# Dominance is the way to go



## Irishman (May 13, 2011)

I came home today, and my son, who is very smart but has an issue that effects his short-range memory, was sitting in the living room, toys and food a mess all over the place. I barked out his name, and he looked a little scared and ducked his eye, so I knew this time he understood that he'd screwed up royally. I slapped him upside the head and yelled at him, and he just sort of shrunk away and tried to walk off. You can't let kids act like that and show this kind of disrespect, so I grabbed him and yanked him back, pinning him to the wall. I laid it out and let him know this wasn't going to be tolerated. At one point he started yelling so I slapped him again and yelled over him. At this point he actually tried to push me, so I shook him violently. Sure enough, he finally quieted down. In fact, he just stood stock still and didn't talk back anymore while I yelled at him. Now if I could just get him to stop making a mess when I wasn't home...

This is the human version of what most people view as normal interaction with their dogs. In this scenario, the human has told the dog that:

1. The human is dangerously unstable when they come home.
2. When the dog shows calming signals when the human is obviously upset over something, the human becomes even more psychotic.
3. When the dog tries to escape this violent lunatic, the human hurts him.
4. When fear finally makes the dog lash out in self-defense, the human gets so violent the fear causes the dog to shut down.
5. The human is to be feared at all times, and capitulating doesn't ensure safety. Biting the human may be the only way to save the dog's life.

Obviously this isn't what the human intended, but it's what the dog sees. In terms of human interaction, this would land a person in jail. I try to remember this every time I interact with my dogs. Dominance, so often confused with aggression, is part of a dog's life, just as it is in family life. I am dominant to my kids in our family, and so they listen to me when I tell them something. I don't have to 'alpha roll' them to get them to listen. They do it because they respect what I say. I also have to show them respect, or they won't want to listen anymore. I read stories where people have tried to 'be a pack leader' to their dogs, but most of the time I see this in conjunction with displays of physical violence called 'corrections'. I consider myself a pack leader to my dogs, but they follow because they want to, not because they're terrified I might explode into violence at any time.

Also, I should add that my son doesn't actually have a problem with short-term memory (any more than is normal for a teen), but it was the only way to work a human's recollection into a dog's that I could think of.


----------



## Maggie Girl (Feb 27, 2011)

Very good piece. Something a lot of people need to consider.


----------



## Fuzzy Pants (Jul 31, 2010)

Where's that 'like' button.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I used to be one of those CM type ppl, no more. I still use 'Punishment' but in for form of removing myself & time outs now, no more swatting (which, with Izze I admit I did, but that was almost 10yrs ago & i didn't know any better then). Jo responds well to it, Izze is still a hammer head, but i love them both to death.

Wish i could remember what book I read that gave me my revelation but it was so long ago I just can't. I learned that humans were already superior to dogs, ww control every aspect of their lives (food, water, access to the outdoors, etc...) there is no need to fight for position... We already have it.


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

If dogs are these malevolent beings who are just waiting for us to mess up and let them on the bed or out the door first so that they can take over the house, why in the world would you bring such a creature into your home??


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Now we him to write one of these on Potty Training.........


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

This should be a sticky IMO.


----------



## osdbmom (Feb 15, 2011)

My BIL was trying to convince me last night that I need a shock collar for my 16 lb pap/poodle, bc I dont let her loose in my yard. We are near a main road, and she sometimes forgets herself in the excitement of seeing a kid on a bike, or a dog or squirrel going down the road, and runs to the road. For safetys sake, she is always on a leash or tether. So he was telling me that this used to be a problem with his sons german shepard (that he keeps at his house), and what they did was get him a shock collar, Didnt take more than 5-10 times of getting shocked, now all you have to do is hold the shock collar near his face and "he knows he did wrong and straightens right up".....yeah! OR, your dog is deathly afraid of it and is shutting down in fear, maybe. I tried explaining that we use positive reinforcement with Zoey, and my plans for working with her on that this summer, but you know, in one ear and out the other. 
I have no desire to scare my dogs into behaving for me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Sadly, I do know a number of people who relate to their children that same way (and, no, it's not illegal, or at least not illegal enough for anyone to do anything about it. Just try to get Social Services to do anything if the kid doesn't have marks on him). I think the allegory would be entirely lost on them :/.


----------



## Labmom4 (Feb 1, 2011)

Very good post. You did have me worried at first though, before I realized where you were going  I know too many dog owners that treat their dog's in the way you described. I see the dog shrink in fear at their owner's feet and it frustrates me to no end.


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

osdbmom said:


> I have no desire to scare my dogs into behaving for me.


----------



## StevieM (Jun 26, 2011)

Good post - Thank you for writing it. But I was worried reading the title...

StevieM


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

unlike. very not the way to go. humans really need to get over themselves.

http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I used to be one of those CM type ppl, no more. I still use 'Punishment' but in for form of removing myself & time outs now, no more swatting (which, with Izze I admit I did, but that was almost 10yrs ago & i didn't know any better then). Jo responds well to it, Izze is still a hammer head, but i love them both to death.
> 
> Wish i could remember what book I read that gave me my revelation but it was so long ago I just can't. I learned that humans were already superior to dogs, ww control every aspect of their lives (food, water, access to the outdoors, etc...) there is no need to fight for position... We already have it.


There are many ways my dogs are superior to me. One way is their ability to live in the present and not worry about silly stuff. And that's fine with me.


----------



## DeeSpark (May 25, 2011)

I really like this, really drives the message across. Do you mind if I link this in my blog about my dogs?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DeeSpark said:


> I really like this, really drives the message across


its a useless message. its merely a bit of what one might call woo woo. its basically just saying "i interpret the situation as thus" and gives NO evidence that its a universal interpretation that actually means anything other than "i have a human ego". 


and its not a universal or even ehem..."dominant" interpretation. there are other, less biased interpretations that describe the social structure in dog interactions much more effectively and with far less posturing.

put it this way. you soooo sure your dog sees you as pack leader and not a member of his food dispensing slave squad of stupid humans? what evidence do you have that he doesnt see you like that...or like a partner? or even sees you in any interpretive manner that you as a human can relate to at all? the only thing slapping the word "pack leader" and "dominance" on it accomplishes is totally in relation to how the human views the scenario and less about what actually happens. its useless.


----------



## Puddin's Training Tips (Apr 9, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> unlike. very not the way to go. humans really need to get over themselves.
> 
> http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html


Ziman... I'm wondering if you read the OP's post or just the OP's post title? Because it seems like you are agreeing an criticizing at the same time??


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

There's just something about the use of the word 'dominance' (in any relevant context), that always seems to get stuck in my craw.

Merely semantics ? ... I dunno.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ....a member of his food dispensing slave squad of stupid humans....


This is absolutely how Poca sees us, I'm sure. We have given her no reason to think otherwise. 

Thanks for the article link, Zim - much appreciated.


----------



## lisak_87 (Mar 23, 2011)

I remember when I got Brady all the stuff I heard about him being a dominant dog... remember? I came on here all upset about it... a lot.

I was just thinking of this yesterday because I can laugh at it so easily now. Brady? Dominant? The little pup who sits nicely for his food and won't touch it without permission? The good boy who sits at the door and watches me for a signal to leave? Yeah...so dominant


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

'slave squad of stupid humans, ROTF, Zim can I ask your permission to use that in my siggy at some point... Brilliant


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Puddin's Training Tips said:


> Ziman... I'm wondering if you read the OP's post or just the OP's post title? Because it seems like you are agreeing an criticizing at the same time??


i definately read the whole thing and im definately disagreeing with the whole thing. 

firstly its full of so much anthropomorphizing that its almost laughable. secondly, while i appreciate that he is saying "hey guys dont beat your dog", its very bad to push so much with telling us how dogs see scenarios. he cant know that the way he brings it across and people will take it as ironclad. its not.

i slap my dog. a lot. HARD. she's a nutty hyperactive pit bull. she loves it. hard enough to send her flying across the room. she doesnt view that sort of thing as threatening. had a guy over a while back and he presumed to try to punish my dog for me(earning himself an ejection from my presence) and he popped her on the nose. she pushed him down and started licking his face. 

dogs are different. that is something that needs to ALWAYS be stressed imo. and people are different. read the article i posted. its a totally different take on the theme...without all the woo woo. the woo woo being the idea of a linear hierarchy that dogs are somehow born to understand. it doesnt exist. PRIMATES have linear hierarchies. dogs really dont. the reality is that the two versions, primate and canine..they sorta mush together and the resultant organization in an individual group will fall somewhere on a very wriggly spectrum. its why theres a lot of initial issues, figuring out how much linear and how much nonlinear social organization will get thrown into the mix.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i definately read the whole thing and im definately disagreeing with the whole thing.
> 
> firstly its full of so much anthropomorphizing that its almost laughable. secondly, while i appreciate that he is saying "hey guys dont beat your dog", its very bad to push so much with telling us how dogs see scenarios. he cant know that the way he brings it across and people will take it as ironclad. its not.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure the point wasn't to say that humans and dogs are the same, or see things the same way. It was to give some people an eye opener of "You wouldn't be so purposefully mean to your children/other humans, why do it to your dog?" You're right, there was a lot of anthropomorphizing, but it's not meant to be taken so literally. People can relate better when they try to put themselves in their dog's shoes and see things from their point of view.

Second, it's all about context. It's about not hurting your dog or causing them to become stressed/fearful in the name of training. For some dogs, a sharp tone will cause them to shut down, for others, apparently you can smack them across the room and they'll come back begging for more, lol! Even though you can smack Bolo around, though, wouldn't you agree that doing whatever it is that will cause her to start showing signs of stress and discomfort isn't something you should be doing when you train her? And also, different emotional intonation will cause your dog to take things in different ways. I think part of the reason for the OP was to try to get people to leave anger and frustration out of it when training dogs.

BTW I believe that we can definitely get an idea of how our dogs interpret various stimuli by observing how they react and if they are showing signs of stress and displaying appeasement behaviors. So I think it's not too far off to say we can tell how a dog would perceive a specific scenario.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> PRIMATES have linear hierarchies. dogs really dont. the reality is that the two versions, primate and canine..they sorta mush together and the resultant organization in an individual group will fall somewhere on a very wriggly spectrum. its why theres a lot of initial issues, figuring out how much linear and how much nonlinear social organization will get thrown into the mix.


Primates may or may not have linear hierarchies. (We used to say that wolves and dogs do, and more recent information changes that viewpoint frequently.) I read one article (do not remember where to find it) that in chimps or gorillas, the females only allow the dominant male to think he's in charge. If they withdraw their support, he's pretty much sunk. Humans certainly don't have a linear hierarchy. Though most of us are polite to police officers if we don't want a ticket. I certainly have a lot of non-linear relationships with people. It was intersting when my day boss was in my puppy class. At any rate, I thought the original post was more about human perspective than canine perspective.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Nargle said:


> People can relate better when they try to put themselves in their dog's shoes ......


Well, considering that dogs don't wear shoes, ... isn't THAT anthropomorphising .. just a wee tiny teency l'il bit ?

J/K .. lol


----------



## Irishman (May 13, 2011)

Thanks for all the positive replies!



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> unlike. very not the way to go. humans really need to get over themselves.
> 
> http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html


I think you misunderstand my meaning of dominance in the structure of a social hierarchy. I'm not trying to equate the studies on wolf behaviors to dogs. Dominance and domination are not synonymous. Take for instance a situation in which someone comes to visit your home. One of my cousins is flying out to stay for three weeks as an example. While here, I would be in a dominant social position to her, because this is my house and she is a guest. It doesn't mean that I'm her boss or will "lord over her", but it does mean that I can expect a bit of deference, such as understanding what to do around my dogs, not inviting strangers over, not trashing my house, etc. Tonight I'm going over to a friend's house for a July 4th party for a few hours, and then I'll accept the less dominant role, as I'm not about to be so rude as to go to someone's house and tell them how to run it. 

Your boss at work is higher in the social dominance structure than you are, but only in the context of your work environment. So, we have nested social hierarchies that have greater dominance nearer to the top, but this does not mean that it is based on violence or bullying behaviors. If not for these social hierarchies, society would largely be unable to operate without violence. As I understand it, in a properly established dominance society in your house, your dogs know that you are higher than they are, and that your kids (hopefully) are lower than the parents. This is why sometimes dogs will listen to parents but not children, as the line isn't always clear to them. The kids don't have to "show them who's boss", but only take some time to play with and train the dogs, and the dogs will naturally assign them social ranks and be happy with it (mostly). 

This is why it's so dangerous to mention "dominance" to most people training dogs. I *am *dominant to my dogs, but this is because they respect and love me, not due to fear and coercion. I train my dogs with positive reinforcement, and use negative punishment, sparingly, such as ignoring my dogs when they jump on me. I understand the true idea behind dominance as it relates to a stable society in any species. Just think which boss you work harder for - is it the one that threatens to fire you for any little infraction, or the one that praises you, helps you work through difficult tasks, and rewards you when you've done something above and beyond? There's a dominance structure in that latter example, and it's a good one.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i definately read the whole thing and im definately disagreeing with the whole thing.
> 
> firstly its full of so much anthropomorphizing that its almost laughable. secondly, while i appreciate that he is saying "hey guys dont beat your dog", its very bad to push so much with telling us how dogs see scenarios. he cant know that the way he brings it across and people will take it as ironclad. its not.
> 
> ...


You are largely misunderstanding what I wrote. It is true that I was anthropomorphizing, and yet there are distinct similarities in the way dogs and humans relate to adverse conditions. If a human child was raised by violent alcoholics, then they have been subjected to seemingly random violence most of their lives. As an adult, the chances that they will relate well to other people or be emotionally stable is very slight, without extensive work. A dog does not possess linear memory and will view punishments by their humans mostly as random violence, not connected to the deed which upset the human. Further, a dog will often offer submissive calming signals, which is meant to defuse the situation. The human most often misinterprets this as guilt, and reacts with even more anger. This sets in motion a cycle of confusion and fear for the dog. 

The fact that you slap your dog hard a lot isn't something to brag about. Even Pits, who are extremely tough, don't need to be struck hard to play with them. If your dog likes it, then I'm glad for her, since you seem so certain of your position that you'd be unlikely to change. But the point I was making wasn't about how hard you slap your dog during play, but that the introduction of anger and violence into the establishment of a true social order isn't good. I cannot help but think that you are being needlessly argumentative over an analogy that you're interpreting as a direct metaphor. Oh, and I know that they see me as in a social position higher than theirs, because they listen to what I say and follow my directions. I am also certain that they see me as a partner, not a king or something. As for one of the earlier slave comments, I could in turn say that my boss is only a slave that provides me money, but I perform a function that earns this money. This is also not a direct metaphor, as I don't fail to feed my dogs if they misbehave, but then again, even if I miss a few days of work I still have a job, so it's pretty close.



DeeSpark said:


> I really like this, really drives the message across. Do you mind if I link this in my blog about my dogs?


Please feel free to link to this post anywhere you like.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

Irishman, this ^^^ is brilliant, couldn't have said it better myself & it explains perfectly my relationship with my own dogs & Perfectly explains how 'dominance' should be executed.


----------



## Irishman (May 13, 2011)

Thank you! I was hoping I got the wording right.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Irishman said:


> It doesn't mean that I'm her boss or will "lord over her", but it does mean that I can expect a bit of deference, such as understanding what to do around my dogs, not inviting strangers over, not trashing my house, etc.


Deference doesn't mean dominance. 

Deference is simply not trying to take charge of a situation. I can defer to you, but not recognize you as my boss. You have no position of hierarchy over me, but I won't try to take over whatever you're doing. You're talking to someone, I wait and don't interrupt. I'm showing deference, you are not dominant over me. To me, they are not one and the same.




Irishman said:


> As I understand it, in a properly established dominance society in your house, your dogs know that you are higher than they are.


How do we know dogs even think this way? Wally might see me as an equal partner working together to achieve a goal we both want. I want him to sit and he wants to go out - he sits so that I can open the door. 

How do you know it's because I'm dominant over Wally that he sits? How do you know Wally isn't 'telling' me to open the door because he wants to go out, and he knows this behavior has caused the door to open in the past, so he tries it again? I.e. the pattern of behavior->consequence leads to him performing the behavior in the last way that got him a wanted consequence?

Same thing for when we're out and about. He wants to keep walking so he sits in "finish" position to me. I didn't tell him to, heck, I wasn't even necessarily looking at him or signalling him. He just does it - pokes my leg and sits beside me. Is he doing that because I'm "dominant" over him or because the last 1783 times he did it, we started walking again?



Irishman said:


> This is why sometimes dogs will listen to parents but not children, as the line isn't always clear to them. The kids don't have to "show them who's boss", but only take some time to play with and train the dogs, and the dogs will naturally assign them social ranks and be happy with it (mostly).


Dogs will listen to different people based not only on dominance but because it's also a different context. It doesn't necessary have to do with dominance, but if my mom's voice and manner are different than mine, Wally might not know (literally) how to interpret the signal. It doesn't mean Wally is trying to "dominate" her.




Irishman said:


> This is why it's so dangerous to mention "dominance" to most people training dogs. I *am *dominant to my dogs, but this is because they respect and love me, not due to fear and coercion.


They like working with you, so they do. They have made the choice, imo. You have made that choice of working with you very attractive (you mention you use +R and you clearly respect dogs) so, yeah, they are going to work with you. I don't believe it's because they think "he's dominant so I better do what he says." It's more like "wow, doing that stuff gets me good stuff, so I'm going to stick around and see what else he wants!"

I believe the dog makes the choice. After all, if the dog DOESN'T want to work with us - saying that you're higher up...well...the dog obviously doesn't see it that way!



Irishman said:


> A dog does not possess linear memory and will view punishments by their humans mostly as random violence, not connected to the deed which upset the human.


Not totally true.

If Wally does something and I get mad, he will connect what he was doing with the action, IF I time my reaction to the behavior, ideally just before he's going to do it, but at least while it's in progress.

That's why timing is important. No, he won't remember what he did 3 hours ago and that's what's making me mad. That would seem random to him, or be connect to what is happening currently, but he CAN make a connection between the two. That's how punishment works after all. The behavior is connected to the punishment (-P or +P) and the behavior reduces in frequency.



Irishman said:


> Further, a dog will often offer submissive calming signals, which is meant to defuse the situation. The human most often misinterprets this as guilt, and reacts with even more anger. This sets in motion a cycle of confusion and fear for the dog.


This has nothing to do with dominance, imo. This is just humans sucking at understanding canine language. 



Irishman said:


> The fact that you slap your dog hard a lot isn't something to brag about. Even Pits, who are extremely tough, don't need to be struck hard to play with them. If your dog likes it, then I'm glad for her, since you seem so certain of your position that you'd be unlikely to change.


Play can be physical. Watch two dogs in physical play. It looks "violent". When I play physical with Wally, he's pawing and clawing and grabbing and mouthing and play growling while bowing, etc. 




Irishman said:


> Oh, and I know that they see me as in a social position higher than theirs, because they listen to what I say and follow my directions. I am also certain that they see me as a partner, not a king or something.


Higher social position, or because performing certain behaviors after detecting certain signals leads to rewards so the next time you give that signal, he performs that behavior?


----------



## Irishman (May 13, 2011)

Mostly I see what you've posted as agreeing with my points, but disagreeing with the terminology. "Deference doesn't mean dominance" - this is true, else wise they'd be the same word. The definition of dominance is: dominant position especially in a social hierarchy. Everyone would probably agree that the President of the United States has a more dominant social position than I do, but this doesn't make him my direct boss, or give him the right to lord over me in ways that aren't defined in his office. I am dominant to my dogs. More than a boss, I'm more like a parent in that they depend on me for basic survival. This doesn't give me the position of King. Honestly, being in the dominant social position tacks on just as many responsibilities as it gives choices. I am the one responsible for their health and happiness throughout their lives, and I take that position very seriously. It also puts me in a position to make decisions for them. I decided to get my first two males fixed (third soon to follow). I made the decision for them to get their reproductive organs altered. If that isn't a dominant position, I can't imagine what is. 

The points that you brought up about correlation to cause of human anger are a matter of semantics. A dog has a linear memory of approximately 3 seconds, unless the research I've read is incorrect. After that, you're blowing smoke. Even if you time it exactly correctly, the chance that they'll correctly interpret exactly what you're mad at is minimal, which is why I don't advocate punishing dogs. It generally just isn't effective, and is likely to cause stress in your relationship. 

The points about how they choose to do what I want because I've made that attractive for them are 100% correct. This is precisely what I intended, but it does not detract from the fact that I am now in a dominant position. Most leaders that have ever lived have done the same thing, which is to offer those they wish to lead something they really want, and I truly believe this is the way to go. Those that follow from free choice are always preferable to those that follow from fear. But no matter why it is they've chosen to follow, those that follow are placing themselves in a less dominant position to someone that leads. However, for the sake of not getting into an endless debate over semantics, just think of it in terms of a higher social position. 

That bit about calming signals is also 100% correct. It is simply a human misinterpreting the body language a dog is using to calm them down. This generally leads to the inappropriate use of force to discipline the dog, however, so I thought it highly relevant.



KBLover said:


> Dogs will listen to different people based not only on dominance but because it's also a different context. It doesn't necessary have to do with dominance, but if my mom's voice and manner are different than mine, Wally might not know (literally) how to interpret the signal. It doesn't mean Wally is trying to "dominate" her.


I have stated over and over that 'dominance' does NOT equate to 'dominating'. It merely signifies a higher social standing, as you would expect in various settings. It is also highly situational. If I'm at a public dinner being hosted by someone else, I would generally not get up, grab a mic and start making announcements. This is because I accept a lower social position in the context of this one dinner than that of the person hosting it. That's not because they've 'dominated me'. It's because it's their party and I have good manners. I don't 'dominate' my dogs - I lead them. I don't believe in alpha rolls or other domination nonsense. The only time I have my dogs on their backs is during a vigorous belly-rub. My approach to training and our relationship is why they love their training so much. It's fun for them. And because it's fun, and the things I ask them to do are rewarded, they tend to want to do them. It's their choice. Even a dog that's been trained using harsh correction methods always has a choice in what they do, but with them, if they break from the brittle mold they've been forced into, the probability of violence is high.



KBLover said:


> The behavior is connected to the punishment (-P or +P) and the behavior reduces in frequency."


This bit I thought somewhat disturbing. There are endless studies that show punishment is not a reliable form of behavior modification. If I hit my dog or otherwise punish him for something he's done, a LOT of variables have to fall into place for this to even be partially effective. By teaching him alternate behaviors instead, I can also avoid the inevitable psychological trauma that follows punishment-based training.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I think sometimes us positive reinforcement type trainers get way too reactive about the term "dominance." It's as if we are at the opposite end of the pendulum and may be just as blind as the people who think dogs can't go out the door first, or you have to spit on their food to let them know that the "Alpha" got there first. In all social species it is a consideration. Dogs are social. So are we. In general dominance/social status is a matter of controlling important resources. That would be food, sex, etc. Dominance is not a definition of a being, it's a defintion of a situation.

We humans can certainly control those things. And dogs can certainly "get" that concept. We use those concepts when we desire to train. It's our responsibility to use this concept responsibly, intelligently and humanely, since we are the ones who are supposedly doing the "training." My dogs train me too, though. And they are far more artful than I am.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Irishman said:


> This bit I thought somewhat disturbing. There are endless studies that show punishment is not a reliable form of behavior modification. If I hit my dog or otherwise punish him for something he's done, a LOT of variables have to fall into place for this to even be partially effective. By teaching him alternate behaviors instead, I can also avoid the inevitable psychological trauma that follows punishment-based training.



Who says punishment has to be hitting? To me, that's like saying rewards always have to be food. I think that's mildly disturbing that all punishment has to come back to violence?

Punishment = consequence that the dog doesn't like.

Taking away something the dog is enjoying is punishment. Negative punishment in this case. Has nothing to do with hitting. Withdrawing the chance for the dog to do something he'd like to do. Negative Punishment. Not a finger was laid on him - yet his behavior WILL change if he wanted to do that thing you took away. 

I use negative punishment all the time. Wally's behavior has change dramatically over the years.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Irishman said:


> This bit I thought somewhat disturbing. There are endless studies that show punishment is not a reliable form of behavior modification. If I hit my dog or otherwise punish him for something he's done, a LOT of variables have to fall into place for this to even be partially effective. By teaching him alternate behaviors instead, I can also avoid the inevitable psychological trauma that follows punishment-based training.


You do know the Operant Conditioning definition of punishment, right?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> My dogs train me too, though. And they are far more artful than I am.


Which is why I don't think it needs to be much of a consideration.

Training is communication and working together. Sometimes, that does mean taking the dog's lead or at least keying of his behavior instead of always the dog reacting to your signals.

Just my view. Maybe I'm wrong *shrug*


----------



## Irishman (May 13, 2011)

KBLover, you're correct and I apologize. I was misreading your post regarding consequences. Negative punishment is something I use regularly as well. It was pretty late when I was writing my last post.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jul 6, 2011)

I think a lot of this depends on the point of view we are writing from. In science, dominance/social status is intra-species specific. Whilst wolves/dogs may understand their roles in a family unit, and show deference to certain members, there is nothing to prove that dogs also see us as members in a hierarchy. Irishman, I like your posts but do think you lack information on how dogs see us. In my opinion, it's impossible for us to be seen as a member in a hierarchy with our dogs because we lack the communicative abilities to operate in one! Groups of dogs have communicative signals that are used between themselves, some signals and behaviour sets being used for specific individuals only- but humans and dogs? There's not really many we can pull off- and even those won't be very accurate.

If you want to offer a description of your relationship with your dogs, you do hold a more dominant position in your family unit- but is a sticky view (obviously) as fact and fiction can intertwine. Whilst you may objectively describe it as that way, it's another thing to suggest that your dogs see it as so. Dominance is a way of describing roles in a relationship- I don't think dogs spend much time objectively describing their relationships with humans (whilst humans spend a lot of time doing so!). I rather think that dogs have been affected by domestication not to operate in group hierarchies, and the emphasis is much more on individual relationships and 'friendships' if you will. 

Nice posts all the same from both you and KBLover.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Here are some thoughts:
- I like the original post. When I first read it, I took it as an analogy, "translating" the way some people treat their dogs into terms they could understand. Know what I mean? Because I do know some people would never dream of treating their children as harshly as they treat their dogs, but they may not realize how detrimental such harsh treatment can be until they have it put in perspective for them, which is what I think the Irishman originally did.
- THEN, I looked more closely about the "dominance" talk at the end, and the generalizing about how dogs see us. That stuff, I don't totally agree with and it seemed a bit jumbly to me.

For me, it would have been more powerful and less jumbled up to have the "scenario" with the "child" and leave it at that, but that's just me.

As for the dominance vs. dominating, and dominance vs. defering, it's just terminology that can tend to mean different things to different people. There is scientific research on how dogs communicate, yes. But, can we really know how dogs PERCEIVE us, or what they think about us in different situations?

There have been plenty of discussions on DF about how people see themselves: pack leaders, boss, parent, trainer, partner, dominant leader, benevolent leader, I could go on. And, that's really about how WE see OURSELVES. NOT how the dogs see us. When some people label themselves in terms of their relationships to their dogs, it's dependant on what philosophies and methodologies they agree with and use. Some people say they're dominant over their dogs, and they honestly mean that they are physical with their dogs and use physical punishment, etc. Others may say they're dominant over their dogs, but they DON'T use physical punishment, and just feel that their dogs act in a way that leads them to infer that their dogs SEE them that way. 

To me, it can vary so much based on one's own perception of the definition of these terms. Of course, definitions do change and vary over time, with "new" or more "modern" twists on terms. And, everyone seems to add their own "spin" based on their background and knowledge.

I will admit to being somewhat "reactive" to the terms dominance/dominating, mostly because people who do not know much about caring for or training dogs can often misinterpret the meanings. To many people, being dominant means alpha rolling and pinning dogs to the ground, yelling, hitting, etc. But, really, the definition of being dominant doesn't necessarily have to include ANY of those things. My problem with it is, I have seen many posts by "newbies" who may not know much about dogs, who have been told they need to be "dominant" over their dog and they think that means the rolling and pinning, and hitting, etc.

Words on a forum can be interpreted differently.....


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

doxiemommy said:


> There have been plenty of discussions on DF about how people see themselves: pack leaders, boss, parent, trainer, partner, dominant leader, benevolent leader, I could go on. And, that's really about how WE see OURSELVES. NOT how the dogs see us.


I basically agree with this.

I don't see myself as Wally's leader. I see myself is delivering consequences to his actions. He's learning what brings which on his own and making the connections. 

I would agree that this line of thinking is heavily influenced by both my if-I-can-get-away-with-it exclusive use of shaping to capture behaviors/get him to create more uses to behaviors and chains as well as my general hands-off live-and-let-live type personality. 

I try not to even give cues anymore. I want him to understand what to do by the situation and environment around him. Certainly, all of this kind of working/training with him, some from necessity given _his_ personality, definitely makes dominance/I lead type philosophies rub me the wrong way.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> I basically agree with this.
> 
> I don't see myself as Wally's leader. I see myself is delivering consequences to his actions. He's learning what brings which on his own and making the connections.
> 
> ...


I sometimes am my dogs' leader, when it comes to manners and safety, and sometimes they take the lead, for instance when they are using their nose or figuring out how to move livestock in a certain direction. In freestyle we are pretty equal partners - they make up most of their own moves, and I suggest when they should do them.

Admittedly, a lot of the behaviors we've worked on are now defaults (remembering to keep the leash loose, sitting to be petted, checking in at doorways) and I don't need a cue. But I don't understand the idea of "trying not to give cues anymore." Cues are, after all, just communication. Trained correctly, they are a tertiary reinforcer, so it's not like you're issuing a command or something. Cues are a good thing. My dogs have ways of letting me know what they want. And I have ways of letting them know what I want (and sometimes I DO want something very specific).


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> Admittedly, a lot of the behaviors we've worked on are now defaults (remembering to keep the leash loose, sitting to be petted, checking in at doorways) and I don't need a cue. But I don't understand the idea of "trying not to give cues anymore." Cues are, after all, just communication. Trained correctly, they are a tertiary reinforcer, so it's not like you're issuing a command or something. Cues are a good thing. My dogs have ways of letting me know what they want. And I have ways of letting them know what I want (and sometimes I DO want something very specific).


Has nothing to do with giving commands. I want Wally to understand and use the environment. 

It's more like making him an independent thinker more than "what should I do here?" There are some tasks/puzzles that waiting for me to tell him what to do next will make him inefficent/not as good. For example, there was one day where I wanted him to push the big blue exercise ball out the door. The faster he learns "ball on floor + open door = I push ball out door" the better and more...I don't know the word..."oomphful" he'll do it.

Also, the more he can cue off the environment (and like you said, the cue can be a reinforcer) the less he will fear the environment. Instead, he'll read it, look for the cues (and thus get tertiary reinforcement) and then go for it.

I'll answer "what should I do here?" to teach him, and then I want him to understand that and when it happens again, to know what to do. I'll cue only when I want something different than the usual, or if the situation is super ambiguous.

It has worked with a lot of his residual fears - like his fear over unknown objects. When "touch" become default to the "cue" of "I haven't seen that before" then he stopped fearing unknown objects. When I cued "touch" (and I didn't do it mean/evil/booming voice, etc) he'd be like..."I don't know about that..." but when I just put the thing in front of him, and marked/rewarded when he touched it - he did it like it was nothing. To me, that opened my eyes to a new way he can learn in general, or at least to attempt it.

I'm as much about discovering individual ways he can learn and more ways for me to reach his mind as I am about anything else.

The way you describe working freestyle is how I would do it and try to do most of my interaction with him. Wally's already shown he can come up with a couple of his own movement/behaviors. I haven't put a name to any of them (a cue) like the nose touch/sit finish one he always does outside, but that's where using the environment/situation thinking comes in for him. We aren't walking, he wants to start, so he does that. We start. You probably could say "I lead" because I don't start until he does it, but he came up with that behavior - so I'd say equal like you describe your freestyle training.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> Has nothing to do with giving commands. I want Wally to understand and use the environment.
> 
> It's more like making him an independent thinker more than "what should I do here?" There are some tasks/puzzles that waiting for me to tell him what to do next will make him inefficent/not as good. For example, there was one day where I wanted him to push the big blue exercise ball out the door. The faster he learns "ball on floor + open door = I push ball out door" the better and more...I don't know the word..."oomphful" he'll do it.
> 
> ...


In your situation, that makes sense. I don't have much problem with my dogs being "independent thinkers" and cuing behaviors doesn't inhibit them in any way. I NEVER cue a dog to touch a "scary" object. I think that always needs to be completely voluntary. But, a wave instead of a spin? THAT'S cued. A recall off a bunny? THAT's cued.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Pawzk9 said:


> In your situation, that makes sense. I don't have much problem with my dogs being "independent thinkers" and cuing behaviors doesn't inhibit them in any way. I NEVER cue a dog to touch a "scary" object. I think that always needs to be completely voluntary. But, a wave instead of a spin? THAT'S cued. A recall off a bunny? THAT's cued.


Yeah, I can understand that.

I would cue the recall (since he's not likely to stop the chase on his own...though sometimes he has if I'm not going with him) and the wave vs spin, especially if I can't create a situation where I always would want a wave or a spin, which is highly likely 

Wally seems like something of a mish-mash of traits that I think it's mixed up how I look at things, and it may make sense to no one but me and him sometimes


----------



## Irishman (May 13, 2011)

doxiemommy said:


> Here are some thoughts:
> - I like the original post. When I first read it, I took it as an analogy, "translating" the way some people treat their dogs into terms they could understand. Know what I mean? Because I do know some people would never dream of treating their children as harshly as they treat their dogs, but they may not realize how detrimental such harsh treatment can be until they have it put in perspective for them, which is what I think the Irishman originally did.
> - THEN, I looked more closely about the "dominance" talk at the end, and the generalizing about how dogs see us. That stuff, I don't totally agree with and it seemed a bit jumbly to me.
> 
> ...


Let's just put it in terms of gentle, loving treatment and benevolent leadership, then. Honestly, the semantic argument over dominance and domination wasn't what I intended when writing the original post. I think of dogs much like I think of children. They're NOT human children as they think differently, but they depend on us and trust us with perhaps even more intensity than a human child does. In some situations the dogs can be said to lead the humans, such as when they go to the door and scratch, bark, or ring a bell, and we let them out to do their business. In others we lead, but in general I see it as a partnership, and I think that the discussion somewhat obfuscated that. I still maintain that we have a higher social position in the partnership, if nothing else because we control access to their resources. My hope was that people pulling their hair out in frustration would read this post, think of it in a context that makes sense to them, and give serious thought to how they treat their dogs. I think a lot of well-meaning people end up at the end of their rope because they don't understand basic things about their dogs, and act without considering the long-term consequences. I've been there. It wasn't until I did quite a bit of research and practice that I came to understand how patience, love, and some knowledge can train nearly any dog.

One further thing about the whole "pack leader" idea. I don't see a pack leader, head of the family, or literal Head of the State as some kind of absolute ruler. In fact, the leader of any group is owned by that group. They are bound by responsibilities they wouldn't have if they were mid-level instead of at the top. When you break it all down, the leader serves his group, not the other way around (though it might seem that way with abusive rulers).


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

My response wasn't meant as a criticism, really, I'm sorry if it sounded that way. I agree with your original premise, and giving people a way to look at the interactions with their dogs in a new light (the child analogy). I think there are so many people that treat their dogs too harshly for the wrong reasons, and your analogy may be what it takes to make some people take a second look at how they treat their dogs.

As for the dominance stuff, I think so many terms can be similar; everything is not necessarily cut and dry. What one person considers dominant may not be offensive to me, but someone else's version of dominance may be highly offensive. 

In "The Other End of the Leash" there is a chapter spelling out the differences and similarities between social status, dominance, and aggression. It really helped me to understand those terms in relation to dog ownership.


----------



## Irishman (May 13, 2011)

I wasn't offended. In fact, reading that very book was what led me to make this post. I already understood a lot of the differences in which we express things from the way dogs do it, but that book made it much more clear. I don't think a human has to lead a dog in all things. Even with a clearly defined command hierarchy, such as in the military, top ranks still make decisions based on information they get from their subordinates. In this they can be said to be following instructions of those they command. I don't see how any social system can work effectively any other way. Take for instance North Korea, where the government has the most absolute control of its citizens of all nations on the planet. They don't accept wisdom or advice from those under the top command. They just hand out rules and information and expect that to be taken as absolute. This is why the nation has suffered horrific starvation and why its citizens are so oppressed. When my dogs signal me in some way, provided it isn't obnoxious, they can expect me to respond in an expected manner, so they are cuing my behavior. I have no problem stroking my dog when they press into my leg or throwing a ball when they bring it to me. I don't run to let them out of their crates when they bark, of course, but for good behaviors I'm happy to oblige.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Irishman said:


> I wasn't offended. In fact, reading that very book was what led me to make this post. I already understood a lot of the differences in which we express things from the way dogs do it, but that book made it much more clear. I don't think a human has to lead a dog in all things. Even with a clearly defined command hierarchy, such as in the military, top ranks still make decisions based on information they get from their subordinates. In this they can be said to be following instructions of those they command. I don't see how any social system can work effectively any other way. Take for instance North Korea, where the government has the most absolute control of its citizens of all nations on the planet. They don't accept wisdom or advice from those under the top command. They just hand out rules and information and expect that to be taken as absolute. This is why the nation has suffered horrific starvation and why its citizens are so oppressed. When my dogs signal me in some way, provided it isn't obnoxious, they can expect me to respond in an expected manner, so they are cuing my behavior. I have no problem stroking my dog when they press into my leg or throwing a ball when they bring it to me. I don't run to let them out of their crates when they bark, of course, but for good behaviors I'm happy to oblige.


It's this kind of thinking that makes me think all the dominance stuff, regardless of how it is, is unnecessary. You and your dog have a communication system by which the two of you can relate and work together. Does it really matter who's higher up in social status?

That's why I feel that putting all dominance stuff aside (except for perhaps multi-dog homes and understanding how the dogs are relating to each other) for training and communication purposes is best and just focus on establishing a humane avenue for mutual communication and cooperation and helping people understand ways to "explain" things to the dog and how to develop/refine behaviors. With that, you can train, have fun, and develop a trusting relationship. Once you have that - nothing else ends up mattering, imo.

I guess my question is: "At the end of the day, how does dominance help me training my dog better?" To me, it doesn't since I don't even think about when I'm trying to get Wally to understand what a "ball" is or what blue looks like. Utilizing operant conditioning, easily can see how that could help, but knowing I'm higher up than him? I can picture Wally saying "that's fine, but I still don't know what this 'azul' you keep talking about is!"


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

I agree with KBLover's analysis of your situation; sounds like a great relationship, working together, etc. I also agree with something Irishman said earlier about basically being higher up, as far as status, since you hold the resources. But, I'd call that a higher status, not more dominant, since you're not using resources to be dominant. Rather, you hold the resources, and provide them as needed. So, you have a higher status because you have the good stuff.


----------



## Irishman (May 13, 2011)

I can agree with that. I certainly don't think "dominance" when I'm thinking about my dogs. For instance, my dogs often sleep in bed with me, or at least spend time on the bed before moving to preferred locations (one has claimed the couch). I don't care who is going through a doorway first, unless they're overly excited. When I give a command and one of my dogs doesn't listen, I don't "correct" them. I hate that stuff. I just think about how I might have communicated my request incorrectly, or if the context in which I gave it wasn't ideal. My dogs are rather good at following commands, but they're really less "commands" than they are requests, and I don't fool myself otherwise. It is a partnership, and really the whole premise of this post was just that people should think of the feelings of their dog(s) prior to taking rash action.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

doxiemommy said:


> ...I'd call that a higher status, not more dominant, since you're not using resources to be dominant. Rather, you hold the resources, and provide them as needed. So, you have a higher status because you have the good stuff.


I often feel lower in status because sometimes it takes work to maintain 'their' "good stuff".


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I often feel lower in status because sometimes it takes work to maintain 'their' "good stuff".


Yeah, and half the time I feel like I'm as much Wally's play thing as he is my partner lol

"How I can screw with his head today?" Wally's version of humor, I'm starting to think.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

my point..

not everyone subscribes to the pack leader thing. those other views should be given equal time. its extremely irritatung when they are not. i do not care for the term and it is completely inapplicable to how i deal with dogs and to how many others deal with dogs. 

i look at dogs as autonomous domestic carnivores living in my house. my version of training is an attempt to communixate. my dog's version of training me is the same thing. we are equals within the household. you may like to be a "benevolent leader"....but not everyone works that way.


----------



## Irishman (May 13, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> my point..
> 
> not everyone subscribes to the pack leader thing. those other views should be given equal time. its extremely irritatung when they are not. i do not care for the term and it is completely inapplicable to how i deal with dogs and to how many others deal with dogs.
> 
> i look at dogs as autonomous domestic carnivores living in my house. my version of training is an attempt to communixate. my dog's version of training me is the same thing. we are equals within the household. you may like to be a "benevolent leader"....but not everyone works that way.


Semantics are only semantics. Dominance in the OP here was only meant as a position of a social hierarchy, and when that was taken exception to about 20 too many times, I didn't see the harm in changing the wording. I don't see that we are equals in the household, as I pay for the house and provide the food. My kids aren't on equal footing either, or they'd be telling me how to run my house. 

While I'm sure it would be fun to run with this and declare that if I want to try to control everyone... blah, blah, blah - that's not how I roll. My kids don't have strict rules, I'm not a dictatorial dad, and I listen if they have a problem with the way things are going. My dogs aren't slaves, and I'm polite to them as well. Their feelings are important to me, as is their happiness. But just as I said when making the comparison of people going to a friend's house, in various contexts a social dynamic shifts so that some people are higher than others, even if that 'higher' status only means that you're extra careful with their belongings while visiting their house. This in no way means that they are my boss while I'm over their, but normal social conventions yield a certain amount of courtesy given to your host. This is what I meant throughout this thread. The contextual social conventions of who holds the higher position at any moment prevent conflict and allow for the seamless operation (in a perfect world) of a social dynamic. I don't go to work and try to countermand my boss's instructions to my teammates, for instance. A team couldn't operate well in such a circumstance. When my wife wants to move furniture around or make changes to our house, she generally holds the higher position, because I'm terrible at that kind of thing. 

I'm not saying that your vision of equality is incorrect, but that I don't see it that way. Like a lot of things, it may be that we're saying much the same things, but using a different angle of approach.


----------



## guy2932 (Jul 12, 2011)

Hi all, I love to see all these debates, it can only lead to more educated dog owners in the long run. It does seem to me that a lot of the issues come down to terminology and understanding of some words that have been misused in the past. My feeling is that the definitions of punishment, reinforcement etc a la operant conditioning seem to be fairly universally accepted by most in the know. A lot of issues seem to arise over the use of the words dominance/submission and aggression. My understanding is that the model put forward by Konrad Lorenz as to aggression is generally accepted as the best model. Dominance and submission are social aggression and social fear - mechanisms for overcoming true aggression in social animals. Roger Abrantes makes it easy to understand in 'The evolution of canine social behaviour'. I would be interested to see what others think especially those who may be some what more academic than myself.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jul 6, 2011)

Has anyone read Semyonova's (2003) 'The Social Organisation of the Domestic Dog'? If not, I would recommend reading at least some of it (even the first 10 pages):
http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html

It offers some great reasons why the concepts on dominance and submission are flawed in describing behaviour, and how such terms can severely inhibit research and scientists' observations. Indeed, that is all we can do- observe. So applying these terms to behaviours suggests certain functions of behaviour, which is perhaps grossly anthropomorphic. 

Drews (1993) also has a good overview of dominance in general- he outlines 13 separate descriptions nonetheless! Which is obviously unhelpful to its use in ethology. However, the first definition still applies to Drews, which is: _Dominance is an attribute of the pattern of repeated, agonistic interactions
between two individuals, characterized by a consistent outcome in favour of the same dyad member and a default yielding response of its opponent rather than escalation. The status of the consistent winner is dominant and that of the loser subordinate._

Note that dominance is not a personality trait and relies on the form of a consistent relationship between individuals.

A note about resources: again, we can never be sure how resources are seen in the eyes of other people and most certainly other animals. I have resources that mean more to you, and you have those that mean a lot more to you then me, for example. Why should we under-estimate animals' preferences and survival patterns by limiting their preferences for resources. This is where the Resource Holding Potential (discussed by Bradshaw et al. 2009) comes in handy. Although it uses the term resource still, it highlights the importance of the individual's need for it, and assumes that if an animal 'wins' a resource over another, it does not necessarily mean it is anything to do with status or rank, but to do with who wanted it more and who values that resource more. I will defer to someone on the treadmill perhaps because they are an Olympic athlete, but also perhaps because I've been on for 20 minutes and very tired! 

Anyway, some non-descript rambling over


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Rottiefan, I believe Zim sited that book or a website reffering to it. I believe it would make a pretty interesting read, but haven gottento it yet. As far as terminology, I prefer to say I'm my dogs leader, I give training and guidance on how to behave in a given situation, I try to instill confidence so the dog doesn't feel the need to become combative and looks to me when faced with a new situation instead of just reacting. It's a beautiful thing to see my reactive dog stop and think about something instead of just charging ahead in a panic.


----------



## doxiemommy (Dec 18, 2009)

Irishman said:


> I can agree with that. I certainly don't think "dominance" when I'm thinking about my dogs. For instance, my dogs often sleep in bed with me, or at least spend time on the bed before moving to preferred locations (one has claimed the couch). I don't care who is going through a doorway first, unless they're overly excited. When I give a command and one of my dogs doesn't listen, I don't "correct" them. I hate that stuff. I just think about how I might have communicated my request incorrectly, or if the context in which I gave it wasn't ideal. My dogs are rather good at following commands, but they're really less "commands" than they are requests, and I don't fool myself otherwise. It is a partnership, and really the whole premise of this post was just that people should think of the feelings of their dog(s) prior to taking rash action.


I think we have a lot in common, actually, because that's the way I look at it, too, for the most part! 



Curbside Prophet said:


> I often feel lower in status because sometimes it takes work to maintain 'their' "good stuff".


Yes, that's true!  It can be lots of work to give them what they need/want!  
Lots of times I see similarities in being a teacher (like I am) and being a dog owner. There's a bunch of work that goes on first before you interact with kids or dogs, to put everything together in the end!


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

Irishman said:


> My dogs are rather good at following commands, but they're really less "commands" than they are requests, and I don't fool myself otherwise. It is a partnership, and really the whole premise of this post was just that people should think of the feelings of their dog(s) prior to taking rash action.


My current dogs have never heard a command. (and no, it's not just semantics)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Rottiefan said:


> Although it uses the term resource still, it highlights the importance of the individual's need for it, and assumes that if an animal 'wins' a resource over another, it does not necessarily mean it is anything to do with status or rank, but to do with who wanted it more and who values that resource more. I will defer to someone on the treadmill perhaps because they are an Olympic athlete, but also perhaps because I've been on for 20 minutes and very tired!


I like this, especially if behavior can be a "resource" (which I think it can be if you want to look at it as a "service" especially something like closing the door for me, carrying an object for me, etc).

I certainly don't really care about the dog treat - he certainly does. He may or may not care about doing whatever (debatable, perhaps) but I certainly do. He can trade the behavior (which he may not care about) for the dog treat (which I really don't care about). In the end we both win (I get the behavior, he get's the treat - both things we care about) and aren't really competing - more like negotiating. 

Now, maybe if I eat, say, a piece of deli ham because he made the wrong move during a game - maybe then I'm dominating him *rawr*


----------

