# Spinoff: Leader...or Partner....



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

this is the way I see things

In training, one of the very most important things is YOUR mindset. How you view yourself in relation to your dog because this will color the type of training methods you use as well as the resulting animal.

the reason I tend to avoid the "leader" mindset is because the dog I want....is one who is versatile, adaptable, capable of making GOOD decisions no matter if im there or not. I want a dog who can problem solve, one who simply responds to ever changing situations WITHOUT my input or my presence if nessecary. 

think of the shepherd in the mountains and his working border collie...

the shepherd says "go get the sheep"

the dog ranges out over the hill and out of sight. he starts rounding up the sheep...and he comes across say for example one who has stumbled and injured herself..the shepherd is far far away and out of sight. the dog HAS to be able to respond to that kind of situation and others..without the benefit of immediate human direction.

that is the dog I want. a partner capable of operating independantly of me.

just my two cents


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Partnerships are typically built on one very important thing.. MUTUAL TRUST. 

In order for that to develop, there has to be a form of communication between the two species (human and canine). The dog must know that you will not ask him to do what he cannot or that which will result in pain. The human must be able to trust the dog to do what is asked and do so reliably.

In the sheep herding arena, dogs must follow direction but they are also tasked with thinking and recalculating the situation.. not just when out of sight of the handler but even in plain sight of a handler. 

I have watched trials where a handler has directed a dog to do something and the dog has done something else, and the dog was right. If the dog had done the handlers cue, the sheep would have gone willy nilly past the gate or (worse) back thru the gate they just came thru. I have also seen the dog make a decision during shedding that was correct as well as make a decision that was incorrect. 

It does take a SMART dog and an UNDERSTANDING hanlder. 

But above all that.. and beyond all that.. there has to be trust. Without trust, no partnership survives for very long. 

If you are training to that end, the next question is, what training methods (basic) and what training methods (advanced) will best build trust and do the basic and advanced methods change or are they the same? I will also say that to build what Zim is talking about takes a LOT of time.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

It is not true that the Leader/Led relationship automatically precludes a dog's initiative and problem solving abilities. It has been a common rationalization, among people who won't train their dogs at all, that they don't want a dog who is a "mindless robot", and it is equally erroneous.

There seems to be a partisan divide that has people convinced that the "other" methods are somehow ineffective. Old school types think that clickers are a joke, and the clicker crowd seems to think that prong collars create a dog too fearful to use his brain. Both in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

im getting there with my current dog. I can trust her at that level in my home and to some extent on our property. 

it seems to dictate a hand off approach of which free shaping serves very well. letting the dog figure out, generally the type of thing the handler wishes, then gradually giving them more and more leeway in the decision making process. 

which takes a lot of close observation of the dog's little quirks and signals and tendancies and setting up signals that are fairly general

I will likely never get to what I consider peak level with this dog because she started late with behavioral problems but I will take her as far as I can.

its my goal with EVERY dog I will ever work with.



Marsh Muppet said:


> It is not true that the Leader/Led relationship automatically precludes a dog's initiative and problem solving abilities. It has been a common rationalization, among people who won't train their dogs at all, that they don't want a dog who is a "mindless robot", and it is equally erroneous.
> 
> There seems to be a partisan divide that has people convinced that the "other" methods are somehow ineffective. Old school types think that clickers are a joke, and the clicker crowd seems to think that prong collars create a dog too fearful to use his brain. Both in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.


my reasons for avoiding physical punishment have zilch to do with the topic of this thread except when nessecary to illuminate WHY YOU TRAIN THE WAY YOU DO.

sufficed to say my reasons are simply because i do not wish to cause physical pain. at all. i am smart enough and capable enough to think my way around having to use that type of training.

this thread isnt about methods its about mindsets.

i used to follow the "leader" mindset. and the result was absolutly a mindless robot. i dont doubt that that particular mindset serves others but to me its 100% useless and does nothing but retard the training of BOTH myself and the dog.


----------



## Allie3985 (Jul 19, 2008)

As much as I love the concept and idea and strive for the same thing as Zim stated, I agree with Marsh as well. I think it is far more important to find a happy medium that you and your dog are comfortable with than to worry about following technicalities and specific methods. Too many times I think that people fail to realize that EVERY DOG IS DIFFERENT and that EVERY HANDLER ISN'T PERFECT. That doesn't, however, mean that we shouldn't soak up all the information that we can and strive for perfection! There is just no one right way to do it. . .its not black and white.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

yes but...there is a right way for ME to do it.

and yes every dog is different and i accept the challenge of working around any nessecity of causing pain. i WONT do it. i WILL find another way that works. just because there is variation in dogs doesnt mean there is an ABSOLUTE nessecity of using aversives and superior/subordinate mindsets. if you are inventive enough and persistent enough...

there is a reason pit bulls are my favorite breed lol...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this is the way I see things
> 
> In training, one of the very most important things is YOUR mindset. How you view yourself in relation to your dog because this will color the type of training methods you use as well as the resulting animal.
> 
> the reason I tend to avoid the "leader" mindset is because the dog I want....is one who is versatile, adaptable, capable of making GOOD decisions no matter if im there or not. I want a dog who can problem solve, one who simply responds to ever changing situations WITHOUT my input or my presence if nessecary.


Again...

Why does leader have to mean the dog can't act on his own?

Like I said before - a leader doesn't control the dog like he was on a joystick. That's not leadership - that's computer programming - and even AI can be given the ability to problem solve on their own.

Wally can problem solve - he can adapt, he communicates openly with me, he "directs" me, he let's me know his needs, his feelings, what he sees and thinks, and I act on them.

And yes, I consider myself his leader. I give the team our objective and set him to the task of achieving it. Whether it's a verbal instruction or the general context.

Much of what Wally has learned in the last half of me being his trainer/leader/whateverer has been by HIM taking known behaviors and trying something new with them. 

So yes, I say again the leading a dog doesn't mean you are taking away his ability to problem solve, learn on his own, take a task and just perform it by using the situational context as a cue.

Why it constantly has to be "lead = suppress the dog" is beyond me. It's like those who think all punishment has to do with some kind of pain or physical contact.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Again...
> 
> Why does leader have to mean the dog can't act on his own?
> 
> ...


no lead doesnt mean suppress the dog.

lead means supress MY ABILITY TO TRAIN EFFECTIVELY. 

having that mindset SETS ME BACK LIGHTYEARS IN TRAINING.

it RETARDS MY ABILITY TO BE THE BEST TRAINER I CAN BE BECAUSE I FLAT OUT JUST DONT WORK THAT WAY.

ok? do you get it now?

the general text book definition is to be an inspiration, a director, guiadance..and yes i may be forced to start out with at least an element of that but that is not where i am going with this. im going for a dog that can function without human guiadance, inspiration, direction etc.

like bolo. sitting on my son's bed. everytime he drops a toy and picks up another one she goes and puts the dropped item in the toy box. or how she places herself in between him and the top of the staircase. i taught her none of that. i used shaping principles to show her that a clear floor was good and that keeping the boy upstairs is good. the behaviors she came up with on her own. no direction OR reinforcement for the specifics.. simply reinforce a general, simple idea...work the dog extensively on both problem solving and impulse control and they take it from there. i can be fthirty feet away and i know she will keep him from going down the stairs and keep his floor clean.

this development is recent but its been a major breakthrough because its moving us away from the teacher/student roles to being TRUE partners. 

why so stuck on the idea of leader? what makes "being a leader" so ABSOLUTELY nessecary? its not. its all in your mind. just as my mindset is all in my mind and that is my point. leader...does not work for me, because it implys that my decisions take precedence over hers..not true...ever except in one instance.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

We might disagree on leadership, but Bolo is smarter than Wally! I think we'd agree on that! 

I can't imagine him picking up something I dropped just out of the blue. Heck, you saw the hoops I had to jump through just to shape a 3 foot retrieve... Or something utterly simple like barking.  Or giving a paw...

Him offering to pick up something someone drops and stack it somewhere? The closest I get to that is if he needs to go out and I don't notice him, he'll get the 2 or 3 toys he actually plays with a little and put them on the floor next to me, like he's trading them for the door opening. 

I agree that teaching a complicated behavior like that is way easier to shape. When he actually does offer a complicated behavior - or a simple one in a different way, I definitely reward it. Big time. 

Of course - he only seems to offer already known behaviors - which is why I teach him as many "simple" behaviors as possible and let him do something with them.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> like bolo...how she places herself in between him and the top of the staircase. i taught her none of that. i used shaping principles to show her that a clear floor was good and that keeping the boy upstairs is good. the behaviors she came up with on her own. no direction OR reinforcement for the specifics.. simply reinforce a general, simple idea...work the dog extensively on both problem solving and impulse control and they take it from there. i can be fthirty feet away and i know she will keep him from going down the stairs and keep his floor clean.


I'm a firm believer in doing what works for you and your dog. If you and you're dog(s) are happy, then I'm happy. But it works exactly the same with (properly) force-trained dogs. We had a yard party with all the cousins and it looked like recess at a pre-K thru 6 school. My 2 Rotts went to work segregating the older kids from the babies, and the female took charge of the little ones. Any that began to wander off the reservation were gently turned back or tugged by the seat of the diaper. The male took charge of the rowdier older kids. He kept them herded into their own section of the property with a lot of ramming and bashing (no biting), and a good time was had by all. Neither was trained for this function. We are not ultimately responsible for everything a dog decides to do. They can be amazing without any input from us.

Individually, those two dogs were possessed with impressive intelligence. When they coordinated their mental powers, it was downright spooky. It would have taken an awful lot of work to drum that out of them, if I had been inclined to do so. I'm far too lazy a trainer to try it.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> We might disagree on leadership, but Bolo is smarter than Wally! I think we'd agree on that!
> 
> I can't imagine him picking up something I dropped just out of the blue. Heck, you saw the hoops I had to jump through just to shape a 3 foot retrieve... Or something utterly simple like barking.  Or giving a paw...
> 
> ...


what has he taught YOU?

Bolo has very effectively shaped in me the behaviors of impulse control(patience), problem solving(how to effectively communicate with her) and empathy as well as the behavior of being able to laugh at my own bumblings and perserverance(she's got a really solid stay cue on me that I can't help but comply...im dead serious about that too)

training sessions come in pairs my friend..and the best teams learn from each other. She and I train each other.

as for her being smarter than Wally...maybe...maybe not...I've been extensively partnering with Bolo on this for over three years now. How long have you had Wally and been working with him?



Marsh Muppet said:


> I'm a firm believer in doing what works for you and your dog. If you and you're dog(s) are happy, then I'm happy. But it works exactly the same with (properly) force-trained dogs. We had a yard party with all the cousins and it looked like recess at a pre-K thru 6 school. My 2 Rotts went to work segregating the older kids from the babies, and the female took charge of the little ones. Any that began to wander off the reservation were gently turned back or tugged by the seat of the diaper. The male took charge of the rowdier older kids. He kept them herded into their own section of the property with a lot of ramming and bashing (no biting), and a good time was had by all. Neither was trained for this function. We are not ultimately responsible for everything a dog decides to do. They can be amazing without any input from us.
> 
> Individually, those two dogs were possessed with impressive intelligence. When they coordinated their mental powers, it was downright spooky. It would have taken an awful lot of work to drum that out of them, if I had been inclined to do so. I'm far too lazy a trainer to try it.


no offence Muppet...but I think that lastsentance says it all...

 


I did drum that level of free thinking out of Bolo.

I tsught her how to problem solve, to control her impulses towards the disatrous and then let her loose to make her own decisions about how to help keep the house running smoothly.

but she may just be an exceptional dog..I dunno..she has done a lot of stuff you would probably be surprised at..

still no force trainer has EVER answered this question for me...

Why should I cause pain if it is not nessecary?


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no offence Muppet...but I think that lastsentance says it all...


I'm sure you're reading too much into it.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

twas said in jest, oh Knight of the round spiky collar...

didn't you see my  ?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I have watched trainers (I do a lot of that when I can) and here is what I have noticed and said many times b4 on this forum. Trainers who have a high degree of success in competition.. those who get titles frequently with different dogs.. all end up looking VERY similar in their training, be they "negative" or "positive." They all strive for a dog that WANTS to work and works WITH THEM. 

The ones with titles, ESPECIALLY in fast paced sports (herding, agility etc.) work more like partners than most people who own dogs. The Consistantly Successful ones ENCOURAGE their dogs to think and encourage their dogs thru the activity and sometimes leave the decision up to the dog (frequently in Herding). 

Quite honestly, I do not think that they even THINK about leadership or any of that.. they know how to get a performance with their dog. 'With' is the operative word. 

In looking at Wally there is NO DOUBT in my mind that Wally could be trained to pick up his toys and put them in a toy box. There is no doubt in my mind that Wally could be taught to pick up a dropped item and put it in a specific place. This is actually one of the basic clicker training routines that are taught. 

Once the initial behavior is taught and reinforced, the dog will often pick up on doing it on his own. The thing is, we need to encourage that sort of thing. 

Zim's Dog, Bolo, protecting her child from the stairs by barring the way is doing EXACTLY what the German Shepherd did for a Blind Person creating the idea of training a dog for guide service. I have never heard of this behavior occuring naturally in a Pit Bull, but I admit to no knowledge of this breed. 

German Shepherds are bred to Tend Livestock (keepoing livestock in a specified area). Barring the stairs from passage by something/someone they have been tasked with tending is a bare bones natural behavior for the breed (as it was originally bred). Maybe Zim ought to test Bolo in herding!

A book that is very good with methods for creating a dog/human partnership BTW is Leslie McDevitt's "Control Unleashed." That is what this book is all about.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

she doesn't exactly "herd" him. she body blocks him and then starts licking his face and it distracts him(he is two with the attention span of a two year old) and he starts stepping backwards and she keeps with the licking until he is back in the room with me and then goes and lays back down at the top of the stairs.

there are several pit bulls with herding titles though. and the pit bull is descended from a breed of dog that performed a task similar to herding in a sense..the original English Bulldog..or Butcher's Dog who wrangled Bulls to the slaughter. Bull baiting kind of grew out of that job. 

someday im going to get around to reading more of all those books like control unleashed. 

teaching bolo to pick up stuff and put it away was done very loosely with shaping..setting the situation up where the cue to do so is my son dropping the toy was something a little more difficult and was brought about by Bolo herself.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> she doesn't exactly "herd" him. she body blocks him and then starts licking his face and it distracts him(he is two with the attention span of a two year old) and he starts stepping backwards and she keeps with the licking until he is back in the room with me and then goes and lays back down at the top of the stairs..


This is VERY similar to what a GSD will do (Atka and her cats.. LOL). The licking and dog kisses thing is something they think up and is part of the thinking it thru (and the partnership your dog is building with your 2 yr. old BTW). 

I really think you need to get a GSD to mix it up with Bolo and your son... it is obvious this would be a natural for you. 

Now where is Xeph! We got a convert in the making here... LOL


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> In looking at Wally there is NO DOUBT in my mind that Wally could be trained to pick up his toys and put them in a toy box. There is no doubt in my mind that Wally could be taught to pick up a dropped item and put it in a specific place. This is actually one of the basic clicker training routines that are taught.
> 
> Once the initial behavior is taught and reinforced, the dog will often pick up on doing it on his own. The thing is, we need to encourage that sort of thing.


He didn't even want to pick things up, or even take them in his mouth. I had to either teach him that or teach him it was okay to do that. 

So many "basic" things he has such a hard time with. I mean it took him like 5 months to actually want to use his paws so I could teach him shake and start the beginnings of paw targeting. And don't remind me of the effort it took to teach him to "speak". What one dog learned in 5 minutes, it took him a week. *sigh*

He'll learn how to on his bed by command without a clicker or a single treat, learned to go into his crate on cue just be me saying "bedtime" and pointing his crate. He learned "downstairs" just by me saying it while he was doing it. But something simple - it's like "uh....huh....what?" LOL. Or maybe it's just the "doggish" things like...I don't know, chewing stuff or picking things up.

As far as getting him to do things on his own - he'll do it, but only for certain behaviors. He won't offer to pick something up during shaping, but he'll paw it - or bark at me. He'll offer that. He'll offer sit and down, but nothing that requires movement. 



Elana55 said:


> A book that is very good with methods for creating a dog/human partnership BTW is Leslie McDevitt's "Control Unleashed." That is what this book is all about.


I have that book, and he's fine with doing some of the things - like the Give Me a Break game and he already has a default behavior. 

Trying to work on impulse control - but everytime there's a little noise or he sees an object in the room he doesn't know what it is - he starts acting all scared again. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> what has he taught YOU?
> 
> Bolo has very effectively shaped in me the behaviors of impulse control(patience), problem solving(how to effectively communicate with her) and empathy as well as the behavior of being able to laugh at my own bumblings and perserverance(she's got a really solid stay cue on me that I can't help but comply...im dead serious about that too)
> 
> ...


That sounds about right for what Wally's taught me. Though if I took his view of the world - I'd be jumping everytime someone talked or some kid was playing, I'm trying not to learn that lesson 

Oh, and he constantly reminds me of whatever happened in his past. I just wish he'd move on, though, and leave the past behind. Whatever happened to dogs living in the moment?!

This is the 9th month Wally's been here, and probably only the 4th or 5th I could get any real training done. The first two months were him realizing I wasn't planning on eating him. The 3rd was him getting used to be shaved down (his coat was horrible - the groomer said he wasn't ever brushed at all, and he was a year old), the 4th is when finally the personality kinda started to show through under the fear. Kinda.

So around the 5th month, he was settled enough to start working with me.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> but she may just be an exceptional dog..I dunno..she has done a lot of stuff you would probably be surprised at..


She seems exceptional to me - though 90% of the dogs on this forum probably do as well. *sigh*


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

impulse control.

what are the very strongest impulses in any creature?

to eat and to procreate.

procreation I assume has been removed from the equation so we start with eat.

at dinnertime.

put him in a down. place his food in front of him. when he goes for it, give a no reward marker . the minute he looks away from the food, click and allow him to eat.

do this every night, increasing gradually the time between the no reward marker and the click.

once he is good with that, you can generalize that behavior to just about anything.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> still no force trainer has EVER answered this question for me...
> 
> Why should I cause pain if it is not nessecary?


I thought you were talking about leadership.

Leadership is not force, nor is it inflicting pain. It's about being fair and responsible for establishing behavior norms and limits and good communication. Regardless of how you go about teaching it.

IMO shaping behavior is leadership. Expecting a dog to respect you and being fair to the dog is leadership. Expecting it to do a job or obey a command is leadership.

I'm the leader, I decide when we go for a walk. I decide when where we go for a walk, I'm the leader. 

She doesn't get to pull me anywhere she wants to go, I'm the leader. 

I decide whether she can go kill the neighbors cat, and communicate that to her that it's not allowed, in a positive way. I'm the leader and she respects that if I'm good and fair leader.

She isn't allowed to open the fridge door and eat all the food inside, I'm the leader and those are the rules I teach. She isn't allowed to get into the trash in the kitchen, it's right there in the corner and she could, but I'm the leader and I set that rule, without ever touching her or causing any pain.

She can go outside anytime she wants, and she tells me when she wants to and I comply, but I'm the leader.

I've definitely been leader to all my dogs, that doesn't mean I don't teach them to think, problem solve and behave intelligently every bit as much as you would. They have been quite creative in the past and had me rolling on the floor with laughter and amazement. Many times I do as they ask just because they were creative enough to come up with way to tell me and I encourage them to think as much as they can.

They also have always taught me a lot, communication and a good relationship requires two way communication and cooperation all the time. A good leader strives for this. They demand things of me as well, and choose their own behavior for the most part. That doesn't mean I'm not their leader.

Inflicting pain for me would only happen in an emergency where life or serious bodily harm was imminent. I would never use a prong collar, never needed one, nor a choke collar or any other pain inflicting device.

Think of it this way. Say you run a software business. Your the leader in that you set the rules, and you set the goals, but without free thinking creative employees coming up with innovative ways to get the software to do what it needs to through good communication and fair leadership, things just wouldn't turn out well.

I think a lot of the discussion back and forth here is due to people having different definitions of being a leader. We're not on the same page on what leadership actually is.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

You need to live with cats. You will get over the whole leadership thing real quick.... 

Dogs started living with humans as a symbiotic relationship. Humans provided food and to a certain extent, increased safety. Dogs provided humans with alerts and were sometimes a food source (in hard times). 

Leadership, dominance and a lot of other stuff has come out of modern thinking and a need for humans to label stuff and the over all narcissim with which humans view themselves when compared to other creatures we share the planet with. 

Meanwhile, someone forgot to tell the dogs....


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Interesting discussion! I'm glad someone bumped it or I would have missed it. 

In my opinion, being a leader does not rule out being partners. It doesn't have to be one or the other. My relationship with my dogs (and my cats) is foremost, one of mutual respect. It also involves mutual trust, honor and love. 

I am the provider, the leader, the decision-maker. (I'm the decider - LOL) I decide who eats what and how much, when they go somewhere, where they relieve themselves, why they go to the vet, what they play with and what is acceptable behavior. They don't decide ANY of that for me. 

But they are also my partners. They share my home. I learn from them and they protect me. I am in AWE of them and have the utmost respect for them. 

Leader is a loving and benevolent position that is *not* synonymous with dictator or dominatrix or lord, in my world view. It's simply a guide, the authority, the manager, the Decider.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> You need to live with cats. You will get over the whole leadership thing real quick....


I have. Cats are not pack social animals like dogs, different species, different instincts and drives. My last two cats were adopted feral cats that never stepped inside my house. (their choice not mine)

As leader I had to show my dog they were accepted pack members, not food to eat. My dog accepted that rule as I'm the leader. Her nature, her very genetic makeup, drives her to respect her pack leader and accept them into our "pack".



> Dogs started living with humans as a symbiotic relationship. Humans provided food and to a certain extent, increased safety. Dogs provided humans with alerts and were sometimes a food source (in hard times).


Yes but in doing so they simply adapted to a human pack, and were surely bred and selected for ability to do so.



> Leadership, dominance and a lot of other stuff has come out of modern thinking and a need for humans to label stuff and the over all narcissim with which humans view themselves when compared to other creatures we share the planet with.
> 
> Meanwhile, someone forgot to tell the dogs....


Sorry but that's just completely ridiculous. It comes out of simple observation of dogs natural behavior..

Leadership is what dogs do and expect naturally. Unlike cats they are social pack animals with a pack structure that includes a leader. Their nature and instinct is cooperative under a leader. Every single time, every single dog (or wolf)

The leader chooses where they go and when, he chooses what they hunt and when, he always eats first and is the only male that gets to breed.

It's not something people "made up" and imposed on dogs in any way. The pack nature and structure is what allows them to be as successful a species (wolves) as they have been for almost a million years now, dogs for something less than 100,000 years now.

Dump ten dogs loose to fend for themselves and they will do much like wolves do, a leader will emerge and run the pack every time. No human has to label it or tell them anything whatsoever.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

she tells me when she wants to go out. she decides how much she will eat. she decides what training stuff we will work on etc etc. in that respect I am merely a provider...which a leader does not nessecarily make. 

I make some of the decisions sure...but so does she. she actually makes more of them than I do. 

and she trains me too.

she trained me in impulse control by testing where my threshold for frustration was and refusing to comply until I made training into what SHE wanted it to be. She trained me to quit using aversives on her by refusing to move if I even tried it. literally . correct Bolo and she will go limp, dead weight. looks like a corpse. or in certain circumstances become aggressive. not like biting me or anythingbut her behavior will get waaay worse.
use positive and she is literally jumping for joy to play along. 

no. im not a leader. we are partners. we support each other. we both make decisions. 

in the woods I am her follower. she decides whether we go through the thicket or cross the creek. she stops me if there is danger and I listen to her because she knows these things waaay better than I do. just a few days ago she stopped me from literally stepping on a poisonous snake. id be a stupid person indeed if I didn't listen to her directives when we are in that enviroment. 

in the city we team up. during the day I do a little more of the decision making but when we walk at night she is back in the lead. she knows when there is danger. she shows me things I would never notice without her.

in the house we team up too. as previously described.

if I tried to be a leader..even a benevolent one... I would miss SOOOO much of the things she shows me.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

Hmmmmm.....I'm not sure how deciding when my dog pees is showing leadership. I think it just shows a preternatural interest in the dog's urinary habits. If my boss told me when to pee, you can imagine what I would tell him!

I see zim posted most of what I was going to say, so I'll stop. I do want to say that always being in charge means you miss out on a whole lot of fun watching what dogs come up with on their own, naturally. I learn an enormous amount about my dog from letting her run with things -- way more than I would if I was always the one calling the shots.

Still looking for the canine joystick (thanks for that mental image, KBLover - it's perfect!)....


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

TxRider said:


> Sorry but that's just completely ridiculous. It comes out of simple observation of dogs natural behavior..
> 
> Leadership is what dogs do and expect naturally. Unlike cats they are social pack animals with a pack structure that includes a leader. Their nature and instinct is cooperative under a leader. Every single time, every single dog (or wolf)


There have been only 3 attempts to study the social structure of dogs. Not one of them concluded that is was a dog's nature to follow a leader. More recently, the man where this thinking originated (David L. Mech) in wolves, has revised his observations to clearly indicate that cooperation under a leader is NOT paramount to the function of the group. 

You may find this website interesting: http://nonlineardogs.com/


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

just alittle food for thought.

when you train with your dog.

you use x method. dog either a. responds or b. doesn't respond.

from a human pov..this must mean x method is either good or bad, depending on response of the dog.

but what about from the dog's pov..? can we really assume dog sees it as owner does this, I understand and obey or I don't get it?

what if it's

I like/don't like it when owner does x thing so I will/won't respond. then owner will continue/stop doing x thing 

?


like my dog.

she goes and slaps her paw on the door. she wants to go out. if I don't take her out, she will either pee on the floor or destroy something. 

from one pov...this looks like she has been trained to alert me when she needs to go out...

but she doesn't always have to use the potty. sometimes she just wants a walk.

and there is a consequence if I don't give it to her. 

So another point of view is she has trained me to take her out when she slaps her paw on the door.

just some food for thought.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

TxRider, Methinks you take the role of leader with animals FAR too serious. I can see why the Feral Cats you adopted elected to stay outside.  

Cats have a non linear social structure. They gather in Clowders for the same reasons that Coyotes pack in winter, survival or needs (but are largely NOT pck animals most of the rest of the time). I have seen Female cats with litters of kittens approximately the same age put all the kittens in one nursery. Easier care and feeding and protection. The same 3 female cats kicked the butt of my dog who made the mistake of walking too close to the nursey. Poor Max.. he would never go near that part of the barn again. LOL

Does it REALLY matter if you are called a leader? 



Curbside Prophet said:


> There have been only 3 attempts to study the social structure of dogs. Not one of them concluded that is was a dog's nature to follow a leader. More recently, the man where this thinking originated (David L. Mech) in wolves, has revised his observations to clearly indicate that cooperation under a leader is NOT paramount to the function of the group.
> 
> You may find this website interesting: http://nonlineardogs.com/


THANK YOU CP.. I was jst going to launch into the whole dogs are not wolves and they don't have the same social structure thing. This was a HUGE thread back in the past and I could nto recall the thread (if it is still here) and the associated links to dog social behavior. 

I would have been on the proverbial think ice tho because I did not have the thread and those links which I think were part of the thread. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> she goes and slaps her paw on the door. she wants to go out. if I don't take her out, she will either pee on the floor or destroy something.
> 
> from one pov...this looks like she has been trained to alert me when she needs to go out...
> 
> ...


Having spent more time training cats than dogs and reading about cat behavior, I recall this article (here we go.. I do not recall the source) they say that cats DO train us to get the response they want. 

When I used to free feed the cats, they would come and pester me for food. They HAD food. Plenty of food. But I would get up and they would run to the food dish or the food storage area and make noise. So.. I would feed them to quiet them down. Most of the time they didn't even EAT. I am convinced they were bored and just wanted to see me get up and go thru the motions. IOW's it wasn't the food, it was the SERVICE. 

Now I have Atka and she will do something similar to Bolo. She wants out, she looks at the door and then looks at me. If I don't give her another job to do, she starts to pace and she will pace paths in the floor if I don't offer to take her out or offer a different thing to do (when I know she has no need to potty.. but just wants to go out and I just can't right then).

She will also bark at me if I cue her to do something and she thinks that she should not need to do it. Oh she will do the cue but she tells me her POV... 

In herding she will sometimes do something different than my cue. Because she is so green her ideas sometimes don't work out so well.... but making mistakes is part of learning.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> Does it REALLY matter if you are called a leader?


Apparently to some it matters very much whether we _think _of ourselves as leaders *OR* partners, thinking that it's gotta be one or the other, even though all of us have shown that sometimes we lead, sometimes we follow their lead. I never think in terms of "being the leader" until I see threads like this that encourage me to actually describe my position in this "family" or "pack" in the English language. I don't go around with my chest puffed out thinking, "I am the leader and you will do as I say"! LOL 

I actually made a little video a while ago that kind of made fun of this whole concept of labeling ourselves as leader, partner, dictator, commander, that we seem intent on parsing... If our dogs knew what we were doing, I feel sure they'd crumble on the floor laughing at us. 

Video: Obey My Command!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

actually

my point is that its ALL anthropomorphizing...all of it..leader, partner, alpha, sultan, slave, whatever....

the only reason it matters is because it affects YOUR behavior and thusly your relationship with your dog. 

I choose the word partner because it gives me a better conception of how to interact with my dog.

im not knocking "leaders"

I just don't roll that way.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> If our dogs knew what we were doing, I feel sure they'd crumble on the floor laughing at us.


Yours DOESN'T? Mine sure does. Usually in front of people when I am trying to impress someone with her good behavior....

"Atka, Lie down!" 
Atka lies down. 

I turn to the people and start having a conversation. 

I turn back to see if my dog is still in her lie down... and well she isn't really tho she has nto gotten up.. she is now 30 feet away having ROLLED there... and is looking at me like an idiot with all 4 feet in the air..... 

Now EVERYONE is laughing at me... 

At least I have a partner, pal, people trainer, whatever with a sense of humor (something we ALL need). LOL

Yeah.. Zim... I think you got it figured and we could all learn an awful lot form you. Wish you lived closer and gave dog skool lessons!


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> actually
> 
> my point is that its ALL anthropomorphizing...all of it..leader, partner, alpha, sultan, slave, whatever....
> 
> ...


And I think we're doing the same thing almost exactly, I see it as leadership, you see it as partnership. It's really 99% the same thing.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> if I tried to be a leader..even a benevolent one... I would miss SOOOO much of the things she shows me.


I wonder what you think you would be missing. What, about being a leader, makes a person miss what's there to learn from our dogs? 



Elana55 said:


> Yours DOESN'T? Mine sure does. Usually in front of people when I am trying to impress someone with her good behavior....


I meant if they knew we were discussing whether we're their "leader" or their "partner".  Very cute story about Atka! 

And I also try to impress people with my dogs' intelligence.  This morning, as I went out to pick up in the yard, the Shepherds became excited because they thought I was taking them out to the pasture to play Frisbee. We all walked out the door but I started to do my pootie duty instead. They both disappeared back into the house and then they both came back minutes later BOTH with Frisbees in their mouths. Who coordinated this coup? I was amazed. I can see one of them doing it, but my husband was inside when they went in and told me later that they were in "mission mode" as they each searched the house for abandoned Frisbees. This was a coordinated attempt to convince me to take them out. Needless to say, after I was done, we went out and played Frisbee.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

winniec777 said:


> Still looking for the canine joystick (thanks for that mental image, KBLover - it's perfect!)....


Wally's is food. 

Hold food - watch dog sit, lie down, bark without wagging tail, bark while wagging tail, paw, stick paw out, follow you, sit front, stand on hind paws, walk while standing on hind paws, give you high five. 

Move hand with food around - watch him walk in whatever direction. It's the nearest thing to a joystick I've found! 

I wonder if I could train him that for certain food you bark, but for other food you scratch my leg like a freaking cat  


As far as leader/partner - semantics, imo. 

I'm going to call myself the Hodgepodge Handler. 

I'll shape - but model, lure, chain directions together for new behavior, use operant conditioning, use clicker, don't use clicker, have free play, teach him play has rules.

I figure - why limit myself to one style/method/model/form? I use whatever gets Wally to perform whatever it is. 


And Elana - I'd love to see Atka roll her way 30 feet from you. Talk about creative thinking! I'm going to have to teach Wally to roll over now.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> I wonder what you think you would be missing. What, about being a leader, makes a person miss what's there to learn from our dogs?


you mean what i WAS missing.


before i answer your question..

let me ask you this.

what is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing involved in dog training...to you?


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> what is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing involved in dog training...to you?


I feel like I'm taking a test.  But I'd say consistency. There are many things that are important, like trust, knowing your dog and fun. But I think consistency is key. 

A+ or D-?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> TxRider, Methinks you take the role of leader with animals FAR too serious. I can see why the Feral Cats you adopted elected to stay outside.


Methinks you read what you want to read, with a very preconceived notion.

I say adopted, I just started feeding a feral mother cat and she decided to move into my garage and live there. She never showed any interest in going inside, and I only attempted to lure her inside once or twice. After two weeks she had kittens, one of which I never found a home for and he did just as his mother did. It was a bit a of a chore to get her to a vet and get her fixed.

She went from Feral and not wanting any human touch whatsoever, to a sweet older cat who came to sit in my lap and purr every time I came outside and sat down. And had a long standing detente with the dog. The dog stayed more than 2 feet away, she didn't swipe at her nose.  I taught the dog not to eat her or bite her even after said swipe.

Her and her kitten when he was grown did cooperatively hunt the squirrels in the back yard as well.



> Cats have a linear social structure. They gather in Clowders for the same reasons that Coyotes pack in winter, survival or needs (but are largely NOT pck animals most of the rest of the time). I have seen Female cats with litters of kittens approximately the same age put all the kittens in one nursery. Easier care and feeding and protection. The same 3 feamle cats kicked the butt of my dog who made the mistake of walking too close to the nursey. Poor Max.. he would never go near that part of the barn again. LOL
> 
> Does it REALLY matter if you are called a leader?


No it doesn't matter. It just seems a more apt objective description of the relationship to me.



> THANK YOU CP.. I was jst going to launch into the whole dogs are not wolves and they don't have the same social structure thing. This was a HUGE thread back in the past and I could nto recall the thread (if it is still here) and the associated links to dog social behavior.
> 
> I would have been on the proverbial think ice tho because I did not have the thread and those links which I think were part of the thread.


Yes dogs are not wolves, they are far from it. Several studies have shown just how far they are from wolves but they are canines.

Social structures are far more deep and complex than simply leader and a hierarchy. But to deny those constructs exist is nonsense.



> Having spent more time training cats than dogs and reading about cat behavior, I recall this article (here we go.. I do not recall the source) they say that cats DO train us to get the response they want.


As will many if not most vertebrate animals if we interact with them enough. That's been my experience with birds, squirrels, cats, dogs, horses etc. even fish. I haven't observed it in reptiles, but I've only tried with snakes.



> When I used to free feed the cats, they would come and pester me for food. They HAD food. Plenty of food. But I would get up and they would run to the food dish or the food storage area and make noise. So.. I would feed them to quiet them down. Most of the time they didn't even EAT. I am convinced they were bored and just wanted to see me get up and go thru the motions. IOW's it wasn't the food, it was the SERVICE.
> 
> Now I have Atka and she will do something similar to Bolo. She wants out, she looks at the door and then looks at me. If I don't give her another job to do, she starts to pace and she will pace paths in the floor if I don't offer to take her out or offer a different thing to do (when I know she has no need to potty.. but just wants to go out and I just can't right then).
> 
> ...


As I said from the start, I think this is mainly a disagreement on definition of words, not so much actions. What I call leadership you call partnership.

You see a "leader" as dominant force, forcing an animal to do something. I see a "leader" as symbiotic but necessary. In a social activity if no animal leads and others don't follow no cooperative action can ever occur. 

Beginning with "lets go this direction". One animal must start moving first by definition and initiate an action for any group action to occur, the rest must cooperate by following if there is to be a group action taking place at all. It's as simple as that. If the activity results in a positive outcome, that leadership is reinforced and it becomes a reinforced behavior for followers to follow.

On a hunt, one animal has to choose a prey, the others must follow and help with that prey or no cooperative hunt can happen. If the activity is reinforced with success, others will willingly follow that leader. If not successful they won't follow for very long.

In dog packs I have also seen the leader change depending on the activity at hand, and which dog was the best leader for that specific activity.

Does my dog lead me in some activities? You betcha, wouldn't have it any other way. But it is a minority of activities. The important ones like food, shelter, location and main activities I lead, she follows.

As for the paper linked, it must be right, it's on the internet..


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> I feel like I'm taking a test.  But I'd say consistency. There are many things that are important, like trust, knowing your dog and fun. But I think consistency is key.
> 
> A+ or D-?



see...i would have said understanding if someone asked me that question.


the more i work with people and help them train their dogs...the more i try to encourage an attitude of partnership because i notice something when they come to me.

they all are completely focused on the dog's behavior. they arent looking at how THEY are behaving in relation to their dog.

im not saying the idea of leadership is SOLELY responsible for this mindset but more and more i begin to suspect that, generally, it contributes to it.

when i first started with my current dog, and this dog had behavioral issues out the wazoo, i read some stuff online that told me i needed to be a leader to my dog to make her behave.

i ended up with a mess. because i was sooooooooo focused on what SHE was doing to the exclusion of all else that i was completely ignoring the things that *I* was directly responsible for.

how i was not only acting but reacting to her was just as vital as how she was acting and reacting to me.

it took ditching the idea that i was a leader and that my wishes took precedence over hers for us to be able to really learn to understand each other. 

these days i rarely even have to do anything indicative of what i like, and neither does she because ninty percent of the time if we are paying attention to each other...we just know.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> what is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing involved in dog training...to you?


Mutual communication and understanding.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> see...i would have said understanding if someone asked me that question.


Ok. I did say consistency, which is all about _MY_ behavior. I did also mentioned knowing the dog, which is very similar to understanding. 



> i ended up with a mess. because i was sooooooooo focused on what SHE was doing to the exclusion of all else that i was completely ignoring the things that *I* was directly responsible for.


I see. Thanks for the explanation. Do you believe that _anyone _who thinks of themselves as a leader is also so focused on the dog's behavior that they neglect their own contribution? Because I think that might be an incorrect assumption. In fact, I know it is. 



> it took ditching the idea that i was a leader and that my wishes took precedence over hers for us to be able to really learn to understand each other.


That may be where the misunderstanding is. Being a leader (to me) does NOT mean that my wishes must take precedence over the dog's. That should be clear from my earlier video. I don't boss my dogs around and I rarely use any force of any kind. *Very* rarely. I don't need to. 



> these days i rarely even have to do anything indicative of what i like, and neither does she because ninty percent of the time if we are paying attention to each other...we just know.


I am in total agreement with you here.  It seems we have VERY similar relationships with our dogs, but we arrange the letters we use to describe ourselves in a different pattern. As I said before, the dogs don't care. I've always thought that 90% of these debates and even arguments could be resolved if we got the definitions out of the way _first _and dropped all the assumptions about other people. Because assuming that someone who calls themselves a leader thinks that their wishes must always take precedence over the dog's, is just incorrect, IMO.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

what im saying is that to some, the idea of leadership has a pitfall.

as a student of science i NEVER make assumptions. 

the definitions are only important to the individual...and since i abide by concrete technical definitions, to me, being a leader is detrimental to my abilities as a trainer.

llike i said...not nessecarily knocking "leaders" i just dont roll that way. 

oh and i cant watch videos. im posting from a cellphone.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

FourIsCompany said:


> I am in total agreement with you here.  It seems we have VERY similar relationships with out dogs, but we arrange the letters we use to describe ourselves in a different pattern. As I said before, the dogs don't care. I've always thought that 90% of these debates and even arguments could be resolved if we got the definitions out of the way _first _and dropped all the assumptions about other people. Because assuming that someone who calls themselves a leader thinks that their wishes must take always precedence over the dog's, is just incorrect, IMO.


Exactly. Internet communication being what it is it's a very typical issue.

As for you earlier answer, consistency to me is an aspect of good leadership skills.

I'll give another example. My current rescue is a 3 yr old GSD I got a couple of weeks ago. She has had persistent ear infections to the point she has badly cauliflowered both ears and would lead to deafness and facial paralysis and worse if not treated aggressively. She is also very sensitive about anyone touching her ears, to the point of yelping loudly before any contact was even made and fears a bottle of eardrops enough she will refuse any food if it is near her head.

If we had a true partnership where her wishes were equal to mine, she would go untreated. But my wishes are more important than hers in this case as in most important issues, so she will be treated one way or another.

I could use dominance, just pin her down and force her to submit, but it would ruin our relationship and damage her spirit which is quite damaged enough by whoever abused her. I choose leadership instead. I lead her into a cooperative activity, and show her a positive outcome she can understand.

After a lot of handling of ears, rewarding and working on this for a week I can now give ear drops using a soaked cotton ball, and she will tolerate this only because she now trusts me enough not to cause her pain, only some discomfort, and she knows it will end in a positive way for her. That is leadership to me.

She has learned sit, lay down, get up and shake hands in these first two weeks as part of the process as well, because she needed to be led into generalizing the concept of cooperative activity for reward as well before she would really understand and allow me to do something she does not like and is not pleasant for her.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> what is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT thing involved in dog training...to you?



Well, communication for me. If I can't communicate with him - can't do anything else. If I can't see what he's "saying" I won't know how to adjust my tactics I'm using.

Half of beginning to overcoming his fearfulness was getting him to communicate in a more calm way (than running for whotheheckknowswhere).



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the definitions are only important to the individual...and since i abide by concrete technical definitions, to me, being a leader is detrimental to my abilities as a trainer.


Interesting - I guess I look at it more as styles than definitions.

For me, there's styles of leadership that don't mesh with the technical definition.

I'm more a laissez-faire type leader - even if "technically" that means I'm not a leader at all. *shrug* Technically, there's only one kind of leader - practically, I don't agree with that.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> what im saying is that to some, the idea of leadership has a pitfall.


Yeah, I see where you're coming from on that. Not to get political, but it seems some think of the George Bush style of "leadership", which I despise. The model that says, "I'm the boss and you're going to do what I want, when I want it." That's the position of a fearful and weak person, IMO, and *not *a good leader at all.  I'm speaking of the model of a really _good _leader like Colin Powell, Anwar Sadat or Martin Luther King, Jr. (and perhaps Barack Obama, although it's too soon to tell). Someone who genuinely cares for their people's (or dogs') well-being and works to make their lives as good as possible, while making many major decisions about the lives of those people that the people do NOT in turn make about their leader's life. 



> as a student of science i NEVER make assumptions.


Oh, come on. If you're human, you make assumptions. 



> the definitions are only important to the individual...and since i abide by concrete technical definitions, to me, being a leader is detrimental to my abilities as a trainer.


So, what is the technical definition of "leader"? One who leads. There's nothing in the technical definition about the leader's wishes coming before the followers. Or that the leader only focuses on the followers' behavior. 

And I like to remind people that having 4 large dogs (2 of which are German Shepherds) is really different than having one dog as a partner. It's my opinion that there HAS to be a leader. A good leader, who respects and genuinely cares about the well-being of the animals and the harmony that exists in our home. 

Sorry for bieng so verbose. I know I ramble. 



TxRider said:


> I could use dominance, just pin her down and force her to submit, but it would ruin our relationship and damage her spirit which is quite damaged enough by whoever abused her. I choose leadership instead. I lead her into a cooperative activity, and show her a positive outcome she can understand.


This is an extremely important point! We live in the desert and Mia got a Cholla sticker (some call it "Jumping Cactus) stuck in the bottom of her mouth, under her tongue! It was causing a great amount of distress. I called her onto the couch and while my husband lightly held her head, I opened her mouth and removed it with a pair of pliers! She never twitched or tried to get away. Because she trusts me. That's the payoff of the style of leadership I'm talking about.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> a.Yeah, I see where you're coming from on that. Not to get political, but it seems some think of the George Bush style of "leadership", which I despise. The model that says, "I'm the boss and you're going to do what I want, when I want it." That's the position of a fearful and weak person, IMO, and *not *a good leader at all.  I'm speaking of the model of a really _good _leader like Colin Powell, Anwar Sadat or Martin Luther King, Jr. (and perhaps Barack Obama, although it's too soon to tell). Someone who genuinely cares for their people's (or dogs') well-being and works to make their lives as good as possible, while making many major decisions about the lives of those people that the people do NOT in turn make about their leader's life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


a. a very great mind once said:

the very best choice for the position of leader is one who does not want the position at all.  

b. of course I do...in everyday interhuman interaction...dogs are a very different story...at least with me. I avoid assumptions because tin training they get you nowhere..personal stances are a bit different. 

c. im walking down a crowded highway at the moment but soon as I get home I will address this more thoroughly

d. I may only have one dog I own. but there are many days where I have as many as sixteen pit bulls at my house. and just me as the only human. still not a leader...then we're a team. 

a sidenote 

leadership in short..I define as the one who decides.

but the thing is that I don't decide 99 percent of the time.

she does. 

I not only don't want the position of leader. I flat out refuse it.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> b. of course I do...in everyday interhuman interaction...dogs are a very different story...


But we were talking about assumptions made about people who use the term leader. Not assumptions about dogs.  



> c. im walking down a crowded highway at the moment


Wow. That's not something I ever thought I'd see written on an Internet discussion board! Neat. 



> still not a leader...then we're a team.


LOL A "team", but never a "pack". LOL 

I look forward to further discussion when you're not walking in traffic. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> leadership in short..I define as the one who decides.


Now, we're talking... Definitions. This is the meat of it. 

From Concepts of Leadership: 



> Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. Leaders carry out this process by applying their leadership attributes, such as beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge, and skills. Although your position as a manager, supervisor, lead, etc. gives you the _authority _to accomplish certain tasks and objectives in the organization, *this power does not make you a leader, it simply makes you the boss. Leadership differs in that it makes the followers want to achieve high goals,* rather than simply bossing people around.


Your definition sounds like "The boss". The one who decides. He may be a leader or he may not be.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

FourIsCompany said:


> This is an extremely important point! We live in the desert and Mia got a Cholla sticker (some call it "Jumping Cactus) stuck in the bottom of her mouth, under her tongue! It was causing a great amount of distress. I called her onto the couch and while my husband lightly held her head, I opened her mouth and removed it with a pair of pliers! She never twitched or tried to get away. Because she trusts me. That's the payoff of the style of leadership I'm talking about.


Yes, my last dog got a bad cut on her back once, when we were out where I couldn't get to a vet for days. She laid across my lap and allowed me to put stitches in it to close it up because she trusted me, and didn't twitch to get away.

The act of inducing any desired behavior and reinforcing it (training) is the concrete technical definition of leading, to do so is leadership.

Technically speaking, domination, "alpha" concepts, coercion, bribery and negotiation etc. are simply styles or methods of leadership.

I think people often only have a single style of leadership or method of leadership as their only concept of what leadership is. I run a company full of thinking quirky humans I have to lead. Easier to do in some ways, harder in others. Last time I left a company though due to bad leadership, every last employee left with me to work for me at a new startup though, I guess that says something at least.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> leadership in short..I define as the one who decides.
> 
> but the thing is that I don't decide 99 percent of the time.
> 
> she does.


I know it's just a short-form definition, but that can be taken either way depending on how you look at it.

Let's say Wally wants the piece of chicken on the desk. He paws me. I give him the chicken.

Okay - so who decided? If you say the dog did and pawed as a behavior to throw in attempts to get me to give it to him - didn't I have to decide to give him the treat? I could have just ignored the pawing until he gave up and gave me another behavior. Or I could have just eaten the chicken myself and say "too bad, wrong behavior" - or just got up and left. 

If you say we both decided - okay, I can do that. But then can someone say they don't make a decision with their dog the majority of the time? Even just delivering a reward is a decision that the behavior was good/fast/correct/creative/whatever enough to warrant a reward.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

told ya...posting via cellphone...

and dog people are different...talking to dog people is almost as interesting as being around dogs....and therefore holds similar weight. I have made no assumptions in this thread, merely giving out my thoughts..

and no not a pack. they don't pack up and no one being stands out from the rest...



KBLover said:


> I know it's just a short-form definition, but that can be taken either way depending on how you look at it.
> 
> Let's say Wally wants the piece of chicken on the desk. He paws me. I give him the chicken.
> 
> ...


NOW THIS is the meat of what im saying.

whether "good leader" or "bad leader"...is irrelevant...its still one being is the deciding factor if you will...

because im not deciding. im merely acting and reacting. same as the dog.

action and reaction. no attempts to do anything in particular. no really cohesive goals...just a general idea of what I would LIKE to see and she having a general idea of what she would like to see(treats in Bolo's mouth) just action and reaction. I want the behavior. that's my reward. she wants a different behavior. 

I do x.
she reacts with y.

and AT THE VERY SAME moment

she does a.
and I react with b.

action reaction action reaction action reaction etc etc.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> because im not deciding. im merely acting and reacting. same as the dog.


I think it's semantics. My dog poops on the floor (acting) and I _react _by _deciding _to potty train him and I _act _by giving him a reward for pooping outside instead and he _reacts _by continuing to poop outside. The overall goal is to have a clean and sanitary home in which we all live, which is the _decision _I made.  

We're just using different words to say the same thing.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> I think it's semantics. My dog poops on the floor (acting) and I _react _by _deciding _to potty train him and I _act _by giving him a reward for pooping outside instead and he _reacts _by continuing to poop outside. The overall goal is to have a clean and sanitary home in which we all live, which is the _decision _I made.
> 
> We're just using different words to say the same thing.


semantics? or anthropomorphizing?

like I said...my original point was that its ALL anthropomorphizing...all of it. 

every last bit of it is *our definition of the interaction filtered through our eyes*

leader, alpha, partner, decisions, deciding not to decide.

anthropomorphizing. every last bit of it...

the only reason its important is because people have an instinct to define action and reaction. aand because we need to define, our definitions are an *acting factor* in our *reaction to our dogs* 

...now you know why people call me a nerd lol...


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> like I said...my original point was that its ALL anthropomorphizing...all of it.


IF we are talking about how our dogs feel about it or view us, then yes, it is anthropomorphizing. But I'm talking about ME and MY choice to lead the pack of dogs, not what they think or feel about it. 



> ...now you know why people call me a nerd lol...


I love nerds. I married a nerd.  You don't want to know what people call me.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> IF we are talking about how our dogs feel about it or view us, then yes, it is anthropomorphizing. But I'm talking about ME and MY choice to lead the pack of dogs, not what they think or feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I love nerds. I married a nerd.  You don't want to know what people call me.


it IS anthropomorphizing. 

because you are still defining how they see you. if you say "I am a leader to my dogs" that is anthropomorphizing.

and so the same when I say "my dog and myself are partners"

its your interpretation of the relationship between you and your dogs...and in a sense..by proxy that's anthropomorphizing.

none of it matters except to you. and to me. our own definitions matter. 

so we get online and bullheadly bicker/debate about nothing really ...

at least I can bullheadedly bicker/debate about nothing whilst I am walking my dog..


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> it IS anthropomorphizing.
> 
> because you are still defining how they see you. if you say "I am a leader to my dogs" that is anthropomorphizing.


 That doesn't mean it isn't a fact though.



> and so the same when I say "my dog and myself are partners"


Which doesn't mean it's necessarily fact.



> its your interpretation of the relationship between you and your dogs...and in a sense..by proxy that's anthropomorphizing.
> 
> none of it matters except to you. and to me. our own definitions matter.


When attempting to convey your interpretation to others, as we're doing now. It certainly does matter. Common definitions are pretty key to communication.



> so we get online and bullheadly bicker/debate about nothing really ...
> 
> at least I can bullheadedly bicker/debate about nothing whilst I am walking my dog..


And we end up with a more common definition, or at least understanding of our different definitions as is required to communicate fully when working from different definitions.

Doubt I could post from a phone while walking though, I'd probably walk into a post.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

urgle...

no its not fact.

its INTERPRETATION. none of these interpretations are fact.

a fact(tentatively) : 2+2=4

a fact would be something that is true. period. across the board.

there are people who do not operate as "leader" and successfully train dogs, therefore the "leader" interpretation is not nessecary in dog training. 

but the only reason they aren't leaders is because they don't see themselves that way.

just like the only reason you are a leader is because you see yourself that way. I could look at leader like one as you defined earlier and say " that person is being doting o their dogs"(i don't think like that..that's just a possible outside interpretation) 

if you strip away all interpretation except the strictly visual and literal...you get ACTION and REACTION. 

that's all it really is.

but personally...I prefer partner...satisfies my instincts better.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> urgle...
> 
> no its not fact.


Didn't say it was. Just that it could be.



> its INTERPRETATION. none of these interpretations are fact.


Some interpretations are fact, they aren't mutually exclusive terms. I interpret I am a male of my species too. I'm pretty sure that's fact.



> a fact(tentatively) : 2+2=4
> 
> a fact would be something that is true. period. across the board.
> 
> there are people who do not operate as "leader" and successfully train dogs, therefore the "leader" interpretation is not nessecary in dog training.


My opinion is that training itself, guiding a dog to make the decision you want it to make cannot be defined any other way than leading it to do so by some means. A dog isn't going to decide to sit when asked any other way IMO.



> but the only reason they aren't leaders is because they don't see themselves that way.
> 
> just like the only reason you are a leader is because you see yourself that way. I could look at leader like one as you defined earlier and say " that person is being doting o their dogs"(i don't think like that..that's just a possible outside interpretation)
> 
> ...


I agree.

I say I'm a leader because I look at the commonly accepted definition of the word and the situation objectively matches more than it does to partner though I see little or no difference in the methods employed or the results.. That's how I interpret.

Leading is an action following is a reaction.



> but personally...I prefer partner...satisfies my instincts better.


That's apparent, but you did start the thread prompting debate and discussion. Sorry if that wasn't your intent.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

you know I had a friend who interpreted that she was female ..until a paternity test showed her to be genetically male...who would've guessed? *shrug*

no debate is good....debating interpretations is a bit weird imo but ill hangout...the point of this thread was to see who interprets their relationship with their dog as what and to make the point that all of it is just how you see it. ill run with your swerve though... 

I don't like the leader thing. I think its an out cropping of humans having an intrinsic need to contain, define, and control their environment.

I think its simpler.

I teach. then once teaching is done we become partners. I utilized a binary signal code to communicate positive and negative to my dog because she and I grew up speaking different languages. her language is very physical and I lack some of the body parts nessecary to communicate effectively with it so I resort to a yes(click/treat) and no(no reward marker) signal to tell her when she is getting closer or farther away from the idea I am trying to communicate with her. 

she does the EXACT same with me.

she lacks the body parts nessecary to communicate effectively in my language so she resorts to a binary signal code to communicate to me when im getting closer or father from the idea she is trying to communicate with me.

paw slap is yes..."whuff" is no. 

I didn't really teach her that either. all I taught her really was how to focus and how to keep herself under control. 

the ONLY concrete training goal I have EVER had with Bolo is to get her to quit trying to kill other dogs. when I started working with her NOTHING else mattered. I had to save her. I had to get her under control so she wouldn't get put down as a *vicious* dog. sit, down...everything else was immaterial compared to that. the rest sort of popped out of nowhere while working on that one thing. she gave me those behaviors. she takes the lead in training, tracking and just about everything else...to say that I lead her is very unnatural to me. 

she says 'take me outside,'' I say 'ok, wear this leash' she says 'ok then you wear the wheel thingys so you can keep up with me' I say 'ok, don't try to kill dogs while we do that'' she says 'ok, then give me pee and water breaks from pulling your fat behind around' I say ' ok. that means I get a break too' 
she says''cool''

which looks like

Bolo slaps the door with her paw(yes out).

I pick up the leash and click/put it on her(yes, leash)

we walk downstairs. she slaps a paw on my rollerskates(yes wheel thingys)

if I don't put on the skates, she *whuffs* and lays down. (no go if you don't wear wheel thingys)

I put on the skates. she springs up and smacks both paws on the door(.YES GOOD human!) 


we go rolling, there comes a dog. I give a no reward mark when she starts to shark eye the dog(no don't kill it)

she turns to me and keeps running I click /treat(yes don't kill dogs)

as we roll she smacks a paw on the curb(yes, into the grass)

I stop, she squats and sniffs and then smacks her paw on my water bottle(yes. give me some) I give her some water. she licks my face and smacks her paw on me(cool)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> she lacks the body parts nessecary to communicate effectively in my language so she resorts to a binary signal code to communicate to me when im getting closer or father from the idea she is trying to communicate with me.
> 
> paw slap is yes..."whuff" is no.
> 
> ...


Well, I can say Wally is nothing like that. 

It was H*** just to get him to shape. To do all that? I can only dream. It was effort just to get him to paw anything much less for him to use his paws to come up with his own "second language".

Must be nice to have a dog that just offered behaviors like that! It took me months just to get him to offer me anything simple.

Like I said - Bolo is definitely smarter than Wally. 

The closest thing I get to that is only after teaching him a default behavior. He'll sit for just about everything. Meaning is in the context - not as exact as Bolo's *sigh*


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

course KB...I've been at it with Bolo for years....

what if....just what if you shot for a default behavior with Wally that was kind of...general. like I did with Bolo. Our goal was 

Control Yourself and Stay Focused. 

Don't go haring off after every little thing that kicks up your prey drive. (which she has out the wazoo). Take that energy and put it towards something else.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Hmm...that's pretty much what the sitting was for.

Well..okay...not THAT exactly, but don't run out the door - sit and wait to come out (or in). Don't cross the street even if you get to the intersection first. Sit and wait for me. Don't go running if something scares you. Come to me and sit. Don't just run into my room. Sit and wait to be invited to jump. Or invited to come into my room. Or to get the food out of my hand. Sit and wait for me to put the leash on you. All the sits had to include eye contact - even before I taught a "focus" cue.

Some other things he'll sit for: 

If I tell him to go potty and he doesn't need to - he'll either sniff around for about 10 seconds then either sit there or come back and sit and look up at me.

If he's exploring and he gets anxious. He'll come back, sit, and look in the direction of whatever it was. (Sometimes he'll nose touch me then sit)

If he's really frazzled - the sit will be frantic and fast and his eyes fixed on me. Sometimes his "worried look" appears as well.

If he's just sniffing and hanging out - he'll come and sit to let me know he's done with that area.

If we play the "Look at that" game - for some reason, he'll sit when I click. I don't get this one yet. 


It was the first thing I taught him - and then I read about NILIF. Sitting was the first thing he offered (it was the first thing that got him a reward from me) so it ended up sticking. Little did I know I was on the path to a default behavior.

Second thing I taught him was nose targeting - sometimes he'll mix that in with the sits - or it other ways when he wants some attention.

Working with him 90% of the time off-leash pretty much requires me to help him control his impulses (both from fun stuff like chasing squirrels to re-directing his fear responses). That's pretty much how he learned to use his default sit outside. Sitting made things happen, either continuing the walk, or getting away from the scary thing.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I don't like the leader thing. I think its an out cropping of humans having an intrinsic need to contain, define, and control their environment.
> 
> I think its simpler.


And your right, I agree with that sentiment as well. It's just not my definition of leadership though. It is a not so uncommon definition to some people though, or rather a construct that encompasses more than the simple definition of leadership. Though training is in itself containing and defining behavior to some extent.



> I teach. then once teaching is done we become partners. I utilized a binary signal code to communicate positive and negative to my dog because she and I grew up speaking different languages. her language is very physical and I lack some of the body parts nessecary to communicate effectively with it so I resort to a yes(click/treat) and no(no reward marker) signal to tell her when she is getting closer or farther away from the idea I am trying to communicate with her.
> 
> she does the EXACT same with me.
> 
> ...


That's awesome, it's usually difficult to get that level of communication going, it's always a struggle. I'm always looking for ways to communicate like that, and actively trying to guide my dog to do so in any way they can come up with.



> the ONLY concrete training goal I have EVER had with Bolo is to get her to quit trying to kill other dogs. when I started working with her NOTHING else mattered. I had to save her. I had to get her under control so she wouldn't get put down as a *vicious* dog. sit, down...everything else was immaterial compared to that. the rest sort of popped out of nowhere while working on that one thing. she gave me those behaviors. she takes the lead in training, tracking and just about everything else...to say that I lead her is very unnatural to me.


For me watching closely, responding to an action and reinforcing that action as a way of communication to build a better relationship is good leadership.



> she says 'take me outside,'' I say 'ok, wear this leash' she says 'ok then you wear the wheel thingys so you can keep up with me' I say 'ok, don't try to kill dogs while we do that'' she says 'ok, then give me pee and water breaks from pulling your fat behind around' I say ' ok. that means I get a break too'
> she says''cool''
> 
> which looks like
> ...


That's good behavior. But she would never have done it or continue to do it without good feedback from you. You have a very smart dog and good communication.



> we go rolling, there comes a dog. I give a no reward mark when she starts to shark eye the dog(no don't kill it)
> 
> she turns to me and keeps running I click /treat(yes don't kill dogs)
> 
> ...


You've done very well with her, I can only hope to get my current dog to communicate that well. It'll be a long process though, and I try to reinforce any obvious attempts at it by responding. 

She's got the "I want to go out" down in these first two weeks with a single light paw on the door, and her "I really don't like you being on the computer" sign down, but since she's glued to my side like velcro pretty much and never wants me in here she doesn't always get her way even though she does always get a response. But I've only had her 2 weeks so far.

We'll get there though. My last dog got it well, if I was sure she wanted something and didn't know what it was she learned that if I said "What? what do you want" it was now her problem to find a way to show me in a way I would understand and I would always comply. Ended up with some pretty inventive ways to ask me for things.

I taught her that, or guided her into shaping my behavior the same way people shape behaviors with a clicker. I know she wants something because she sits in front of me staring at me and huffing or whatnot, so I kept saying what? what do you want? and offering experimental behaviors to her like going to the back door, the front door, the fridge, getting a toy, etc. until she finally started shaping my behavior and "got it". From then on out she could tell me a great many things and I encouraged it.

I hope to be able to accomplish the same with Hope, my current dog. To me that's part of good leadership though, a good teacher is a good leader.. If I don't guide her into that way of thinking, into making the right decisions and watch close and reinforce her attempts to communicate it's just not going to happen.

As I said I think we're 99% the same, it's just definition of terms mainly. Your definition doesn't allow you to see yourself that way, which is fine, until you apply it to someone with a different interpretation of the term.


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

Hi.  

I just wanted to go back to the original post and make sure I understood your point. And here's the statement that has me thinking that an assumption might be getting in the way of understanding. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the reason I tend to avoid the "leader" mindset is because the dog I want....is one who is versatile, adaptable, capable of making GOOD decisions no matter if im there or not. I want a dog who can problem solve, one who simply responds to ever changing situations WITHOUT my input or my presence if nessecary.


The underlying assumption is: _Anyone who thinks of themselves as a "leader" will use certain training techniques that are *NOT *conducive to an environment where the dogs are versatile, adaptable, and capable of making good decisions on their own. _

And secondarily: 



> that is the dog I want. a partner capable of operating independantly of me.


Another underlying assumption is: _Anyone who thinks of themselves as a "partner" will use certain training techniques that *ARE *conducive to an environment where the dogs are versatile, adaptable, and capable of making good decisions on their own. _

And that is my problem (yes, MY problem) with the premise of this whole thread.  Because I (and really, many people I know and have talked with over the years - I'm fifty-something) see myself as _mostly _a "leader" in this situation with my dogs, AND I also use techniques that *are *conducive to an environment where my dogs are versatile, adaptable, and capable of making good decisions on their own. Use of the word "leader" in my mind does not preclude me seeing us (and acting) as partners. 

Because I use the word "leader" to describe myself, I feel placed in a box by you (and others)  as someone who lords over their dogs and enjoys the feeling of power of a "position" over innocent animals, and someone who doesn't listen to their dogs or care about their input into this whole thing... and nothing could be further from the truth. 

Leadership does NOT equal power to me. It is a partnership wherein one of us (me) makes the overall goals and guides the rest so that we all can accomplish those goals together. Some of those goals being a harmonious, sanitary and healthy home; safe, well-behaved, happy dogs whose needs are met and exceeded; a mutually-respectful and trustful relationship. That doesn't mean the dogs don't have a say. FAR from it. Their voice is VERY important to me. More so than most people's voices. But I do make the final decisions and set the overall goals, whether it's to keep striving for a more harmonious home or to give up on a certain line of training. 

I'm not insisting that anyone else call themselves a leader. All I'm asking is not to be judged based on *someone else's definition* of "leader" or someone else's experience of thinking of themselves as a leader, because it may not apply to me. I'm asking, rather, to be seen and judged by the fruits of our labor and by MY definition of the word. Yes, I use the word "leader" but I don't mean the same thing as you do or have the same experiences as you did.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

I understand your definition but I think its kind of innacurate.

because if you are a leader...no matter how altruistic, well intentioned, benevolent etc...you are still in a position of power as leader, whether they turn to you out of love or fear its still a position that is YOUcentric.

that's not how I am.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I understand your definition but I think its kind of innacurate.
> 
> because if you are a leader...no matter how altruistic, well intentioned, benevolent etc...you are still in a position of power as leader, whether they turn to you out of love or fear its still a position that is YOUcentric.
> 
> that's not how I am.



From the dog's view - don't we have a lot of the power? Wally can't open the patio door. I can. He can't reach the treat on the counter. I can. He can't put food in his bowl. I can. 

If, by his very physical limitations, he can't do these things - he has to come to be to "ask" me to do them (whether traditionally trained to do so or he learned by previous experiences that coming to you when he wants something is a good thing).

He can decide all he wants that he wants that treat on the counter. He ain't getting it simply by physical limitations (now if he were a Great Dane...)


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

FourIsCompany said:


> Hi.
> 
> I just wanted to go back to the original post and make sure I understood your point. And here's the statement that has me thinking that an assumption might be getting in the way of understanding.
> 
> ...


not assumptions. just a statement. a statement as opening point intended to try and lead to the real point(all labels are in essence meaningless except to the individual) doesn't make it an assumption. especially in light of the actual point. im just like that. its a weird habit I picked up growing up around college professors and it gets worse when im in a fit. 

I don't judge your use of the word "leader". I just don't roll that way.



KBLover said:


> From the dog's view - don't we have a lot of the power? Wally can't open the patio door. I can. He can't reach the treat on the counter. I can. He can't put food in his bowl. I can.
> 
> If, by his very physical limitations, he can't do these things - he has to come to be to "ask" me to do them (whether traditionally trained to do so or he learned by previous experiences that coming to you when he wants something is a good thing).
> 
> He can decide all he wants that he wants that treat on the counter. He ain't getting it simply by physical limitations (now if he were a Great Dane...)


there's the anthropomorphizing. how do you know he doesn't see it as "you human! fetch me the cookie!"

?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

I see it as

"hey human, do you mind grabbing a cookie?"

and my reply

"ok. mind touching your butt to the floor first"

and then she goes

"you humans are wierdos. always worried about what my butt is touching"p)


----------



## FourIsCompany (Apr 18, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> because if you are a leader...no matter how altruistic, well intentioned, benevolent etc...you are still in a position of power as leader, whether they turn to you out of love or fear its still a position that is YOUcentric.


Leadership is a choice, not a position. -Stepen R Covey

And I have said this before. If the dogs turn to me out of fear, it's NOT because I'm a leader, it's because I'm an intimidator or a bully. In fact, if the dogs turn to me out of fear, I'm no leader at all.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

leadership is a choice to be in a position where you make decisions.

you can't practice your ideal of leadership unless you are in a position of leader.

they may not be exactly mutually inclusive definitions but they are something close


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I see it as
> 
> "hey human, do you mind grabbing a cookie?"
> 
> ...


See the first sentence?

The dog is asking you. 

That still follows what I said, imo. 

The rest is Premack Principle - I use it too. I don't think it's anthro...(I can't spell that word - too many letters!). I think it's just calling it what it is. If he can't get a treat on the counter - instead of trying in vain, he comes to me to "ask" if I can get it for him. Then that scenario you mention plays out. 

Reminds of that scenario in CU where the author's dog (Snap, I believe) is "asking" for his mat back in one of the pictures. Instead of a mat - it's the food that's out of reach, or the toy in my lap, etc.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

I feel the same as Fouriscompany.

To me the way you describe your interpretation of leadership consists of what I interpret as only bad leadership.

What you describe as your interpretation of partnership I interpret as good leadership.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> not assumptions. just a statement. a statement as opening point intended to try and lead to the real point(all labels are in essence meaningless except to the individual) doesn't make it an assumption. especially in light of the actual point. im just like that. its a weird habit I picked up growing up around college professors and it gets worse when im in a fit.
> 
> I don't judge your use of the word "leader". I just don't roll that way.


The point (all labels are in essence meaningless except to the individual) you describe for me is the point as well.

In each of our own individual minds it really doesn't matter, they may as well be meaningless. A label in my own mind is only important to me. But when I have to communicate concepts from my mind to others, their interpretation vs mine does matter, not just my own interpretation. In communication with others our interpretations of all terms and concepts matters. 

Without a common definition of what words mean, labels included, communication outside your own brain is impossible. Worst case is two people who speak different languages, who have no terminology in common and have to resort to more primitive means they do have in common such as facial gestures and hand signals and build from there.

If your term for the color of a clear blue sky is red, and my term for the color of the same sky is green, we will have trouble relating and communicating until we understand our differences in terms and relate those differences and find common ground.

I might then point at a frisbee for an example and ask what color is that, you say red, and now I know your term for blue is actually red and we can communicate.

When you state leadership is bad, and I think it's not, and we are to discuss the ins and outs of it we really do have to have an understanding of each other's interpretations if not a common interpretation for meaningful discussion to occur.

I think we've definitely achieved an understanding now though. Your interpretation may even be a more common one in general, not many people around me are even interested in the topic of dogs much less leadership or partnership with them and I have never used a trainer or spoken with one. I just have very good relationships with animals of pretty much any sort, and run a company of employees, mostly computer geeks.



> there's the anthropomorphizing. how do you know he doesn't see it as "you human! fetch me the cookie!"?


I don't anthropomorphize much, the dog obviously wants a cookie, I either comply or I don't. I don't for minute think she's thinking in english in human terms though I might express it that way to other humans. I wish I could read her mind, but I can't. Which is why I try to teach her that if she can be more expressive in whatever way she can invent to express her self she'll get better results.

I'm struggling with it now with my new girl, seems to me she spent her first 3 years without any type of meaningful communication from people besides abuse including being hit from her reactions. I'm beginning to believe by a man, as she has only given a warning bark to men, never a woman. Being a 6'4 guy I don't know how much of that is holding her back with me, or how long it'll take to get her complete trust. I have to very careful and very fair with her.

Having our first month with me giving twice a day eardrops she hates may or may not help. I noticed this morning at the vet though she'll let me pull her ear up and look in it, rub in there with a cotton ball etc. but she wouldn't let the vet or the vet tech (a woman) even attempt it without a yelp and a struggle.

On the bright side the doc says the bugs in the left ear are dead, and the right one 90% dead. The amount of black oozing utterly disgusting nastiness I've been getting out of her right ear for a week I'm surprised she could even hear out of it. I can't wait until it's clean and she can get off the drugs and be herself again. As it is I can't always tell what behavior is naturally hers, and which are the drug side effects.


----------

