expectantly back to me. Or it's food and she goes to the laundry room, noses the bag of food and looks back at me expectantly, or the back door to go outside, or her leash on the table by the TV... you get the picture.

I tend to encourage this and give her what she wants when she successfully communicates it, and stand to follow her when I ask her to "show me".

Is it an unnatural form of communication for a dog? That's a tricky question.

It is a sign of intelligence for her to know I can get the ball out from under the sofa when she cannot. And even moreso to have the forethought to come get me to go there and get it for her. Would a dog do with another dog? I wouldn't think it likely, but I could not rule it out as possible since she has that capability..


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Dunno, but it makes me think about certain commucations, for example my dog Hope has learned the meaning of "show me".
> 
> She comes and gets my attention, standing right in front of me and maybe vocalizing to get my eye contact, deep stare into my eyes, fairly unique expression in her body langauge.. She wants something she knows I can get for her that she cannot get for herself. I have no idea what.
> 
> ...



Heh Wally does that to me all the time. He did it just this morning. He woke up and barked so I came to him and said "What is it?" He looked down the hall and back at me. He did it again. I started walking down the hall and followed me all excitedly. Turns out, he smelled the leftover scent of food in the kitchen, and I presume he thought either someone was cooking for food was ready and it was time to eat.

He does as you describe Hope doing with objects. I don't think he knows "show me" like Hope does, but if he can't reach something, he'll look back at me and look at what it is he wants. He's gotten so bold these days, he'll stand up on my mini-freezer to further indicate what he's into (the treats I keep on the top of it). I think he's learned that I point stuff out to him, or for him from all the find it games. I really saw it a lot with the scent thing where he couldn't find it and kept looking at me like "I can't find it! Where is it?!"

Reminds of a youtube video of one dog watching another dog on youtube barking. The dog tilts his head at the speakers then looks at another dog sitting nearby. The first dog looks at the speakers then looks at the other dog who then starts tilting his head. It looks like the first dog is either trying to see if the barking is coming from the other dog or something like "hey, do you know what that is?" and the other dog is like "I have no idea"


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Hope is a smart girl, and she's learning to be a language parser as I challenge her with it and reward her for doing so.

In the house I'll say her name and get eye contact and just start talking to her, interspersing terms she knows and using them in different ways to try to get her to associate words, meanings etc.

She cocks her head one way, then the other, obviously picking out some sounds she recognizes and trying hard to make some sense of them and how I am using the sounds. Occasionally I get an aha! moment, but not too often. She tries though as aha! moments she has learned are always rewarding.

The "show me" was funny last night. She is on predisone, which makes her obsessively hungry and wanting to eat always. Well it's also the start of June bug season here, and she loves to eat the crunchy lil buggers. The pred has her scenting and clearing the grass of them any time she's outside now, digging them up if she has to.

Last night I said show me when she approached me, whined, and was obviously wanting something and she got to a point and couldn't decide to go to the food bag to ask for food, or the back door to ask to go hunt June bugs to eat.. She looked back and forth several times, looking at the food bag she could see in the other room, and then the back door in pretty obvious indecision before finally going for the june bugs and nosing the back door...  Those are my favorite moments, and always make me laugh for a while.

I am still the dominant individual in our relationship, I control all these resources and her access to them, but I am also easy to appease and get them from. In this case she isn't appeasing me with an overt act I require of her, as in NILIF, she simply has to figure out how to communicate her specific desire to me successfully.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> I draw a simpler line. Are they biological hard wired behaviors or are they dependent on the animals ability to learn.
> 
> A deep look at why we say not to take pups from the mom until 8-12 weeks of age should be a simple indicator. There is no real biological reason not to take them the instant they can eat food and survive.
> 
> We leave them there because they will learn valuable learned social behaviors do we not? That they will not be functional in dog society, or culture, without that learned behavior?


im not the one drawing the line. i have speculation but no real opinion either way because i feel like there is not enough information to make any kind of call. 

culture is by definition complex. most animals communicate with basic symbols. humans communicate with extremely and extensively complex symbols that dont carry fixed meaning. language evolves and changes...look at the history of english. im fairly good at old english...which if i spoke it to you you would probably assume i was speaking german...all languages do this. 

but do dogs? can animals do that outside of human intervention?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> In the house I'll say her name and get eye contact and just start talking to her, interspersing terms she knows and using them in different ways to try to get her to associate words, meanings etc.
> 
> She cocks her head one way, then the other, obviously picking out some sounds she recognizes and trying hard to make some sense of them and how I am using the sounds. Occasionally I get an aha! moment, but not too often. She tries though as aha! moments she has learned are always rewarding.


So you'd do something like "Wally, you're such a good boy, why don't you sit and speak to me?" 

He would know some words in there (Wally, good boy, sit, speak). Is that the kind of thing you'd do with Hope to get started with this? 

I'd love to challenge his mind like this. Making him think is fun (for me, anyway, he might see it as torment LOL)




TxRider said:


> The "show me" was funny last night. She is on predisone, which makes her obsessively hungry and wanting to eat always. Well it's also the start of June bug season here, and she loves to eat the crunchy lil buggers. The pred has her scenting and clearing the grass of them any time she's outside now, digging them up if she has to.
> 
> Last night I said show me when she approached me, whined, and was obviously wanting something and she got to a point and couldn't decide to go to the food bag to ask for food, or the back door to ask to go hunt June bugs to eat.. She looked back and forth several times, looking at the food bag she could see in the other room, and then the back door in pretty obvious indecision before finally going for the june bugs and nosing the back door...  Those are my favorite moments, and always make me laugh for a while.


LOL wow - that's cool  

I wish Wally ate crickets. I hate them because when they chirp at night - it's like piercing and can't sleep (somehow, he CAN sleep with them right under his crate even which made me )


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> im not the one drawing the line. i have speculation but no real opinion either way because i feel like there is not enough information to make any kind of call.
> 
> culture is by definition complex. most animals communicate with basic symbols. humans communicate with extremely and extensively complex symbols that dont carry fixed meaning. language evolves and changes...look at the history of english. im fairly good at old english...which if i spoke it to you you would probably assume i was speaking german...all languages do this.
> 
> but do dogs? can animals do that outside of human intervention?


Chimps do, there's an example in the article I linked. One group uses a symbol for one purpose, the other uses the same symbol for something else entirely. It has no fixed meaning within chimps, but it does within a specific cultural group.

Can it change over generations within a group of chimps? Haven't seen any study that says so, but I would guess it is possible.

My dog learns "come" means to come to me, I could teach her that it now has changed and "come" now means to sit down pretty easily. Is that plasticity of meaning for a symbol the same?

Just because a culture lacks the complexity of ours, does that make it not a culture?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Chimps do, there's an example in the article I linked. One group uses a symbol for one purpose, the other uses the same symbol for something else entirely. It has no fixed meaning within chimps, but it does within a specific cultural group.
> 
> Can it change over generations within a group of chimps? Haven't seen any study that says so, but I would guess it is possible.
> 
> ...



whether or not chimps do it is hotly hotly debated. my anthropology professor made a huge point to stress that when we covered primatology. if i looked hard enough i could probably find at least 50 reputable articles and studies that cover the same subject but wildly disagree. 

ive read some of them and as far as i can tell the evidence is inconclusive as far as chimps are concerned. and we know waaaay more about chimps than we do about dogs.

yes. because the type of complexity implicit in the anthropological definition of culture has basis in biology. if the biology isnt there..you cant have that kind of complexity. in animals its not there or is different enough that we havent been able to see it.

basically...we need to know more about behavioral genetics and how brains function before we can say whether or not dogs have culture.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i should also say that i may not be explaining well right now. im a little distracted..between exams and what happened this morning...im in chainsmoker mode...


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> So you'd do something like "Wally, you're such a good boy, why don't you sit and speak to me?"
> 
> He would know some words in there (Wally, good boy, sit, speak). Is that the kind of thing you'd do with Hope to get started with this?
> 
> I'd love to challenge his mind like this. Making him think is fun (for me, anyway, he might see it as torment LOL)


Something like that yes.

I do a lot of simple passive training through repetitive association.

I try to teach words for places, objects and actions. Any that the dog interacts with regularly.

Every room in the house, every object the dog interacts with and every activity clear enough to name. Commands are activities, but just as people train a dog to relieve when commanded by just saying the command as they relieve, and eventually they associate it wit relieving, I do that with all kinds of things. Eating and drinking being the first. "eat your food" and "drink some water".

But I also do it for rooms, and the back yard, going into the house etc. Once she learned find it, when I have to give her a hint I go to the door of the room and motion in and repeat the name of the room. She doesn't know them all yet, but she does know when I motion in that the object is always in that room if she looks hard enough, but she will soon associate the names and I'll just be able to tell her what room it is in from the sofa.

Enough so the dog generalizes a sound can symbolize a place, object or action. The more of each they learn, the faster they can learn more.

Say I go stash a milk bone in the corner in the kitchen. Hope "knows" the words "milk bone" as being a milk bone, she knows "kitchen" she knows "food" she knows "find it", she knows "are you hungry?" she knows "go" she knows "go look", etc.

Are you hungry? means food is available as a certainty, when I say that and get eye contact food is an end end result of whatever follows, every single time, but not always the same food, or the same place, or the same way.

I just string those words into different conversational forms and get her to put 2 and 2 together to realize that yes there is food available, it is a milk bone, it is in the kitchen.

Which is a raised level of difficulty from "milk bone" "in your bowl" "go look" after secretly putting one in her bowl.

I have only had her a year, so it's early in it yet, she just really started to get the concept at all of putting words together like that fairly recently. It's not like I say a sentence and off she goes, at least not yet. It is very hard for her.

But like the BC in that vid, the more words they learn, the more they do it the easier and faster it goes. I bet that girl can teach that BC permanently the name of a new object in under 5 minutes. Hope is still far from that, but she does show good aptitude for it, Kaya really does not at least not yet.

I usually can't get past three concepts in a string with dogs. Go get object A, in place B, put it in place C, or go to place A, get object B, give to person C type of stuff. But that's enough to do a lot if the dog knows many places, many objects and many actions.

I toss the words around in simple ways to test for recognition first, and when they succeed I practice the words in as many ways as I can.

Just thinking aloud, would telling my dog food is available, that the food is a milk bone, and she can find it in the kitchen be a communication utilizing a concept of object permanence?



> LOL wow - that's cool
> 
> I wish Wally ate crickets. I hate them because when they chirp at night - it's like piercing and can't sleep (somehow, he CAN sleep with them right under his crate even which made me )


No insect is safe from Hope. I cringe a little when a large fly gets in the house, I'm sure I will lose a window to her going after one some day.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> basically...we need to know more about behavioral genetics and how brains function before we can say whether or not dogs have culture.


Or just use the definition of culture from Webster's...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Something like that yes.
> 
> I do a lot of simple passive training through repetitive association.
> 
> ...


I'm going to have to start doing that. Thanks for the explanation and examples!




TxRider said:


> Just thinking aloud, would telling my dog food is available, that the food is a milk bone, and she can find it in the kitchen be a communication utilizing a concept of object permanence?


At the very least it would show dogs can form an imagination of an object from a sound just like if I say "apple" you can get an image of an apple in your head.

I think it might be hard to test in dogs because they can smell things before they see them, so if, say, I hold something in my hand show it to Wally, then put it somewhere out of sight - does he know it's still there because of object permanence? Or does he just smell it, so he knows it's there? Does the dog's great sense of smell substitute for object permanence? 

I wonder if a test like this: 


> In more recent years, the original Piagetian object permanence account has been challenged by a series of infant studies suggesting that much younger infants do have a clear sense of object persisting when out of sight. One study that focused on object permanence[5] showed infants a toy car that moved down an inclined track, disappeared behind a screen, and then reemerged at the other end, still on the track. The researchers created a "possible event" where a toy mouse was placed behind the tracks but was hidden by the screen as the car rolled by. Then, researchers created an "impossible event." In this situation, the toy mouse was placed on the tracks but was secretly removed after the screen was lowered so that the car seemed to go through the mouse. Infants as young as 3 1/2 months of age looked longer at the impossible event than at the possible event. This indicated that they were surprised by the impossible event, which suggested that they remembered not only that the toy mouse still existed (object permanence) but also its location. This research suggests that infants understand more about objects earlier than Piaget proposed.[1]


(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence)

Would be possible to do with a dog?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> I'm going to have to start doing that. Thanks for the explanation and examples!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the problem in testing for stuff like this with dogs and babies is effective interpretation. the smell factor is one huge stumbling block because we have no way to tell. creating a situation removing smell as a factor would be extremely difficult and the only way i can imagine getting it done involves a lot of discomfort for the dog. which makes me a bit leery.

hearing is another consideration. how do you temporarily and effectively remove hearing so that the dog cannot hear any possible scenario..

youd have to isolate ALL of the affecting factors and design a battery of tests that test by test removed affecting factors one by one.

you need equipment too. you'd want to monitor brain and heart activity. you'd also ideally want someone taking blood samples during each test to monitor hormone activity. these are all factors that have to be put into the equation.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> At the very least it would show dogs can form an imagination of an object from a sound just like if I say "apple" you can get an image of an apple in your head.


That is more a test of symbolism I would think. I would point to Rico the border collie who can look at a picture of an item, or a smaller version of an item, and fetch the proper corresponding item from pile in another room.

But it might be impossible to have symbolism without object permanence.



> I think it might be hard to test in dogs because they can smell things before they see them, so if, say, I hold something in my hand show it to Wally, then put it somewhere out of sight - does he know it's still there because of object permanence? Or does he just smell it, so he knows it's there? Does the dog's great sense of smell substitute for object permanence?
> 
> I wonder if a test like this:
> 
> Would be possible to do with a dog?


There have been studies...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=c3b4e48127d1ffbd1d6749b7b6732a1b

I tend to think in a more natural context. If a prey item is running parallel and disappears behind a boulder or other sight block, would the dog expect to see it appear at the other side? That is a level of object permanence.

What does a find it game show? I cover my entire house walking and hide a ball somewhere. As she sees me walking around in her down stay, i have both hands cupped as if I have the ball, only showing her I do not before I release er to search. She searches the house for it. Without a sense of object permanence why would she search for it for almost a half hour, sometimes not finding it?

Or Marley the border collie in the video I linked. Is it even logically possible to retain a symbol for a physical object without object permanence, and some form or level of knowing it as a physical object and some form of realization that it exists somewhere even if it cannot be seen or smelled?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> I tend to think in a more natural context. If a prey item is running parallel and disappears behind a boulder or other sight block, would the dog expect to see it appear at the other side? That is a level of object permanence.


Too bad I have to pay $31.50 just to read the study you linked 

That would make sense, though. But, if I hide from Wally, but in a place where I can see him (like I duck behind something and I peak around it to see him) sometimes, he looks like he doesn't know where I am. If I "reappear" and disappear from the spot a few times, then I notice, he'll keep looking. 

That said, if I walk away from him and go behind a wall and stop, and peak around the other side, he'll still be looking in that direction as if expecting me to show up there. When I show up on the other side, it surprises him.



TxRider said:


> What does a find it game show? I cover my entire house walking and hide a ball somewhere. As she sees me walking around in her down stay, i have both hands cupped as if I have the ball, only showing her I do not before I release er to search. She searches the house for it. Without a sense of object permanence why would she search for it for almost a half hour, sometimes not finding it?


I wonder if that's object permanence or has she learned that when your hands are in that shape, you might have a ball inside? I do that to Wally, hold a hand like I have food inside (and then pretend like I'm eating) and then bury that "invisible food" under blankets and he'll look for it under the blankets and then realize there's nothing there and look at me like "where did it go?" 

Does he think "there should be some food in there" and that's why he looks, or does he just recognize the shape of my hand is in the "food holding shape" so he responds, almost like conditioned. 

If it is object permanence, this might explain why luring leads to having a hand signal for the trick - the dog is acting as though the lure is still there?




TxRider said:


> Or Marley the border collie in the video I linked. Is it even logically possible to retain a symbol for a physical object without object permanence, and some form or level of knowing it as a physical object and some form of realization that it exists somewhere even if it cannot be seen or smelled?


Can it really not be smelled? That's the part that's tricky. Dogs can smell just about anything even at a small level of scent. We might not can smell it, but I know if I hide something, even something that has "no smell" like his rope bone, he finds it...by sniffing. 

So I wonder...


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Tx, like previously said..your find it game relies solely on removing it from her sight. i dont see it as proving anything at all. 

and are we talking real understanding of symbols or are we talking simple associations fueled by hope of reward gain/aversion avoidance? i personally have no idea. but i see that as a valid distinction. that's kind of where the whole being able to generate symbols thing comes into play.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Tx, like previously said..your find it game relies solely on removing it from her sight. i dont see it as proving anything at all.
> 
> and are we talking real understanding of symbols or are we talking simple associations fueled by hope of reward gain/aversion avoidance? i personally have no idea. but i see that as a valid distinction. that's kind of where the whole being able to generate symbols thing comes into play.


Does it depend on removing it from her sight? If I take her to my parents house a 4 hour drive away, she will still look for her ball if I tell her to find it, even though it has never been there.

She will do it right now even though she hasn't seen it for a few days as it has been put up while her back is hurt, no fetch or games.

Often I initiate the game by telling her to go find it, as I have no idea where it is, though she might sometimes.

As for valid distinction, I have to question that as well. Am I any different in learning a symbol? Or is it simply reward gain and aversion with me as well. If I get it right I get a good response from another person, if I get it wrong I get a negative response, I get a correction.

Think of me and the amazon guy on the desert island, and his response to me comprehending his motion to point at his mouth correctly, his symbol. If I get it right I'll get a positive social response in the form of expression, excitement, happiness, praise, I will feel good. If wrong I get a negative expression and likely an expression of frustration, and a repetition of trying to get me to get it right again aversive, correction. Reward/aversive.

We learn by the same learning theory, the same four quadrants of operant conditioning.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Does it depend on removing it from her sight? If I take her to my parents house a 4our drive away, she will still look for her ball if I tell her to find it, even though it has never been there.
> 
> She will do it right now even though she hasn't seen it for a few days as it has been put up while her back is hurt, no fetch or games.
> 
> Often I initiate the game by telling her to go find it, as I have no idea where it is, though she might sometimes.



Maybe by telling her to 'find it' she gets an image and scent of her ball in her head and goes looking for it. 

I could tell Wally to "Find it" and he'll go looking for SOMETHING, no idea what. Just did it and he's looking under his blankets, sniffing the edge of his bed, looking around - no idea for what. Now he's looking at me like "I can't find it! Can I get a clue?"

I SO wish I could ask him "What are you looking for?" and get an answer I can understand!

But I guess that would make things too easy


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Bolo does this too. but with her im kind of flippant about words. i could say "goat" and she'd do what i asked.

with her there's not much in the way of vocal cues and very few object specific ones...

now what i HAVE taught her cue wise superficially suggests that she is capable of grasping abstract spacial cues. fine tuned direction cues that go by increments. 

like say i would like for her to go get my purse. my purse is sitting on the couch down the hall in the living room. i know exactly where it is. i look, nod, snap twice and blink.

whereby she knows move to the spot i looked at, turn in the direction i nod, take two steps forward and pick up the thing you find to bring to me.

im still working with her to see how far i can run with this..

edited to add

the problem with that is i have no way to find out how widely this sort of thing can be replicated. thats another major issue. here in this thread we are talking cases studies...which can be helpful but not really indicative of anything in regards to dogs as a whole.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> I wonder if that's object permanence or has she learned that when your hands are in that shape, you might have a ball inside? I do that to Wally, hold a hand like I have food inside (and then pretend like I'm eating) and then bury that "invisible food" under blankets and he'll look for it under the blankets and then realize there's nothing there and look at me like "where did it go?"


She definitely knows I might have the ball inside my hands. That is intended.

I believe she is likely smart enough to see if I walk out of a room without the ball in my hands, that the ball will be in that room. So I purposely make it impossible for her to tell by watching me as I walk from room to room picking a new hiding spot. Maybe I should test that and see how long it takes her to figure it out.. 



> Can it really not be smelled? That's the part that's tricky. Dogs can smell just about anything even at a small level of scent. We might not can smell it, but I know if I hide something, even something that has "no smell" like his rope bone, he finds it...by sniffing.
> 
> So I wonder...


I'm pretty confident she can always smell tennis ball in my house anywhere she is 365 days a year. Smelling where I hid it is surely just a higher concentration of smell.

And supposedly dogs sense of smell doesn't ever adjust like our does. Like if your house smells of fish, after so long you will no longer smell it, unless you leave for long enough for your sense of smell to readjust and then come back.

Supposedly the smell always remains the same for them. Though I don't know how they conclusively prove that.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> now what i HAVE taught her cue wise superficially suggests that she is capable of grasping abstract spacial cues. fine tuned direction cues that go by increments.
> 
> like say i would like for her to go get my purse. my purse is sitting on the couch down the hall in the living room. i know exactly where it is. i look, nod, snap twice and blink.
> 
> ...


I think some this also is likely breed specific as far as aptitudes for certain things. Border collies for vocal symbols for objects being a likely example.

As well object permanence can be learned, and developed, and that depends on the teacher and if the dog has experience learning about object permanence, not solely on the subject. 

I wouldn't expect a dog not taught or having experience with enough object permanence learning scenarios to generalize from it to do well on a test any more than I would expect an untrained dog to sit when asked. I also wouldn't expect every dog to do well, just as some humans suck at math or reading maps. It's pushing the edge of their capability, and the edge of capability is quite variable and unique to each mind.

Even humans learn object permanence, and symbols, we are not born with that knowledge, we just are built to learn it faster and easier.


I like your cues, but I can tell you think differently than me. I could not manage using cues like those, I couldn't train myself to be consistent enough.

My cues have to be overt and natural to me, or I screw it up..

Hope has no spatial cues really. Other than maybe to look where I am looking if I alert her. Hmm she also knows "go around" which I tell her when her path is blocked, and she is frustrated in getting to something, looking like she is about to leap or something. I say "go around" and she has a little aha! and instantly looks for a longer path around the obstacle that might be spatial I guess.

Looks nods and blinks I could never do, though it would be awesome cool to have a dog obedience trained, and tricks taught to cues like that.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

the difference between a regular blink and a blinking cue is one of her few verbal cues "begin"..which is a signal to her that im about to tell her to do something. taught through the rev up cool down exercise in the stickys and mere repitition over the course of several years by merely saying "begin" everytime i wanted her to do something. this is different from any of the focus cues because its basically the "rev up' portion of the sticky exercise generalized to everything.

i find physical cues to be effective because i can cue her while i am talking. she also has touch cues and verbal cues. i restrict verbal cues to things like recall and off and begin.

i do it like that because it seemed more natural to her to pick up. probably because dogs cant talk...

eta

shes also getting kinda good at things like "put your nose to that spot" "touch that thing with your left paw"...things that she took a bit farther on her own...if im in sight she will ask me if something is the right thing by targeting it and giving a short yip. if im not in sight and she's not sure...she wont bring it all the way to me. she'll come into my field of vision, throw it down and then target and bark. i indicate yes or no and she acts accordingly.

the capability of offering and generalizing behaviors spontaneously without my help is more indicative of higher reasoning in dogs to me than anything else so far. which is another reason for using more abstract cues...i wanted to see how far i could take it.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the difference between a regular blink and a blinking cue is one of her few verbal cues "begin"..which is a signal to her that im about to tell her to do something. taught through the rev up cool down exercise in the stickys and mere repitition over the course of several years by merely saying "begin" everytime i wanted her to do something. this is different from any of the focus cues because its basically the "rev up' portion of the sticky exercise generalized to everything.
> 
> i find physical cues to be effective because i can cue her while i am talking. she also has touch cues and verbal cues. i restrict verbal cues to things like recall and off and begin.
> 
> ...


Did she create a symbol?

I constantly train my dogs, pretty much full time all the time for vocal recognition. It's not a training session thing, it's always any time we are interacting lifetime thing, I am teaching words and phrases. Any time we are interacting I am speaking in a way, choosing my words and tone to condition or associate or teach language skill. Maybe had to do with living with dogs from an infant on. If my dog focuses on something, I am repeating a name for it usually. Squirrel, bird, dog, bowl.

I figure they know a dog when they hear a bark, they know a squirrel when they hear it chatter, they know a bird when thy ear it squawk, I'm just adding to those those associative sounds with mine.

I try to get them to understand as many words for objects, places, actions as they can pick up, and challenge them to understand them presented in chains in different ways as behavior chains, and to parse them from more natural human language. And see how far I can run with it.

They are better at learning and reading voice than I am at performing body language consciously. I don't even do body language well with other humans.

Had another thought about object permanence and symbols. Kaya hears a dog bark down the block a ways. She looks, listens... Does she comprehend there is another dog there? Does the tone and frequency of the bark symbolize anything to her? Fear, aggression, alert, frustration etc. on the part of the other dog?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Did she create a symbol?
> 
> I constantly train my dogs, pretty much full time all the time for vocal recognition. It's not a training session thing, it's always any time we are interacting lifetime thing, I am teaching words and phrases. Any time we are interacting I am speaking in a way, choosing my words and tone to condition or associate or teach language skill. Maybe had to do with living with dogs from an infant on. If my dog focuses on something, I am repeating a name for it usually. Squirrel, bird, dog, bowl.
> 
> ...


i dont know if she made a symbol. i know it looks a hell of a lot like she did...and if she did, is she an anomoly? if she can do that...how many other dogs can? Can they do it to her level of consistency?


my goal is to be hands off. my goal is a dog that i dont need to do anything at all for her to act in a way that keeps her from trouble. my goal is full two way cooperation and fully two way communication. in order to do that...the human influence has to take a step back.

there really arent any concrete answers to these questions though..


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i dont know if she made a symbol. i know it looks a hell of a lot like she did...and if she did, is she an anomoly? if she can do that...how many other dogs can? Can they do it to her level of consistency?
> 
> 
> my goal is to be hands off. my goal is a dog that i dont need to do anything at all for her to act in a way that keeps her from trouble. my goal is full two way cooperation and fully two way communication. in order to do that...the human influence has to take a step back.
> ...


I would doubt she is an anomaly, how many other dogs can I couldn't guess.

Your setting a pretty high goal for yourself and the dog though, to get totally hands off. I just want reasonable, and a dog that will respond to me well to keep her from trouble when she doesn't realize bad consequences are going to result.

My girl Kaya was a stray, she can keep herself out of trouble on her own, hands off. She stays well clear of roads and cars, will not approach a person, stays clear of other dogs, is very sensitive to her environment and cautious in all she does. Kind of like a Coyote would be. Makes me wonder how AC ever caught her...  Adapting to my world has been a struggle for her, it has been seven months and she doesn't even trust me really well yet.

She is the poster dog for anti dominance training IMO, force, aversive, yelling, etc. would make a disaster of her.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> She definitely knows I might have the ball inside my hands. That is intended.
> 
> I believe she is likely smart enough to see if I walk out of a room without the ball in my hands, that the ball will be in that room. So I purposely make it impossible for her to tell by watching me as I walk from room to room picking a new hiding spot. Maybe I should test that and see how long it takes her to figure it out..


Wouldn't surprise me. It's amazing what they pick up on in their reading and observing of us to try to get the jump on what's going on. 




TxRider said:


> And supposedly dogs sense of smell doesn't ever adjust like our does. Like if your house smells of fish, after so long you will no longer smell it, unless you leave for long enough for your sense of smell to readjust and then come back.


Yeah, no idea how they could prove that, but it would make sense if true. Perhaps it's more that since a dog's sense of smell is so strong, nothing ever smells "the same" long enough for this to take effect. I mean, if I change clothes I probably have a different scent or if I went to the next room, etc. 

Then again, how did they prove dogs are generally red-green color blind? Probably the same idea.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Had another thought about object permanence and symbols. Kaya hears a dog bark down the block a ways. She looks, listens... Does she comprehend there is another dog there? Does the tone and frequency of the bark symbolize anything to her? Fear, aggression, alert, frustration etc. on the part of the other dog?


She probably does, and that bark probably gives her some indication to that dog's state of mind/emotions.

We know barks have meanings so it makes sense that if a dog hears a bark, the listening dog can pick up something in that bark to could convey what the barking dog is feeling/doing.

Just like when Wally saw the fearful dog on DW and did calming signals at it. He recognized it was a dog, recognized the body language, etc of the dog - even though the dog "wasn't real" and truly couldn't be smelled (he would only smell the TV, not the dog)


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

An interesting take on divergence of thought...

http://selfhelpdogtraining.com/wordpress/?p=124


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> An interesting take on divergence of thought...
> 
> http://selfhelpdogtraining.com/wordpress/?p=124


that is full of strawmen, some misinformation about the mixing of wolves and dogs, misinformation about wolf vs dog behavior...ugg..i read it but if i have to read it again i think ill puke.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

LOL @ "The dog training world too often is explained away by simple operant conditioning models."

It's not "explained away", it's explained by.

Because it works.

Everything done in dog training can be fit into that model - that doesn't mean it's simple or whatever, it means it's proven time and time again - regardless of training method.

"Fearfulness and skittishness may be labeled “weak nerves” when attempting to shoot a shot gun near a hunting dog, but would be considered quick reflexes when seen in a wolf."

Yeah, okay. Wally wasn't "fearful" because he's scared of stuff that won't kill him and turns into a shivering mess - nah, he just had reflexes so quick that he can't even move. Yeah. Sure. That's something a wolf would value. 

Besides...how does he know a wolf would consider "fearfulness"?

And SA is normal wolf behavior? Really? It's not even normal (much less "common") DOG behavior. 

"Dominating your relationship with your dog has to do with who is making the initiatives, who is in control of unclaimed possessions, play, and other activities. This is what gives you the upper hand needed in the dog-human relationship and tools to motivate your dog."


Unclaimed possessions? Well, if I don't want them and Wally does - does that make him dominant because he claimed it and I didn't challenge him? Play? Wally initiates play sometimes and sometimes I do. Initiatives - depends on the situation. If I don't care (like him roaming an open field sniffing to his heart's content) - is that making him dominant?

As far as what motivates him - I don't need to dominate Wally to know he's insanely food motivated and likes playing fetch. That doesn't even make sense - what does dominance have to do with what the dog finds motivating?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> An interesting take on divergence of thought...
> 
> http://selfhelpdogtraining.com/wordpress/?p=124


Um, the only thing that needs to be said is that there's no scientific basis to anything he says and there's no evidence of anything he says nor is there any study into anything he says. 

So um, there's no point into picking apart an article based on someone's overactive imagination.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I would have to agree with many points in that blog, much of it is just common sense. Replace dominance with leadership and I think there might be less criticism. Raising a dog is so similar to raising a kid. They both need to be taught how to behave and they need to know that we're in charge so that they can feel safe. The problem with calling it dominance is that dominance has the wrong connotation and it's not very descriptive.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

The problem with "dominance" I have is that it's often used to describe a dog that just needs more training.

When Wally wanted to run out the door - was he being dominant or did he just need to learn not to do that? 

To me, I just focus on the behavior. I want him to sit first, I teach that, and couldn't care less if he was "being dominant" or "trying to take my leadership away".

Like behavior, reward behavior, don't like behavior, teach alternate behavior. That's what makes sense to me.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Describing a dog as "dominant" is a waste of time. It doesn't tell you much about anything. If you describe a dog as "driven, determined, intelligent", then you get a clearer picture and more information on customizing a training plan. 

Single behaviors can be described as dominance. If a dog gets a bone from another dog, assuming both wanted it equally, then the dog ending up with the bone was dominant. Where it gets muddy is when people start describing packs as a fixed heirarchy.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

qingcong said:


> Single behaviors can be described as dominance. If a dog gets a bone from another dog, assuming both wanted it equally, then the dog ending up with the bone was dominant. Where it gets muddy is when people start describing packs as a fixed heirarchy.



So how does this translate to the human-dog relationship like this article seems to suggest?

Like with the "who initiates what?" aspects - like I said in my post, I don't initiate 100% of the play. Sometimes I'm not in the mood to play, but he'll go into his frolicking mode and play bow and rrrrrr-ruff (play barking) and then I find myself smiling and feeling like playing. Is that an act of dominance because he initiated the play?

Or the "controlling unclaimed items" - first, what is an "unclaimed item" in a house from the dog's point of view? One with neither mine or his scent? Something not totally in possession of either me or him? 

Going back to your "assuming they both want it equally" qualifier, If he "claims" a nylabone and I don't want it (and I don't) then it's not an act of dominance, correct? Yet, this article would make it seem that if I don't scoop up all the nylabones, I'm letting the dog 'be dominant'.

It's interesting that you agree with the article but then say that describing a dog as dominant is a waste of time (I agree) because, at least to me, it's describing dogs as dominant (or the potential to "become dominant") and using that to argue that dominance exists?


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Yes, that's why I don't describe dog behavior in terms of dominance. Like you point out, it just doesn't describe the whole picture. Things are fluid and dynamic in the real world.

Totally discounting any notion of social heirarchy is going a little too far though. Dogs are social predators. Ritualized status gestures and "dominance" displays are used to solve conflicts without the use of violence. Is a bull moose who wins the right to mate during mating season not the dominant individual? I mean, status exists in nature.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i dont discount social hierarchy but i really dont think they look at it like that and since its not really effective in terms of training to try and figure out how their status _actually_ works...i dont pay any attention to it.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

qingcong said:


> Yes, that's why I don't describe dog behavior in terms of dominance. Like you point out, it just doesn't describe the whole picture. Things are fluid and dynamic in the real world.
> 
> Totally discounting any notion of social heirarchy is going a little too far though. Dogs are social predators. Ritualized status gestures and "dominance" displays are used to solve conflicts without the use of violence. Is a bull moose who wins the right to mate during mating season not the dominant individual? I mean, status exists in nature.


It does, but dominance (in the sense most Milan-type trainers use it) does not exist in dogs.

Dominance, in the scientific term of the resource winner exists, but it is not a representation of canine social hierarchy.

To date, there has been no valid study into dog (not wolf) social hierarchy, and equally none in dog-human hierarchy.

I don't dismiss the possibility of dog social hierarchy. I dismiss dominance hierarchy, because there is no evidence supporting it. I dismiss social hierarchy as a training tool, because it has nothing to do with training or behavior change.

Until someone comes up with a valid study into dog relationships (not wolf relationships, not captive wolf relationships, not feral dog relationships...) it has no place in dog training.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Interesting dialog.

I just noticed a few points, I don't agree with all the guy said but a few made me think a bit.

Start with the APDT statement that dogs are not wolves and the comparison of wolves to dogs is like humans to chimps.

"The idea that dog behavior can be explained through the application of wolf behavior models is no more relevant than suggesting that chimpanzee behavior can be used to explain the intricacies of human behavior.”"

I think his observation that wolves and dogs are in fact the same species, diverging only thousands of years ago, and humans and chimps are very different species and even different genus, diverging millions of years ago makes a point. The application of a behavior model from the same species is, in fact, more relevant.

I think his observation that all natural dog behavior can be found to originate from wolves and suppressed or enhanced through our domestication is also correct, I can find no issue with it.

I also find it entertaining that the APDT states that dogs are not wolves, and no application of wolf behavior is relevant to dog behavior, then turn right around in their statement on dominance and explain wolf behavior as relevant with a human behavior model.

"Contrary to popular belief, research studies of wolves in their natural habitat demonstrate that wolves are not dominated by an “alpha wolf” who is the most aggressive pack member. Rather, wolves operate with a social structure similar to a human family"

He makes another interesting point. That humans adopting a dog seems more like the environment in the old wolf studies, than in later ones of familial packs. Wolves are dominated by an "alpha", it's just not established through aggression, but is indeed enforced through aggression if needed.

As for wolves and dominance, it's my recollection Mech stated there are indeed dominant individuals, but they assumed that dominant position through parentage, not competition. But they held the same roles, and the term alpha just didn't add any information and he feels is redundant. Not that a dominant individual in the pack doesn't exist.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Or the "controlling unclaimed items" - first, what is an "unclaimed item" in a house from the dog's point of view? One with neither mine or his scent? Something not totally in possession of either me or him?


To me that would be the weeks old half a squirrel Hope snatched up from the road, the baby possum she killed in the back yard, the cyanide poisoned moles that crawled out of their holes and died on the curb, the cooked bone my neighbor tossed over the fence, and other assorted unclaimed items I from time cannot let her have and must take away and control.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

and he totally dismisses the wildly different behavioral patterns.

the reason dogs are classified as a subspecies as opposed to the same species is because of the physiological differences but the important point is behavior difference.

dogs DO NOT act like wolves. period. if they did there would not be so many problems with wolfdogs. the behavioral difference has basis in genetics. dogs act somewhat like juevenile wolves..sorta..a little bit.... but not adult wolves.

wolves are NOT a model for dog behavior. period. 

ever see a dog perform this ritual?

the link shows typical wolf aggression within packs. i have yet to meet the dog that would initiate or tolerate such a thing.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

ps. and that type of ritualized aggression almost never ends in real aggression.

just saying. that dude should spend some time with wolves before he makes those kinds of claims


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and he totally dismisses the wildly different behavioral patterns.
> 
> the reason dogs are classified as a subspecies as opposed to the same species is because of the physiological differences but the important point is behavior difference.
> 
> ...


Baloney, wolves are a relevant model, the most relevant model of any species on the face of the planet, but only to a point. But they are orders of magnitude closer than we are to chimps.

Just because they are not identical to the nth degree does not mean the model is useless for comparison and study. As you said, juvenile wolves, with behavior selectively enhanced or suppressed through selective breeding.

The behavioral difference between a bloodhound and a border collie has basis in genetics as well, as does the difference between you and me. It doesn't mean you cannot draw information from the similarities, you simply have to reasonably take account of the differences when doing so.

Which is totally missing the point that the APDT then uses human behavior model to explain wolf behavior. A model that holds infinitely less relevance.



> ever see a dog perform this ritual?
> 
> the link shows typical wolf aggression within packs. i have yet to meet the dog that would initiate or tolerate such a thing.


You mean like this?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

no i dont mean like that.

those are stills. show me some vid that replicates the ritualized aggression in wolves. 

go spend some time with some wolves and then tell me its baloney.

there is NO relevant model. the idea that wolves are a relevant model is BALONEY.

ive spent hours with hundreds of dogs and spent hours upons hours studying them and i have not seen one scrap of behavior that even begins to compare to the wolf behavior ive experienced firsthand. 

you want a mildly relevant model? look at feral dog populations. that is the closest you will get to a relevant model. period.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ps. and that type of ritualized aggression almost never ends in real aggression.
> 
> just saying. that dude should spend some time with wolves before he makes those kinds of claims


He says he has...

"Although, their statement doesn’t have reference to any specific studies, I will share with you some of my own knowledge about this statement – *since I have worked and directed training on a professional level human, chimpanzee, dog, and wolf:*"


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

the video i posted show wolf AGGRESSION. not play. aggression.

ritualized formal aggression that almost never ends in violence.

in dogs the muzzle grab is generally a play behavior

those two wolves are not playing. at all. they are outright fighting for Monty's attention.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> He says he has...
> 
> "Although, their statement doesn’t have reference to any specific studies, I will share with you some of my own knowledge about this statement – *since I have worked and directed training on a professional level human, chimpanzee, dog, and wolf:*"


bull. if he had any experience he'd recognize the difference.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no i dont mean like that.
> 
> those are stills. show me some vid that replicates the ritualized aggression in wolves.


No need to, it is completely beside the point and irrelevant.

It's still ritualized aggression. Though a more of a juvenile form.

Exact replication is irrelevant. Dogs do display ritualized aggression, it originates directly from their descending from the wolf does it not?

Show me natural dog behaviors that do not originate from wolf behaviors.. That is relevant, that adult wolves possess some behaviors not seen in dogs is irrelevant to the point really. 

Why do we study other species that preceded humans or are siilar to humans in some ways to better understand humans and human behavior?



> you want a mildly relevant model? look at feral dog populations. that is the closest you will get to a relevant model. period.


Feral dogs are dogs, they aren't a mildly relevant model as they are the same model, they are dogs. That's like saying humans are a relevant model for humans.

We draw relevant information from studying chimps to humans, neanderthals and other earlier forms to humans, wolves and dogs are far more similar to each other and directly descended.

To state that the study of the original form of the species in order to better understand the behavior of the directly descended domesticated version is completely useless to better understand the behavior I frankly find to be absurd. It is perfectly relevant to observe and study the original behavior and it's purpose, to better understand the source and meaning of the modified behavior, it is a relevant model.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> To me that would be the weeks old half a squirrel Hope snatched up from the road, the baby possum she killed in the back yard, the cyanide poisoned moles that crawled out of their holes and died on the curb, the cooked bone my neighbor tossed over the fence, and other assorted unclaimed items I from time cannot let her have and must take away and control.



So if he sniffs a dead animal until he's done is he being dominant because I'm not "claiming" the animal?

And again, going back to nylabones on the floor - are those "unclaimed"? If I let him chew them on his own - he's "dominating" the bones?

As far as dogs/wolves - I really don't care if they are similar or not. As far as I'm concerned, dogs/wolves/humans/monkeys - they all learn via OC and CC so they are all the same. I'd use the same model to approach them all in trying to teach them behaviors. 

And if dog-human is like a captive wolf situation - do dogs "alpha roll" humans when they are "dominant dogs"? Supposedly that move was thought of because some captured wolves did it to each other.

If wolves became "alpha" by parentage, then how can a human ever be "alpha" over a dog? Humans and dogs don't birth each other, they can't be parents of each other, so how does that work?

Meh, I'll just bow out of this. Dominance doesn't make sense to me. Operant/Classical conditioning does. Observing behavior and rewarding what I like and redirecting what I don't makes sense to me - I'll just stick with that.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

im going to bow out too. Tx you can be the big bad wolf if you want.

doesnt change scientific fact. sorry.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the video i posted show wolf AGGRESSION. not play. aggression.
> 
> ritualized formal aggression that almost never ends in violence.
> 
> ...


BTW having two dogs who compete for my attention, trust me I see aggression ritualized in many ways on a daily basis. From postures, to stares, to lunges with no bite, to neck grabs, to mouth grabs, to physical blocking......

And they aren't playing either. If I allowed it they would be drawing blood.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> If wolves became "alpha" by parentage, then how can a human ever be "alpha" over a dog? Humans and dogs don't birth each other, they can't be parents of each other, so how does that work?


That was one of his points, that you can't as you aren't a parent giving birth. And that alpha rolling has nothing to do with it either.

He was just highlighting the contradiction in logic of the APDT statements.



> Meh, I'll just bow out of this. Dominance doesn't make sense to me. Operant/Classical conditioning does. Observing behavior and rewarding what I like and redirecting what I don't makes sense to me - I'll just stick with that.


It is just another way of looking at the same thing to me.

I don't follow all the guys conclusions, but he did make a few points, and show a bit of contradictory logic and statements on the part of the APDT folks.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> im going to bow out too. Tx you can be the big bad wolf if you want.
> 
> doesnt change scientific fact. sorry.


Big bad wolf? How about the parent wolf instead? 

Daddy wolf with two youngsters who will never grow up completely. The dominant wolf in a family unit with permanent juveniles. IMO that's more in line with modern science.


----------



## Mike D'Abruzzo (Oct 12, 2009)

Hi all,

I've been a member of this forum, and see you have been debating about my blog post. I'll be glad to answer any questions if needed.

I think some people might learn something if they maintain an open mind. I have been doing large scale aggression rehab full time professionally for about 12 years and have a good reputation in my area with a very good success rate - which in itself would be silly to blow off when much of my clients dogs were sentenced to euthanasia per recommendation of other "certified" trainers/behaviorists of opposing schools of thought. 

My claims about wolves are based on video documented training that I have done with the wolf in the blog photos and lots of research since this is my full time career - it is all that I do and I am a fanatic.

Main problem in the dog training community is that the two most popular sources of training information (cesar millan from TV and APDT as an organization) put out two opposing views, of which neither is entirely correct.

Fortunately, there are those out there like TxRider who have enough combination of common sense and ability to not believe everything they read to give the dog training world some hope.

OC and CC will not be enough to raise a dog, child, or even slug although they can all understand it. Sometimes I feel like organizations like the APDT are claiming to have discovered the wheel - when in reality most of the knowledge needed to successfully raise a dog is naturally understood by anyone who has spent enough time submerged in them.

Just like it is hard to argue with some one who is claims there is no pink elephant in the room when I see it standing right there - 

I'm sure I will not get anywhere debating with anyone saying that dogs are not like wolves and I have no basis to anything I say when everything I write can easily be seen with your own eyes if you open them.

Unfortunately, no matter what the subject, some people are more concerned about being right than understanding the truth.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

nice to meet you Mike....except for the whole pink elephants comment and whatnot...


you are entitled to think as you will but frankly..lumping people in with APDT or Cesar without a second's thought is just as bad as what you say others are doing.

i dont care about either. i dont pay attention to either. ive read both and taken what i could use where i could use it.

i go by

a. what works

and 

b. what im learning as a bio major with interest in behavioral genetics.


that is all.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mike D'Abruzzo said:


> I think some people might learn something if they maintain an open mind. I have been doing large scale aggression rehab full time professionally for about 12 years and have a good reputation in my area with a very good success rate - which in itself would be silly to blow off when much of my clients dogs were sentenced to euthanasia per recommendation of other "certified" trainers/behaviorists of opposing schools of thought.


Every trainer in existence says that they fixed dogs where others failed to. Ad hominem....




> Main problem in the dog training community is that the two most popular sources of training information (cesar millan from TV and APDT as an organization) put out two opposing views, of which neither is entirely correct.


When Learning Theory can define every training method, from R+ training to Milan's training, and why it works... then yes, Learning Theory is entirely correct.




> OC and CC will not be enough to raise a dog, child, or even slug although they can all understand it. Sometimes I feel like organizations like the APDT are claiming to have discovered the wheel - when in reality most of the knowledge needed to successfully raise a dog is naturally understood by anyone who has spent enough time submerged in them.


Everything everyone does to train a dog is definable by OC and CC. Please, tell me the hat trick that you or anyone else does that is not OC or CC. Yes, training is mostly common sense, and sense that goes right out the window once people talk about dominance, and it's lack of application.



> Just like it is hard to argue with some one who is claims there is no pink elephant in the room when I see it standing right there -


Nice ad hominem. Ever thought that people don't see your way because you have no basis for your argument?



> I'm sure I will not get anywhere debating with anyone saying that dogs are not like wolves and I have no basis to anything I say when everything I write can easily be seen with your own eyes if you open them.


It's not that dogs have nothing similar to wolves. Why study wolves when you can study dogs? Sure, they have some similarities, but nothing you can't learn from watching dogs, instead of wolves. If you study wolves, you'll learn what wolves do, if you study dogs, you'll learn what dogs do. It is beyond my comprehension why this is a difficult concept. 

I'm more likely to be convinced if someone said "This is true because dogs do it" than "This is true because wolves do it and dogs are like wolves". It's silly to start with a vast knowledge of what wolves do and then eliminate or add information until you figure out what dogs do. Just... look at dogs. Wolves have nothing to tell you that your dog won't tell you if you paid as much attention to them as you did wolves.



> Unfortunately, no matter what the subject, some people are more concerned about being right than understanding the truth.


Ad hominems are generally used by people who simply do not have any resources supporting them, so it is used to distract the reader into thinking the person debating against them is inherently wrong.

Ta ta!


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> It's not that dogs have nothing similar to wolves. Why study wolves when you can study dogs? Sure, they have some similarities, but nothing you can't learn from watching dogs, instead of wolves. If you study wolves, you'll learn what wolves do, if you study dogs, you'll learn what dogs do. It is beyond my comprehension why this is a difficult concept.


To me it's possibly helpful to better understand some behaviors instincts and such by analyzing the original form and purpose that it is a modified form of. 

Comparative psychology and ethology ala Tinbergen.

The concept you speak of is indeed simple, but it is not the only concept applicable to such study, it is simply what you decided to limit yourself to.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> It is just another way of looking at the same thing to me.


That's a view that makes logical sense.

It seems, though, that it's presented as if OC or CC is "inferior" to dominance-based training or vice versa.

The "dominance camp" says it's all 100% dominance. The "purely positive camp" says it's mostly 1/4 to 1/2 of OC. 

Reality is in the middle somewhere, but it's rare to see anyone present anything that's anywhere in the middle without biasing somewhere.

Learning works via OC/CC, but what makes the dog want to learn from his person/handler? You could argue dominance as one of those factors at the least. Of course, you can semantic it so that "dominance" also falls under OC. For example, Wally wants to learn from me because learning has proven rewarding to him. Or you could say Wally wants to learn from me because he has no other option for getting what he wants (not sure how true that is based on situation, but it's a valid position).

NILIF using "dominance speak" would say that's because I control everything he wants so he has no choice but to go through me and do what I want whether be by creating a dog that follows directions very well (command for everything) or a dog that reads context and environment to decipher what do to (shaping model). Using "OC speak" it's because performing behaviors has a history of reward from me, so of course he's going to want to perform more behaviors for me, whatever those behaviors are and however I expect him to determine them.

I think the real truth is somewhere in the middle, depending on the individuals involved in the equation: dog(s), owner(s)/handler(s), situation(s).


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> To me it's possibly helpful to better understand some behaviors instincts and such by analyzing the original form and purpose that it is a modified form of.
> 
> Comparative psychology and ethology ala Tinbergen.
> 
> The concept you speak of is indeed simple, but it is not the only concept applicable to such study, it is simply what you decided to limit yourself to.


It is interesting, yes. I like seeing how dogs differ or are similar to wolves as much as the next maniac. 

But that's just for entertainment, and has nothing to do with training.


----------



## Mike D'Abruzzo (Oct 12, 2009)

Well if anyone agrees in what cesar does here: 
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dog-whisperer/2494/Videos/03208_09

Or believes what the APDT says in their statement about wolf behavior not related to dog behavior than fine.

If you can't see the obvious war it is between the two groups and especially how the APDT is twisting facts to debunk him as much as possible than that is on you.

Dogs do die every day because of this and that's not right. Doesn't happen here with me, but unless you are local I guess you can believe me or assume I run a fake operation. What I write is meant to help.

No need to go tit for tat here or prove myself, I do actually "walk the walk" and not here to start spamming. Have to get back to the kennel full of homeless aggression cases that are often killed as a direct result of this.

Really do wish everyone luck here with their dogs.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i see the war.

i just dont care about lol.

i work with aggression cases too and not once has wolf behavior ever been a factor in how i dealt with it.

i dont think anyone's feathers are ruffled lol...except maybe yours judging by that last bit in your post...



> No need to go tit for tat here or prove myself, I do actually "walk the walk" and not here to start spamming. Have to get back to the kennel full of homeless aggression cases that are often killed as a direct result of this.


which sounds an awful lot like someone trying to prove themselves..just calling it like i see it..


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Mike D'Abruzzo said:


> Well if anyone agrees in what cesar does here:
> http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dog-whisperer/2494/Videos/03208_09
> 
> Or believes what the APDT says in their statement about wolf behavior not related to dog behavior than fine.
> ...


The entire basis of dominance hierarchy is based on twisted facts. Pot, kettle, black etc.



> Dogs do die every day because of this and that's not right. Doesn't happen here with me, but unless you are local I guess you can believe me or assume I run a fake operation. What I write is meant to help.


Dogs die every day due to *improperly implemented training*, regardless of whether it's dominance based or R+ based. You are blaming one camp for all the crimes in the dog training world. Sorry but no, 99% of the dogs that come through our rescue were trained using dominance based methods, or attempted to fix by dominance based trainers. You can blame R+ all you want, the problem is people who do ANY training improperly, not the methodology.

And before you cry foul, the only reason 99% of the dogs that come through are dominance based failures is due to the fact that dominance based training takes up the majority of trainers. APDT trainers are still a very vast minority in the training world. I have no doubt that one day, there will be more dogs coming through with issues because of an improperly implemented training using R+ due to improper management.



> No need to go tit for tat here or prove myself, I do actually "walk the walk" and not here to start spamming. Have to get back to the kennel full of homeless aggression cases that are often killed as a direct result of this.
> 
> Really do wish everyone luck here with their dogs.


Comments like that go nowhere here. There's a lot of R+ trainers here who "walk the walk" and "have to go back to a kennel full of homeless aggressive dogs as a result of dominance training". It's nothing new. If you are successfully rehabilitating dogs, then good for you. There's nothing wrong with that.

Criticizing others because you can't see any other way but your own, and blaming them for the deaths of dogs, now THAT is a problem.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

excellent post as usual RBark.

i like a fun debate as much..or even more than most...and granted i do prefer R+. i prefer it because its simple, effective, cuts out the bs, is fun for both dog and human and doesnt violate my spiritual beliefs. i dont like Cesar's methods because before i started training...i took my dog to a trainer for whom Cesar was his guru..and he screwed her up far worse than she already was....in subsequent years ive seen the same scenario repeated multiple times. imo the problem is in focusing too much on the philosophy and not enough on the actual situation. 

i disagree that dogs behave like ADULT wolves. they do not. they kind of act like baby wolves but how that factors into training a dog...it just doesnt lol. it sometimes factors into working with wolfdogs..but regular ol dogs...nope. nothing useful that ive found or seen

as always..just calling it like i see it.


----------



## Mike D'Abruzzo (Oct 12, 2009)

Too much too debate, too little time, and too easy to get defensive here.

Regardless of your opinions, God bless all of you that are helping our homeless dogs. Sorry if I offended anyone - not my intentions.

"_The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated_.”


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

RBark said:


> It's not that dogs have nothing similar to wolves. Why study wolves when you can study dogs? Sure, they have some similarities, but nothing you can't learn from watching dogs, instead of wolves. If you study wolves, you'll learn what wolves do, if you study dogs, you'll learn what dogs do. It is beyond my comprehension why this is a difficult concept.
> 
> I'm more likely to be convinced if someone said "This is true because dogs do it" than "This is true because wolves do it and dogs are like wolves". It's silly to start with a vast knowledge of what wolves do and then eliminate or add information until you figure out what dogs do. Just... look at dogs. Wolves have nothing to tell you that your dog won't tell you if you paid as much attention to them as you did wolves.


I suppose the problem is that there are no dogs living in a natural setting where we can observe natural dog behavior and how dogs interact with each other without human intervention or interference. 

There are those feral dogs (pariah dogs?) that Dunbar and whoever else studied and observed that they don't form packs, rather they have "loose transitory associations" with others of their kind. That's pretty close to a natural dog, but I think there is too much human influence on their lives for it to be considered natural. 

So what I wonder is, can you conduct a controlled scientific study of dogs living with humans? Hmm. I have to think about that.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

qingcong said:


> I suppose the problem is that there are no dogs living in a natural setting where we can observe natural dog behavior and how dogs interact with each other without human intervention or interference.
> 
> There are those feral dogs (pariah dogs?) that Dunbar and whoever else studied and observed that they don't form packs, rather they have "loose transitory associations" with others of their kind. That's pretty close to a natural dog, but I think there is too much human influence on their lives for it to be considered natural.
> 
> So what I wonder is, can you conduct a controlled scientific study of dogs living with humans? Hmm. I have to think about that.


I'm not going to study dog to dog relations in packs to learn about human to dog relations either. How my dogs sort the pack thing out has no relevance to me, the only thing that has relevance to me is if I don't like how they sort their pack, I replace the behavior with a new one. So how feral dogs form packs doesn't have much relevance to me either.

I mean, again, it'd be interesting to see how dogs form packs. It'd be interesting to see how they communicate with each other. But that's all it would ever be, interesting. I'm not a dog, and I'll never be able to communicate with him like one. I can communicate with him using a language we can both mutually understand that's neither human nor dog.

I would, however, be interested in human-dog studies but, I really would not see much purpose in that too beyond interest. What my dog thinks, and what my dog thinks he is doing, and how he views us in a relationship, has little to do with what I want him to do. So long as he is doing as I ask, I don't care how he sees our relationship.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

qingcong said:


> I suppose the problem is that there are no dogs living in a natural setting where we can observe natural dog behavior and how dogs interact with each other without human intervention or interference.
> 
> There are those feral dogs (pariah dogs?) that Dunbar and whoever else studied and observed that they don't form packs, rather they have "loose transitory associations" with others of their kind. That's pretty close to a natural dog, but I think there is too much human influence on their lives for it to be considered natural.


As it's most likely that dogs and humans co-evolved, there's really no such thing as a "natural dog" that exists outside the context of human presence, so even this isn't really relevant.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i disagree that dogs behave like ADULT wolves. they do not. they kind of act like baby wolves but how that factors into training a dog...it just doesnt lol. it sometimes factors into working with wolfdogs..but regular ol dogs...nope. nothing useful that ive found or seen
> 
> as always..just calling it like i see it.


I don't think they act like baby or juvenile wolves, they simply inherited all that they are from wolves. All their behaviors, instincts and biology are directly descended, modified and adapted by selective breeding..

One could say dogs are the higher form, adapted by evolution to a more successful niche by adapting a symbiotic existence with the dominant animal on the planet, ensuring plenty of procreation and growth of the species while their ancestor slowly goes extinct due to lack of adaptation to the new environment.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> I suppose the problem is that there are no dogs living in a natural setting where we can observe natural dog behavior and how dogs interact with each other without human intervention or interference.


As far as I can see living with human intervention and interference is their natural state and environment.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> I mean, again, it'd be interesting to see how dogs form packs. It'd be interesting to see how they communicate with each other. But that's all it would ever be, interesting. I'm not a dog, and I'll never be able to communicate with him like one. I can communicate with him using a language we can both mutually understand that's neither human nor dog.


But understanding instinctual drives, motivations, what is instinctual rewarding etc. does have training implications.

We do use those things to our advantage in training, we breed for modified versions of those instincts drives and behavior tendencies that descend from wolf genetics and understanding them better does help to do so.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Well, it's been an interesting read, that's for sure.

OC is at work at all times, as is CC. As they say "pavlov is always on your shoulder". Doesn't matter what method of training is used, it's still OC. People who say it's not simply do not understand what the quadrants are. Whether one chooses one method or another does not change the LEARNING itself, though it can effect the quality of it.

Regarding the wolves thing, well, dogs split off from wolves a damn long time ago and the domestic dog's natural milieu IS with people. Thousands of years of natural and human selection have altered them in a lot of ways. Not the least of which is a highly altered/truncated prey drive. The most basic instincts for survival are still there (hence fight and prey drive, resource guarding, urge to mate, dissection of prey *all those dead stuffies we find*) because they would not be the working animals we needed to assist us without them. So studying wolves in the wild, or feral dogs or even the pariah dogs may show some similarities basic to the species but is still not an accurate picture of how dogs live with US. Basing training methods on information from those types of studies would not be fully accurate. 

I don't understand what the Jonbee vid has to do with your argument really. Cesar's rehab of him was solely based on the owner's issue with not "being able to dominate him". The dog was ONLY aggressive when the owner tried to force submission. So what makes that even necessary? It's only an excuse to physically and mentally traumatize the damn dog. And THAT is what's wrong with "dominance based training".


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> But understanding instinctual drives, motivations, what is instinctual rewarding etc. does have training implications.
> 
> We do use those things to our advantage in training, we breed for modified versions of those instincts drives and behavior tendencies that descend from wolf genetics and understanding them better does help to do so.


I don't need to see a wolf to know that Ollie was reinforced by running, that Priscilla was reinforced by fetch and tug, that Kobe is reinforced by social interactions. Your dog can show you all of this on their very own, without ever having an inkling of it's application to wolves. The fact that Priscilla was reinforced by fetch, a modified prey sequence, doesn't tell me anything new. She still is reinforced by fetch, and I can use that to train her.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> I don't think they act like baby or juvenile wolves, they simply inherited all that they are from wolves. All their behaviors, instincts and biology are directly descended, modified and adapted by selective breeding..
> 
> One could say dogs are the higher form, adapted by evolution to a more successful niche by adapting a symbiotic existence with the dominant animal on the planet, ensuring plenty of procreation and growth of the species while their ancestor slowly goes extinct due to lack of adaptation to the new environment.


no they do act like baby wolves. look up paedomorphism.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no they do act like baby wolves. look up paedomorphism.


What I mean is, even very young wolves seem to show behaviors not typical of dogs or not found in dogs.

Instances like the russian fox breeding experiments show paedomorphism, and seem to have implications for wolf/dog genetic inheritance well. Another case where looking to a totally different species gives us useful information about our dogs,


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> What I mean is, even very young wolves seem to show behaviors not typical of dogs or not found in dogs.
> 
> Instances like the russian fox breeding experiments show paedomorphism, and seem to have implications for wolf/dog genetic inheritance well. Another case where looking to a totally different species gives us useful information about our dogs,


it doesnt give us jack about TRAINING dogs. there's some interesting genetic implications in the fox experiment for dogs and for humans even. 

but it does nothing to help us train dogs. what helps us train dogs is to look at dogs.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Reality is in the middle somewhere, but it's rare to see anyone present anything that's anywhere in the middle without biasing somewhere.


I don't see dominance theory and learning theory even falling on the same continuum. I think that's why the middle is so hard to find - because there is no middle.



> Learning works via OC/CC, but what makes the dog want to learn from his person/handler? You could argue dominance as one of those factors at the least. Of course, you can semantic it so that "dominance" also falls under OC. For example, Wally wants to learn from me because learning has proven rewarding to him. Or you could say Wally wants to learn from me because he has no other option for getting what he wants (not sure how true that is based on situation, but it's a valid position).


I was just thinking about this other day, about how much of my relationship with my dog can be explained by classical conditioning. Does he view me as a mad treat dispensing machine? 





zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> it doesnt give us jack about TRAINING dogs. there's some interesting genetic implications in the fox experiment for dogs and for humans even.
> 
> but it does nothing to help us train dogs. what helps us train dogs is to look at dogs.


Looking at dog pack or even wolf pack relationships can give us plenty of information, maybe not necessarily detailed training procedures, but it gives us plenty of information on natural canine behaviors. Knowing these things allow us to fulfill our dogs better. 

If we saw our dogs as simple input-output machines, what makes them different from a gerbil? If a dog destroys the couch, you can look at him as a generic animal from the OC point of view and try to punish the behavior or replace it with an alternate one. OR, you can look at him as a dog and see that the dog is bored and needs to go for a run or do some sheep herding.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> If we saw our dogs as simple input-output machines, what makes them different from a gerbil? If a dog destroys the couch, you can look at him as a generic animal from the OC point of view and try to punish the behavior or replace it with an alternate one. OR, you can look at him as a dog and see that the dog is bored and needs to go for a run or do some sheep herding.


It's not about seeing them as input/output machines. If I was looking for that, I'd pick up computer programming.

The stuff you're talking about has nothing to do with R+ vs dominance, and everything to do with uncommon sense.

You don't need to be a trainer, or know anything about training, dog behavior, etc to see if your dog is bored. Nor do you need to know anything about feral dogs or wolves to know he needs stimulation. Of course he does, even gerbils need stimulation.

At that point we're not talking about training and are talking about living a fulfilling life. Dominance is not going to tell you anything about that, nor is R+ philosophy. There's plenty of information out there of what you can do with your dog to fulfill him.

Flyball, Agility, Obedience, Rally, Schutzhund, French Ring, Dock diving, Retrieving, Herding, and that's just off the top of my head. Then there's regular ol' walking, tug, running, dog parks, wrestling, chewing, and more. All that information exists and is readily available. No wolves or feral dogs needed. No dominance or learning theory needed.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> Looking at dog pack or even wolf pack relationships can give us plenty of information, maybe not necessarily detailed training procedures, but it gives us plenty of information on natural canine behaviors. Knowing these things allow us to fulfill our dogs better.
> 
> If we saw our dogs as simple input-output machines, what makes them different from a gerbil? If a dog destroys the couch, you can look at him as a generic animal from the OC point of view and try to punish the behavior or replace it with an alternate one. OR, you can look at him as a dog and see that the dog is bored and needs to go for a run or do some sheep herding.


or you can ditch all of that and look at him as an individual in his individual context.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i suppose i should elaborate a little

when im training...im not thinking about OC, CC or anything like that. Im looking at the dog. im looking at body language in relation to his environment. Im looking at what things in the environment produce what reactions...and then i play around with the context...make that noise a little louder or softer and then gauge the reaction..take away that object and then gauge the reaction

my training methods are totally dictated by context. and nothing else.

should also say that i keep detailed notes and a voice recorded log on every dog i train. i use them as reference material. i can then calculate the probability that in a particular context, the dog will react with x behavior based on the frequency of repetition of that behavior in the past. i can also use these notes and logs to help with other dogs by correlating dogs with similar backgrounds, ages, sexes, altered or not etc...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

qingcong said:


> If a dog destroys the couch, you can look at him as a generic animal from the OC point of view and try to punish the behavior or replace it with an alternate one. OR, you can look at him as a dog and see that the dog is bored and needs to go for a run or do some sheep herding.


Or you could do both. Teach him to express "I'm BORED!" in a different way, and then reward that by going for a run or doing some herding. OC doesn't have to be clinical and dry. It just have to attach results to actions.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i suppose i should elaborate a little
> 
> when im training...im not thinking about OC, CC or anything like that. Im looking at the dog. im looking at body language in relation to his environment. Im looking at what things in the environment produce what reactions...and then i play around with the context...make that noise a little louder or softer and then gauge the reaction..take away that object and then gauge the reaction
> 
> ...



Well, I'm not there yet - I still use OC and CC heavily and it's made good progress for Wally. It lets me view behavior objectively and a way to communicate with him "yes, that's right"/"no, try something else"

While I will experiment with contexts and such (just today I changed colors of the objects I was practicing left/right with in my room and suddenly he was better - blue on gray is better than orange on gray for him with objects flat like paper - as well as in what situations/contexts he struggles with certain behaviors so I know what to practice with him more/figure out what might be tripping him up) I do use OC a lot. So I can't say I can train without using OC principles. I'm not that good yet!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i still use oc and cc but HOW i use them and when i do is dictated by context. i dont think about it as oc and cc though...i take the measure of how the dog responds to his environment and how can i change the environment to produce different responses. sometimes that means teaching new behaviors(oc and cc). sometimes that means changing the environment. sometimes that means changing something about me.

depends on the dog.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

OC and CC occur at all times whether we are involved or not. Anyone who is attempting to train their dog or modify their behaviour is using OC, whether they are aware of it or doing it WELL is up to experience. Changing the context is still OC. 

This is why it confounds me when people say that one method or another is not using OC. It's ALL OC. A dog sniffs something and discovers that the smell gives them information or a found dead thing to roll in. It's OC. Dog does something and then there is a consequence (good or bad) and the dog learns. 

Training is simple manipulating the consequence to increase or decrease a behaviour. 
I do believe that an understanding of behaviour of an animal (including humans) helps learning and teaching to become more effective. Teaching involves communication, communication requires at least a basic understanding of a common language (whether that be a physical or verbal language). 

Rbark, you say that one doesn't require a lot of dog behaviour knowledge to know your dog is bored or understimulated. But that is YOU and must be based into an understanding of your dog's needs. What about all the people out there who believe their dog is chewing the furniture because he's a "bad dog", not because he's bored or understimulated? That person (and hooooo there are MANY) has NO IDEA how to tell if their dog is understimulated and don't know what it "looks like". An understanding (even a modicum of understanding) of dog behaviour is necessary to be able to realize what the problem is in the first place. 

This is why it is important to understand dog behaviour.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I think my meaning was misunderstood. I was not saying dog behavior is unimportant.

I was saying that we don't need to look at wolves or feral dogs to conclude that a dog is bored. Many people say its a bad dog, yes, but they don't need to learn wolf or feral dog behavior to know that.

If someone told me their dog had issues with chewing I would give them a training and exercise routine. Does this mean they understand dog behavior? No, they are just following my manual.

That's what I mean by not having to understand dog behavior. I can conclude a dog is bored and I know little about wolves or feral dogs.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

RBark said:


> If someone told me their dog had issues with chewing I would give them a training and exercise routine. Does this mean they understand dog behavior? No, they are just following my manual.
> 
> That's what I mean by not having to understand dog behavior. I can conclude a dog is bored and I know little about wolves or feral dogs.


Yes, but where does knowledge about instinctual canine needs and behavior come from? It's not written by god on a training manual for all of us to see that dogs need to chew, run, think, hunt, and socialize. You need to observe their natural canine counterparts doing what they naturally do, and who better than the same species living in the wild? The problem occurs when people take things out of context or misinterpret it.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

qingcong said:


> Yes, but where does knowledge about instinctual canine needs and behavior come from? It's not written by god on a training manual for all of us to see that dogs need to chew, run, think, hunt, and socialize. You need to observe their natural canine counterparts doing what they naturally do, and who better than the same species living in the wild? The problem occurs when people take things out of context or misinterpret it.


Erm, no I don't. I can see my dogs chewing, running, hunting and thinking. I can't learn obedience, herding, flyball, heeling, fetching by looking at wolves. There is nothing to learn from them that dogs do not readily show.

I can find what's reinforcing for my dog by watching what comes naturally to them, and see what behaviors get repeated. Frequently repeated behaviors are highly reinforcing ones, my dog will show that to me.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> should also say that i keep detailed notes and a voice recorded log on every dog i train. i use them as reference material. i can then calculate the probability that in a particular context, the dog will react with x behavior based on the frequency of repetition of that behavior in the past. i can also use these notes and logs to help with other dogs by correlating dogs with similar backgrounds, ages, sexes, altered or not etc...


I have preached for years about a daily journal/record on dogs trained.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> I have preached for years about a daily journal/record on dogs trained.


Heh, I can picture Wally now. I'm talking into a mic or recorder and he's sniffing trying to see what I'm "eating"

I think writing would be safe (for me), as long as I'm not writing on the floor. (He'll be sniffing the pen, pushing it with his nose and making me mess up)


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Cracker said:


> OC and CC occur at all times whether we are involved or not. Anyone who is attempting to train their dog or modify their behaviour is using OC, whether they are aware of it or doing it WELL is up to experience. Changing the context is still OC.
> 
> This is why it confounds me when people say that one method or another is not using OC. It's ALL OC. A dog sniffs something and discovers that the smell gives them information or a found dead thing to roll in. It's OC. Dog does something and then there is a consequence (good or bad) and the dog learns.
> 
> ...


I know that. the point was that im not focused on it when im working. Im not all like "The APDT says i should use OC..blah blah blah"

when im working with a dog..the ONLY thing im thinking about is learning what makes that particular dog tick. Whether or not they act like wolves or not, whether or not their some big huge "training war" going is irrelevant to the task at hand.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

RBark said:


> I can find what's reinforcing for my dog by watching what comes naturally to them, and see what behaviors get repeated. Frequently repeated behaviors are highly reinforcing ones, my dog will show that to me.


Fair enough, I can see where you're coming from, to see each dog as an individual instead of a model. My point is that hatred of dominance theory shouldn't mean refusal to use wolves as a reference for general dog behavior. If it wasn't for wolves, how would we know that resource guarding was a natural behavior?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> Fair enough, I can see where you're coming from, to see each dog as an individual instead of a model. My point is that hatred of dominance theory shouldn't mean refusal to use wolves as a reference for general dog behavior. If it wasn't for wolves, how would we know that resource guarding was a natural behavior?


by studying dogs. wolves dont have really anything to do with that.

if the behavior isnt predicated by an abnormal physiological reaction...then it's a natural behavior. a blood test or two and some simple deductive reasoning.

ETA

if we define "natural behavior" as what dogs do in the wild...the best model is wild dogs. if we define "natural behavior" as something dogs naturally do...then as i said..simply testing the dog for abnormalities determines whether or not the behavior is natural.

but going by the first definition...the reasoning is flawed. because a domestic dog's natural environment is by its very nature...unnatural. dogs are a man made animal.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> by studying dogs. wolves dont have really anything to do with that.
> 
> if the behavior isnt predicated by an abnormal physiological reaction...then it's a natural behavior. a blood test or two and some simple deductive reasoning.
> 
> ...


It doesn't tell you whether it is a result of nature or nurture. If the closest related animal also shows the behaviors, in a different environment, then it lends weight to nature not nurture. Instinct not learned.



> but going by the first definition...the reasoning is flawed. because a domestic dog's natural environment is by its very nature...unnatural. dogs are a man made animal.


And their natural environment is living with humans in some way. As natural as a remora on a shark or any other animal adapted to live with or from another.

OC and CC are methods of learning though, what most here seem to call dominance theory is a theory of social construct. They do not really compete as they are in no way the same.

It's training methods drawn from the social construct that people hate, namely P+. But even the owner swatting his dog with a newspaper, rubbing its nose in poo, and alpha rolling it is still teaching the dog through OC/CC, just are likely just not teaching the dog what they think they are teaching the dog.

As for comparative biology, psychology and ethology with dogs and wolves, any information that helps better understand the animal should be helpful in training to some extent however small or large, in coming up with the most effective methods for the animal.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> It doesn't tell you whether it is a result of nature or nurture. If the closest related animal also shows the behaviors, in a different environment, then it lends weight to nature not nurture. Instinct not learned



whether or not a behavior is "natural" is irrelevant to training. except in cases where there are physical abnormalities.

aggression is a natural behavior and yet we work our hardest to keep that "natural" behavior supressed and non functioning because it doesnt suit to living with humans. resource guarding is a natural behavior..yet also undesirable...

training doesnt really have anything to do with nature other than how the subject assimilates information.



> And their natural environment is living with humans in some way. As natural as a remora on a shark or any other animal adapted to live with or from another.
> 
> OC and CC are methods of learning though, what most here seem to call dominance theory is a theory of social construct. They do not really compete as they are in no way the same.
> 
> It's training methods drawn from the social construct that people hate, namely P+. But even the owner swatting his dog with a newspaper, rubbing its nose in poo, and alpha rolling it is still teaching the dog through OC/CC, just are likely just not teaching the dog what they think they are teaching the dog.


umm...duh..

with dominance...aversives inevitably follow. hence my moral objection that has nothing to do with the fact that its useless and contributes nothing to training...




> As for comparative biology, psychology and ethology with dogs and wolves, any information that helps better understand the animal should be helpful in training to some extent however small or large, in coming up with the most effective methods for the animal.



biology...yes(but does nothing for training only for health/genetics/etc)...psychology and ethology...no. 

spent a lot of time watching wolves. they are hugely interesting creatures but the behavioral differences are too huge to draw any useful conclusions that arent based in supposition.


----------

