# Showing your dog dominance



## Kaiser09 (Feb 17, 2010)

What way's do you show your dog your the dominant one? Lately my puppy has been acting out and seems to think he's in charge. I've been doing the normal things like controlling his eating schedule, talking to him in a firm voice, not giving into him when he begs for things but its not enough. Lately he's started to scratch me and fights me when I try to hold him. What are some good ways to show him i'm in charge not the other way around. My roommate suggested that I scruff him a bit because that is what his mom would do, does that work?


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Kaiser09 said:


> What way's do you show your dog your the dominant one?


Train him to do what he's told. Do that, and the problem solves itself. It takes time, though. Puppies bite, destroy things, and generally make a nuisance of themselves until the training has the desired effect. There is no magic bullet.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

You could try Humping him, that will have all the dominance theorists pleased.


But in all seriousness, there is no need to "dominate" your dog, you shouldn't be competing for the right to live with them. You should do proper training and NILIF work.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

Keechak said:


> You could try Humping him, that will have all the dominance theorists pleased.


Peeing all over the house helps, too.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Did your mom scruff you up when you were a pup. Just think about it sometimes pups have fragile little egos that bruise easily.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

You don't need to be 'dominant' or hurt him to let him know you're in charge. He scratches because he's a puppy, not because he's dominante. He doesn't want to be held because he's a dog that belongs on the foor and wants to play. Train him and you'll be fine.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Keechak said:


> You could try Humping him, that will have all the dominance theorists pleased..


I actually got on all fours and did the put my chin over the shoulder dominance move on Hope, to see what she would do, but it ended badly, her reaction was so hilarious I ended up all submissive on my back on the floor laughing for the longest time with her standing over me licking my face.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> I actually got on all fours and did the put my chin over the shoulder dominance move on Hope, to see what she would do, but it ended badly, her reaction was so hilarious I ended up all submissive on my back on the floor laughing for the longest time with her standing over me licking my face.


LOL

I can't get that position on Wally. He keeps turning to try to sniff my ear and lick my face.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

OP, I think you can see what the general consensus on dominance is here..lol. 

You don't have to dominate anyone or anything to get them to do what you want. He's a puppy and needs proper training (ie TEACHING)...you have been trying to control his food etc and that is a first step but you haven't given him any SKILLS to do to earn his keep. Training a puppy is not about control, though that is a positive management thing, it is about giving him something else to do that you DO want when he does something you are not sure of. 
Get a good positive trainer who is good with puppies, go to a puppy class and learn how to teach him what you want. It's not fair to expect behaviour that is one: not innate to dogs and two:you haven't shown him how to do. He's not a mind reader. 

A great book to check out is "The Power of Positive Dog Training" by Pat Miller, another is "The Puppy Whisperer" by Paul Owens.

And don't scruff your puppy, nor allow your roommate to do it. It can create more problems than you are able to handle. Period. Puppy training does not have to involve punishment. Positive is not permissive, so don't worry about letting him "get away with stuff"...learn to teach him what you want and be patient and supportive of the learning process.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

2 things, I've said this before on a number of posts, 1. A puppy like a baby can do no wrong. 2. What in doG's name is puppy humping for dominance, as after almost 50 years in dog work I'm embarrassed to admit I don't have a clue. Please tell me this is a joke.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

wvasko said:


> 2 things, I've said this before on a number of posts, 1. A puppy like a baby can do no wrong. 2. What in doG's name is puppy humping for dominance, as after almost 50 years in dog work I'm embarrassed to admit I don't have a clue. Please tell me this is a joke.


lol. She stated it wasn't meant to be serious..


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Independent George said:


> Peeing all over the house helps, too.


Just remember, if they over-mark your stain, you need to roar at them and pin 'em on their backs, to underline your point  
How old is the puppy in question? What is his general demeanor like when he "fights and scratches" while you hold him? (Is it the normal puppy/adolescent who is simply "too busy" to be held?) My 10 month old dog bucks like a rodeo horse on speed if I'm trying to hold him and something more interesting happens (like a dust bunny blowing across the room ). When he begs, do you ignore him or do you tell him to stop? (I've found a lot of dogs understand a slightly snooty nose-in-the-air head turn to break off eye contact when they're being obnoxious TONS better than they respond to being told to knock it off). Do you ALWAYS speak to him in a firm voice? You might just be conditioning him to think you naturally have a voice like James Earl Jones, and he will probably stop listening to your warning tone, because he hears it so often. 
Train him. If he's a young pup who gets conditioned (ei: used to) the "dominating" thing, you might be setting yourself up for a life long battle of having to constantly escalate your threats, punishments, and "domination" for him to even think about taking you seriously. It ain't worth it.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> lol. She stated it wasn't meant to be serious..


Just for giggles, I googled puppy, dominance and humping and got an interesting post on another forum that said an owner was going to a class and the trainer advised some kind of humping routine. Do I know if it's true, not a clue, but I do know there are a lot of mentally challenged weird dog trainers and owners. Common sense seems to be in short supply.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Duck trainers?


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

I could not possibly dominate Esther. She's stronger, faster and possibly smarter than I am, and she has those big, murderous teeth.

What I have to do is convince her that it is to her advantage to do what I want - not to avoid punishment, but to get the things SHE wants. It's a symbiotic relationship, not defined by domination.

I look at it as similar to a healthy relationship between a good employer and an employee. The employer may hold all the cards but, if he bullies and "dominates" his employees, they will not perform at their best and he may not have them long.

BTW, I have had no success dominating a 17 pound miniature schnauzer, either.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I don't show my dogs 'Dominance' I give them leadership by training them, teaching them manners. When a dog learns what is expected of them there is no need to dominate.

Never EVER scruff a puppy, you end up with a fearful dog which can lead to a dog that fear bites. get your pup into a puppyK and start teaching manners with 

Housetraining How To..... 
Doggy Zen 
Rev Up/Cool Down 
Targeting AKA "Touch" 
Greeting Politely at the door 

Copy and paste those to word and print them out, practice several times everyday for 5-10 minutes with the Doggy zen, then move up. The Housetraining how to is one you'll need to keep up with all the time. Remember you wish to be the puppies "Benevolent Leader", not someone he's going to run scared from or obey out of fear.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

DJEtzel said:


> Duck trainers?


What do you expect, I'm one of those weird duck, whoops dog trainers.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

I once tried to teach a pair of Muscovy ducklings to swim in our bathtub.

I learned that my help was not needed.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Cracker said:


> OP, I think you can see what the general consensus on dominance is here..lol.
> 
> You don't have to dominate anyone or anything to get them to do what you want. He's a puppy and needs proper training (ie TEACHING)...you have been trying to control his food etc and that is a first step but you haven't given him any SKILLS to do to earn his keep. Training a puppy is not about control, though that is a positive management thing, it is about giving him something else to do that you DO want when he does something you are not sure of.
> Get a good positive trainer who is good with puppies, go to a puppy class and learn how to teach him what you want. It's not fair to expect behaviour that is one: not innate to dogs and two:you haven't shown him how to do. He's not a mind reader.


I agree with most of this, but I see it a little differently.

Domination is defined often as one creature in a relationship having priority access to resources. That means you.

You have priority access to everything valuable. You control access to food, to play, to freedom of going outside, etc.

There is no better way to establish real dominance by definition than to flaunt your utter dominance in the relationship. Standard training does this better than any other method. You have the resource, and flaunt your total dominance of that resource by requiring you dog to appease you with a specific behavior in order to get access to that resource.

Even the most "positive" trainers out there, shaping behaviors with a clicker and treats, are establishing and reinforcing their utter dominance in the relationship. Requiring more and more complex displays of appeasement to gain access to resources like affection, food, freedom etc.

Imagine you are living with one other person in house, you cannot open any doors, get to any food or even get yourself a drink. You are 100% dependent on the other person you live with for your most basic resources to stay alive, not to mention social resources like affection, praise, companionship, play. 

That other person can be submissive, catering to your every whim, getting you everything you want, when you want it, without hesitation.You have total control and priority access to all the resources you desire, you are the dominant being in the relationship.

Or that person could be dominant and not give you anything at all, denying you access to anything even attention or companionship unless they felt like it. You are the subordinate being in this relationship.

That person could establish dominance, reinforce that dominant status and condition submissive behavior in you at will by simply requiring you to satisfy their whims in order to receive any resources, food, play, attention, companionship etc. Hungry and want some yummy food? Do what I command to appease me and you "might" get it. You must submit, you can't get your own food. A relationship between two beings doesn't get much more dominant than that. Obedience training could be said to be little more than ritualized submissive appeasement behavior with some modified cooperative pack behaviors here and there.

Scruffing a puppy isn't dominance, it's punishment. It has it's place in learning but certainly isn't going to teach a dog to do something, only to stop it doing something. Punishment can also get a dog dog to perform a behavior it knows in order to avoid the punishment, and it is imposing dominance via punishment but isn't the best way to go for getting a dog to obey and is best used to get a dog to stop a behavior if used at all.

That's more my view of dominance, maybe a more technical view than many though.

You have the resources, how you allow access to them defines if you are dominant or submissive, and you have all you need to establish all the dominance you want in simply how you allow access to all resources. What you require to gain that access, and how clear and consistent you are in doing so will determine how well conditioned your dogs behavior will be.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm not sure if it's a more technical use of the word when it goes against the technical definition of the word.

But I'm scratching my head here. I have no clue why that is relevant to dog training. Controlling the resource is the basis of all dog training. Dominant as you define it just... has no reason to be there. It had a "reason" when it was used as an attempt to turn people into lycanthropists a la Cesar Milan. But removing that aspect like you did, you might as well just say "You should always control the resource with your dog" instead of "You should always be the dominant individual". The former is clear, and to the point.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

I'm sitting here reading yet another thread on dominance (like a bad train wreck - you just can't look away) and what does my dog do? She drops a kong in my lap, hoping I'll put some peanut butter in it for her.

Is she trying to dominate me by dropping the kong in my lap? Am I being submissive if I give it to her? 

Bleh. I just think she wants some peanut butter and if it takes standing on her head and singing Jimmy Crack Corn, that's what she's going to do to get it. And if I think she looks sufficiently cute doing it, I'm going to reward the performance with peanut butter. 

Who has who trained? Who's dominating who? Who cares. I never ague with a dog that can sing.

EDIT: Sorry to the OP for not addressing your question. If I were you I would not worry about dominance or any ascribe any other kind of attitude or emotion to the relationship with your puppy. Think action/reaction. If you do A, your dog will do B. If your dog does C, he gets D. Think about the behaviors you want - shape those, reward those when you get them. When you get a behavior you don't want, ignore it or divert the pup from doing it by redirecting him to something you do want him to do (e.g. he chews your shoe, take it away and replace it with something of higher value, like a nice chew toy). Over time and with much repetition, your dog will do everything you want and little that you don't. What more could you want? And you won't have to think for one minute about whether you or your dog has the upper hand. You are the human with the presumably bigger brain. You have the advantage from the get-go. Use it.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> I'm not sure if it's a more technical use of the word when it goes against the technical definition of the word.


How does is go against the technical definition of the word? 


As to why to explain it that way, it's just another way of explaining to a person who thinks they must dominate their animals how to think about it in terms they might accept easier.

To show that dominance is not limited to punishment, nor limited to being physically dominant like alpha rolling and that to think so is quite a narrow perspective as those are among the most unproductive methods to establish a dominant relationship.

That positive reinforcement is just as much conditioning dominance as physical dominance is, and physical dominance like blocking access to bolt out a door or "claiming the door space" is simply controlling a priority access to a resource and to think of domination in this way, a much more technically correct description of a dominant relationship than you see most places.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

The use of the word is meant on a situational basis. You can't be dominant always. The dominant individual is the winner of the resource, not the controller of the resource. 

I mean really, your dog sits, gets a treat, who's the dominant one? She who won the treat, or you who won the behavior? It's redundant. 

If there is a resource in competition, the one who wins it is the dominant, the one who loses is the submissive. That's all it is. There's no constant to it, there's no patterns. The dominant dog that wins the bone 99/100 the time is still the submissive one when he loses that 1/100. He's not "mostly dominant".


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

winniec777 said:


> I'm sitting here reading yet another thread on dominance (like a bad train wreck - you just can't look away) and what does my dog do? She drops a kong in my lap, hoping I'll put some peanut butter in it for her.
> 
> Is she trying to dominate me by dropping the kong in my lap? Am I being submissive if I give it to her?


Depends, if you jump up and go get her peanut butter probably. She's just demanding peanut butter. It's not dominance until you submit and allow her to control her access to that resource.

Dominance is control of a resource or priority access to a resource. You control it, it's up to you if you grant her control and priority access or not.

Not that it is a bad thing if you don't mind it. If it's not a behavior you want to modify, or feeding into a behavior you want to modify, it's not a problem.

If you make her sit and stay while you go get the peanut butter, do a trick before you give it to her, your displaying your dominance and she is submitting if she complies.

NILIF is about the best concept to look at for establishing a dominant relationship I have seen. A much more complete and conditioned dominant relationship than punishment or alpha rolling ever could hope to impose IMO.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Wasn't really asking a question. Just making a point that IMO the definitions & labels don't matter. Dogs are opportunists. You can use that to get the behavior you want without worrying about concepts like dominance. The day I worry about whether a puppy is trying to dominate me is the day I've lost.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> The use of the word is meant on a situational basis. You can't be dominant always. The dominant individual is the winner of the resource, not the controller of the resource.
> 
> I mean really, your dog sits, gets a treat, who's the dominant one? She who won the treat, or you who won the behavior? It's redundant.
> 
> If there is a resource in competition, the one who wins it is the dominant, the one who loses is the submissive. That's all it is. There's no constant to it, there's no patterns. The dominant dog that wins the bone 99/100 the time is still the submissive one when he loses that 1/100. He's not "mostly dominant".


Follow your logic, what the the "winner" of the resource actually won is "control" of that resource is it not?

Two dogs fight over a bone. One dog wins. He can eat it, bury it, whatever he wants to including leaving it to another dog when he's sated and it loses value to him, or whatever other reason he decides to and he doesn't mind the other dog eating it.

To say there isn't a pattern is silly to me. With most any mammal once one animal wins clearly and enough times, the other frequently stops competing and defers to the other over that resource in the future especially in social mammals that live in groups. They learn.

But he still won control, priority access, to the bone, bowl of food, female in hat whatever.

There is a context difference between using the word to describe a relationship, and using it to describe a very finite situation/behavior I suppose.

In your example where the dog sits and gets a treat, I cannot see where the dog "won" anything as it did not compete for anything, there is no winner and no loser.

The dog knows you control the resource and you control access, you are dominant. He knows you may allow him access, and he has innate appeasement behavior as many social mammals do and uses it. 

He uses this appeasement behavior because he is actively taught to do so, and has ability to learn that through experience. 

An experience we actively set up (for success!) and guide the dog through expressly for that purpose, so it will learn that if it actively submits and displays the proper appeasement behavior you may allow him access to the treat. Not that unnatural for a social mammal.

The frequency, consistency and extent to which you make the dog appease for access to any resource it finds valuable will define how well conditioned and ingrained that submissive appeasement display will be. NILIF defined.

Compare to a dog who if it saw food in your hand, either threatened to try to intimidate you to drop the food or actually did attack you in an attempt to physically take it. Or a dog that if you stood in front of the open door, physically challenged you to get out and physically battled with you to bolt outside. That would be more of a contest for access and control over a resource with a winner and loser.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

winniec777 said:


> And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Wasn't really asking a question. Just making a point that IMO the definitions & labels don't matter. Dogs are opportunists. You can use that to get the behavior you want without worrying about concepts like dominance. The day I worry about whether a puppy is trying to dominate me is the day I've lost.


A rose by any other name is still a rose.

One is frustrated by a dog who bolts out the door despite a struggle and just calls it bad behavior, one is frustrated because the dog is bolting out the door because it is being dominant.

The dog doesn't care, the reason is the same, the solution is the same, a rose by any other name...

Definitions and labels matter in communicating knowledge and ideas between humans is all. If we don't share common definitions and labels, communication between humans is difficult and meanings are not conveyed.

Threads like these commonly devolve because so many people have so many different concepts of what the term dominant means. I take mine as the classical meaning of the word, others hold some sort of concept from a specific trainer, a book, many from some old wolf study, whatever.

I'm just describing my concept of it as it applies to dog ownership and behavior on a forum I presume is for sharing points of view about such subjects so others might not confuse my usage of it, and that others might find the perspective useful, or not, in their thought process of relating to their dog.

The OP did ask after all about showing your dog dominance, I'm just sharing a perspective on that subject.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

You explained it just as complex and confusing as explaining it without using dominance and submissive is. So I'm still unsure why it's beneficial. 

That said, you are over-thinking the definition. It's simply a method of quantifying a relationship to figure out relationships between animals. If you look at the scientists who use this method, they will have a chart for every animal in a social group.

Every time they win a resource, they mark it in the chart, and using this as reference, try to figure out the relationships between animals.

Even that use is in debate nowdays, Many scientists don't see that as a valid method of tracking relationships between animals, because it projects human anthropomorphism on nonhuman beings. In many social groups, appeasement behavior is considered vital to a stable environment between animals, so very rarely if ever is an animal solely dominant or submissive. 

Consequently it has little to no application to our relationship. Our control over the resource is merely that, not dominance. We did not win control of food from the dog, it was never in competition to begin with. It's just the human illusion of power projecting that.



> To say there isn't a pattern is silly to me. With most any mammal once one animal wins clearly and enough times, the other frequently stops competing and defers to the other over that resource in the future especially in social mammals that live in groups. They learn.


They learn, but just for that one resource. It's not all-encompassing. Every animal values things differently. When Kobe runs into my bed and jumps on the bed, he may think he is winning the resource from me, even if I never competed for it. He does it every day, does that define our relationship? No, it's pointless because you can't quantify intent. You can only quantify the action.



> Follow your logic, what the the "winner" of the resource actually won is "control" of that resource is it not?


You're trying to apply another entirely different meaning to an already existing meaning. What the dog does with the resource does not have relevance to the winning of the resource.



> In your example, I cannot see where the dog "won" anything as it did not compete for anything, there is no winner and no loser.


You're looking at it from a human perspective, not a scientific perspective. There is indeed a winner and loser in that resource competition. The issue is that it was between two entirely different species, which pretty much makes attempting to quantify dominance irrelevant. But even if you were to try, you are competiting with your dog for a behavior, your dog was competiting with you for a treat. Both of you won your desired resource. It's a symbiotic relationship, if anything, not a dominant one.



> The dog knows you control the resource and you control access, you are dominant. He knows you may allow him access, and he has innate appeasement behavior as many social mammals do and uses it.


He doesn't know that you are dominant. He knows that he can do food elicting behavior in order to earn the resource. He's an opportunistic animal, and that's all it is.



> The frequency, consistency and extent to which you make the dog appease for access to any resource it finds valuable will define how well conditioned and ingrained that submissive appeasement display will be. NILIF defined.


That's not NILIF defined. Kobe does not perform any appeasement behavior to me, but he is obedient. Maybe your dogs show you a lot of appeasement behavior, likely because you want to see it and when it is shown to you, it does appease you and they get rewarded for it. That's just dogs doing what works. If you were not pleased with them showing you appasement behavior, and expected them to show you what you define as "dominant" behavior, that is what you would get. It's no less a learned behavior, and irrelevant to dominance.

NILIF is merely a tool to teach people what dogs are: opportunistic animals who will do whatever works for a reward.



> Compare to a dog who if it saw food in your hand, either threatened to try to intimidate you to drop the food or actually did attack you in an attempt to physically take it. Or a dog that if you stood in front of the open door, physically challenged you to get out and physically battled with you to bolt outside. That would be more of a contest for access and control over a resource with a winner and loser.


That's a entirely different issue that's irrelevant to dominance. Very little, if any, of dominance involves actual fighting. It's a way to define social interactions, where dominance and submissive are both seen as equal. The one displaying dominant behaviors is rarely threatening, it's just human anthropomorphism that interprets it as such.



> Definitions and labels matter in communicating knowledge and ideas between humans is all. If we don't share common definitions and labels, communication between humans is difficult and meanings are not conveyed.


That's exactly correct, which is why we should be using the only standard in existence right now, The Learning Theory. There is no standard in Dominance, as you have shown so well in this quote:



> Threads like these commonly devolve because so many people have so many different concepts of what the term dominant means.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> That said, you are over-thinking the definition. It's simply a method of quantifying a relationship to figure out relationships between animals. If you look at the scientists who use this method, they will have a chart for every animal in a social group.


Exactly.



> They learn, but just for that one resource. It's not all-encompassing. Every animal values things differently. When Kobe runs into my bed and jumps on the bed, he may think he is winning the resource from me, even if I never competed for it. He does it every day, does that define our relationship? No, it's pointless because you can't quantify intent. You can only quantify the action.


Yes they learn for each resource. And no, one specific resource does not define an overall relationship.



> You're trying to apply another entirely different meaning to an already existing meaning. What the dog does with the resource does not have relevance to the winning of the resource.


Sure it does, how can it not? The losing dog has no access, no control, he can do nothing with the resource. The winning dog has won access, won control, won ability to do whatever he will with that resource. Freedom to do what he wants with it is what he was competing for.




> You're looking at it from a human perspective, not a scientific perspective. There is indeed a winner and loser in that resource competition. The issue is that it was between two entirely different species, which pretty much makes attempting to quantify dominance irrelevant. But even if you were to try, you are competiting with your dog for a behavior, your dog was competiting with you for a treat. Both of you won your desired resource. It's a symbiotic relationship, if anything, not a dominant one.


I have a sandwich, my dog wants some. Begging, doing a trick, displaying appeasing behaviors to get me to allow him access. He only does this because I have expressly taught him I might give him access if he does a specific behavior, and reinforced this specific appeasement behavior through repetition. It is not competing with me for a resource. 

We both get what we desire if he sits, but it is on my terms. I define the behavior that I desire, that he must submit and perform first, I define the treat, I control the treat. I define whether the behavior even if correct even gets the treat or not or maybe just a pat on the head. I am dominant and he is subordinate in the situation.



> He doesn't know that you are dominant. He knows that he can do food elicting behavior in order to earn the resource. He's an opportunistic animal, and that's all it is.


He knows I have treat in my hand. He knows I have access to that valuable resource and he does not. That I am in the dominant position concerning this resource and he is in the subordinate position. This is a quite accurate description as far as I can see.

He is indeed an opportunistic animal, a trait which I have expressly taken advantage of to teach him that if he submits to and appeases me in the proper manner, I "might" grant him access to this resource. I do this enough over time that he will be so conditioned to appease me in this way he will continue to do so without even receiving access to a valuable resource every time, and eventually no valuable resource at all.




> That's not NILIF defined. Kobe does not perform any appeasement behavior to me, but he is obedient.


Does he have to perform an explicit behavior to gain access to a resource? That behavior is not a conditioned appeasement?

I'm not talking about a natural submissive behavior, but simply an appeasement. Sit and you can have the food, or go out the door. Something the dog would not naturally do if it did not need to do to gain access to the resource. 

NILIF calls it "earning" access to every valued resource, but what is "earning" really? 

It is just a simplified description of requiring an explicit act of appeasement to a dominant authority to gain access to a resource in my book.

Or could be described as an overt display of dominant authority requiring an explicit act of appeasement before the dog will be be granted access to any and all valuable resources. Nothing in life is free.



> Maybe your dogs show you a lot of appeasement behavior, likely because you want to see it and when it is shown to you, it does appease you and they get rewarded for it. That's just dogs doing what works. If you were not pleased with them showing you appasement behavior, and expected them to show you what you define as "dominant" behavior, that is what you would get. It's no less a learned behavior, and irrelevant to dominance.


Sitting on command is normally just an appeasing behavior I have conditioned through rewarding (granting access to a valuable resource). Same for every behavior trained.



> NILIF is merely a tool to teach people what dogs are: opportunistic animals who will do whatever works for a reward.


NILIF is a method to condition behavior in a dog. Conditioned and displayed appeasement behavior required for access to every single resource it values. Nothing in life is free, an overt display of appeasement is required for access to anything.




> That's a entirely different issue that's irrelevant to dominance. Very little, if any, of dominance involves actual fighting. It's a way to define social interactions, where dominance and submissive are both seen as equal. The one displaying dominant behaviors is rarely threatening, it's just human anthropomorphism that interprets it as such.


I didn't say nor imply most dominance involves fighting, I only provided an example that included intimidation or fighting as a form of contest over a resource, a quite valid one, and a valid example of a contest over a resource that you seemingly ignored. I though it more straight forward than a page of explanatory body language description.




> That's exactly correct, which is why we should be using the only standard in existence right now, The Learning Theory. There is no standard in Dominance, as you have shown so well in this quote:


Yet the OP specifically asked about showing your dog dominance. You reply in your way saying don't think in those terms, think in some other terms. 

I reply in a way that may or may not be more acceptable to him or make more sense to him/her. I simply present him another way to perceive and practice dominance, an accurate and more likely successful way, if he is so inclined to think in terms of dominance.

I seriously doubt our methods of training would be very different at all in the end.

I would add that dominant is a clear standard, a word with a proper definition. I'm right handed, my right arm is dominant. My right eye is dominant. The genes from my mothers side of family are dominant in my genetic makeup. I am an employer and in a dominant position to my employees who are subordinate to my position.

Not everyone perceives the term in the sense of an old wolf study, Mech or the monks of Skete or some theory etc. Most if they have a concept of being dominant in dog human relationship is a very loose not well defined one based on maybe a TV show or the ill advice of a friend and not much more.

Explaining NILIF for what it truly is, dominance, puts it in alternate terms that are both correct and doesn't make the concept of dominance mutually exclusive with positive reinforcement nor learning theory.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Sure it does, how can it not? The losing dog has no access, no control, he can do nothing with the resource. The winning dog has won access, won control, won ability to do whatever he will with that resource. Freedom to do what he wants with it is what he was competing for.


Because you're adding *intent*, an unquantifiable concept (unless you can read minds) into a rigid definition. It is a singular behavior, not a intent.



> I have a sandwich, my dog wants some. Begging, doing a trick, displaying appeasing behaviors to get me to allow him access. He only does this because I have expressly taught him I might give him access if he does a specific behavior, and reinforced this specific appeasement behavior through repetition. It is not competing with me for a resource.
> 
> We both get what we desire if he sits, but it is on my terms. I define the behavior that I desire, that he must submit and perform first, I define the treat, I control the treat. I define whether the behavior even if correct even gets the treat or not or maybe just a pat on the head. I am dominant and he is subordinate in the situation.


What you are explaining is merely learned behavior. Dogs do what works. If he hunted you down like prey and tore the sandwich out of your hand, he's the dominant one for winning the resource. If he sits to get your treat, he's the dominant one for winning the resource. The behavior he had to do to win the resource is irrelevant to the definition. What your intentions are is irrelevant, because that requires mind reading. What your dog's intentions are is also irrelevant, because that too requires mind reading. You can't quantify intent, only the behavior.

If submissive behaviors (i.e. licking the lips of a dog demonstrating dominant behavior) gets you a resource, you are still the dominant one. The behaviors and intentions play absolutely zero part in the definition. It's simply a way to measure who walks away with the item in the end, regardless of how they do so.



> He knows I have treat in my hand. He knows I have access to that valuable resource and he does not. That I am in the dominant position concerning this resource and he is in the subordinate position. This is a quite accurate description as far as I can see.


Adding intent to the definition.



> NILIF calls it "earning" access to every valued resource, but what is "earning" really?
> 
> It is just a simplified description of requiring an explicit act of appeasement to a dominant authority to gain access to a resource in my book.
> 
> Or could be described as an overt display of dominant authority requiring an explicit act of appeasement before the dog will be be granted access to any and all valuable resources. Nothing in life is free.


If a dog thinks that he controls his access to food (you) merely by offering behaviors, and he sits for you to feed him, does that make him dominant? After all, he can get food when he wants to, and he knows how to get food when he wants to. You are merely the means, the same way taking down a deer is the means. That's why you can't add intent and behavior to a rigid definition.



> NILIF is a method to condition behavior in a dog. Conditioned and displayed appeasement behavior required for access to every single resource it values. Nothing in life is free, an overt display of appeasement is required for access to anything.


I have to point out you just defined it without the use of dominance.



> I didn't say nor imply most dominance involves fighting, I only provided an example that included intimidation or fighting as a form of contest over a resource, a quite valid one, and a valid example of a contest over a resource that you seemingly ignored. I though it more straight forward than a page of explanatory body language description.


Yeah, I ignored it because fighting is a completely different issue. There are more factors to fighting than a mere resource contest. It is the sign of a unstable dog that does not know how to coexist in a pack and does not know how to properly demonstrate social behaviors. So it has little to nothing to do with the discussion.



> Yet the OP specifically asked about showing your dog dominance. You reply in your way saying don't think in those terms, think in some other terms.
> 
> I reply in a way that may or may not be more acceptable to him or make more sense to him/her. I simply present him another way to perceive and practice dominance, an accurate and more likely successful way, if he is so inclined to think in terms of dominance.
> 
> I seriously doubt our methods of training would be very different at all in the end.


What the methods of training are ultimately is irrelevant to the discussion. There is already a standard, and trying to contort a broken standard (dominance hypothesis) into one that is slightly more sensible is just delaying the inevitable. Dominance is going to be phased out, and the more people are encouraged to think of it as such, the harder the change is going to be. It is better for people to be properly educated in the only standard in existence, it will help them now, and help them in the future.

You said so yourself here:



> Definitions and labels matter in communicating knowledge and ideas between humans is all. If we don't share common definitions and labels, communication between humans is difficult and meanings are not conveyed.


For as long as people persist in trying to keep a broken hypothesis based on a misunderstood definition, we can't have a common definition, and thus, communication is difficult. The fact that you used dominance does not make your definition of it any less foreign to the OP than using the proper terms. 

The OP already thinks Dominance in the improper way, we can both agree with that. What you do it completely re-define every definition in the Dominance Hypothesis while maintaining the same words, which to most people is going to be completely confusing. Especially if they try to learn more about Dominance at other websites, and the vast majority of them are at odds with your definition. That's just... really confusing.

Or we can define it in the true standard, and that will give people the resource for further learning if they so choose to.



> I would add that dominant is a clear standard, a word with a proper definition. I'm right handed, my right arm is dominant. My right eye is dominant. The genes from my mothers side of family are dominant in my genetic makeup. I am an employer and in a dominant position to my employees who are subordinate to my position.


It's not. That's like saying "fall" is a clear standard, a word with a proper definition. It means to descend under the influence of gravity, the season of Fall, to pass suddenly and passively into a state of body or mind, to come under, to be captured, to occur at a specified time or place, and more.

The definition "Dominance" is founded on is the one that's used in the wolf books, not the definition you just used. "My right arm is dominant" is the right use of "dominant" but it is not the definition of "dominant" in the way it's defined in Dog Behavior. You are trying to change the definition of Dominant to one that makes more sense to you (and nobody else) rather than change to the one of the majority, and the one that will be used in the future in place of anything "dominance".


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I agree with everybody!

I don't completely disagree with so-called dominance theory, but I trained several dogs before I ever heard of it. So, while it may be accurate to one degree or another, I have found that "Grifter Theory" better explains canine behavior. For me, at least.



> Dogs are opportunists. You can use that to get the behavior you want without worrying about concepts like dominance.


Some dogs have an uncanny ability to reinforce whatever beliefs we humans already hold about them.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Even the most "positive" trainers out there, shaping behaviors with a clicker and treats, are establishing and reinforcing their utter dominance in the relationship. Requiring more and more complex displays of appeasement to gain access to resources like affection, food, freedom etc.


I do those things to teach Wally new behaviors or to be more creative/free to offer behaviors, not to dominate him.

At least with what I know of shaping and the reason for it - dominance isn't one of them.




TxRider said:


> That other person can be submissive, catering to your every whim, getting you everything you want, when you want it, without hesitation.You have total control and priority access to all the resources you desire, you are the dominant being in the relationship.


Well, Wally must be dominant because most of the time, he can do and access whatever he wants. He really has few actual rules and they are more situational (sit when we're about to go outside and once he's outside, don't beg during dinner, etc.). 

Otherwise, I don't make him do something before he can get on his mat, or before giving him his breakfast, or before he can walk down the hall. I mean, his desire is him doing any of those things (which is why he does it, he wants to in and of itself or to get to what he does desire), I don't make him "show submission" before doing everything he does or wants to do.

And, again, even in situations where he must do something - is he controlling the result by performing the action (i.e I'm sitting so give me my desire)? He might look at it that way - while of course the human is going to look at it as "I'm making him do what I want". To me, I'd rather make Wally want to do it himself (i.e. I'll do this because of the probable reward) then "I better do it or else Mr. Dominant is going to take stuff from me". I believe which of those the dog sees it as will change his emotional state and thus desire to perform.



TxRider said:


> Or that person could be dominant and not give you anything at all, denying you access to anything even attention or companionship unless they felt like it. You are the subordinate being in this relationship.


Of course, Wally could do the same thing. He might not want to be bothered and wants to go sleep on the other end of the room. Or he could want some company and come sleep right next to my feet. Is he not deciding if he wants companionship?



TxRider said:


> Obedience training could be said to be little more than ritualized submissive appeasement behavior with some modified cooperative pack behaviors here and there.


Or it could be said that I'm teaching him that doing what I say and following my directions is worthwhile, not because I'm the top dominant creature, but because good things happen to you when you do. 

I also look at it as teaching him new things. Not say "Bow to me, I'm dominant and I control everything in your universe."

That wasn't even a thought in my mind when teaching him to sit or stay or stand and walk on his back legs or using free shaping (no commands or directions at all) to close the cabinet doors.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Explaining NILIF for what it truly is, dominance, puts it in alternate terms that are both correct and doesn't make the concept of dominance mutually exclusive with positive reinforcement nor learning theory.


But does the DOG (the operant) see it that way? 

Does the dog say "oh he's dominant so I better appease him for that food in his hand?" 

Or does the dog see that treat, decide he wants it, and then goes through all the behaviors that got him treats before with the _expectation_ of success (because it was successful in the past)? I mean, how dare the serf (the dog) _expect_ to get anything from the king/queen (the human)

NILIF isn't so much about dominance as it is re-programming his mind to what is successful and what isn't. Dogs will do what is successful and tend to avoid what isn't successful. There's no need for domination in teaching what's successful and what isn't. 

After all, if I give him the treat - I'm losing. He's winning. He's got the food. I got an empty hand. How is that me being dominant? I'm supposed to win so I can be dominant over that food - but then he never gets it and never learns that behavior is successful. 

Besides, how do we know that TO THE DOG the first instant his teeth hit the food, that he's not in contest for it? After all, you could snatch it out of his mouth. So if he gets it, he "won" and then thinks he can be "dominant"?

And people say operant conditioning is confusing! That system makes more sense to me than trying to figure out if I'm winning or losing a treat, or entry to my room, or going out the door in order to make sure I'm always dominant. 

Give me the behavior->consequence system anyday. If what he does is a "good" thing, I'll reward it (even if I didn't explicitly command it). If it's a "bad" thing, I'll correct and re-direct. If I don't care, I won't even respond one way or the other and he can just do whatever he's doing.


----------



## BrittanyG (May 27, 2009)

Kaiser09 said:


> What way's do you show your dog your the dominant one? Lately my puppy has been acting out and seems to think he's in charge.


I doubt it. I think he's seeing how far he can push you. Totally different.



Kaiser09 said:


> I've been doing the normal things like controlling his eating schedule, talking to him in a firm voice, not giving into him when he begs for things but its not enough. Lately he's started to scratch me and fights me when I try to hold him.


I would try to escape if someone I didn't know or trust was holding me. As someone else mentioned, only use the "firm voice" for discipline. Otherwise, speak to him normally. He needs to learn the difference.



Kaiser09 said:


> What are some good ways to show him i'm in charge not the other way around. My roommate suggested that I scruff him a bit because that is what his mom would do, does that work?


Just keep doing what you're doing. Think of yourself as a teacher. He needs to know what is expected of him, what is ok, what is NOT OK under any circumstances. There are ways to manage certain behaviors, such as crate training. He can be crated during dinner so he's not in your face begging. If he jumps on you, or plays too rough, playtime is over. There is a TON of info here, read the stickies, read posts, and ask questions.

And don't scruff him. He knows you are not his mom, and will just get pissed or scared.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> Because you're adding *intent*, an unquantifiable concept (unless you can read minds) into a rigid definition. It is a singular behavior, not a intent.


I don't have to read minds to know the intent is to gain the resource. If there is no intent, no desire to have the resource, there is no contest over the resource. Can I quantify it (measure it's quantity)? To a degree, can I qualify it? certainly. The intent must be present to drive the behavior.



> If he hunted you down like prey and tore the sandwich out of your hand, he's the dominant one for winning the resource.


Yes, that would be a contest between two individuals over the same resource with a winner and a loser.



> If he sits to get your treat, he's the dominant one for winning the resource. The behavior he had to do to win the resource is irrelevant to the definition.


Not at all, there was no contest between two individuals over the same resource in this example. There was a trade of one resource for a completely different resource. A fundamentally different concept.



> What your intentions are is irrelevant, because that requires mind reading. What your dog's intentions are is also irrelevant, because that too requires mind reading. You can't quantify intent, only the behavior.


If dog is sitting front of me when I am eating and begs it doesn't take a mind reader to know the dog wants some of my food.

If it starts rotating through all it's learned behaviors to get that food, it's clear intent to get some of the food doesn't take a mind reader to qualify. Its intent drives it's behavior. Behavior requires intent. That I can't always quantify it or qualify it is irrelevant in this case.

Intent by both individuals to win the resource is required, or you are simply not speaking about a contest over priority access to single resource, and are on another topic entirely.



> It's simply a way to measure who walks away with the item in the end, regardless of how they do so.


The measure is regardless of how they do so, but it must be over the same resource by definition, a single resource both desire. Intent to gain priority access and behavior designed accomplish it is required.

Not for example if one leaves a resource to go find another and walks away and the subordinate comes in to eat the left over scraps, or when I give a dog a treat. These are quite different situations with no conflict of desire or contest for the resource.



> You are merely the means, the same way taking down a deer is the means. That's why you can't add intent and behavior to a rigid definition.


You can't add intent to rigid definition? Hmm...

Behaviors require intent and are classified by specific intent frequently.

Aggressive behavior is defined by intent to be aggressive.

Calming behavior is defined by intent to calm.

Submissive behavior is defined by it's intent to show submission.

Those seem like pretty rigid definitions of a behavior to me, not only can I add intent, intent defines them.

Dominant behavior is defined by intent to gain priority access to the same resource over another individual. Intent is integral.



> There is already a standard, and trying to contort a broken standard (dominance hypothesis) into one that is slightly more sensible is just delaying the inevitable. Dominance is going to be phased out, and the more people are encouraged to think of it as such, the harder the change is going to be. It is better for people to be properly educated in the only standard in existence, it will help them now, and help them in the future.


Then clearly state that standard for me. I don't see a common standard defined in discussions here or anywhere else that I would call a "standard" to be measured and compared against.

Dominant was around and widely used long before it was used in the way you apparently abhor, it will be used long after whatever "standard" you imagine exists is gone especially if it is "broken".

Simply because someone creates a mistaken concept of applying the term and it is found to be lacking, does not mean a more correct concept cannot exist or even take it's place.



> For as long as people persist in trying to keep a broken hypothesis based on a misunderstood definition, we can't have a common definition, and thus, communication is difficult.


Then stop doing it. Stop hanging on to this "broken hypothesis". The word isn't going to be pulled from websters any time soon, and it is going to be applied, both incorrectly and correctly, to dog human relationships.

Discarding both correct and incorrect usage is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Besides isn't the purpose of a hypothesis to be tested, and corrected or changed if it is found to be incorrect? Shouldn't changing it be what we should do with a broken hypothesis?



> The OP already thinks Dominance in the improper way, we can both agree with that. What you do it completely re-define every definition in the Dominance Hypothesis while maintaining the same words, which to most people is going to be completely confusing.


It certainly seems to be to confusing to you, this "Dominance Hypothesis" whatever it may be is completely irrelevant to me since I have no clear definition of whatever this "Dominance Hypothesis" standard you speak of is. If it is an established standard definition, type it out. As a "standard" it must be clearly defined as a standard in common use as a clear common standard in many easily looked up sources.

The most common definition of dominant I seem to see used in relation to dogs, who are not wolves, is the individual who wins priority access to a specific resource over another, or an animal that another defers priority access to for a specific resource it also desires.. Is that an incorrect definition?



> The definition "Dominance" is founded on is the one that's used in the wolf books, not the definition you just used.


First off, dogs are not wolves.

Show me that definition in Websters, or Oxford. Dominant has a definition, and had it before any wolf books. If some researcher applied it incorrectly to a relationship or something at some point in time and labeled a hypothesis with it, it is in no way is relevant to my usage or the correctness of it.



> "My right arm is dominant" is the right use of "dominant" but it is not the definition of "dominant" in the way it's defined in Dog Behavior. You are trying to change the definition of Dominant to one that makes more sense to you (and nobody else) rather than change to the one of the majority, and the one that will be used in the future in place of anything "dominance".


Ok, then just stick to the example about me being an employer and being in a dominant position to my subordinate employees. You are ignoring the cogent aspect of example again.

I am not trying to change anything, I am using the standard meaning of the word, which predates your wolf books and hypothesis standard I presume.

I sincerely doubt the majority of people on the planet have any real idea of your "Dominance Hypothesis" as laid out in wolf books. Trainers maybe, some academics, some people here maybe, but likely a very tiny portion of dog owners in general I would guess.

Still..

NILIF is an overt display of dominant authority over every valuable resource, requiring a dog to overtly submit to that dominant authority in the form of performing a specific appeasement behavior in order to be granted access to that resource. I still see no incorrectness with the statement.

You seem to believe the word dominant itself should never be able to be applied to any aspect of a human dog relationship in any manner whatsoever for the rest of eternity no matter how clearly accurate it may be to a description or situation, simply because someone used it incorrectly at some point. I find that to be an irrational position to hold.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> But does the DOG (the operant) see it that way?
> 
> Does the dog say "oh he's dominant so I better appease him for that food in his hand?"


That would be anthropomorphizing to think he says anything, but it is the fundamental question regardless. How does the dog see the situation?

The dog certainly knows you hold the treat. He certainly defers access to you as he is not trying to compete for it. You are clearly in the dominant position, and the dog a subordinate one.

Take a feral dog who has never interacted with humans and what would he do? What behavior would he present?

Likely he would try to simply walk up and eat your sandwich from your hand, if you gave no signals to guard the resource (eye contact, stop eating etc.) and allowed him to do so. If you did give some signal he wasn't welcome to walk up and eat it he would likely just wait to see if you left any food when you were done and left the area.

Until you teach him that a specific act of appeasement displayed(A valuable resource to you) will result in you granting access to the food (A valuable resource to the dog) those expectations are not present.



> Or does the dog see that treat, decide he wants it, and then goes through all the behaviors that got him treats before with the _expectation_ of success (because it was successful in the past)? I mean, how dare the serf (the dog) _expect_ to get anything from the king/queen (the human)


A dog with no previous experience of success would have little if any expectation of you granting access to such a valuable resource.

It is our explicitly teaching them that submitting to our desire for them to perform a behavior is what we desire, and that we grant access to the food if they perform it, that sets those expectations.



> NILIF isn't so much about dominance as it is re-programming his mind to what is successful and what isn't. Dogs will do what is successful and tend to avoid what isn't successful. There's no need for domination in teaching what's successful and what isn't.


I agree with that statement completely. 

But what are we actually teaching them will successful for them? We are teaching them that an immediate and unquestioning display of submission in the form of an appeasing behavior will be successful.

If they perform no overt submission in the form of an appeasing behavior performed, no success, no access to the resource. Nothing in life is free.



> After all, if I give him the treat - I'm losing. He's winning. He's got the food. I got an empty hand. How is that me being dominant? I'm supposed to win so I can be dominant over that food - but then he never gets it and never learns that behavior is successful.


You are not losing at all. You are not competing for the same resource. He wants food, you want a behavior. You both won, if you have to look at it that way.

What makes you dominant is that it is done on your terms, he must comply first, and do so to your satisfaction. He can perform the right behavior and give you what you want, and still not get the treat, but if he doesn't he certainly will not get it.



> Besides, how do we know that TO THE DOG the first instant his teeth hit the food, that he's not in contest for it? After all, you could snatch it out of his mouth. So if he gets it, he "won" and then thinks he can be "dominant"?


Food guarding a bowl of food or a bone or a place on the sofa would be a more apt example.



> And people say operant conditioning is confusing! That system makes more sense to me than trying to figure out if I'm winning or losing a treat, or entry to my room, or going out the door in order to make sure I'm always dominant.


You can't win or lose if you are not competing. And normally you shouldn't be as you control most resources by default.

My dog sits when I open the front door. I have established priority access to that resource, a dominant position. She can go out if I tell her she can, granting her access to the resource. That is exerting dominance (assuming she wants to go out). Her bolting between my legs out the door is not. Simple.

She used to try to bolt past me, through my legs, we physically competed over that single resource. 

I established dominance over that resource nd now hold a dominant position over it. At that point she likely had no expectation of gaining access to the resource (going outside in the front yard).

Until I taught her that if she submitted to my dominant authority overtly with an appropriate overt display of appeasement (sit and stay quietly) I might grant access to that resource.

That set expectations.

Or more simply, the only way to get out the front door, is to sit and stay quietly.. NILIF.



> Give me the behavior->consequence system anyday. If what he does is a "good" thing, I'll reward it (even if I didn't explicitly command it). If it's a "bad" thing, I'll correct and re-direct. If I don't care, I won't even respond one way or the other and he can just do whatever he's doing.


However you want to think of it, a rose by any other name... It's not very complicated to me.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> I don't have to read minds to know the intent is to gain the resource. If there is no intent, no desire to have the resource, there is no contest over the resource. Can I quantify it (measure it's quantity)? To a degree, can I qualify it? certainly. The intent must be present to drive the behavior.
> 
> 
> > That's conjecture you are deriving from the contest. You are, again, trying to add stuff to the meaning. It's not an abstract concept. It's like math.
> ...


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Simply because someone creates a mistaken concept of applying the term and it is found to be lacking, does not mean a more correct concept cannot exist or even take it's place.


Yes, and that more correct concept already exists. Learning Theory.




> Then stop doing it. Stop hanging on to this "broken hypothesis". The word isn't going to be pulled from websters any time soon, and it is going to be applied, both incorrectly and correctly, to dog human relationships.
> 
> Discarding both correct and incorrect usage is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


I didn't discard any correct usages. There was never a correct use of Dominance in regards to Training or Behavior. Dominance, as it's used today, is completely and utterly incorrect. You are the only person I've ever heard that changed Dominance to merely mean controlling the resource. The people who use Dominance Hypothesis disagree with you, the people in Learning Theory disagree, the people who created the usage of the word, which the Dominance Hypothesis was based on, disagree with that.



> Besides isn't the purpose of a hypothesis to be tested, and corrected or changed if it is found to be incorrect? Shouldn't changing it be what we should do with a broken hypothesis?


Calling it the Dominance Hypothesis is my mockery of it. Most people call it the Dominance Theory. But it has undergone absolutely no trails to become a Theory, so it's clearly not one. I mock that it's a Hypothesis, but it's not even that, because there's absolutely no way to test it. The Learning Theory, on the other hand, has undergone 50 years of scientific challenges, and holds true to this day.




> It certainly seems to be to confusing to you, this "Dominance Hypothesis" whatever it may be is completely irrelevant to me since I have no clear definition of whatever this "Dominance Hypothesis" standard you speak of is. If it is an established standard definition, type it out. As a "standard" it must be clearly defined as a standard in common use as a clear common standard in many easily looked up sources.


Correct, a standard must be created. Learning Theory already has that standard, Dominance Hypothesis has absolutely no standards. There's a million derivations of it, and yours is just one of the million derivations of it. There is absolutely no way to redeem it. Put 100 Animal Psychologists in a room, and they will all agree on the Learning Theory. Put 100 Dominance Hypothesis people in the room, and they will all disagree with what Dominance is.



> The most common definition of dominant I seem to see used in relation to dogs, who are not wolves, is the individual who wins priority access to a specific resource over another, or an animal that another defers priority access to for a specific resource it also desires.. Is that an incorrect definition?


Depends on how you define incorrect. It's one of the many derivations from the original meaning of which it was based on.




> First off, dogs are not wolves.


Duh. That's one of the many reasons the Dominance Hypothesis fails. All of the founding data of which it's based on is wolf behavior.



> Show me that definition in Websters, or Oxford. Dominant has a definition, and had it before any wolf books. If some researcher applied it incorrectly to a relationship or something at some point in time and labeled a hypothesis with it, it is in no way is relevant to my usage or the correctness of it.


Scientific definitions of words and modern definitions of words are often different. Scientific definitions have to be more rigid and unflexible, where most modern words are used flexibly. You can see where the confusion happened.

David Mech talks a lot about dominance in wolves, alpha pairs, and so on. So does Scherkel. People reading it, who are unfamiliar in the scientific definitions of the words, interpret dominance in the more common use of the word. They interpret alpha in the more common use of the word. And from that, attempted to base a hierarchy between dogs and humans. But since it's based on a misinterpretation of the word, the whole theory is a fallacy.

David Mech himself has explained repeatedly that dominance is merely the winner of a resource, and alpha is merely the breeding pair. Neither one denotes rank, or priority access.




> Ok, then just stick to the example about me being an employer and being in a dominant position to my subordinate employees. You are ignoring the cogent aspect of example again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you are using a different standard of the word than Dominance based trainers then it's really redundant. Because if you explain it in dominance terms to the OP, and the OP goes off to learn more, it's going to be in conflict with every other use of Dominance in relation to dog training. To most dominance based trainers, dominance is a heirarchy where you have to be the alpha dog in the relationship. You clearly don't subscribe to that. So I don't know why you are attempting to use their terminology instead of the Learning Theory, which you have demonstrated some knowledge of in the past.




> NILIF is an overt display of dominant authority over every valuable resource, requiring a dog to overtly submit to that dominant authority in the form of performing a specific appeasement behavior in order to be granted access to that resource. I still see no incorrectness with the statement.
> 
> You seem to believe the word dominant itself should never be able to be applied to any aspect of a human dog relationship in any manner whatsoever for the rest of eternity no matter how clearly accurate it may be to a description or situation, simply because someone used it incorrectly at some point. I find that to be an irrational position to hold.


If that's your definition, then okay, whatever. I have never heard, even from Dominance based trainers, that definition. So people who come here looking for help in how to show their dog dominance will learn nothing from you, because your definition conflicts with every other dominance trainer. If you're going to define it like that, you might as well just abandon it altogether and simply use the current standard, Learning Theory.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

RBark said:


> If that's your definition, then okay, whatever. I have never heard, even from Dominance based trainers, that definition. So people who come here looking for help in how to show their dog dominance will learn nothing from you, because your definition conflicts with every other dominance trainer. If you're going to define it like that, you might as well just abandon it altogether and simply use the current standard, Learning Theory.


Ah ha. I think we have hit the nail here. RBark, staying true to learning theorist form, despises the use of the word dominance in relation to dog behavior because the *scientific* definition of dominance theory is flawed. TxRider's definition of dominance is the general definition, it is not the scientific definition.

Most general pet owners looking for help on dominance have no idea what dominance theory is anyways, so the term dominance to them could mean anything. You can't erase words from the dictionary. The word dominance is here to stay, so why not revise the definition of dominance instead of trying to ban it altogether from dog training?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Most general pet owners looking for help on dominance have no idea what dominance theory is anyways, so the term dominance to them could mean anything. You can't erase words from the dictionary. The word dominance is here to stay, so why not revise the definition of dominance instead of trying to band it altogether from dog training?


I can't erase words from the dictionary, but Dominance will be obsolete. With all the schools popping up, certifications like IAADP, and so on... it's pretty much a given that this is the direction the future dog training is going to go. Milan's popularity gave Dominance a last, dying kick start, but that's all it is.

It's not my intent to remove it from the dictionary, but it has no place in dog training. Merely by looking at how prevalent learning theory based training is becoming, newer generations are going to learn proper terminology, and it will eventually become extinct. Attempting to revise the word is merely going to delay it. 

The best thing we can do to people who, as you say, don't know what Dominance Hypothesis is, and are blank slates, is to educate them not pander to their confused belief.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

But you're talking about dominance in terms of dominance theory. There is also the general definition of dominance that does not describe pack hierarchy. This more general definition can accurately describe certain aspects of our relationship with our dogs, as TxRider mentions, without creating that adversarial relationship that traditional dominance theory does. 

Positive trainers have no problem with describing themselves as leaders to their dog. How is using "leader" appropriate and "dominant" not? The reason why dominance is so hated is because it is associated with the disproven dominance theory. If dominance theory never existed, there would be no problem with using the word dominance with regards to dog training.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

qingcong said:


> But you're talking about dominance in terms of dominance theory. There is also the general definition of dominance that does not describe pack hierarchy. This more general definition can accurately describe certain aspects of our relationship with our dogs, as TxRider mentions, without creating that adversarial relationship that traditional dominance theory does.
> 
> Positive trainers have no problem with describing themselves as leaders to their dog. How is using "leader" appropriate and "dominant" not? The reason why dominance is so hated is because it is associated with the disproven dominance theory. If dominance theory never existed, there would be no problem with using the word dominance with regards to dog training.


That's setting them up for failure. Fact is, Dominance Hypothesis did exist. If you attempt to educate people with the general definition of dominance, and they attempt to educate themselves further, what do you think is going to occur? Type in "dominance training dog" or any of it's million variations and see what you get in google. That's where the further education is, since you can't control everything in regards to what the reader learns.

You can, however, set them on the right path by correcting their misunderstanding and setting them towards the direction of modern dog behavior.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> You are the only person I've ever heard that changed Dominance to merely mean controlling the resource. The people who use Dominance Hypothesis disagree with you, the people in Learning Theory disagree, the people who created the usage of the word, which the Dominance Hypothesis was based on, disagree with that.


Hmm.. You have never heard dominance defined as controlling the resource?

How about Dr. Sophia Yin?



> In animal behavior, dominance is defined as a relationship between individuals that is established through force, aggression and submission *in order to establish priority access to all desired resources (food, the opposite sex, preferred resting spots, etc).* A relationship is not established until one animal consistently defers to another.


Though I wouldn't limit it to being establish through force and aggression.

How about our own Curbside Prophet?



> Dominance also exists, but again, not as behavior...*it's merely an assignment to the winner of a contest. Contests are driven by context and preferences of the individuals involved.*
> 
> So explaining the OP's observations, *what's the contest? What resource is being gained that IS tangible to BOTH dogs involved?* Knowing that, perhaps then you can assign these labels, otherwise these labels have no real utility in explaining behavior, and perhaps not even if you do know the resource being gained.


AVSAB position statement.



> Definition of Dominance
> Dominance is defined as a relationship between
> individual animals that is established by
> force/aggression and submission, to determine
> ...


how about the good folks over at clickersolutions.com, that bastion of learning theory and operant conditioning...



> So despite popular myth, alpha does not mean physically dominant or most aggressive. *It means in control of resources. A leader is one who has earned the right to control whatever resources he or she thinks are important.*


or...



> * "Alpha" does not mean physically dominant. It means "in control of resources." Many, many alpha dogs are too small or too physically frail to physically dominate. *But they have earned the right to control the valued resources. An individual dog determines which resources he considers important. Thus an alpha dog may give up a prime sleeping place because he simply couldn't care less.*
> 
> So what does this mean for the dog-human relationship?
> 
> ...


Replace "alpha" with "dominant" in that last bold paragraph, and you could almost be quoting me. Sounds a lot like NILIF being recommended as well.

And I could go on for days, but it seems to me the definition of the dominant individual as the individual who controls the resources is pretty darn common.



> Correct, a standard must be created. Learning Theory already has that standard, Dominance Hypothesis has absolutely no standards. There's a million derivations of it, and yours is just one of the million derivations of it. There is absolutely no way to redeem it. Put 100 Animal Psychologists in a room, and they will all agree on the Learning Theory. Put 100 Dominance Hypothesis people in the room, and they will all disagree with what Dominance is.


Yet I do not contradict learning theory.



> Scientific definitions of words and modern definitions of words are often different. Scientific definitions have to be more rigid and unflexible, where most modern words are used flexibly. You can see where the confusion happened.


And dictionaries update to modern definitions when and if they change in common use. I'm using plain modern usage, from plain common dictionaries, not scientific usage. 



> David Mech talks a lot about dominance in wolves, alpha pairs, and so on. So does Scherkel. People reading it, who are unfamiliar in the scientific definitions of the words, interpret dominance in the more common use of the word. They interpret alpha in the more common use of the word. And from that, attempted to base a hierarchy between dogs and humans. But since it's based on a misinterpretation of the word, the whole theory is a fallacy.


And how many dog owners have read these two guys as a percentage of dog owners? Studies done in the 1940's and what, 1970's? One percent? Five percent?



> David Mech himself has explained repeatedly that dominance is merely the winner of a resource, and alpha is merely the breeding pair. Neither one denotes rank, or priority access.


There you go, and you just said at the beginning of your post you have never heard dominance defined as controlling a resource.




> If you are using a different standard of the word than Dominance based trainers then it's really redundant. Because if you explain it in dominance terms to the OP, and the OP goes off to learn more, it's going to be in conflict with every other use of Dominance in relation to dog training. To most dominance based trainers, dominance is a heirarchy where you have to be the alpha dog in the relationship. You clearly don't subscribe to that. So I don't know why you are attempting to use their terminology instead of the Learning Theory, which you have demonstrated some knowledge of in the past.


Why can't I use both if both are accurate and do not conflict?



> If that's your definition, then okay, whatever. I have never heard, even from Dominance based trainers, that definition. So people who come here looking for help in how to show their dog dominance will learn nothing from you, because your definition conflicts with every other dominance trainer. If you're going to define it like that, you might as well just abandon it altogether and simply use the current standard, Learning Theory.


It's a way to describe it, certainly not the only way.

Some may learn nothing from it, some may gain insight, a light bulb may pop on their heads. That's up to them not us.

I'm only concerned that it is accurate, having more than one context or perspective on a subject can frequently be helpful to some. Obviously not to many who have read Mech et. al, but I would guess not many have.

I could just as easily say "The best way by far to show your dog dominance is to simply implement NILIF", simple, clear. 

And if I am then asked how implementing NILIF is establishing dominance, I can explain it quite easily as I have here.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> That's setting them up for failure. Fact is, Dominance Hypothesis did exist. If you attempt to educate people with the general definition of dominance, and they attempt to educate themselves further, what do you think is going to occur? Type in "dominance training dog" or any of it's million variations and see what you get in google. That's where the further education is, since you can't control everything in regards to what the reader learns.
> 
> You can, however, set them on the right path by correcting their misunderstanding and setting them towards the direction of modern dog behavior.


You can simply tell them that implementing NILIF is by far a better, safer, easier, and more effective way to establish dominance than old fashioned physical domination they will see elsewhere.

And have the science and rationale to back it up if required.

Simple, and simple for people who have heard all this vague dominance talk and don't understand it to grasp and hold onto, and to implement. "Dude, just go google NILIF!"


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I guess I'm seeing something different than you are. I'm seeing that you quoted 5 sources of defining "dominance" (where the only completely correct scientific definition is Curbside's) that are conflicting with each other in multiple ways. To me, that basically sums up why it's a redundant thing to teach when you can use Learning Theory based terminology much easier.



> And how many dog owners have read these two guys as a percentage of dog owners? Studies done in the 1940's and what, 1970's? One percent? Five percent?


A better representative of what I'm saying would be, how many people are think dog training is based on Dominance as used by Milan, Monks of New Skete, Koehler, and Leerburg (which are all based on misinterpretations of those two guys)? The answer to that would be a significant majority.



> Why can't I use both if both are accurate and do not conflict?


Because it's overcomplicating a already complicated subject.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> You can simply tell them that implementing NILIF is by far a better, safer, easier, and more effective way to establish dominance than old fashioned physical domination they will see elsewhere.
> 
> And have the science and rationale to back it up if required.
> 
> Simple, and simple for people who have heard all this vague dominance talk and don't understand it to grasp and hold onto, and to implement. "Dude, just go google NILIF!"


Yeah but then you're adding dominance to something that doesn't need it, NILIF. NILIF has been around for a while, and worked fine without dominance terminology. So I am unsure why one would add it.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> Yeah but then you're adding dominance to something that doesn't need it, NILIF. NILIF has been around for a while, and worked fine without dominance terminology. So I am unsure why one would add it.


Because normally, at least for me, the subject would come up in passing, literally, passing other owners out walking dogs etc. who mention being told they need to be dominant with their dog but are at a loss as to exactly what that means when they see my comparatively very well behaved rescues.

It's just easier and more effective I find to tell them "the best way to establish dominance is NILIF", and to go google it. Easy to remember, and a good direction for them to go, and not contradicting to their Dad, Mom, Uncle, whoever is telling them what to do and having to explain why they are wrong. I'm not even contradicting the dog whisperer in their mind.

Rather than try to educate them on the controversy of 1940's dominance theory vs learning theory, explaining learning theory and telling them not to listen to the people telling them they need to be dominant, in maybe a 3 minute conversation at maximum, while dogs briefly sniff each others butts in the street before moving on.



> A better representative of what I'm saying would be, how many people are think dog training is based on Dominance as used by Milan, Monks of New Skete, Koehler, and Leerburg (which are all based on misinterpretations of those two guys)? The answer to that would be a significant majority.


Most of the dog owners I have conversations with have no concept of who Koehler, Leerburg, the monks of new skete are, they have never heard of them. They have never heard of Skinner, Pryor, Dunbar, Yin etc either. 

They have heard of Pavlov and likely seen the dog whisperer and maybe It's me or the dog on TV. They have some vague notion that you should be the leader and dominant because people tell them that but no real clue what that means or how to go about doing it.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> A better representative of what I'm saying would be, how many people are think dog training is based on Dominance as used by Milan, Monks of New Skete, Koehler, and Leerburg (which are all based on misinterpretations of those two guys)? The answer to that would be a significant majority.


I don't know too much about the Monks--I've seen some video and it looks basically like sound, old style training--but I still have some Koehler books. I recently skimmed _The Method_ and found no references to "dominance" or "pack hierarchy". It's very possible that I missed it, but dominance is certainly not emphasized. Koehler does emphasize the opportunistic nature of canines, though.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Here is an example of why I tell people the best, safest, easiest and most effective way to establish dominance is NILIF.

Google NILIF and you get things like this....



> Once the dog is older and larger, it may become much more difficult and may, in fact, be unwise to try the alpha rollover approach to establishing your dominance over the dog. This is especially true with a dog that is not accustomed to this type of handling. When an older dog is aggressive, for any reason, there is another approach that has been used successfully by owners of many different breeds, including Akbash Dogs. It should work very well for Kangal Dogs as well. However, this article is based on information from an owner of Chows and Akitas. It works as well for terriers (who can be terrors!) as the large dogs.
> 
> This approach, called “Nothing in Life is Free” (NILIF), can help the owner gain the control and trust of his dog.


And this...



> Instead of force, humans can use ignoring certain behaviors and having the dog work for privileges to teach the dog that humans are in charge....
> 
> With your dog no longer in charge of the house, you will have to make more of an effort to engage in play and socialize. But it is worth it. NILIF does not mean denial of attention or play, it just means that the balance of power has shifted and the human is back in charge.


Or this..., the top google result...



> The NILIF program is remarkable because it's effective for such a wide variety of problems. A shy, timid dog becomes more relaxed knowing that he has nothing to worry about, his owner is in charge of all things. *A dog that's pushing too hard to become "top dog" learns that the position is not available and that his life is far more enjoyable without the title.* "


But all of their instructions for NILIF are basically identical, and they all say it's better than physical force like alpha rolling etc.

So while you may not think of dominance as it relates to NILIF, many others do. I find it both technically correct, and simpler to point someone to than just about any other useful info for a clueless owner.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Ow. My head hurts.
Interesting discussion here but I really do think you are both very close to agreeing about many things..but can't see the forest for the trees for all the semantic argument. Valid points on both sides..
Of course, god forbid I couldn't join in..at least for a bit.

NILIF IS about leadership/dominance, but not in the sense of physical dominance. Our dogs are not plotting to take over the world, but they ARE opportunistic (from their scavenger beginnings) and will do whatever they think works. It is up to us to lead them guide them to the things that work CO OPERATIVELY. This sets up the symbiosis. You do this and I'll do that. Tit for tat. But in my world the dog still has the choice. If they choose to do the opposite well then, too bad for you kiddo. No reward there. They soon choose to do what earns them the reward, it's still independent on their part, but they aren't stupid and they learn that acquiescence to our lead is the most profitable for them in the majority of situations. 

Dominance THEORY is highly flawed and yes, too many people walk around spouting that it means PHYSICAL dominance. When it comes to my training sessions or park discussions about this subject I simply say that it's outdated thought and that working WITH your dog's propensity for opportunism is much easier and much less stressful for all involved than even thinking about being the dominant one. It doesn't have to be I win or you lose, but we both win.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Cracker said:


> When it comes to my training sessions or park discussions about this subject I simply say that it's outdated thought and that working WITH your dog's propensity for opportunism is much easier and much less stressful for all involved than even thinking about being the dominant one. It doesn't have to be I win or you lose, but we both win.



My thoughts exactly.

Show the dog through his own actions the results of those actions and he'll make his own decisions on what gets him the most "bang for the buck" so to speak. That's pretty much the basis of learning theory. The operant (in this case the dog) will choose actions that bring the most pleasure (reinforcement) and tend to avoid those that bring the most displeasure (punishment).

Do this all the time in my shaping/free shaping/capturing sessions with Wally. It's basically how I taught him what he knows.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Show the dog through his own actions the results of those actions and he'll make his own decisions on what gets him the most "bang for the buck" so to speak. That's pretty much the basis of learning theory. The operant (in this case the dog) will choose actions that bring the most pleasure (reinforcement) and tend to avoid those that bring the most displeasure (punishment).


That's all I can do with my girls.. They do not react well to physically forcing them to perform a behavior or dominating body language or voice. Especially Kaya, she will eagerly lure into a heel on a leash for example, but even a slight tug to get her to move and she freezes like a statue.

Hope just ignores you and pretends you don't exist. The more frustrated or angry or loud or forceful you get, the more she ignores you and directs her attention actively to something else. I used to think she was being stubborn, now I realize it is just her coping mechanism and a form of avoidance. 

Correcting her for say, when she decides not to perform a command she knows perfectly well just doesn't work. You can do it to some small extent verbally, but not a lot or she goes into that you don't exist mode.

I have learned to spot when she's starting this, which isn't easy to differentiate from simply being distracted as she is a very easily distracted dog, and to back off and check my attitude.

The problem I have with showing the dog the results of her actions, is that that they have to actually do that action before you can show them a result. You can't reward it if you can't get them to do it.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

I hate the word "dominance". Im so sick of hearing it. I hate every last thing about it. If i never hear or read that stupid word again it will add about 20 years to my life. 

When people try to dominate their dogs, physically or otherwise...when they announce it...it literally makes me physically ill. why does it matter who is dominant in any sense of the word. Being dominant doesnt get a behavior. You thinking, testing, experimenting and working WITH your dog(as in you have to modify your responces just like the dog does) does get a behavior.

This is the stupidest dog related controversy ever. 

Thats even though im quite literally likely to take a bat to your head for even suggesting i dominate my dog in any way...but the reason for that is the stomachache.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

qingcong said:


> Positive trainers have no problem with describing themselves as leaders to their dog. How is using "leader" appropriate and "dominant" not? The reason why dominance is so hated is because it is associated with the disproven dominance theory. If dominance theory never existed, there would be no problem with using the word dominance with regards to dog training.


 
Good question, I do not consider myself dominant over my dogs, but I do control them. Instead of forcing them to do something by using physical corrections, I give them choices and reward the behavior I want. Good case in point is my EB, who is a demand barker. When he starts demanding something, I get up and walk away ignoring him, Once he settles down and relaxes I'l grab a tug toy and play with him. He's starting to get the idea that barking gets him ignored and being calm and quiet gets him attention (what he seems to crave most). OF course being a bulldog it will take a bit more time and consistancy than teaching my Dobe something but eventually he'll get it


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ...im quite literally likely to take a bat to your head for even suggesting i dominate my dog in any way....


Intimidation is better than dominance? It's so hard to keep the rules straight.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Intimidation is better than dominance? It's so
> hard to keep the rules straight.


not intimidation...out right violence lol. 


Understanding Zim 101:


Zim thinks the majority of dogs can be motivated to perform tasks if the human in question applies critical thinking skills and abandons all aversion to all things ick that dogs love.

Zim also thinks that the majority of humans are stupid idiots except when they are thinking up new ways to be cruel. then they become instant geniuses. either way they deserve a bat to the head just on general principle.



> Positive trainers have no problem with describing themselves as leaders to their dog. How is using "leader" appropriate and "dominant" not? The reason why dominance is so hated is because it is associated with the disproven dominance theory. If dominance theory never existed, there would be no problem with using the word dominance with regards to dog training.


yes there would be. i effing HATE the word dominance in any incarnation and any usuage. i do not dominate my dog neither am i my dog's "leader". i think that whole idea is bs too.

what i am to my dog is akin to being the cheif of security for a world leader. generally they are in charge but in dangerous situations, i am deferred to.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> Good question, I do not consider myself dominant over my dogs, but I do control them. Instead of forcing them to do something by using physical corrections, I give them choices and reward the behavior I want. Good case in point is my EB, who is a demand barker. When he starts demanding something, I get up and walk away ignoring him, Once he settles down and relaxes I'l grab a tug toy and play with him. He's starting to get the idea that barking gets him ignored and being calm and quiet gets him attention (what he seems to crave most). OF course being a bulldog it will take a bit more time and consistancy than teaching my Dobe something but eventually he'll get it



See, I don't consider that either a dominator or a leader.

I consider that like the referee of a football game. The ref doesn't control the players, he doesn't pay their salaries or call the plays, he simply determines the results of their actions. 

He decides if what happened was successful (completed pass, 1st down, FG, TD for offensive success, INT, Sack, Fumble, etc for defensive success) and whether or not there was a penalty (late hit, holding, etc)

He (and the other officials of course) simply decide the result of the action on the field. The action itself is chosen by the players and the coaches.

To me, that's my role with Wally. The quarterback and coaches are all in his head. From instincts to drives to personality. All I'm doing is deciding if he got a touchdown or not, or a 1st down or even gained some yds towards even the 1st down (steps in the right direction), and what is a penalty (lack of reward/no reward marker, etc), and when the game is over ("That's it" - ends the session or game).


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

The leadership comes in with the other training I do. Doggy Zen to teach leave it, rev up to teach a dog to settle. Basic things such as sit, down stay, wait, come. I also practice NILIF with all the dogs more to prevent RG behaviors. There are also protocols I need to keep with Angel to control her reactivity to the things she fears (having her sit, wait and watch me if there's an oncoming dog or Bicycle). I gues the difference to me is I want my dogs to look to me for guidance in situations that may be stressful. They need to know what their limits are, but still be able to behave like dogs.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

cshellenberger said:


> The leadership comes in with the other training I do. Doggy Zen to teach leave it, rev up to teach a dog to settle. Basic things such as sit, down stay, wait, come. I also practice NILIF with all the dogs more to prevent RG behaviors. There are also protocols I need to keep with Angel to control her reactivity to the things she fears (having her sit, wait and watch me if there's an oncoming dog or Bicycle). I gues the difference to me is I want my dogs to look to me for guidance in situations that may be stressful. They need to know what their limits are, but still be able to behave like dogs.



I would say even with Doggy Zen and the like - it's still just delivering the results of their action. In fact, the top of your post about Doggy Zen is self-control. Not human-control over dog, dog's control over self. I think that's a very interesting and important distinction!  Rev up/Cool down - same idea - trying to teach and develop the dog's ability to control himself even during excitement. When I did this with Wally, he had to figure out what got the game going again to put even more mental aspect to it (yeah, I'm hard on him lol)

Sure, the human is involved - but we just deliver the results of his action to show him self-control is what we want. We don't say NO, don't touch my fist. We let him see through his own actions that pawing, licking, nipping the fist won't get it open. Instead, sitting and looking at me gets my fist open.

Maybe I use Doggy Zen all the time - perhaps that's the disconnect. Very, very rarely do I correct Wally or give him explicit directions. If I do, it's only in those fear-oriented situations, and even then it's more redirection and at this point, it's not even that - he just does it on his own.

But around the house - it's pretty much, you want whatever - then be still, stop harassing me (i.e. pawing my fist), and then you'll get it. Worked for everything for going out the door to going across the kitchen so I don't trip over him while I cook to going in the living room when we come back in so he's out of my way in the hall. He goes/does the things that got him the rewards.

Probably more Doggy Zen-like than anything else. That might be why I'm not seeing the leader/dominance approach. I want to teach Wally's control over Wally, not my control over Wally.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Well I guess to me a good leader is the one that makes the rules and allows the decisions, rewarding the right ones and giving guidance and protection as needed. Where as I think of dominance as being a dictator and removing the ability to decide and giving positive punishment if the desired action is not given (choke correction for not heeling).


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Well I guess to me a good leader is the one that makes the rules and allows the decisions, rewarding the right ones and giving guidance and protection as needed. Where as I think of dominance as being a dictator and removing the ability to decide and giving positive punishment if the desired action is not given (choke correction for not heeling).


Words are emotionally charged. Zim's reaction should make that clear as day to anyone. Words alone have no emotional meaning, it is the experiences and association that turn it into a emotional word. A lot of people struggle with scientific literature because they remove all emotional and unquantifiable aspects.

Dominance, for most people, means something akin to dictatorship. Let's try to recall the most famous dictators in history...

Irrelevant to someone like me, but relevant to a lot of people. I believe a lot of people would better understand their relationship with a dog if they are told it's symbiotic, not dominant. That they are taught they are the dog's guide, teacher, and guardian, not their boss, leader, or dictator. A lot of people have a incredibly warped view of what it means to be in a position of power. 

For me, dominance has none of those associated emotional meanings, but in order to move forward I believe that abandoning it is necessary. I am my dog's companion, as my dog is mine. He teaches me what he enjoys, and I teach him what I enjoy. We both do it in the only language we have in common; Learning Theory. I learn his language through studies, and he learns mine through his studies of me.

I don't see myself as holding any power, or controlling any resources in our relationship. He's allowed out the door first, he has 24/7 access to food, antlers, water, and toys. He's free to ask attention from me, or ignore me. I don't see what resource I'm possibly controlling. I'm able to do this through very simple rules, that I can easily understand and implement via the learning theory. 

He's well behaved, and well socialized. Completely full of life, and knows the important boundaries, but I'm not going to make imaginary boundaries on the basis of controlling a resource. 

Last night while I was watching TV, Kobe came downstairs, saw the pillow I was resting my head on, chomped it and pulled it away, brought it upstairs and laid on it. I can not possibly care less, I burst out laughing so hard when I realized what just happened. He certainly won that resource, and controlled it. Big deal.

If it bothered me, the solution is mind numbingly simple. Merely teaching leave it, or drop it. And he does know both, and obeys both.

If people wish to see their relationship through who controls the resource, then egads, whatever. It has absolutely no place in mine.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> I don't see what resource I'm possibly controlling.


Trash cans?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> Words are emotionally charged. Zim's reaction should make that clear as day to anyone. Words alone have no emotional meaning, it is the experiences and association that turn it into a emotional word. A lot of people struggle with scientific literature because they remove all emotional and unquantifiable aspects.


Yes words have no emotional meaning, I find such extreme emotional attachments to words quite bizarre.



> If people wish to see their relationship through who controls the resource, then egads, whatever. It has absolutely no place in mine.


I don't wish to see my relationship through who controls the resources, I just realize that I do.

I don't care if the dogs goes out the door first or not, I still control the resource because she can't open the door.

I control access to food, because I have to buy it, store it and hand it out and she can't do that.

I control access to the outside world and walks and play because I'm not about to just open the door and let her run the neighborhood, it's gotta be supervised and on leash by law.

I don't normally think in those terms but it's certainly accurate to do so if one chooses, and if a person isn't carrying around emotional baggage attached to the words.

For example when I had to grab Hope strongly by the scruff of her neck and drag her back in the house as she bolted out the door in a flash when I hadn't had her long enough to even teach her a name yet, my thoughts centered around a vision of her being smashed in the road by a car, not whether or not she's being dominant or controlling a resource.

And when I taught her "get back" to back away from the door (or anything else) I was more thinking about how far exactly do I want to teach her to get back and whether a sit should be part of it, not how I was controlling a resource.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

my reaction's intensity was born of annoyance. Its just not like that. The only non negotiable rule round here is dont kill other dogs. I do what i need to do to that end because there is no way to make her understand the danger that kind of behavior will bring her and me. I like to think that being the kind of dog she is, if she could understand, she would stop. To work soooo hard to move away from using commands and having her simply understand the situation and then...for example get complimented on how "dominant" i am and what a good job ive done "showing her who is boss" is annoying as crap. And all the people who have come to me with "dominance issues"...grrrr...annoyed....highly annoyed...the word dominance has caused me more than my fair share of throbbing migranes. 

And sometimes it makes me want to yell.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> my reaction's intensity was born of annoyance. Its just not like that. The only non negotiable rule round here is dont kill other dogs. I do what i need to do to that end because there is no way to make her understand the danger that kind of behavior will bring her and me. I like to think that being the kind of dog she is, if she could understand, she would stop. To work soooo hard to move away from using commands and having her simply understand the situation and then...for example get complimented on how "dominant" i am and what a good job ive done "showing her who is boss" is annoying as crap. And all the people who have come to me with "dominance issues"...grrrr...annoyed....highly annoyed...the word dominance has caused me more than my fair share of throbbing migranes.
> 
> And sometimes it makes me want to yell.


Wow, and it was likely all meant as a compliment.

Though I can relate, I get the "you sure a calm assertive pack leader" enough because my GSDs are approachable and not eating children and small dogs and not yanking me all over the place. What reason would I have for not being calm?

Though I know it's compliment so I brush it off so as not to be rude.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TxRider said:


> Wow, and it was likely all meant as a compliment.
> 
> Though I can relate, I get the "you sure a calm assertive pack leader" enough because my GSDs are approachable and not eating children and small dogs and not yanking me all over the place. What reason would I have for not being calm?
> 
> Though I know it's compliment so I brush it off so as not to be rude.


I know they dont know how many bozos have come to me looking to have me fix the problems their dominance saturated brains have caused and i know its supposed to be a compliment to call me dominant and a leader but its not. It feels like an insult because that is the LAST thing i want to be to my dog. All training i do is geared towards discarding as much of my input into her behavior as possible and doing it with no aversive correction. 

Ultimately how people percieve what i do is irrelevant, but the fact that people seem to have dominence blinders and cant see what im REALLY doing is..well...dammit its annoying.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Wow, I've never been called either dominant or a good pack leader. I must be doing something wrong 

Usually, I just get complimented on how good Wally is behaving, or if I'm having some fun, people will look at him walking on his back paws or "hopping like a rabbit" as one little kid put it to his mom.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Wow, I've never been called either dominant or a good pack leader. I must be doing something wrong
> 
> Usually, I just get complimented on how good Wally is behaving, or if I'm having some fun, people will look at him walking on his back paws or "hopping like a rabbit" as one little kid put it to his mom.


You just need a big dangerous looking dog that is known to eat babies, turn on it's master and kill small animals...


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I was walking my dog with his backpack on the other day and some old guy commented to me, "Have you been watching that Cesar Millan?" It must have been the combination of my erect posture, my foreign ethnicity (to old people all minorities are the same), the dog's backpack, and my dog's heeling that gave him that idea. I'm guessing he was complimenting me since most people have a positive impression of him. Various other times people have commented, "You're a good boy aren't you?" I can't help but smirk. He was the furthest thing from Lassie when we first got him.

The thing about going 100% on learning theory, is that it implies that training a dog is the same as training a cat, rabbit, or whale. Learning theory is an incomplete description of our relationship with our dogs, there is a different hardwiring in dogs that makes training them different than training a cat.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

qingcong said:


> The thing about going 100% on learning theory, is that it implies that training a dog is the same as training a cat, rabbit, or whale. Learning theory is an incomplete description of our relationship with our dogs, there is a different hardwiring in dogs that makes training them different than training a cat.


It is the same, all of it. Learning Theory is used to train dogs, cats, orcas, chicken, household fish, humans, everything under the sun. Every sentient being in the world can be defined by the Learning Theory.

The only difference is what they find reinforcing, and what they find punishing. Obviously I don't find a kibble reinforcing. But money is reinforcing to me. A killer whale isn't going to find cuddles reinforcing. But he will find fish reinforcing.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RBark said:


> It is the same, all of it. Learning Theory is used to train dogs, cats, orcas, chicken, household fish, humans, everything under the sun. Every sentient being in the world can be defined by the Learning Theory.
> 
> The only difference is what they find reinforcing, and what they find punishing. Obviously I don't find a kibble reinforcing. But money is reinforcing to me. A killer whale isn't going to find cuddles reinforcing. But he will find fish reinforcing.



Reminds me of when I had my fish. I taught him to chase his ping pong balls around by attaching his dried bloodworms to them. He eventually harrassed the balls constantly every time I put them in his aquarium. 

He'd chase them for hours when they floating over to the filter and the current made them flow up and down. Had to take them out for him to stop. 

Taught Wally to harrass his toys in much the same way. Except he won't do it for hours on end  I think he can see more easily that the food is gone.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> It is the same, all of it. Learning Theory is used to train dogs, cats, orcas, chicken, household fish, humans, everything under the sun. Every sentient being in the world can be defined by the Learning Theory.
> 
> The only difference is what they find reinforcing, and what they find punishing. Obviously I don't find a kibble reinforcing. But money is reinforcing to me. A killer whale isn't going to find cuddles reinforcing. But he will find fish reinforcing.


I would say another difference is their capacity to perceive and to interact and grasp concepts.

Dogs are pretty uniquely adapted for interaction with humans, with specialized interactive abilities not even found in chimps.

As well as just mental abilities. A lizard isn't going to be able to grasp things a dog or dolphin would and simply will not be able to learn them.

If learning theory is to be said to be incomplete in regards to dogs, I would think it would be along the lines of not supplying the species specific knowledge of dogs instinctual, perceptive and mental abilities and such. More species specific knowledge outside of learning theory added to the equation can gain better results with that specific species.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Reminds me of when I had my fish. I taught him to chase his ping pong balls around by attaching his dried bloodworms to them. He eventually harrassed the balls constantly every time I put them in his aquarium.
> 
> He'd chase them for hours when they floating over to the filter and the current made them flow up and down. Had to take them out for him to stop.
> 
> Taught Wally to harrass his toys in much the same way. Except he won't do it for hours on end  I think he can see more easily that the food is gone.


I had a fish trained to jump from the water and hang from my finger once..


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> I would say another difference is their capacity to perceive and to interact and grasp concepts.
> 
> Dogs are pretty uniquely adapted for interaction with humans, with specialized interactive abilities not even found in chimps.
> 
> ...


For the record, I never said Learning Theory is incomplete regarding dogs. Learning Theory tells you all you need to know about dogs, you just have to find out what the reinforcement and punishment is.

How well an animal picks up what we're teaching them has nothing to do with the Learning Theory. It says that all animals learn the same, not that all animals behave the same, or that all implementations work the same.

A Lizard operates on Learning Theory just the same as Dogs do. That they learn more slowly has nothing to do with Learning Theory.

Learning an animal's social behavior is a completely independent (Psychology vs Sociology). They have applications to each other but, one is not incomplete without the other.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> For the record, I never said Learning Theory is incomplete regarding dogs. Learning Theory tells you all you need to know about dogs, you just have to find out what the reinforcement and punishment is.


If it tells you all you need to know regarding dogs, then you wouldn't have anything left to find out.




> Learning an animal's social behavior is a completely independent (Psychology vs Sociology). They have applications to each other but, one is not incomplete without the other.


But is dog training complete without both?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

This is obviously another case where we are talking about completely different things so I'm just going to let it go.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

TxRider said:


> If it tells you all you need to know regarding dogs, then you wouldn't have anything left to find out.


Oh come now.

That's just being semantic.

Learning Theory isn't going to outline every possible reward/punishment. 

Learning Theory outlines what happens when reward/punishment is applied - and that's all it needs to do. The concept doesn't change just because the reinforcement/punishment items/markers/jestures/whatever change with the dog.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> It must have been the combination of my erect posture, my foreign ethnicity (to old people all minorities are the same), the dog's backpack,


I knew it was gonna happen, all the arguing about the word "dominant" *(Exercising influence or control)* and what it means to all and you just had to just go and drag old people into it. Leave us old people alone and handle your word meaning problems without dragging us into this silly argument. I'm trying to get my "old people nap"


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

wvasko said:


> I knew it was gonna happen, all the arguing about the word "dominant" *(Exercising influence or control)* and what it means to all and you just had to just go and drag old people into it. Leave us old people alone and handle your word meaning problems without dragging us into this silly argument. I'm trying to get my "old people nap"


We're covering all bases with this thread, everything except for properly answering the OP's question.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

qingcong said:


> We're covering all bases with this thread, everything except for properly answering the OP's question.


His question has been properly answered by several people.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> His question has been properly answered by several people.


Yeah, train the dog and the question becomes moot.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

qingcong said:


> We're covering all bases with this thread, everything except for properly answering the OP's question.


I think he got all the answers he needs, from the simple to the most ridiculously complex explanations and exploration of semantics he could hope for.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Hey I know, lets start a debate on whether or not the OP's question was answered properly! 


Not.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Even better: who'd win a fight between Chuck Norris and Steven Segal?


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

Chuck Norris graduated from my high school.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

FilleBelle said:


> Chuck Norris graduated from my high school.


Unanimous victory, Chuck Norris wins!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

He may have won because of skills but was he the most dominant


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Funny, I ran into the old dragon movie where Chuck fights Bruce Lee last night channel surfing last night. Haven't seen that for ages.

He was being pretty dominant, but it didn't help.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> Funny, I ran into the old dragon movie where Chuck fights Bruce Lee last night channel surfing last night. Haven't seen that for ages.
> 
> He was being pretty dominant, but it didn't help.


Did you catch it on G4's Movies That Don't Suck? Love that channel.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> He may have won because of skills but was he the most dominant


To decide that we must first define dominant. In Martial Arts like Jui Jutsu, the holds that are performed are submissive holds. Therefore, the dominant one is the one performing the submissive hold. So the question is, did Chuck Norris put Steven Seagal in a submission hold? I find this unlikely. I think it's more likely he merely kicked Steven. So in this relationship, Chuck Norris was not the dominant one, despite winning the battle.


----------



## GypsyJazmine (Nov 27, 2009)

I would have SO let a young Chuck Norris Alpha Roll me!...Does that make him dominant?...Me submissive or just ? LOL!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I'd kick Chuck Norris' arse...and then I'd run really, really fast.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'd kick Chuck Norris' arse...and then I'd run really, really fast.


No use, Chuck Norris is already there.


----------



## TankGrrl66 (Mar 29, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> Well I guess to me a good leader is the one that makes the rules and allows the decisions, rewarding the right ones and giving guidance and protection as needed. Where as I think of dominance as being a dictator and removing the ability to decide and giving positive punishment if the desired action is not given (choke correction for not heeling).


I like this, but I do not agree with dominance being the same as a dictatorship. They are each thier own. Dominance correlates more with an assertive, outgoing individual who calls the shots...but unlike a dictator(do we need to mention the guy that really goes with dictator?) does not have to resort to petty violence to enforce it constantly (dictators have historically done the things that shame our race as the violent apes we are...executions for anything less than groupthink and utmost cooperation, labor camps, genocide, all those horrible things)

True dominance is rarely enforced through violence. I see this every day with my dogs. It is quite subtle. The most the dominant dog has to do is put his paw over the other. They just get it, unlike us humans. The way they did this was established pretty low key as well. There was controlling of resources and a little mounting. I think just being a good leader to your dog establishes enough for most dogs. Never forget that your dog is your friend and partner. Be a good leader, he will be a good follower. Yank him around, alpha rolling him...not necessary. Solid groundwork for establishing yourself is what works. NILIF does a pretty good job with that.

I have to admit the dominance issue is a bit flogged to death. it has become one of those words in dog training and behavior that just really drives everyone nuts. What a crazy and opinionated subject...interesting.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

I heart Patricia...
http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com/the-concept-formerly-described-as-dominance/


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Did you catch it on G4's Movies That Don't Suck? Love that channel.


Yup it was G4. I popped on just as they first saw each other, and had to hang around and watch the fight.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I heart Patricia...
> http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com/the-concept-formerly-described-as-dominance/


Great article.

The only time I really physically dominate my girls is when they escalate their tit for tat vying for resources or play into an actual violent discussion of the teeth on each other variety which these two girls will do if allowed to.

It's just not something I am willing to let them play out to a conclusion, for their benefit as well as mine and and my bank accounts benefit for vet bills... So I physically conclude it for them, usually with a collar in each hand shoved to the floor and and some rather deep booming vocalizing.

I do a lot of work in positive ways to try to head it off and relieve the competitiveness, but girls will be girls and either one of them can start it. Though only one will usually lash out with teeth first, she both instigates trouble at times, and at other times is pushed way past what a reasonable dog should be expected to put up with physically by the other.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'd kick Chuck Norris' arse...and then I'd run really, really fast.


How are you going to run with a broken foot?


----------

