# A tale of chimps, humans, dogs, wolves, and funny science (or claims thereof)



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

The topic of pack behavior and dominance (or alpha) dynamics being debunked came up in another thread (again), and I'd like to take the time to assess the viability of some of the "debunking" claims I keep running across.

First, there's this:


> Even though dogs and wolves are genetically similar, they are separated by at least fifteen thousand years of domestication that has changed them in many important ways. Today’s domestic dog is approximately as genetically similar to the wolf as we humans are to chimpanzees.


ref. link

Let's see... where to start?
1) Are the genetic differences between humans and chimps of the same order of magnitude as those between wolves and dogs? Well, chimps and humans have 96% of their DNA in common (ref link), while dogs and wolves share 98.8% (ref link). Close enough, right? Well, 2.8% may seem insignificant, but it does make the above claim mathematically false. Genetically speaking, 2.8% is quite a canyon to bridge. Which leads us to...

2) Dogs and wolves aren't just genetically similar, they are *the same species (Canis)!* Dogs and wolves can inter-breed, and so can their offspring (one of the tests for species is multi-generational breeding). Can we say the same about chimps and humans? Oops! Nope.

3) As for the 15K years, why not note the evolutionary time distance between chimps and humans? Oh, yeah, because it is several orders of magnitude greater, perhaps? *13 million years*, in case you care to count.

4) Not only can dogs and wolves interbreed, but several dog breeds have been generated by bringing wolves into the blood line. That 15K years just got shorter.

5) Finally, do anthropologists study chimps and other primates to understand human behavior? All the time! (ref link) In particular, check out studies of Bonobos (ref link), who are closer genetically to us (98.7% -- ring a bell?).

Associated with this claim are comments about studies of wolf pack behavior in captivity being irrelevant given that wolves interact differently in the wild. Well, that would pass the giggle test if domesticated dogs also lived in the wild, but alas, by definition, they do not!

All of which goes to say, when debunking something scientifically, it helps immensely to get the science straight.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Dude, just give it up. You're wrong. We've all told you multiple times on multiple threads that you're wrong. The best trainers in the business think you're wrong. The scientist who originally published the study that started all of the alpha/dominance bogus was also wrong, and he thinks you're wrong, too. 

Literally. Reread that. The dude to whose scientific work you're so dearly and tenderly grasping and proliferating *has repeatedly asked his publisher to stop publishing his work because he acknowledges that it's wrong*.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Oh, and you should look into re-titling this thread "A tale of the same discussion we've already had but I'm going to ask again because admitting that I'm uninformed is a foreign concept to me".


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> Dude, just give it up. You're wrong. We've all told you multiple times on multiple threads that you're wrong. The best trainers in the business think you're wrong. The scientist who originally published the study that started all of the alpha/dominance bogus was also wrong, and he thinks you're wrong, too.
> 
> Literally. Reread that. The dude to whose scientific work you're so dearly and tenderly grasping and proliferating *has repeatedly asked his publisher to stop publishing his work because he acknowledges that it's wrong*.


You go girl!


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> Dude, just give it up. You're wrong. We've all told you multiple times on multiple threads that you're wrong. The best trainers in the business think you're wrong. The scientist who originally published the study that started all of the alpha/dominance bogus was also wrong, and he thinks you're wrong, too.
> 
> Literally. Reread that. The dude to whose scientific work you're so dearly and tenderly grasping and proliferating *has repeatedly asked his publisher to stop publishing his work because he acknowledges that it's wrong*.


OK, setting aside you dealt with not a single one of my points, but rather hand-waved the whole thing away, let us now review verbatim David Mech's alleged recantation of the "alpha" concept. While the beginning of this *video* seems to support your point, *please do not miss what he says* at the 1:35 minute mark. And I quote:

"It's appropriate to use the term 'alpha' in an artificial pack where you might put many wolves from _*different assemblages*_ together,... then they would form a pecking order or a _*dominance hierarchy*_, and you could call the top animal at that point the 'alpha.' But that happens rarely in the wild, if ever." (emphasis mine)

*Then*, he goes on to note special cases _in the wild_ where dominance _can and has_ developed. Again, there, you have the 'assemblages' effect he mentions at work.

Now, let's listen for comprehension to what he _actually_ said, and let's think about what happens in a home where you have two or more dogs:

1) First, your home is not the wild!!! Your pooch is not ranging free in the middle of Yosemite or Yellowstone.
2) Second, the dogs, as benign as we may make it, are living _in captivity_.
3) Third, unless you bred all the dogs from a single male/female pair, *BINGO*, most of us have exactly the sort of "assemblages" Dr. Mech refers to.

Now, will someone with a straight face and a modicum of logical wherewithal please explain how this debunks _*anything*_? Or can we use, if nothing else, common sense to admit that, yes, at least when it comes to multiple dogs in a home we could face dominance issues among them?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I fully agree with the thought that one must at least use scientifically viable arguments if they want to debunk something scientifically. After all, if one says that the moon must be 238,900 miles away from Earth, because if it were any closer we could smell the stinky cheese it's made of , they're still wrong even if their basic conclusion (moon is 238,900 miles away) is correct. 

So I'm all for scientific accuracy. Other than that, I'm not sure about the point here?

Oh, nobody is saying that dominance issues _among dogs _ isn't a thing. Dominance in the dog/human relationship isn't really a thing, or at least not a useful thing in dog training.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Willowy said:


> I fully agree with the thought that one must at least use scientifically viable arguments if they want to debunk something scientifically. After all, if one says that the moon must be 238,900 miles away from Earth, because if it were any closer we could smell the stinky cheese it's made of , they're still wrong even if their basic conclusion (moon is 238,900 miles away) is correct.
> 
> So I'm all for scientific accuracy. Other than that, I'm not sure about the point here?
> 
> Oh, nobody is saying that dominance issues _among dogs _ isn't a thing. Dominance in the dog/human relationship isn't really a thing, or at least not a useful thing in dog training.


My point is that there's a great deal of hand-waving and cherry-picking when it comes to "scientifically-based" support for training philosophies. For a case in point, look at my follow-up (above) on Dr. Mech's alleged recantation (another oft-trotted claim) re: dominance/alpha theory.

My other concern is that by throwing dominance theory out altogether (which is what tends to happen in these discussions), people are indeed erroneously discarding dominance (alpha-beta) interactions among dogs. I personally don't see much value in using dominance when it comes to human-dog interactions, not necessarily because I discount it altogether (though I have my doubts), but because there are more effective ways to get along. And I personally don't want to lord it over my dog. I want him or her to be my friend and partner.

Yet, let's understand and appreciate the dynamic, because it is there. For instance, if you're managing aggressive interactions between two of your dogs, what happens when you intervene? Could some of the dominance dynamic between them splash onto you the second you insert your hand into the brawl? What if you side with one dog vs. the other (or your dogs perceive the intervention that way)? It's worth at least being aware of what's going on, all of it, rather than trying to make it all go away with happy positive thoughts.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Oh, nobody is saying that dominance issues _among dogs _ isn't a thing. Dominance in the dog/human relationship isn't really a thing, or at least not a useful thing in dog training.


Yep this, this is the bit you seem to be missing. 

If you want a more accurate analogy (I agree comparing dogs/wolves to humans/chimps is a bit silly), it was once posed to me as taking the behaviour of prison inmates and extrapolating that this is how family units behave. It obviously isn't, and if you tried to use methods of interaction among inmates on families you would get some pretty messed up family dynamics pretty quickly.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> My point is that there's a great deal of hand-waving and cherry-picking when it comes to "scientifically-based" support for training philosophies.


Of course? There's a great deal of hand-waving and cherry-picking when it comes to scientifically-based support for anything. You can find a study to support just about any position. You can always find a whackadoo scientist who believes exactly what you believe, no matter what it is! Want a marine biologist who believes in mermaids? You can find one! 

So, idk. You have to see what the general consensus is, and make up your own mind about who has the best evidence.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

esuastegui said:


> OK, setting aside you dealt with not a single one of my points, but rather hand-waved the whole thing away, let us now review verbatim David Meck's alleged recantation of the "alpha" concept. While the beginning of this *video* seems to support your point, *please do not miss what he says* at the 1:35 minute mark. And I quote:
> 
> "It's appropriate to use the term 'alpha' in an artificial pack where you might put many wolves from _*different assemblages*_ together,... then they would form a pecking order or a _*dominance hierarchy*_, and you could call the top animal at that point the 'alpha.' But that happens rarely in the wild, if ever." (emphasis mine)
> 
> ...


His name is spelled "Mech". If you can't even get his name right, I wonder what other details you're missing in your odd, lengthy and redundant extrapolations.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> His name is spelled "Mech". If you can't even get his name right, I wonder what other details you're missing in your odd, lengthy and redundant extrapolations.


Thanks for pointing that out. Now would you be equally so kind to address the points I made on their merits, rather than, again, offering a non-useful hand-wave?


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> It obviously isn't, and if you tried to use methods of interaction among inmates on families you would get some pretty messed up family dynamics pretty quickly.


From my time in doggy day camp I can tell you the majority of dogs are much too lazy for dominant/submissive behavior or hierarchical pack dynamics to come into play, although a few dogs you could definitely peg as dominant personalities or dominant-but-insecure personalities. A stable dominant dog is the kind that picks a spot to lay and that's her spot. If a ball rolls into her spot, oh well. No other dog will go for the ball. They'll watch from a distance hoping she gets up but she never will. She doesn't even care about the ball. I can go take it away no problem. But that's HER spot. 

An insecure dominant dog is the kind that is cool most of the group until one too many dogs have come in and now they're picking on a puppy just because the puppy won't fight back. 

I would often control my group by simply walking the perimeter as most dogs would then follow me. It was great for getting their attention off of a shy newcomer. Were they following me because I'm being a confident leader and a good "alpha" or were they following me because I'm interesting and fun? No idea. 

I find dominant/submissive useful when I'm pegging the personality of a dog, but it's not useful for every dog. It depends on what I'm trying to express. 

As for pack structure if you read a lot about the wolves in, say, yellowstone you will still see the terms in use at times. Alpha now refers to the matriarch/patriarch of a social unit. A pack is just a social unit. That's all it is. Sometimes the alphas are very aggressive towards their packs. Sometimes not. It depends on the personality of the individual. 

That said some people need to be spritzed with cold water for using the terms inappropriately or we'll never shake the outdated connotations.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

I apologize for my flippant replies, but I tend to get impatient with a single dissenter repeatedly bringing up the same topic and arguing with people who are far more experienced with and have more education about dogs than they do. 

For a real answer:

Dogs are not wolves. Dog behavior and social structures, both dog/dog relationships and dog/human relationships, are not comparable to wolf/wolf or wolf/human relationships. To apply a dominance or alpha/beta relationship to dogs is incredibly misleading and harmful. 

For instance, I have four dogs in my house. Shenzi (older female) will bite other dogs with almost no warning if they come into her space when she has a resource. So she'd be the dominant one, right? Except Zephyr pushes to the front of the group and shoves Shenzi out of the way when it's time to go outside. So he'd be the dominant one, right? Except Titan frequently sits on top of Zephyr and shoves him off of furniture. So he'd be the dominant one, right? Except Little Dog resource guards the kitchen and will keep all of the other dogs out of it. So is he dominant? 

The answer is that none of them are dominant. Dominance is 'situational desire for priority access to a resource', if we insist upon using the term. It does not define the state of being of a relationship or a permanent heirarchy. 

This fluidity in heirarchy makes the word dominance nearly useless in conversations about dogs or training. Beyond that, dominance is often falsely attributed to behaviors that are actually fear motivated, which leads to extremely harsh techniques that are supposed to convince the dog that it's the 'beta' being applied to already fearful dogs. 

Also, a dog redirecting a bite onto a human when the human is breaking up a fight isn't a dominant behavior. It's over arousal, fixation and lack of impulse control in the moment. It has nothing to do with a human taking sides, or the dog feeling spite.

ETA: When the originator of a theory, and one of the foremost experts on wolf behavior, comes forward and goes as far as repeatedly asking his publisher to stop publishing the theory, I think it's time to sit up and pay attention. You accuse me of cherry picking and hand waving, yet you're the one hand waving at the scientist who is the expert in this field when he says that his original theory was wrong, and cherry picking certain points of his clarifications to support your own arguments that the theory he's attempting to correct was valid from the start.

Edited again to add: There are also wolf behavioral scientists who have observed "dominant", or in other words the "breeding/mating male and female", giving priority access to resources to other members of the pack who are lower in the heirarchy, or in other words, non-breeding. It's a concept that cannot even be clearly defined in a wolf pack, let alone in the complicated dynamics of a dog relationships in which they're asked to interact with both other dogs and people.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> I apologize for my flippant replies, but I tend to get impatient with a single dissenter repeatedly bringing up the same topic and arguing with people who have far more experienced with and education about dogs than they do.
> 
> For a real answer:
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing your fuller response. Some good thoughts there. You share some great experiential knowledge that differs from my own in some respects. As I stated elsewhere, I have experienced dominance between two of my dogs -- it was very clear, and it wasn't associated with resource guarding or anxiety or any of the other dynamics often mentioned as replacement explanations. In fact, it was a healthy and at times very sweet interaction.

On the point of Dr. Mech's recanting his theory, however, your take still discounts that it only applies to _interactions in the wild_, and are thus irrelevant (beside the point) when it comes to where most of us live with and handle our dogs. Again, watch that *video I linked* from the 1:35 minute mark. You will see he acknowledges the exceptions where _dominance does come into play_. I would then ask you to consider the similarities between the conditions (assemblages) he describes and what _some_ of us may encounter in our own assembled homebound packs.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

esuastegui said:


> Thanks for sharing your fuller response. Some good thoughts there. You share some great experiential knowledge that differs from my own in some respects. As I stated elsewhere, I have experienced dominance between two of my dogs -- it was very clear, and it wasn't associated with resource guarding or anxiety or any of the other dynamics often mentioned as replacement explanations. In fact, it was a healthy and at times very sweet interaction.
> 
> On the point of Dr. Mech's recanting his theory, however, your take still discounts that it only applies to _interactions in the wild_, and are thus irrelevant (beside the point) when it comes to where most of us live with and handle our dogs. Again, watch that video I linked from the 1:35 minute mark. You will see he acknowledges the exceptions where _dominance does come into play_. I would then ask you to consider the similarities between the conditions (assemblages) he describes and what _some_ of us may encounter in our own assembled homebound packs.


You're simply still not accounting for the biological impact that hundreds of years of domestication has on dogs. Dog body language differs from breed to breed, let alone from wolves. They vocalize differently. They have the ability to recognize facial expressions in humans and even have a left gaze facial recognition bias. They're just not comparable to wolves other than their species, their somewhat similar body shapes (but then they're also similar to coyotes, which are not considered the same species), and their dietary needs (which are also arguably different).

It's worth noting that while dogs and wolves are the same species, they are different subspecies of animals. 

There's a study on foxes being conducted in Siberia that is interesting and relevant: http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/early-canid-domestication-the-farm-fox-experiment/1



> Belyaev, however, believed that the key factor selected for was not size or reproduction, but behavior—specifically amenability to domestication, or tamability. More than any other quality, Belyaev believed, tamability must have determined how well an animal would adapt to life among human beings. Because behavior is rooted in biology, selecting for tameness and against aggression means selecting for physiological changes in the systems that govern the body's hormones and neurochemicals. Those changes, in turn, could have had far-reaching effects on the development of the animals themselves, effects that might well explain why different animals would respond in similar ways when subjected to the same kinds of selective pressures.





> Through genetic selection alone, our research group has created a population of tame foxes fundamentally different in temperament and behavior from their wild forebears. In the process we have observed some striking changes in physiology, morphology and behavior, which mirror the changes known in other domestic animals and bear out many of Belyaev's ideas.


The article goes on to detail the immense physical and behavioral changes brought about by only forty years of selective breeding for "tamability". The foxes bred by this program are no longer comparable biologically, behaviorally, or reproductively, to their wild relatives. After only forty years. 

Now multiply that by hundreds (or thousands) of years of selective breeding and try to calculate for the biological and behavioral changes that may take place. And after that math, please explain to me why what wild wolves who hunt in packs and are a potential predatory threat to dogs and people has absolutely anything to do with what my Great Danes do in my home or how they interact with me.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

lennydit said:


> I find dominant/submissive useful when I'm pegging the personality of a dog, but it's not useful for every dog. It depends on what I'm trying to express.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This here is a key point that often gets missed. Many of these discussions turn into "I've never seen dominance" vs. "I see dominance all the time" which may have more to do with the individual dogs we have met and observed than anything else! It's amazing, but dogs aren't predictable, programmable robots. They have personalities which often evolve over time. I may have ten GSDs at home, and may see little dominance. And my father in law may have two Yorkshire terriers that go at each other all the time, and that may have to do with dominance, or something else. It depends in large part on what personality these dogs have. We focus on the nurture part, as we should, because that's our responsibility. But nature is a pretty strong force, too. Each of our dogs deserves tailored care based on his or her individual traits and needs. We do that for grooming and nutrition, so we shouldn't be surprised if understanding who they are as dogs also fits a similar approach.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

esuastegui said:


> Thanks for sharing your fuller response. Some good thoughts there. You share some great experiential knowledge that differs from my own in some respects. As I stated elsewhere, I have experienced dominance between two of my dogs -- it was very clear, and it wasn't associated with resource guarding or anxiety or any of the other dynamics often mentioned as replacement explanations. In fact, it was a healthy and at times very sweet interaction.


Dominance has a definition in ethology and it relates to priority access to resources, it's not a personality trait. I suspect that what you experienced between your dogs was more about temperament and personalities. I have two dogs who are very different; one is definitely a "leader" and the other a "follower." Some might call one dominant and the other submissive; I call one exuberant and assertive, and the other mellow and lackadaisical.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> You're simply still not accounting for the biological impact that hundreds of years of domestication has on dogs. Dog body language differs from breed to breed, let alone from wolves. They vocalize differently. They have the ability to recognize facial expressions in humans and even have a left gaze facial recognition bias. They're just not comparable to wolves other than their species, their somewhat similar body shapes (but then they're also similar to coyotes, which are not considered the same species), and their dietary needs (which are also arguably different).
> 
> It's worth noting that while dogs and wolves are the same species, they are different subspecies of animals.


This again discounts the genetic similarities, and the injection of wolf blood lines that has happened more recently than the period you mention. But I will allow that from a _nurture_ perspective, domestication has changed some behaviors in dogs (they don't bite us as often, thank God). Genetic force, however, is not so easily done away with. Again, the fact that wolves _in captivity_ seem to exhibit the ill behavior we find in _some _ dogs is highly suggestive that all those millennia didn't quite get rid of every wolf-like trait. I will admit, however, that studies of feral dogs and dingos (after a couple of generations of breeding, ref. link) suggest that dogs have lost that hierarchical/alpha drive when it comes to breeding. That for me is somewhat fuzzy in meaning, because when we deal with alleged dominance issues among dogs, rarely is breeding part of the equation, so the relevance is somewhat in question.

OTOH, at least one other (recent) study (ref. link) claims to show that while the modus operandi among wolves is cooperation, dogs operate more along lines of submission. Now, where there's submission there must be... The D word, and I don't mean Dallas.



> There's a study on foxes ...


Now, here I'm tempted to hand-wave this away, noting that if wolves and dogs can't be compared, foxes would offer even less useful information. Why not frogs? Instead, I'll say, interesting and informative, so long as we don't stretch its applicability too far.



> Now multiply that by hundreds (or thousands) of years of selective breeding and try to calculate for the biological and behavioral changes that may take place. And after that math, please explain to me why what wild wolves who hunt in packs and are a potential predatory threat to dogs and people has absolutely anything to do with what my Great Danes do in my home or how they interact with me.


Here I'll let the first paragraph of the article I linked above do the talking for me:

"For dog lovers, comparative psychologists Friederike Range and Zsófia Virányi have an unsettling conclusion. Many researchers think that as humans domesticated wolves, they selected for a cooperative nature, resulting in animals keen to pitch in on tasks with humans. But when the two scientists at the Messerli Research Institute at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna studied lab-raised dog and wolf packs, they found that wolves were the tolerant, cooperative ones. The dogs, in contrast, formed strict, linear dominance hierarchies that demand obedience from subordinates, Range explained last week at the Animal Behavior Society meeting at Princeton University. As wolves became dogs, she thinks, they were bred for the ability to follow orders and to be dependent on human masters."

Whoa!... Now there's a new wrinkle... Yes, many millennia of selective breeding has happened. *And* it has cooked out independence and cooperation out of wolves, so that domestic dogs _by breeding_ look for a leader. Man, I need to look more into the validity of this study, but Cesar Milan must be smiling.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Leadership and dominance are not the same thing.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

esuastegui said:


> Now, here I'm tempted to hand-wave this away, noting that if wolves and dogs can't be compared, foxes would offer even less useful information. Why not frogs? Instead, I'll say, interesting and informative, so long as we don't stretch its applicability too far.


Your eagerness to hand wave a very relevant study has blinded you. 

I'm not comparing foxes to dogs. I'm comparing foxes in captivity who have been selectively bred for tamability to foxes in their control group which have not been selectively bred.

May I recommend fully reading before you knee jerk respond and make yourself look foolish in the process?



esuastegui said:


> Here I'll let the first paragraph of the article I linked above do the talking for me:
> 
> "For dog lovers, comparative psychologists Friederike Range and Zsófia Virányi have an unsettling conclusion. Many researchers think that as humans domesticated wolves, they selected for a cooperative nature, resulting in animals keen to pitch in on tasks with humans. But when the two scientists at the Messerli Research Institute at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna studied lab-raised dog and wolf packs, they found that wolves were the tolerant, cooperative ones. The dogs, in contrast, formed strict, linear dominance hierarchies that demand obedience from subordinates, Range explained last week at the Animal Behavior Society meeting at Princeton University. As wolves became dogs, she thinks, they were bred for the ability to follow orders and to be dependent on human masters."
> 
> Whoa!... Now there's a new wrinkle... Yes, many millennia of selective breeding has happened. *And* it has cooked out independence and cooperation out of wolves, so that domestic dogs _by breeding_ look for a leader. Man, I need to look more into the validity of this study, but Cesar Milan must be smiling.


The study is completely irrelevant. It operates on the premise that researchers can choose high ranking or low ranking animals and watch their interactions, but as I've clearly stated above, how is rank determined? Especially when rank is fluid depending upon which resource is at stake? The interactions are not natural, they're studies set up by humans based on a false premise of rank or dominance. They're trying to provide dominance exists with a method that already relies on the fact that dominance exists, so there's no non-biased evidence to be drawn from it.

And seriously?:



> To find out if dogs are "independent problem solvers," she presented 20 adult dogs (10 pets and 10 from shelters) with sealed containers of summer sausage. Each animal was allotted 2 minutes to open it. Ten captive wolves were given the same test. Not one of the adult dogs succeeded; most did not even try. Meanwhile, eight of the 10 wolves opened the container in less than 2 minutes. So did dog puppies, indicating that dogs are no less capable of the task than wolves, but “as the dog grows and becomes more dependent on its human owner that [independent] behavior is inhibited,” Udell said.
> 
> Underscoring the point, she found that adult pooches could open the container after all—when their human owner told them to do so. Because dogs “suppress their independence, it’s difficult to know what their normal problem-solving abilities are,” she told the meeting.


I mean, come on. You give 20 dogs a container and because some of them don't open it you assume they're waiting on a human's commands to do so? Give me a freaking break.

ETA: And in case you didn't notice, Millan doesn't give a whole lot of commands. He makes a lot of "psht" noises while poking dogs in the necks and shoulders. When he's not too busy flooding them, alpha rolling them, hanging them from collars or inciting them to bite him, of course.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> Leadership and dominance are not the same thing.


I tend to agree with that in part. By way of example, we could say that an elected leader is not dominant while a despot/dictator does use dominance to get his way. But even an elected leader has police and an army, so... In short, leadership can be achieved through dominance or through other means. One could say dominance is a subset (and not a necessary one) of leadership. OTOH, even voluntary (not in response to domineering) acceptance of leadership will bow to what the leader says. Whether that reflects that a "dominant view or direction" prevails falls into semantic gamesmanship. Sometimes I wish we could get rid of dominance and find an alternate term that doesn't suffer from all the baggage.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

esuastegui said:


> Sometimes I wish we could get rid of dominance and find an alternate term that doesn't suffer from all the baggage.


That is literally exactly what all of us are trying to do when we say "Dominance between dogs/humans isn't a thing or at least isn't useful in training"


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> May I recommend fully reading before you knee jerk respond and make yourself look foolish in the process?


And just when we were pulling out of the tail-spin... the ad hominem. Well played!


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

esuastegui said:


> And just when we were pulling out of the tail-spin... the ad hominem. Well played!


You're the one who read the argument and somehow came to the conclusion that I was comparing foxes to dogs. I find it pointless to argue with someone who can't even take the time to read arguments before dismissing them as irrelevant. That wasn't an ad hominem, that was commentary on your ability to read critically, or rather your lack thereof.

You're not a martyr on the scientific cross who is standing up against the uneducated masses to prove that dominance exists. This community has a collective tens of thousands of hours of time in reading about dogs, training methodology and behavioral studies. And tens of thousands more hours working with troubled dogs, putting sports titles on dogs, and overcoming every training challenge in between. And yet in you barge, insistent upon supporting a theory that you feel like we have all wrongfully written off and intent upon proving us incorrect.

I find this entire conversation pointless. We've had it before. We've said all of this before. Yet you keep bringing it up. And it's the same thing over and over and over. And do you notice how fewer people respond every time you start one of these threads? It's because people are tired of it, and tired of this train of thought from you. So tired that they've stopped reading your threads because they have better things to do and you have nothing different to say. At least come up with something new and interesting to discuss if you are feeling particularly contentious. If you value the discussions you have in this community, I suggest you don't continue to be a figure that is more rewarding to block than interact with.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> That is literally exactly what all of us are trying to do when we say "Dominance between dogs/humans isn't a thing or at least isn't useful in training"


With all due respect, looking for an acceptable synonym that represents a reality vs. denying the reality are _not_ the same thing. Example: looking for a synonym for the word burn vs. denying that fire burns.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> You're the one who read the argument and somehow came to the conclusion that I was comparing foxes to dogs. I find it pointless to argue with someone who can't even take the time to read arguments before dismissing them as irrelevant. That wasn't an ad hominem, that was commentary on your ability to read critically, or rather your lack thereof.


I didn't dismiss it. I said it was worth considering, within bounds. You implied I was being foolish, knee-jerking, an attack on the person, rather than arguing (or in addition to arguing) the merits, because apparently you thought that lends weight to your argument. Quintessential ad hominem, precipitated by the foregone (shall we dare say "knee jerk") conclusion that I was dismissing what you said out of hand (throwing the "hand-waving" back in my face). That's a way to shut down an argument and to get "turn and ignore" from me.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

> Oh, nobody is saying that dominance issues among dogs isn't a thing. Dominance in the dog/human relationship isn't really a thing, or at least not a useful thing in dog training.





ireth0 said:


> Yep this, this is the bit you seem to be missing.
> 
> If you want a more accurate analogy (I agree comparing dogs/wolves to humans/chimps is a bit silly), it was once posed to me as taking the behaviour of prison inmates and extrapolating that this is how family units behave. It obviously isn't, and if you tried to use methods of interaction among inmates on families you would get some pretty messed up family dynamics pretty quickly.


Well, my conversation with @Hiraeth has revealed that "nobody" is greater than zero. Indeed, in scouring around various literature, some folks in the field certainly discount dominance completely, even among canines -- which again, is *NOT* David Mech's view when the revision of his initial position is examined in full context.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

For the sake of completeness, here's another study that does not support dominance within a pack of dogs: 

Key quote:


> Of course wolves are not dogs, so let's look at a recent (2010) piece of research by Roberto Bonanni of the University of Parma and his associates. They looked at free-ranging packs of dogs in Italy and found that leadership was a very fluid thing. For example, in one pack, which had 27 members, there were 6 dogs that habitually took turns leading the pack, but at least half of the adult dogs were leaders, at least some of the time. The dogs that were usually found leading the pack tended to be the older, more experienced dogs, but not necessarily the most dominant. The pack seems to allow leadership to dogs, who at particular times seem to be most likely to contribute to the welfare of the pack through knowledge that can access the resources they require.


Note that this is for feral dogs, in the wild, so to speak. The applicability of that environmental context to a pack of dogs in a home/confined environment is open to further questioning.


----------



## Mirzam (Jan 17, 2011)

Dominance requires a human intellectual construct of reality, it is a "brain-bound" approach, a me-relative-to-you psychology. Dogs and wolves do not have that capacity.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

Mirzam said:


> Dominance requires a human intellectual construct of reality, it is a "brain-bound" approach, a me-relative-to-you psychology. Dogs and wolves do not have that capacity.


And this is a great segue into this book I'm reading regarding the intelligence and emotional capacity of animals. https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Words...words+what+animals+think+and+feel+carl+safina

The summary is that while common knowledge is that animals do not think and feel as humans do, this is not based on any sort of finding that definitively proves that dogs lack emotional intelligence or anything of a sort. It was the lack of quantifiable evidence that they do that discouraged people studying them from reporting on them. You can, in fact, see exceptionally intelligent animals, animals who aggressively take control of their social units, and animals who form apparent partnerships if you watch them for hours and hours a day. 

Dogs are most definitely smart enough to notice when they can't get away with something around one person but they can around another, or in the absence of people. It's the idea that dogs and wolves instinctively form complex, static hierarchies that is not correct.


----------



## Mirzam (Jan 17, 2011)

lennydit said:


> And this is a great segue into this book I'm reading regarding the intelligence and emotional capacity of animals. https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Words...words+what+animals+think+and+feel+carl+safina
> 
> The summary is that while common knowledge is that animals do not think and feel as humans do, this is not based on any sort of finding that definitively proves that dogs lack emotional intelligence or anything of a sort. It was the lack of quantifiable evidence that they do that discouraged people studying them from reporting on them. You can, in fact, see exceptionally intelligent animals, animals who aggressively take control of their social units, and animals who form apparent partnerships if you watch them for hours and hours a day.
> 
> ...


Dogs feel pressure from humans, it is nothing to do with thinking they can get away with something. Dogs cannot comprehend things from another person's point of view.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

you could actually read the book because the entire point of that book is to critique the scientific environment that says to attribute *any* thought to animal is to anthropomorphize them. Which is apparently where you're comfortable landing, so whatever, enjoy having a little id monster if that's how you choose to interpret your dog.


----------



## Mirzam (Jan 17, 2011)

lennydit said:


> you could actually read the book because the entire point of that book is to critique the scientific environment that says to attribute *any* thought to animal is to anthropomorphize them. Which is apparently where you're comfortable landing, so whatever, enjoy having a little id monster if that's how you choose to interpret your dog.


Sounds great! I am about as far from being comfortable to attribute any thought to animals as you can get.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Carl Safina's book is awesome. I cannot recommend it enough. 

Re: this whole dominance thing... I'm not sure I'm understanding the point of this post here. "Dominance is debunked" doesn't mean the word, meaning, and true interpretations of dog behavior are gone. It just means that the training mentality of 'dominance/alpha' no longer holds water. Those techniques don't work by making the dog respect you and see you as a leader. Those techniques work because they are violent and instill fear. It's postive punishment. 

Certainly there are dogs in this world who act dominant or submissive in any given moment. But I don't think "dominant" is even a good descriptor of dogs or situations. Two dogs approach the same bone, one growls and charges at the bone and the other walks away. Two dogs meet and one has his head and tail high and the other slouches and licks his lips. Saying one dog is more dominant... Tells me absolutely nothing. One dog is more assertive in possessing a resource, THAT's clear. One dog has very forward and stiff body language and the other carries himself lower, that's reading body language. And in any case... *it doesn't matter*... the 'dominant' dog and the 'submissive' dog can both benefit from a reinforcement based training style where motivators are controlled and dolled out for desirable behavior. That's so much simpler. 

Anyone, give me ONE example where "dominance" is used in describing a scenario or in training, and is actual useful, effective, and safe.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Canyx said:


> Carl Safina's book is awesome. I cannot recommend it enough.
> 
> Re: this whole dominance thing... I'm not sure I'm understanding the point of this post here. "Dominance is debunked" doesn't mean the word, meaning, and true interpretations of dog behavior are gone. It just means that the training mentality of 'dominance/alpha' no longer holds water. Those techniques don't work by making the dog respect you and see you as a leader. Those techniques work because they are violent and instill fear. It's postive punishment.
> 
> ...


Thank god, I thought we were all going crazy.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

Canyx said:


> Anyone, give me ONE example where "dominance" is used in describing a scenario or in training, and is actual useful, effective, and safe.


TBH I mostly use the terms as shorthand with my coworkers because it's a fast "I'm not telling you what to do, just what to expect" way of explaining what set of behaviors my coworkers are likely to see. If I have a dog who's clearly very submissive I would never yell at them under any circumstances whereas with a dog with a more dominant personality I can yell to get their attention. It also only mattered if the dogs were having behavioral problems because of it. It basically means, this dog is exhibiting inappropriate behavior to control the environment and this dog is exhibiting inappropriate behavior because they're doing everything they can to show you how nonthreatening and submissive they are and it isn't working. In a group daycamp setting you can reduce both sets of inappropriate behavior by controlling the group but there are some dogs I would never ever use noise control around (IE no yelling like a drill sergeant, no physical contact) and there are some dogs that yeah, just being assertive works. 

But the vast majority of issues aren't dominance based, they're anxiety based (and a submissive dog is just as likely to have those problems), but that brings me to another problem.

I'm not all into positive-reinforcement as a ~cool humane way~ to train your dogs...it sounds all cool and dandy but a few people here have mentioned knowing dogs who refuse treats because they associate treats with something they hate. Dogs don't think like humans do but they're not mindless; you can just as easily **** up food for them as you can acclimate them to a new situation. You can "break" a dog with a clicker and a bag of treats. When you counter-condition, you are most definitely not changing the underlying state of mind the dog has by shoving treats in their face. You're luring the dog into a position where it can be desensitized to a stimulus with food. And if the dog hates the stimulus enough they'll learn to hate the reward too. Dogs don't have people thoughts but they do think. 

The humane way to train a dog is to free shape and respect the dog's signals when it's uncomfortable with something. But that's not really viable for every dog as we need our dogs to look respectable in human society, and not be a danger to others. So we have a lot of dogs who don't like being touched by strangers who get taught to put up with being touched by strangers and a lot of dogs who don't like other dogs who get taught to tolerate other dogs. 

It's not more humane just because you're including something the dog likes.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

lennydit said:


> When you counter-condition, you are most definitely not changing the underlying state of mind the dog has by shoving treats in their face. You're luring the dog into a position where it can be desensitized to a stimulus with food. And if the dog hates the stimulus enough they'll learn to hate the reward too. Dogs don't have people thoughts but they do think.


Okay, so this would be CCing incorrectly. You want the stimulus to predict the reward, not just to constantly be shoving treats at the dog to distract them from reacting. 

You're right, if the food reward comes first and predicts the stimulus/scary thing, you can poison the reward value of the food.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

lennydit said:


> I'm not all into positive-reinforcement as a ~cool humane way~ to train your dogs...it sounds all cool and dandy but a few people here have mentioned knowing dogs who refuse treats because they associate treats with something they hate. Dogs don't think like humans do but they're not mindless; you can just as easily **** up food for them as you can acclimate them to a new situation. You can "break" a dog with a clicker and a bag of treats. When you counter-condition, you are most definitely not changing the underlying state of mind the dog has by shoving treats in their face. You're luring the dog into a position where it can be desensitized to a stimulus with food. And if the dog hates the stimulus enough they'll learn to hate the reward too. Dogs don't have people thoughts but they do think.
> 
> The humane way to train a dog is to free shape and respect the dog's signals when it's uncomfortable with something. But that's not really viable for every dog as we need our dogs to look respectable in human society, and not be a danger to others. So we have a lot of dogs who don't like being touched by strangers who get taught to put up with being touched by strangers and a lot of dogs who don't like other dogs who get taught to tolerate other dogs.
> 
> It's not more humane just because you're including something the dog likes.


I'm not sure you fully understand how most people here train their dogs or the basic principles of operant and classical conditioning.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> Okay, so this would be CCing incorrectly. You want the stimulus to predict the reward, not just to constantly be shoving treats at the dog to distract them from reacting.
> 
> You're right, if the food reward comes first and predicts the stimulus/scary thing, you can poison the reward value of the food.


I was really into counter-conditioning for all of five minutes before I tried it exactly as you described and realized it functions the same way as the main therapy I got as a young child did. Getting a skittle for having your bodily autonomy violated does not make getting your bodily autonomy violated* fun. I still use CC because yeah, I need my dog to be very tolerant in order to do PA work, he's gonna have to put up with strangers being inappropriate with him so any time something really inappropriate and uncomfortable happens to my dog I immediately give him some pork tenderloin/apples soaked in pig fat (his favorite things ever). But I'm positive my dog would be having a better time if he didn't have to deal with strange children/old people running up and screaming in his face. The fact that you get dogs who react so badly to CC is not evidence that it isn't useful or doesn't work, but it doesn't work the way people claim it does. It can increase the dog's threshold to a workable level which is useful enough for most people and most dogs but every now and again you get a dog who really doesn't care what reward you have, it doesn't want to be touched, it doesn't want to go near The Scary Thing, and the 100% humane thing to do would be to protect your dog from The Scary Thing. 

I think we make a lot of compromises to our dog's comfort because allowing our dogs to live in their comfort zone simply isn't viable to everyone. 

*again, dogs don't experience this the way people do, but anyone who thinks dogs don't at least experience like and dislike probably shouldn't have a dog.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

cookieface said:


> I'm not sure you fully understand how most people here train their dogs or the basic principles of operant and classical conditioning.


I do, I'm just a pessimistic ass.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

There is no way to have treats on your body before you see the stimulus, and there is little way the dog doesn't know those treats are on you. If you are very, very careful, go to different locations, keep treats on you all the time and possibly in a sealed container, and use the same high value treats for training sit in the park on days you do and do not do CC, you can pull of 'stimlulus predicts the treat', but just like dogs learn 'leash predicts a walk' and 'holding a clicker predicts training' they will quickly learn 'mom got out the good treats, there are going to be my trigger things around today'. Ideally this leads to 'YAY DOGS BECAUSE GOOD FOOD' because reward transfer. Sometimes, yes, it absolutely leads to "CRAP, THERE ARE GOING TO BE DOGS." 

It REALLY depends on skill level of handling more than timing and it REALLY depends on both level of aversion to the trigger (not just staying under threshold where the dog isn't blowing up) and degree of food motivation and observation skills in the dog. 

Kind of like if Kylie sees me preparing beef liver she knows she's going to agility and YAY, AWESOME (she likes agility - if she didn't or agility had become a point of stress it would be 'oh no'.) but Jack sees me stuffing a kong he's going to hide under the bed, even if both happen hours beforehand. Yes, yes food is in the picture first, but you can't NOT have food in the picture first unless the dog LITERALLY DOES NOT SEE YOU PREPARING it or stuffing it in your pocket and randomize the circumstances surrounding *that* food so that they cannot predict what you'e going to be training. 

Only bring out the steak for working on CC/DS? Or working exclusively on CC/DS more heavily than anything else because it's the priority? You better bet your butt they're going to know what it's for from the second you are standing in you kitchen, and if you've got the right dog and method it'll b a positive predictor and transfer early to 'steak means going to out to see dogs and seeing dogs means I get steak means yay'. Do it wrong and you have Steak? SHE"S MAKING STEAK? CRAP NO, I DON"T WANT THAT. THAT MEANS THE STRESSFUL THING.

Basically it's still doing it 'wrong', but it's an easy kind of wrong to have happen, and a fairly hard one to avoid for more people and dogs than people seem to realize.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Lennydit, I think you have a misguided view on how positive reinforcement training and counter conditioning work. Point me to one instance of *proper* clicker training that 'broke' a dog. Also, shoving treats in dogs' faces is not proper counter conditioning. Look up Grisha Stewart's Behavior Adjustment Training, for one example. When done right, counter conditioning is a lot closer to free shaping and reading body language... as you mentioned. It's ALL about setting up training scenarios where the dog is comfortable to begin with. Plus, the dog has a blast usually. How is that not respectful? I don't care if people are "into" positive reinforcement training, but it would be super nice if people formed educated opinions on it rather than chucking the whole notion away based on inaccurate methods or anecdotes.

Sources: Working as a professional trainer and using positive reinforcement training and counter conditioning for everything from basic training to socialization, and behavior modification. I have seen training done incorrectly. I have seen it build a reliance on treats if people are not switching reinforcement schedules efficiently. I have seen it help a little to a LOT. I have NEVER seen it "break a dog." Our behaviorist uses the same techniques on shelter dogs with severe fear issues and even dogs with bite histories. We train volunteers to do it on a very basic, sometimes advance level. We have seen fearful and aggressive behaviors flat out go away. We've turned door lunging, snarling dogs into dogs that sit politely wagging their tails.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I think their point is that if you do positive training _wrong _you can create or worsen a problem in a dog. You won't break them the same way you will with inappropriate positive punishment but can it be done? Yep. 

I know. I've done it. If I point something out to Molly now she blows up. Anything I point out. ANYTHING I point out to her. I can point out her FOOD BOWL (By looking at it pointedly) and have her explode. Why? Because my LAT was badly done and the result was 'hey, if she points at something I'm supposed to bark at it'. Was it using the method right? Nope. My timing was sloppy, but that's all it took, initally. I still created a dog who barks explosively when I point at something, then sits down and looks at me with a grin, is quite proud of herself and wants her treat for doing it right. She has no concept that the being quiet and calming down part was what I wanted or what she was rewarding for.

Positive training done wrong with a dog with problems CAN create a bigger issue. Wrong being the important part, but well. People do things wrong. It's not going to create the psychological fallout of punishment, but it happens.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

lennydit said:


> I was really into counter-conditioning for all of five minutes before I tried it exactly as you described and realized it functions the same way as the main therapy I got as a young child did. Getting a skittle for having your bodily autonomy violated does not make getting your bodily autonomy violated* fun. I still use CC because yeah, I need my dog to be very tolerant in order to do PA work, he's gonna have to put up with strangers being inappropriate with him so any time something really inappropriate and uncomfortable happens to my dog I immediately give him some pork tenderloin/apples soaked in pig fat (his favorite things ever). But I'm positive my dog would be having a better time if he didn't have to deal with strange children/old people running up and screaming in his face. The fact that you get dogs who react so badly to CC is not evidence that it isn't useful or doesn't work, but it doesn't work the way people claim it does. It can increase the dog's threshold to a workable level which is useful enough for most people and most dogs but every now and again you get a dog who really doesn't care what reward you have, it doesn't want to be touched, it doesn't want to go near The Scary Thing, and the 100% humane thing to do would be to protect your dog from The Scary Thing.
> 
> I think we make a lot of compromises to our dog's comfort because allowing our dogs to live in their comfort zone simply isn't viable to everyone.
> 
> *again, dogs don't experience this the way people do, but anyone who thinks dogs don't at least experience like and dislike probably shouldn't have a dog.


So what you're describing is flooding the dog then trying to train through it. Very different, and can very much produce the opposite effect. Counter conditioning and desensitization is literally the opposite to that.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I think their point is that if you do positive training _wrong _you can create or worsen a problem in a dog. You won't break them the same way you will with inappropriate positive punishment but can it be done? Yep.


I agree with this. But I got the impression that lennydit does not approve of R+ training in general BECAUSE their general take on it is wrong. And again, I don't care if people love a method or not... I do care to see valid reasons for doing so. I do care that inaccurate descriptions of CC/DS are perpetuated on a public forum.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> I agree with this. But I got the impression that lennydit does not approve of R+ training in general BECAUSE their general take on it is wrong. And again, I don't care if people love a method or not... I do care to see valid reasons for doing so. I do care that inaccurate descriptions of CC/DS are perpetuated on a public forum.


I kind of think it's more 'this is how idiots do it and make the problem worse' as intent, but I could be wrong. Either way, idiots working with issues incorrectly can make problems worse, regardless o methods and it being positive doesn't resolve that issue. It just prevents another set of issues.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

having experienced classical conditioning applied to myself, a person, I am not a fan. My dog is not a person, so the situation is different. I also would never feed a child raw meat or beef liver, but again, not a person. I also have a dog who doesn't respond negatively to CC and isn't super afraid of anything in particular, just mega excitable. I'm not talking about my current dog (although I did have a dog with a variety of moderate-to-severe issues and she would not have responded to CC).

My opinion is that there is no training method that 100% works for every dog and while I prefer reward-based methods I don't think they're inherently more humane if you're still routinely putting your dog in situations they're uncomfortable with. I don't think there's any 100% humane way to do that. I think it's less humane to chuck the dog into the situation with no comfort object, and I think that for most dogs if you increase their threshold enough for them to see "Oh, The Scary Thing isn't that bad" they come around more or less on their own. Ideally I would rather my dogs be able to approach The Scary Thing unrestrained (off leash, not in a tight space) but this just isn't viable where I live. But dogs with really intense psychological issues would be better off just getting to stay in their comfort zone. Sometimes it's more humane to uproot the dog to put them in a situation where they won't encounter their trigger. 

Also @cpt jack I always do a mixed bag of treats + kibble.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

And you know what, if someone's going to get a method wrong I'd rather they use positive reinforcement than positive punishment anyways.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

Canyx said:


> I agree with this. But I got the impression that lennydit does not approve of R+ training in general BECAUSE their general take on it is wrong. And again, I don't care if people love a method or not... I do care to see valid reasons for doing so. I do care that inaccurate descriptions of CC/DS are perpetuated on a public forum.


I don't "disapprove" of R+ training I just don't think it's magical "you can make your dog love everything!" like a lot of people seem to think it is.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

lennydit said:


> TBH I mostly use the terms as shorthand with my coworkers because it's a fast "I'm not telling you what to do, just what to expect" way of explaining what set of behaviors my coworkers are likely to see. If I have a dog who's clearly very submissive I would never yell at them under any circumstances whereas with a dog with a more dominant personality I can yell to get their attention. It also only mattered if the dogs were having behavioral problems because of it. It basically means, this dog is exhibiting inappropriate behavior to control the environment and this dog is exhibiting inappropriate behavior because they're doing everything they can to show you how nonthreatening and submissive they are and it isn't working. In a group daycamp setting you can reduce both sets of inappropriate behavior by controlling the group but there are some dogs I would never ever use noise control around (IE no yelling like a drill sergeant, no physical contact) and there are some dogs that yeah, just being assertive works.


You're confusing the difference between dominant/submissive and hard/soft. My dog who resource guards is VERY soft. So if you yell at him to get his attention, you will shut him down and scare him. 

And this particular example is *exactly* why dominant/submissive personality labels don't work. It's because those behaviors aren't personality traits. So labeling my dog as dominant because he guards could set your training back exponentially because being 'firmer' with him to get him to listen will just shut him down and make him more fearful (and therefore more likely to guard more aggressively).


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Canyx said:


> And you know what, if someone's going to get a method wrong I'd rather they use positive reinforcement than positive punishment anyways.


Yes, agreed.

OTOH, if I had the option of someone doing it right with prong collar and leash corrections or wrong with a clicker and treats, I'm going with the prong and leash corrections. Not advising it on a forum, but it'd sure be who I handed my dog over to. Clarity and fairness matter to me more than method at this stage of the game. Ideally, I want both. Fairness, clarity, and rewards, but given a choice between one and the other? Yeah. 

(And it's not not a thing to do with dominant/submissive baloney).

(Also also @lennydit, dog still sees you pick up that treat bag or fill it, LOL. Presumably. I handle it mostly by always having treats on me, period, if I leave the house. Whether I use them or not or for whatever reason and keep them in a sealed container in a pocket so they're not part of the visual picture AND don't predict anything more than me picking up a leash. That's me, though.)


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

lennydit said:


> I don't "disapprove" of R+ training I just don't think it's magical "you can make your dog love everything!" like a lot of people seem to think it is.


As an R+ trainer, I NEVER advertise it as such. Most people who pay for these services have dogs with fear or aggression issues. The first step is setting realistic expectations which goes something like "No, your dog that has lunged and snarled at people for the last 3 years since puppyhood will probably not learn to like strangers ever, but through counter conditioning we can teach her to feel more comfortable around them and/or remove herself from uncomfortable situations instead of escalating". The second step is setting up a management plan that usually involves removing the dog and/or creating a safe space. The last step is the training.

Anyone selling ANY training without looking at it from the expectation-management standpoint first, ANY trainer who makes "fix it" "love it" promises like that... Is doing it wrong, in my opinion. 



CptJack said:


> Yes, agreed.
> 
> OTOH, if I had the option of someone doing it right with prong collar and leash corrections or wrong with a clicker and treats, I'm going with the prong and leash corrections. Not advising it on a forum, but it'd sure be who I handed my dog over to.


No judgment here. Correct methods will produce efficient results and incorrect methods will not. Makes sense to me.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> You're confusing the difference between dominant/submissive and hard/soft. My dog who resource guards is VERY soft. So if you yell at him to get his attention, you will shut him down and scare him.
> 
> And this particular example is *exactly* why dominant/submissive personality labels don't work. It's because those behaviors aren't personality traits. So labeling my dog as dominant because he guards could set your training back exponentially because being 'firmer' with him to get him to listen will just shut him down and make him more fearful (and therefore more likely to guard more aggressively).


 They work in the context of me and my coworkers and it helped me prevent my coworkers from getting bit and preventing a few dogs from being mishandled. As a means to an end I would continue to use it in that context but you're right, if a trainer I was thinking of hiring told me I need to be alpha I would walk the other way. It was an unusual unideal situation for many of the dogs in group. 20+ dogs in a room with one person is a situation to be avoided I think.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

lennydit said:


> They work in the context of me and my coworkers and it helped me prevent my coworkers from getting bit and preventing a few dogs from being mishandled. As a means to an end I would continue to use it in that context but you're right, if a trainer I was thinking of hiring told me I need to be alpha I would walk the other way. It was an unusual unideal situation for many of the dogs in group. 20+ dogs in a room with one person is a situation to be avoided I think.


How you handle twenty dogs in a group setting is very different from how you would handle one dog in a one-on-one training setting, so maybe that's where part of the disconnect between what you're saying and what we're saying is coming from.

And yes, twenty to one is way too many dogs to people in a daycare setting.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

> I know. I've done it. If I point something out to Molly now she blows up. Anything I point out. ANYTHING I point out to her. I can point out her FOOD BOWL (By looking at it pointedly) and have her explode. Why? Because my LAT was badly done and the result was 'hey, if she points at something I'm supposed to bark at it'. Was it using the method right? Nope. My timing was sloppy, but that's all it took, initally. I still created a dog who barks explosively when I point at something, then sits down and looks at me with a grin, is quite proud of herself and wants her treat for doing it right. She has no concept that the being quiet and calming down part was what I wanted or what she was rewarding for.


I accidentally did something like this to Ralphie and people walking on the sidewalk behind our house. I was working on having him ignore people back there. It worked fine before we had the fence up because I could see the people coming and get his attention and taught him to just watch or politely ignore. Now, with the fence I can no longer see people coming, so I only know they are there if I hear them, or if Ralphie barks. When he would bark I would ask him to leave it. After a while of teaching this, he now alert barks twice, leaves it, and then runs to me for his treat. Whatever, I guess, thanks for letting me know, lol. At least he stops.

Anyways, I still don't understand why people _want_ to believe dominance theory. Why would anybody want to yell, alpha roll, poke, hit, or make weird "pssst" noises at their dog to scare them into obeying? Does it make them feel good to see their pet cower and do what they want simply because they're being scary? I mean, I could do "dominance" based training and wreck my dog, or I could use positive reinforcement wrong and just have a fat dog that barks at people on the other side of the fence and then runs to me for a treat (and fat is easier to fix than behavioral problems).


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Mirzam said:


> Dominance requires a human intellectual construct of reality, it is a "brain-bound" approach, a me-relative-to-you psychology. Dogs and wolves do not have that capacity.


With all due respect, I read here a stream of unsupported assertions leading to an equally unsupported conclusion. Please help us with the following:

1) Provide proof (facts, data, logic) for why dominance _requires_ a human intellectual construct of reality.
2) Explain why "brain-bound" must _necessarily_ be a human concept, since dogs (and other animals) also have brains.
3) Again, provide proof (facts, data, logic) to support that dogs aren't capable of "me-relative-to-you psychology."


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Canyx said:


> Re: this whole dominance thing... I'm not sure I'm understanding the point of this post here. "Dominance is debunked" doesn't mean the word, meaning, and true interpretations of dog behavior are gone. It just means that the training mentality of 'dominance/alpha' no longer holds water. Those techniques don't work by making the dog respect you and see you as a leader. Those techniques work because they are violent and instill fear. It's postive punishment.


Well, let me see if I can clarify (again). Nowhere in my OP did I advocate or recommend that dominance/alpha be used in training to assert human dominance over a dog. Some folks more qualified than me may have success with it, and that's their thing. I rather use other means. _Training is not the point of my original post, nor the follow-up on dominance (in response to someone's tangential response)._

My original point dealt with the misstatements of scientific fact by allegedly scientifically-based positive trainers regarding the validity of comparing wolf and dog behavior (with the flawed analogical appeal to chimps vs. humans). The follow-up dealt with the also oft-misstated "recantation" by Dr. Mech that is represented as an outright denial of dominance _among_ canines, when Dr. Mech's "recantation" in fact was more nuanced and allowed for special cases where dominance indeed does take place. It just so happens those "special" cases resemble (more than casually) our living-with-dogs-at-home environment.

In short, my original post and the follow-up deal with whether dominance, under some circumstances (artificial assemblages/packs, in captive environment), is possible among canines, with the goal that we keep in mind the full spectrum of possible canine behavior and interactions. Some claim this has never been denied, while others (at least one person) maintains that dominance among canines is also an invalid concept.

So to be clear, this discussion should only affect training insofar as management (understanding/insight) of packs of dogs in our homes, etc., is concerned, and *not* to support the idea that humans should assert themselves as dominant over dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hmm. To be clear, while I think dogs do have a somewhat hierarchical social structure, I don't see what many people consider "dominance" to be a concrete thing, like one dog is the "alpha" and another one is the "beta", etc. In my house, Suri is BOSSY. She won't let the other dogs chew on rawhides while she's around, or do anything that annoys her. But Finn is usually the first one out the door (he's faster ), and he won't let her take his food. He's also learned to ask for me to put her to bed early so he can enjoy a nice after-dinner chew . He'll try to sneak around her as much as possible. Penny is passive and will let anyone do anything, until she's pushed far enough, then she WILL snap and the other dogs will back down every time. I wouldn't be able to pick any one of them out as "alpha". It's just not as linear as some people seem to think.


----------



## esuastegui (Aug 8, 2016)

Willowy said:


> Hmm. To be clear, while I think dogs do have a somewhat hierarchical social structure, I don't see what many people consider "dominance" to be a concrete thing, like one dog is the "alpha" and another one is the "beta", etc. In my house, Suri is BOSSY. She won't let the other dogs chew on rawhides or do anything that annoys her. But Finn is usually the first one out the door (he's faster ), and he won't let her take his food. Penny is passive and will let anyone do anything, until she's pushed far enough, then she WILL snap and the other dogs will back down, every time. I wouldn't be able to pick any one of them out as "alpha". It's just not as linear as some people seem to think.


I appreciate yours (and the many other examples) where "dominance" (or whatever we want to call it) happens in a more fluid, in-flux manner. I can share alternative anecdotal experience where I've seen dominance maintained between two dogs for years, then flip once the prior submissive dog was stronger than the prior dominant one. I can also share that this interaction (in my case) required very little intervention on my part because it was for the most part healthy (non-harming) and even loving. Dominance (or whatever we want to call it) isn't necessarily something to fear or avoid.

I can also share a more recent scenario (not in my own house, thankfully, but in a family member's), where the introduction of a new rather assertive puppy has caused a battle royale. In my observation it has nothing to do with resource guarding (no fighting over food or toys), not due to anxiety or fear, nor rude playfulness, nor any of the other often-proposed diagnoses for why dogs go at it. It is literally (manifested in clear physical interaction) a struggle about who is on top. Not play, just all out physical struggle leading to aggression. As much as I squint to read something else into it, it's too plain to see: the younger dog trying to assert itself, and the older one refusing to give in.

So there are two cases to add to yours (and that of many others). I don't think they prove much in general, except for what is happening in these discrete, unique situations. I think the best we can say is that dominance/alpha/assertiveness/leadership/... manifests itself in a variety of ways depending on the specific, unique personalities of the dogs involved, and the unique situation/environment they inhabit. Still, for me, dominance (or whatever we want to call it) is a real dynamic. I can't deny it anymore than I can look up at the sky and say it isn't blue at high noon on a sunny day.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

lennydit said:


> I don't think they're inherently more humane if you're still routinely putting your dog in situations they're uncomfortable with.


Here's the thing.... if you're putting your dog in a situation that they are not comfortable with, then you're doing it wrong. You don't _need_ to experience discomfort to experience classical conditioning, and I would argue that if you are intentionally putting your dog in a situation where they are not comfortable you're either going too fast for the dog or flat out doing it wrong. And you can bet your pants that P+ methods are not comfortable for the dog either.

Both classical and operant conditioning happen regardless of whether you want them to or not; as trainers trying to increase specific behaviors, it is our responsibility to set up the environment or situation so that the dog learns what we intend for them to learn, and to do it as humanely as possible which in almost every case means without the use of force, fear, pain or coercion.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

@everyone telling me how to use treats

I know, I always bring food and it's always a weird mix and my dog might get a variable amount of kibble or he might get a cookie or he might get a piece of pork tenderloin. Sometimes I put it in an orange bag that also has toys and his training lead and sometimes I put it in my pocket and sometimes it's in my purse. And sometimes it's in a round tupperware container and sometimes it's in a plastic baggie. I'm way too disorganized to be at all consistent about where I put his treats but I do bring them. 

@Gingerkid, I know how classical and operant conditioning work. I completed an entry-level psych class. Unfortunately having 100% control of your environment isn't always possible. I live in the city and don't have a yard, and I can't drive. I also can't control what my neighbors think is an appropriate way to approach a dog. The good thing about training facilities is they can control who's in what area at what time. Good for them. Not viable 100% of the time for 100% of people. 

And regardless of whether or not you want to think you're not putting your dog in a situation that's uncomfortable for them, by increasing the threshold a tiny bit of a time you are increasing what they *tolerate.* Not necessarily what they enjoy. I'm not entirely opposed to this because if you're like many of us and don't have the ability to control every aspect of your dog's life, getting your dog to a threshold where they can tolerate New Scary Things even with some discomfort is better than your dog flipping out every time something unexpected or out of your control happens. 

I was subjected to a classical conditioning therapy with "no aversives". Being given a skittle for letting people touch me didn't make me like being touched. Now the problem with that is less classical-conditioning-is-bad and more who-thought-treating-me-like-a-dog-was-ok but also the point is it might have increased my threshold for being touched because I expect it to happen more, not because I got a skittle. Getting a skittle was just something that happened in addition to the unpleasant experience. Which is why I don't believe that using food is changing the underlying emotional state but distracting the dog enough to increase their threshold. Your dog might be sticking around for the food but they're not thinking "this is fun" they're thinking "well, I guess." 

In my experience the dogs I've had that could benefit from counterconditioning can do it without food and without being flooded...they might not take food if they have to see something that freaks them out from a distance while restrained (on leash). I'd rather just let the dog explore a little bit at a time. Worst case scenario I'd rather pair the dog with another, more stable dog who can be a good role model. I actually got my puppy to stop being afraid of children by letting him meet children with my parent's husky, who loves children. He saw the big fun husky getting loved on by kids and sauntered over on his own to see what was up. Now my puppy also likes kids. Much more effective than giving him a treat for approaching a child.

I don't use food for every little thing, I only use it if I want to teach a specific behavior (including in a new context) or when I'm playing engagement games. The worst correction my puppy gets is "get off." I don't really think introducing food to a stressful situation (even at a distance where the situation barely registers) changes the underlying emotional state of the dog. 



Lillith said:


> Anyways, I still don't understand why people _want_ to believe dominance theory. Why would anybody want to yell, alpha roll, poke, hit, or make weird "pssst" noises at their dog to scare them into obeying? Does it make them feel good to see their pet cower and do what they want simply because they're being scary? I mean, I could do "dominance" based training and wreck my dog, or I could use positive reinforcement wrong and just have a fat dog that barks at people on the other side of the fence and then runs to me for a treat (and fat is easier to fix than behavioral problems).


Sharp noises are useful for controlling a group of 20+ dogs (which is a terrible idea and way too many dogs for a daycamp).

Poking your dog (not jabbing them, poking them) is not going to hurt them and it's a way to get your dog's attention when they're really fixating on something and not listening to vocal commands (esp. my puppy...he is immune to loud noises). It's mildly irritating at most and less likely to hurt my dog than dragging him away or letting him hit the end of the leash and supplex himself. I've also picked up large dogs before, which tends to confuse them but disrupt whatever they were doing that wasn't so good. 

That said on the topic of physical corrections in general I think the reason they have worked is also not because they change the underlying emotional state of the dog, or because they increase the threshold, but because it redirects the dog's attention onto the handler. Which isn't necessarily good, because the dog might be a really chill dog who's OK with you occasionally popping the leash, or the dog might be watching to see if they're about to get another correction. In other words, on edge. From there, with time, the dog gets fewer corrections and might organically start to change emotional states. Not my preferred method. =\

The reason I think people seem to see CC as a magical way to make your dog enjoy life again is because I left a service dog listserv where a member told me I would _ruin_ my dog by letting him encounter a bus (spoiler, my dog continues not to be scared of buses). This same person went on to tell someone whose service dog snapped at their child that they might not have to wash their dog because nowadays we have counter-conditioning. You personally may not think like that, but enough people _who should know better_ do.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I dunno. If something (medical, etc.) HAS to be done to a kid, giving them a Skittle for tolerating it is better than smacking them for not tolerating it. But if they're doing it to try to make a neuro-atypical person into something they're not, well, that's a whole 'nother thing :/. 

I think counter-conditioning CAN help to change the emotions involved, but it doesn't always succeed. Because brains are weird.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

Willowy said:


> I dunno. If something (medical, etc.) HAS to be done to a kid, giving them a Skittle for tolerating it is better than smacking them for not tolerating it. But if they're doing it to try to make a neuro-atypical person into something they're not, well, that's a whole 'nother thing :/.
> 
> I think counter-conditioning CAN help to change the emotions involved, but it doesn't always succeed. Because brains are weird.


 It was ABA so the entire point was to make me act neurotypical.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I dunno. If something (medical, etc.) HAS to be done to a kid, giving them a Skittle for tolerating it is better than smacking them for not tolerating it. But if they're doing it to try to make a neuro-atypical person into something they're not, well, that's a whole 'nother thing :/.
> 
> I think counter-conditioning CAN help to change the emotions involved, but it doesn't always succeed. Because brains are weird.


Yea, additionally for that specific example, I would argue that the reward (skittle) wasn't the correct one because the reward of the skittle wasn't high value enough to overcome the negative stimulus in the way it was being introduced. 

So, I wouldn't say that's an example of why CCing doesn't work, but rather an example of techniques being used incorrectly.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

lennydit said:


> It was ABA so the entire point was to make me act neurotypical.


Yeah I've heard of that. Apparently they tried some weird crap with my dad too, but I don't know the details because he won't talk about it. Sorry that happened to you .

And, not that I think that neuro-atypical people should be trained to pretend they're neurotyp, but theoretically. . .no reward is going to override the terribleness of losing bodily and emotional autonomy. No reward will override the terribleness of having to do something your brain is screaming about. So probably some kind of Premack-type-something would work better. But don't do that either. Neurodiversity acceptance all the way!


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Yeah I've heard of that. Apparently they tried some weird crap with my dad too, but I don't know the details because he won't talk about it. Sorry that happened to you .


Also, yea, you can't use CCing to combat those kinds of things in general. So the whole thing is flawed from the get go.


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

ireth0 said:


> So, I wouldn't say that's an example of why CCing doesn't work, but rather an example of techniques being used incorrectly.


It's quite a mainstream technique though.

I'm not saying it doesn't work and doesn't have utility, but I don't think it works the way people say it does and I don't prefer it over letting dogs organically explore their environment.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

lennydit said:


> It's quite a mainstream technique though.
> 
> I'm not saying it doesn't work and doesn't have utility, but I don't think it works the way people say it does and I don't prefer it over letting dogs organically explore their environment.


Could you expand a bit on this? How are people saying it works, and what do you mean by letting dogs organically explore?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> Also, yea, you can't use CCing to combat those kinds of things in general. So the whole thing is flawed from the get go.


There is an argument to be said that every time someone tries to CC a dog with a fear or reactivity issue that that's the sort of thing they're trying to accomplish, though. When you try to CC and DS a dog for an extended period of time and ultimately end up on meds/ That entire time before that is very, very similar. You're trying to use a reward to push a dog to overcome a physical mental and emotional issue. 

Is that actually humane or kind? 

And how do you know the difference before you've tried?

Anyone who has a reactive dog and works on it, in any way, is by the very nature of the thing putting the dog in a stressful situation. Even if they never have the dog over threshold. Is that bad? I don't think so, but I don't think pretending the dog isn't stressed by it is particularly fair. Hell, every time you deal with taking a dog into a competition ring for the first time, or a new environment, or deal with 'overstimulated' or 'won't take treats' or 'disengages' in class because of a location change. Every time a dog frustration barks: Still stressing the dog. 

The dogs learn to deal with it and can, minus a biological factor in play stopping them, become quite happy about it. Still stressing the dog. You're changing an emotion, yeah, but it's not instant and that emotion you start with isn't positive and you deliberately make that emotion happen so you can change it. It's not rainbows and flowers and happy positives for the dog. How negative it is can be mitigated, it is LESS negative than using prong pops or hitting or even pushing the dog really hard and flooding them, but it's still pushing the dog and it's still not happy fun time for the dog at first.

*ETA: *Which is I think what the other poster is driving at. I get that. It makes sense to me. It's accurate and fair. I'll still use treats and positive rewards every chance I get and then some (remember, I'm miss 'I don't even no') but that doesn't remove the stress inherent into many situations. What it does do, though, is NOT ADD STRESS to the scenario - and in fact can, done correctly and thoughtfully reduce or remove the stress (see also CC/DS done with a dog who is capable of doing them and learning).


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

@CPTJack, that is essentially what I'm saying. I'm saying if a dog doesn't need to encounter a trigger then don't make them encounter it. If it's not viable to remove the trigger from their life then counterconditioning is useful.

As for letting a dog explore their environment organically, I mean that in the most literal sense possible. If you can (ie it's not going to put your dog or someone else('s dog) at risk of immediate harm), let the dog off leash with a more stable dog. Walk the dog in the vicinity of a dog they're not super reactive to. Walk parallel across the street if you have to and meet up at a field. The dog sees "OK, that dog's just minding his own business" while they're walking together. Eventually walk closer together. Eventually you might be able to let the dog off leash in a field. Dog may or may not greet the other dog, but you might kind of see them following each other around and checking out what the other dog is doing. This is how my terrier (the dog who wouldn't have responded to CC) eventually got over her dog aggression. We started with our dog, then our next-door neighbors' dogs, then new dogs. Keyword, eventually. The terrier was aggressive to our other dog for the first three months, aggressive to strange dogs and people all the way through her first year. Sometime in the second year we had her this petered out and she started being...OK...with strange dogs/people. Then for the last two years of her life she was more outgoing and liked meeting people. She rarely played with other dogs, but she stopped having negative interactions entirely. (She never really did play in general.)

Our other dog was also excessively good-natured and an excellent role model. Wouldn't take crap but would never fight another dog. It would have been a lot harder if we didn't have her at our immediate disposal. Thankfully we now have the husky who's very similar in temperament (but much much stupider and also he will put up with a lot more than the labX).

For the terrier, she also hated grooming and would bite people if they tried to groom her. Except me. Because if she tried to get up and walk away from me while I was grooming her I gave her a 10 minute break. It took a very long time for me to groom her but it took everyone a very long time to groom her, and I was doing it without getting bit. 

It's not always viable. But it's more or less an example of counterconditioning or socialization that relies less on food and more on letting the dog decide when it's OK to move forward. I'd guess it works mostly because you're giving your dog a basis to trust you. You're not looking for a specific result. You don't have to correct/reward them. You don't have to even necessarily use commands aside from basic leash-manners and recall. You could incorporate rewards if you wanted to, but you don't really have to.

Whether or not this works depends on your dog and depends on your situation. If the dog is REALLY reactive, and not just "argh (my space/a stranger/I don't like when dogs do things) so now I will bark and bite" like my terrier, like if they're preying on other dogs or on children or something, if removing the trigger entirely isn't an option (including by rehoming), then I prefer a reward-based method. If that doesn't work, I'm not opposed to a method that uses positive punishment. It shouldn't be the first option or the sole component of training. But if nothing else works, and it can get a dog to a level where they're not at risk of being killed, I'm not opposed. But before I would do any of that I would want to remove the trigger.


----------

