The Man Who Coined the Phrase...

spiritdogs

 ...doesn't want us to use it that way any more.  Mech apparently agrees that the term "alpha" should disappear from the dog training lexicon.

Nowadys even in the hard sciences, there is a huge lag between discovery and use. (of the order of 15 years). In the dog world we had operant condtioning in the early 60s....

The article reckons 20 years. I don't think so. More like 40-50 . The dominance myth suits many of the common paradigms of society even today.

I heard that the inventor of the alpha roll, from the Monks of New Skete had a re-think and said so at an APDT conference. Now how long will that one take to go?

I have been reading a great book called Affective Neurosicence by Jaak Panksheep. It has really clarified for me some issues that seemd to be very inconsistent with behaviour. I think after reading this book and working out some of the issues that most trainers would be even less likely to use aversives, and more likley to use the environment to train and work out how to play with their dogs better.. May be in 50 years we will see some movement...

I heard that the inventor of the alpha roll, from the Monks of New Skete had a re-think and said so at an APDT conference. Now how long will that one take to go?

Probably a lot longer now that Cesar Millan has put it on TV for all the mindless masses to emulate...

 I use the term "alpha", and do so in my book, simply because people are familiar with the concept.  If an owner wants to be the alpha in the household, great.  NILIF makes you the alpha.  Training makes you the alpha.  Taking proper care of your dog makes you the alpha.  You can replace alpha with "parent" along the way.

Maura

 I use the term "alpha", and do so in my book, simply because people are familiar with the concept.  If an owner wants to be the alpha in the household, great.  NILIF makes you the alpha.  Training makes you the alpha.  Taking proper care of your dog makes you the alpha.  You can replace alpha with "parent" along the way.

People are familiar with the concept of alpha, sure, but they are familiar with it in a way that implies a very dog vs. human relationship. Using the term alpha, people are going to think of dominance and "dominating" dogs and that dogs are fighting for a position as a leader. It can create a volatile relationship when you are looking at your dog and thinking he is trying to rule the roost. I do not think alpha = parent/pet owner/guardian, and I do not think we are going to change the mass population's interpretation of "alpha" anytime soon. I don't know, I guess I just disagree on using the term alpha to describe the dog-human relationship.

spiritdogs

 ...doesn't want us to use it that way any more.  Mech apparently agrees that the term "alpha" should disappear from the dog training lexicon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-matlack/are-you-an-alpha-male_b_386519.html

Interesting read. I liked it. Thanks for sharing. :)

I think Spiritdogs' point is that Mech, the premiere expert on wolf behavior, trumping the knowledge of even Cesar Milan, is that "alpha" is a misnomer and doesn't even really apply to wolf behavior at all, in any particular fashioned used of the word, and most especially in the violent dominator sense of the word. Which means quit using it on dogs, if you believe dogs are like wolves. If the use of the word is "because dogs are different than wolves," then quit using wolf behavior to model dog behavior. By the way, I think dogs and wolves are different species.

Therefore, the word should fall out of use, familiar or not.

Time for a new word.

Maura

 I use the term "alpha", and do so in my book, simply because people are familiar with the concept.  If an owner wants to be the alpha in the household, great.  NILIF makes you the alpha.  Training makes you the alpha.  Taking proper care of your dog makes you the alpha.  You can replace alpha with "parent" along the way.

I'm sorry, but that sounds to me as though you would rather sell books than educate.  The term may be familiar, but it is not accurate, and deliberately perpetuating the myth of dominance is not helpful.  Leadership is not the same as dominance, and neither training nor an NILIF program has to incorporate dominance or "alpha" tactics.   To be honest, in reading some of your recent posts, I'm not inclined to recommend your book to anyone.  You may be a good writer, but you have much to learn about dog behavior.

ron2

Time for a new word.

C'mon, ron - don't tease us - what word shall we use??? 

spiritdogs

The term may be familiar, but it is not accurate, and deliberately perpetuating the myth of dominance is not helpful.  Leadership is not the same as dominance

I don't think of it as deliberately perpetuating a myth, it is a term that was coined and used in past generations, and most children follow by example and so it goes on. It is a very easy to remember terminology that clicks in a persons mind. You say ALPHA and the first thing that comes to mind is what? For most people it is going to mean, leader, first and in charge, for some it will mean dominance.

I agree with Kim, it is going to take a long time for it to become unfashionable to say it. It will take even longer with current main stream media. People as a whole do not step out of their comfort zone, or go looking for new ways. There will always be people that buck the system, if there wasn't we would still be rubbing puppy noses in accidents and there would be no other type of training examples out there. Not everyone followed the ALPHA principle.

The problem is this, the ones who need the lesson and the guidance, do not read Mech, or head to the local library for a Pryor book. They do what they were taught, and believe it to be truth, like a tradition so to speak. That is who needs to be roped in.

Oh, a new word...hmmm....

Truley

I don't think of it as deliberately perpetuating a myth, it is a term that was coined and used in past generations, and most children follow by example and so it goes on. It is a very easy to remember terminology that clicks in a persons mind. You say ALPHA and the first thing that comes to mind is what? For most people it is going to mean, leader, first and in charge, for some it will mean dominance.

For most newbies that i work with , it means dominance. It still encourages this analysis of every dog move in terms of dominance and submission. it is hard to get a foot in once a dominance boor starts... and it all sounds so plausible and easy. it is a cop our often for appalling human behaviour.

 I use the term caring parent. That is what we need to be to our dogs. :)

 We say dog parents in our house. We are dog parents, not leaders, and we have a family, not a pack. I suppose you could argue that it encourages people to treat their dogs like child substitutes, but I'd like to think that if you charge people with parental responsibilities towards their pets they won't default to spoiling them rotten. As opposed to charging them with the responsibility of not just being an alpha, but a leader. How does one lead? A LOT of people I have found myself working under lead through intimidation and enforcement rather than reinforcement.

 The only time I use the term alpha is to explain why it is does not apply in that specific context. I prefer a teacher-student analogy, since in my opinion most dogs that are called alpha are really just poorly educated (i.e. taught the wrong things) or not taught anything at all.

 I've read Panksep and I agree with the opionion of Mark S. Blumberg (University of Iowa), and Greta Sokoloff (Indiana University Bloomington), in that his anthropomorphic approach to study cognition and psychology in non human animals has not proven successful.

Corinthian

 I've read Panksep and I agree with the opionion of Mark S. Blumberg (University of Iowa), and Greta Sokoloff (Indiana University Bloomington), in that his anthropomorphic approach to study cognition and psychology in non human animals has not proven successful.

Hi I have read Panksep too, but that is not what i get out of him at all. He talks about the neuroscience of emotions and spends very little time talking about cognition at all. I find that his breaking down some of the baisc drives into emotion headings to be somewhat useful. It explains a whole lot of anomalies in normal drive and behavourist models. i am looking at the work that Dodman is doing to see whether we get any convergence.

I wouldn't mind critical references though, i read right through subjects :)))