# Submissive or Alpha preference?



## zoiberg137 (Feb 1, 2012)

Just wondering if one is easiet to train than another, or is it a matter of personal preference and experiance??

thanks


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

Most people here don't believe in the "alpha/submissive" training here. Its a very old line of training and has been replaced with more humane training methods like NILF and positive reinforcement.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

It's much easier to get behavior than it is an imaginary pecking order.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Since neither exist, I cannot prefer one over the other. This is a great read on understanding dog behavior: http://codeazur.com.br/pix/blogs/CultureClash.pdf


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Since neither exist>>>>


are you serious? you never met a dog that was natually "submissive" Im not talking about training philosophy, Im talking personality.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> are you serious? you never met a dog that was natually "submissive" Im not talking about training, Im talking personality.


I'm sure they are, since "submissiveness" would be a matter of opinion, and I'm sure none of us share all the same opinions. Better?


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

common CP. there certainly is variation in temperament and personality but their are plenty of non abused dogs that roll over to show their belly when pet that would be called "submissive" "timid" "soft" or whatever by anyone that isnt taking some philosophical belief to extremes.

It is just as much a lie to say that pecking orders are "imaginary" as it is to say Dominance theory was always 100% correct.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I prefer strong, or ' dominant' dogs. Softer dogs really don't hold up for what we train for. 

As far as easier to train, I don't really think so. Its easier to engage a strong dog, but then you also have dogs that challenge you, other dogs, and they give you the finger alot thinking they know best lol.

One of the rewards I use is the bite and tug. This has to be above all else. During any distraction the dog must want that tug no matter what, and do anything to get it. This is where strong dogs excel, and a softer dog will fail. 

That said, I have one that appears soft watching her interact with me. That fools people, as she will take direct eye contact from a stranger as a threat. Even several of the LE k9 handlers think she is soft until they fool with her. They respect her then.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

jiml said:


> common CP. there certainly is variation in temperament and personality but their are plenty of non abused dogs that roll over to show their belly when pet that would be called "submissive" "timid" "soft" or whatever by anyone that isnt taking some philosophical belief to extremes.
> 
> It is just as much a lie to say that pecking orders are "imaginary" as it is to say Dominance theory was always 100% correct.


You're assuming I favor this opinion. I don't. When I see a dog offering a belly, I often see a confident dog maximizing a reward. Is this submissive? Not to me. It's just behavior. 

+ Once a dog can demonstrate a pecking order for me, I'll believe it's not imaginary. Until then, they can only exist in one place...your head.


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

I dunno about this submissive or alpha thing, don't really buy into those theories. If you're talking personality, I'd call it more like "willfull" or Independant vs. "compliant" or "malleable".
Since it seems that I've got a really willful dog (not just my opinion, trainer and vet have remarked on it), I'd have to say I would probably prefer a dog that is a little bit less compliant, at least since this is our first dog. I do admit though, I think I would miss some of the liveliness.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Someone highjacked this thread and went from training preference to philosophy. The original question was training....
1. Alpha training is similar to what Cesar uses, based on an idea that dogs fall into a hierarchy like wolves. This was the theory in the 1940s. In the 1980s, wolf researchers found that this was an incorrect observation. and Dr. L. David Mech, one of the authorities on dog research stated that the ideas of the Alpha Hierarchy (and resulting alpha roll) don't exist as believed in the wild. This helped explain why dogs running in a pack don't follow a single alpha leader.... like horses and lions. Therefore, training methods that use this approach will succeed, not b/c of pack theory, but b/c of behavior psychology and the use of punishment. Since the 1980s we've found much better ways. [Google: L. David Mech]
2. Dogs are unique in that they've been genetically selected to like, adapt to, and understand people [See: Siberian Silver Fox]. Because dogs learn human language and gestures very rapidly, any feedback method will 'train" them.
3. Submission based methods can result in a fearful dog that bites. The methods can work, but they aren't for everyone.
4. On the other hand, positive reinforcement based methods work, improve a dog's confidence, and can work for everyone. In the short run, they require a bit more patience and anticipation. In the long term, these methods are more reliable, based on more than 30 years of statistical, clinical studies. 
5. In recent years, more money is being devoted to dog research. Dogs such as Rico and Chaser (and others) have demonstrated more independent thought than previously expected, which may imply a greater cognitive ability ... (Google: Chaser Collie and See Gagne').
6. For good, proven, modern training methods, see: http://www.dogstardaily.com/free-downloads . There are 'better' methods, but those can require some help to learn and apply.


----------



## Niraya (Jun 30, 2011)

I actually think that this thread was about the personality of a dog not actually about the training methods. I could very well be wrong but this is how I took it:

Bella would be described as "submissive" - when she goes to the park and there are a bunch of dogs - she immediately rolls onto her back. When a scuffle has broken out in the park - she immediately puts herself between the two dogs to draw their attention away from each other and effectively end what could turn into a fight. Hell, she even rolls onto her back randomly just to have her belly rubbed - just walking along and plops over. But even though it's contradictory - she's a very confident dog (and I'm working very hard on her confidence with strangers). She is by no means "Soft" at all.

Where as a "dominant" dog would be a dog that just exudes confidence - one would consider a stubborn dog a "dominant" dog - simply because a stubborn dog will not always follow a cue/command (whatever word you use) therefore a person would assume the dog was "testing his/her boundary".

I can see how it can blend into the whole "dominance/alpha/leader" theory, though. But this is just my opinion from reading the OPs first post and how it was worded. 
A "submissive","timid" or "soft" dog can actually be just as hard if not harder to train than a dog with a "dominant" personality. You should NEVER use the "dominant/alpha/leader" theory though as Hanksimon said.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> It's much easier to get behavior than it is an imaginary pecking order.


Hey, I may steal that.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> common CP. there certainly is variation in temperament and personality but their are plenty of non abused dogs that roll over to show their belly when pet that would be called "submissive" "timid" "soft" or whatever by anyone that isnt taking some philosophical belief to extremes.
> 
> It is just as much a lie to say that pecking orders are "imaginary" as it is to say Dominance theory was always 100% correct.


Would it be better to say that pecking orders are imaginary when humans decide to play "part of the pack"?


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Curbside Prophet said:


> You're assuming I favor this opinion. I don't. When I see a dog offering a belly, I often see a confident dog maximizing a reward. Is this submissive? Not to me. It's just behavior.
> 
> + Once a dog can demonstrate a pecking order for me, I'll believe it's not imaginary. Until then, they can only exist in one place...your head.


I have a dog who uses "submissive gestures" very thoughtfully to get exactly what she wants. From humans and dogs. But there is nothing really submissive about her. I believe she may be what Patricia McConnell refers to as aggressively obsequious.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I'd call it more like "willfull" or Independant vs. "compliant" or "malleable".>>>> 

we are playing w words now. As I said Im talking personality not training method. do we need to have a chart for common talk? dont say dominant instead say willfull, even though we can tell what you mean we dont like the word because it refers to a training method we dont like.


Would it be better to say that pecking orders are imaginary when humans decide to play "part of the pack"?>>>

most of the time- ill agree. which is why i tried to specify im talking personality.

And I do think op of the thread was referring to personality not a training method.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I don't use dominance training, if that's what the open was talking about. As far as dogs being g dominant or submissive I definitely agree there are dogs that are either. I see it clear as day even in young pups in a litter. Some dominant dogs don't have to be difficult to train either. Usually at some point they will test boundaries. Call it strong, will full dominant, weak or submissive, its still the same, and can't be decided on just whether a dog rolls over or humps others lots of confident dominant digs will offer their belly for a scratch.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

jiml said:


> I'd call it more like "willfull" or Independant vs. "compliant" or "malleable".>>>>
> 
> we are playing w words now. As I said Im talking personality not training method. do we need to have a chart for common talk? dont say dominant instead say willfull, even though we can tell what you mean we dont like the word because it refers to a training method we dont like.
> .


I think words matter. They have emotional context. So, I could say my dog is stubborn, or I can say he is determined. Determined generally causes admiration while stubborn causes frustration. So, I try to phrase my descriptions in a positive light. Dogs may make dominant or submissive gestures - they do it all the time because they are social creatures (so do we). They may tend more towards one extreme than the other But it is fluid and ever-changing with the situation. It's not an inflexible state ("my dog is dominant"). I generally especially try to avoid the "D" word because it is so ingrained that that means you have to frighten your dog or he will do horrible things to you. It's a valid word (in some contexts) but misunderstood enough to try to phrase things a different way. IMO


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I think words matter. They have emotional context. So, I could say my dog is stubborn, or I can say he is determined. Determined generally causes admiration while stubborn causes frustration. So, I try to phrase my descriptions in a positive light. Dogs may make dominant or submissive gestures - they do it all the time because they are social creatures (so do we). They may tend more towards one extreme than the other But it is fluid and ever-changing with the situation. It's not an inflexible state ("my dog is dominant"). I generally especially try to avoid the "D" word because it is so ingrained that that means you have to frighten your dog or he will do horrible things to you. It's a valid word (in some contexts) but misunderstood enough to try to phrase things a different way. IMO


Cha ching! where is that like button?
The words Dominant and Alpha (and to some degree submissive) seems to be VERY wrapped up with the dominance theory stuff, and CM attitudes and pack theories. I could very easily say that Caeda is a bit of a dominant dog, but then there are responses like Amaryllis's "they don't exist". Perhaps not in the current theories concerning dogs, but certainly there are dogs who, by a dictionary definition, could be described as being of a dominant personality. I just try to avoid "dominant" and "alpha" in this forum, since they are such loaded words. 

Pawz is dead on, its very fluid. Dominant in some situations/with some dogs, submissive with others. To avoid debates on the validity of dominance theory I'd say Caeda is "pushy/confident" in some situations and timid in others. Social manipulations from the looks of it....is she Machiavellian perhaps, I guess it would depend on what person (or dog) you ask lol. 

I wonder how much semantics there are in dog communication.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

Dominating and submitting are actions, not states of being. No dogs are always submitting, even when using "submissive" gestures. A dog can roll on its back in an effort to get what it wants- attention. So is the dog submissive, or dominating the interaction? That's why it's all a rather silly conversation. 

Now, do I prefer biddable dogs or self motivated dogs? Biddable dogs are perfect as family pets, hence the popularity of the golden retriever. For things like schutzhund, you want a more self motivated dog, like a GSD. 

But that has nothing to do with dominance or submission. 

Btw, have I ever told you how beautiful Caeda is?


----------



## Greater Swiss (Jun 7, 2011)

Amaryllis said:


> Btw, have I ever told you how beautiful Caeda is?


Thank you


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

Amaryllis said:


> Dominating and submitting are actions, not states of being. No dogs are always submitting, even when using "submissive" gestures. A dog can roll on its back in an effort to get what it wants- attention. So is the dog submissive, or dominating the interaction? That's why it's all a rather silly conversation.


I like the way you articulated this concept.

Long as we're having a "silly conversation" here's my theory: I think you have your type A personalities (dogs who assert themselves on the playground), type B personalities (those who play nice with everybody), and type Z personalities (these are the dogs that always get picked on). Some type-B's will defer to the type-A's, others won't take any crap off 'em; some type-B's are quicker than others to bully a weaker dog, but most will if the circumstances are right. On any given day, any given dog might fit into any given category, but I think they're generally pretty consistent over time. It's just a theory, based on personal observation, with no scientific evidence whatsoever.

I don't see a strictly-enforced hierarchy or pecking order. Within multiple-dog households, you always see one dog who seems to rule the roost.

But that's all to do with inter-canine relationships. A dog's approach to other dogs can be totally different from its approach to human relationships. You know how, if you give a child love but no discipline, you get a spoiled brat who grows up to become a real jerk? Dogs are a lot like that. If you don't provide a puppy with structure and discipline, you'll most likely end up with an anxious, confused, ill-mannered dog.


----------



## SassyCat (Aug 29, 2011)

The way I see it every dog has a psychological profile just like humans. In high school we usually have what you could call "dominant" and what you could call "submissive"... but fact is, this is really a conflict of characters in given environment rather than an inherent trait. What you *really* have are confident or insecure dogs, motivated and less motivated, optimistic and pessimistic - some of these are granted by genetics some gained through life.

However, IMO just like with humans some dogs are born leaders - packs do have leaders and followers, I've seen this with my own eyes, not just on Animal Planet .

There's also the issue of "respect" we can allegedly have. For example, my dog would wait for me before running down the stairs when we go for a walk - this is something he started doing at some point with no training whatsoever. He just simply waits there until I get to him and follows me down. Many would say this is a sign of respect.

As for alpha belly thing, I think it's just another calming signal. Dogs would raise a paw, lick there lips, engage into play or roll onto there backs whenever you're pissed off.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

I agree with Pawz, I think, who said that words matter. Willful and dominant can be used to describe the same behavior. BUT, because of the associations with the word "dominant," some people may assume a dog as described as dominant would be too forceful or dangerous, or inappropriately bossy, while willful has a more positive connotation.

Dominant, just the word is general, as it applies to dogs (both training AND personality) can really be seen in a negative light because of training methods that are seen as outdated and overkill. So, if I use the word dominant to describe a behavior, some may take it in a way that I don't mean it, as if the dog was a danger or out of control.

So, yes, I would prefer to use a different word, as to not be misunderstood.

By the way, Harper is definitely not submissive, but quite often lies on his back, to offer his belly for belly rubs. Actually, he doesn't offer, he demands it!


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I think words matter. They have emotional context. So, I could say my dog is stubborn, or I can say he is determined. >>>>

again the op was asking a question. I it was apparent what she was asking. Instead of giving answers people got into a philosophical debate about the use of words that although common for describing dog personality some dont like because of its link to a training philosophy.

I mean are you so married to your training philosophy that language needs to be corrected instead of understood. by the way a "submissive personality" is not only refereed to in dog literature but human psychology also including peer reviewed research for both species if "words matter"

<<<<Dominant in some situations/with some dogs, submissive with others. To avoid debates on the validity of dominance theory I'd say Caeda is "pushy/confident" in some situations>>>

Gs is Caeda's pushiness not dynamic?


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I always was in the belief that offering the belly was a sign of trust (since it leaves their vulnerable bellies exposed) if we're talking pure personality then unlike a more fwd, confident dog if it's a cattle dog, of course each breed has their own "type" personality as well, in fact it says that ACDs need a leader, take-charge no BS type of person.


----------



## NewfoundlandOwner (Dec 22, 2011)

jiml said:


> Since neither exist>>>>
> 
> 
> are you serious? you never met a dog that was natually "submissive" Im not talking about training philosophy, Im talking personality.


This boils down to semantics. I don't go for 'alpha' or other, because that usually promotes the ideas of training by becoming the 'pack leader', which in turns leads to dominance-based training. I really don't like that kind of training, as it tends to focus on fear and pain as training tools. I watched some videos named something like, "Training the Perfect Dog", which discussed how it was a mistake to avoid 'corrections'. The man in the video then proceeded to harshly correct his dogs any time they did something he didn't like. The fear and confusion in their eyes was evident, and I didn't watch the rest of his road to the perfect dog. Here's my take, that's a bit on the anthropomorphic side. Some dogs are more pushy than others. A lot of times it's difficult to determine exactly what the cause of certain behaviors is. If a dog seems aggressive, he could be a pushy dog, or fearful, or frustrated, etc. Often smaller dogs seem overly aggressive, because they often go without proper training. Chihuahuas are a good example (I have Chihuahuas). They are so small that many behaviors that are completely unacceptable in larger dogs aren't really a problem with them, so the drive to train them is often lacking. They are also largely pampered, which doesn't provide them with frustration tolerance. Anything they want but are denied could then cause them to seem overly aggressive, when in fact they just haven't been trained properly. Kids whose parents never tell them "no" end up with a similar result. 

In order to steer clear of the arguments that inevitably arise from words like 'dominance' or 'alpha', focus on social structures. Dogs do, in my opinion, exhibit dominance, but in the same way any animal (including humans) do within a social structure. They are not wolves, and do not need an alpha, in the commonly accepted sense of the word. They do need you to provide a set of rules and boundaries, and to love and respect them. Even though I'd be the last person to humanize dogs, there are many similarities between positive training for dogs and raising happy human children. Let them know what to expect, be consistent, and be patient. 

But on to the actual answer part, honestly just from the question there isn't a good answer I could provide. Some 'submissive' dogs are easy-going, and some lack confidence. Easy-going dogs are very easy to train, uncertain dogs sometimes aren't. Some dogs that are 'alpha' type, or what I call pushy, are actually pretty easy to train, because once they learn frustration tolerance, their confidence makes for a fast learner. Or the dog could be hopelessly stubborn and things could be more difficult. It's more of a collection of attributes that combine to form a personality. I prefer puppies that aren't afraid to come see me, but also aren't hanging off my fingers by the teeth all the time.


----------



## Elliebell (Mar 13, 2011)

NewfoundlandOwner said:


> In order to steer clear of the arguments that inevitably arise from words like 'dominance' or 'alpha', focus on social structures. Dogs do, in my opinion, exhibit dominance, but in the same way any animal (including humans) do within a social structure.


I agree with this. I think it's a little silly to say that dominance and submissiveness don't exist when they clearly exist even in human social structures. 

Anyhow, I'd say I would prefer a more naturally submissive dog as I'm not one who enjoys a battle of wills. However, I can't say it much matters to me. Neeka has a naturally dominant personality, but that doesn't stop her from being extremely biddable. She exerts her dominance over other dogs pretty readily but seems to accept humans as above her on the social ladder.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I love bold, pig-headed, confident, crazy dogs. The bolder the better.

I have one shrinking violet. She makes me a better trainer. Maybe even a better person. But she is more of a "life giving me what I need" dog rather than a wise pick on my part!


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

I dont like super dominant types, but I lean toward the more dominant..works better with my personaility, I can bee too abrasive sometimes for the submissive guys, and if I am in a bad mood and my dogs are the submissive types and melt and cease to function, my bad mood just increses 10 fold. the more dominant types can still function if I am in a bad mood, which in turn puts me in a better mood lol


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Elliebell said:


> I think it's a little silly to say that dominance and submissiveness don't exist when they clearly exist even in human social structures.


The definition exists, certainly, but dominance and submissiveness are not characteristics of an individual. They are characteristics of a relationship. So it makes no sense for the terms to be used when describing the personality of a being. This is my point.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

jiml said:


> Since neither exist>>>>
> 
> 
> are you serious? you never met a dog that was natually "submissive" Im not talking about training philosophy, Im talking personality.


 
I have met dogs that lacked confidence, that were shy, and that were fearful, if that's what you mean by submissive. However those dogs were harder to train because I had to first build their trust then their confidence. Those dogs were far more prone to aggression BECAUSE of their fear.

A dog who is naturally confident and willing to please is the easiest dog to train. Once you find their motivation you can get them to do anything.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

I like an easy going dog . . . one that is fairly or mostly non-reactive. So, for instance, if I make a loud noise or drop a bowl or pop open an umbrella they don't react too much if at all. Blase or boring dogs make my day.

I really really don't like a highly reactive dog. That is one trait that I like to stay miles from. I am not a match for Border Collies or most of the Terrier breeds. Had a little JRT mix (mom was a cockapoo type and dad was a farm terrier) as a teenager and although I loved her the feisty side of her drove me absolutely nuts.

I like confident dogs. I can work with a dog that is a bit shy though. 

Regarding wilful or compliant, I like somewhere in the middle. I don't like a compliant velcro type dog, but I don't like a battle over every command either. A little attitude can be fun to work with.

I am another who really doesn't see submisive or alpha as a 'type'. As a human educator I'll say that about people as well. Note that many shy people can also be quite pushy in their behaviours when the subject is important enough to them. Many confident people are great leaders and take others under their wing and have no obvious tendencies toward bullying. There are so many complexities to personalities and I just can't believe they run on a two dimensional spectrum.

The least confident dog I've ever owned (a singleton pup) also is the first to bully other dogs here if things get riled up, and is the natural deferred to leader because the others just don't think the things she might get pushy over are worth her bit of hassle. She has also been the easiest to train in every aspect as her relationship with humans is flawless. She is completely confident in the way she interacts there. (She only lacks confidense in her interaction with other dogs, especially new ones). Alpha or submissive? Where would those who like these labels put her?

SOB


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

I have bolded my answers.



jiml said:


> again the op was asking a question. I it was apparent what she was asking. Instead of giving answers people got into a philosophical debate about the use of words that although common for describing dog personality some dont like because of its link to a training philosophy.
> 
> *Ok, really? Part of forums is that sometimes, an answer leads to more questions, or more discussion. Some of what people said in their replies lead to more discussion. What's wrong with that?*
> 
> ...


Words matter. We are on a public forum, and some people who might not know any better, take our words to heart. I don't want to be part of someone taking my words and using them in a way I didn't intend, so I am careful with my words.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I've had a dog that behaved in an excessively submissive manner at every opportunity, and while I understood why she did it, at the same time it really annoyed me. Worked so hard to build some confidence in that dog, but she came to me unplanned as a middle-aged adult dog with some baggage. We just didn't have as much time as we needed together and I wasn't an experienced enough dog owner at the time to completely turn things around for her. She was a good dog. Just not the ideal personality for me.

I like "easy" dogs. But I ADORE a clownish, mischievous dog. Not what I would call not biddable or "dominant", but just... a wee touch of silly naughtiness. Never would have thought that about myself, but here I am with one and loving it.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> I've had a dog that behaved in an excessively submissive manner at every opportunity, and while I understood why she did it, at the same time it really annoyed me. Worked so hard to build some confidence in that dog, but she came to me unplanned as a middle-aged adult dog with some baggage. We just didn't have as much time as we needed together and I wasn't an experienced enough dog owner at the time to completely turn things around for her. She was a good dog. Just not the ideal personality for me.
> 
> I like "easy" dogs. But I ADORE a clownish, mischievous dog. Not what I would call not biddable or "dominant", but just... a wee touch of silly naughtiness. Never would have thought that about myself, but here I am with one and loving it.


I had one dog who was definitely "queen" of the household. She had been a singleton and really had bad communication skills with other dogs. But it worked for her and everyone in the house learned to give Emma her space. Especially when she was older and everyone else had known her from their puppyhood, she could stop a dog from across the room with a look. I had to be really careful when I brought in a female rescue though, since they saw right through her insecurities. When I got Alice as a puppy, she would practically chase Emma around to submit to her. Her submissions would be met with lots of noise and spit, encouraging more submission. Eventually though, I noticed that Alice was the only dog who was allowed to share food with Emma. She was the only dog Emma ever played with, and she happily fell into the position of Emma's "lieutenant"! Alice has always looked like a submissive dog in her willingness to roll over for anybody. She has great calming signals and her ability to appear unthreatening makes her a great dog for working with problem dogs. But, I recognize that behind her "I submit!" attitute, it's a lot of manipulation. She does these things to get what she wants, and to diffuse situations. And it works for her.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

> I like "easy" dogs. But I ADORE a clownish, mischievous dog. Not what I would call not biddable or "dominant", but just... a wee touch of silly naughtiness. Never would have thought that about myself, but here I am with one and loving it.


Couldn't agree more! I never realized that about myself either, until I got my first Pug!


----------



## Jpepper (Nov 11, 2011)

I prefer high prey drive/food driven dominant dogs. Works best for what I need/want.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

even pretending to eat the dog's food to show the dog that they are the "pack leader." >>>>

I did this when i was 6 (minus the pack leader thoughts). tried to taste my Peke's gainsburger and got bit in the face.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

jiml said:


> even pretending to eat the dog's food to show the dog that they are the "pack leader." >>>>
> 
> I did this when i was 6 (minus the pack leader thoughts). tried to taste my Peke's gainsburger and got bit in the face.


As a 6 yr old it was acceptable and you paid for your mistake. Definitely not the brightest program for an adult.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

jiml said:


> even pretending to eat the dog's food to show the dog that they are the "pack leader." >>>>
> 
> I did this when i was 6 (minus the pack leader thoughts). tried to taste my Peke's gainsburger and got bit in the face.


My dogs pretend to eat my food.

no wait, they weren't pretending...........................


----------



## 3doglady (Jul 31, 2011)

Pawzk9 said:


> I have a dog who uses "submissive gestures" very thoughtfully to get exactly what she wants. From humans and dogs. But there is nothing really submissive about her. I believe she may be what Patricia McConnell refers to as* aggressively obsequious*.


I like this term better than what I've been using, (submissive manipulation). I think Patricia McConnell describes the behavior better.


----------



## 3doglady (Jul 31, 2011)

SassyCat said:


> The way I see it every dog has a psychological profile just like humans. In high school we usually have what you could call "dominant" and what you could call "submissive"... but fact is, this is really a conflict of characters in given environment rather than an inherent trait. What you *really* have are confident or insecure dogs, motivated and less motivated, optimistic and pessimistic - some of these are granted by genetics some gained through life.
> 
> However, IMO just like with humans some dogs are born leaders - packs do have leaders and followers, I've seen this with my own eyes, not just on Animal Planet .


I tend to agree with your assessment. 

At the end of the day, I prefer a confident, independent dog, but I also like a little goofiness mixed in. I like a dog who is willing to disobey every once and a while. It shows me they can think independently without fear, and it gives me the impression there is more of a partnership in the activities we train for and therefore they enjoy the experience more.


----------

