New Research Suggests that Diversity in Dogs Comes from the Wolf's DNA

Hi Ron,

Wow. You seem to have undergone a personality change in the last few days. 

ron2

And maybe I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the dog socializing with us comes from a psycho-sexual wolf play.

This is a gross mis-characterization of what I've written. You know better than to say that.

ron2

Nor do I see that a wolf bringing a food item to the pack as a root behavior for dogs socializing with man.

Again, this has nothing to do with anything I've said or written. What I said is very clear, and very simple. Because of the fact that wolves hunt large prey, and do so by working together as a cohesive social group, this has created a kind of social and emotional flexibility that seems to be reflected in their DNA. It's that social and emotional flexibility that seems to be at the heart of the way dogs have domesticated us.

Is it possible that the two things come from different strains of DNA? Of course. But it seems to me that there must be some kind of connection somewhere. You just have to look at it from a wider point of view to see it.

ron2

Dogs, however, can form associations with strangers, many in their lifetimes, of differing species. Wolves do not lie down with the lambs. They eat them. Wolves do not run away from cows, they eat them.

Sorry to have to say this, but you've taken one of your own arguments out of context here and, I think, misapplied it. Would a pack of wolves run away from a single cow? Probably not. Would a juvenile wolf, on his own, seeing a cow for perhaps the first time, run away from it? Probably so. And that's exactly what your dog, a solitary, juvenile wolf (in a way) did. Meanwhile wolves are not only capable of nurturing young animals that are not their own (and not of their own species), they're somewhat famous for doing so. (Ask Romulus and Remus.)

Again, it's how the prey drive operates in wolves in such a way that it demands great social and emotional flexibility if they're to be successful at taking down a large prey animal. It's that same flexibility that we see in our dogs, turbo-charged exponentially to include the possibility of a dog forming friendships with almost any other dog or human he or she meets, etc.

ron2

Nor am I seeing any peer review from other researchers in animal behavior that either agree or disagree other than the one reference to a guy that expressly wants to "dismantle" OC. Just stating that shows an unscientific attitude. It show a prejudgement, a desire predestined and the goal is to fullfill that desire, rather than observe what is there. It's not science. I don't know if PT even publishes rebuttals. Most any actual scientific journal actually puts a paper through a peer review process before they even publish it. .

Randy Gallistel is not a "guy," he's one of a growing number of very high-level behavioral and cognitive scientists who are saying, "Hey, wait a second, some of this operant conditioning stuff doesn't make any sense." (This started, I think, with Rescorla in 1968.)

Now, if I've spent the last 20 years of my life studying behavioral science, and doing so with a great deal of care and scrutiny (how many dog trainers do you know of have read all of B. F. Skinner's books and major papers?), and I have done so because I had the same feeling 20 years ago that Dr. Gallistel seems to have started getting around the same time, maybe a little later, how does that equate to either of us being unscientific? We're both seeing things that don't fit the pattern. And we're both calling attention to the anomalies.

Yes, PsychologyToday not only publishes rebuttals, they encourage them. It gets more readers.

I usually reply to most of the comments posted on my blogs, and allow any and all comments as long as the author minds his or her manners, and offers intelligent commentary. In fact, intelligence is not a pre-requisite. Some people (and you have at least one of them among you now), aren't interested in polite discussion of issues; they just want to stir up negativity, and will do or say anything to that effect. This includes lying and attacking the messenger (ad hominem) while paying no attention to the message.

Again, I apologize if I've let too much of my annoyance show through in my response.

LCK

 Oooh...a nerve is struck! 

 For whom it may concern,

LCK,

I have first-hand experience (and evidence of others';) where you edit your PT combox posts so they conform to your ability to attack the stated views of the poster.

Your CEO was so notified, but he refused to take action.  The result may be that PT will lose valuable contributers like Bekoff and Coren.

And quit using ron as a vehicle to confront me.

I am waiting..

I believe that tactic is called deflection. You can't answer the charges against your theory so make it instead about me. "You've changed recently ...", etc.

You refuted my statement about wolves eating cows by offering the possibility that a lone wolf cub might retreat from a cow. So, prove it. Also, prove in what situation a lone wolf cub might be approaching a cow. Not likely to happen. For one thing, cubs do not go on hunts. Secondly, a cow would have been scent tracked before it go to the pack.

And sorry, in spite of the fact that Shadow does look like a timberwolf (I've lost count of the number of times people have asked me if he is a wolf or wolf hybrid), he is not a neotenous wolf. He is canid, as are wolves, coyotes, jackals, foxes, dingos, NGSD's, and the Maned Wolf of South America, which surprisingly, is not directly descended from the gray wolf.

Some of your rebuttals are simply rhetoric or theoretical questions, not offering proof of what you say. You have to prove it. All I have to do is question it. I'm not the one trying to undo decades of behavioral science. I'm also not trying to advance a quasi-QM theory that went out of fashion around the turn of the 20th century.

Your theory and soi-disant proof are reminiscent of Einstein's thought models. When presented with the illogical inconsistency of his aether in sheep's clothing theory, he stated that two observer aboard ship both travelling near the speed of light would observe each others' clocks slowing down. Point being, neither observation was accurate but was, instead, an effect of the limit of powers of observation, whether it be the human eye or even some test equipment.

That is also the downfall of QM. There is no way to measure or build instruments to test the theories. All they can do is come up with arcane math and violate the very postulates of the math they are using, such as the lorentzian transforms as applied to topology using hyperbolic trig as the translating function. (Sorry, if I went over anyone's head there. It was the only way I could explain it, a failing of mine, for sure.)

So, at present, there is no way to prove your theory causally. Especially the QM part. And I wouldn't hold out on the dopamine thing as the key, either. But keep searching.

But I haven't adequately seen where OC, CC has "failed" to explain things, though any theory might not be perfect.

Nor am I at all convinced that a wolf pack is a group mind, per se. And dogs are a different species than wolf and must certainly entail even more investigation. I don't see any proof that dog and wolf are the same species, whether or not one evolved from the other or not. And I think not.

Nor do I see the wolves peeing on the moosehead as a psycho-sexual role play or interaction. Might dogs have a sort of feeling called affection that grew out of or best expresses the root causes of social behavior to engage in better hunting? Maybe, maybe not. You haven't disproven their ability to socialize with man has coming from survival mechanisms. And I wonder if you use QM because there is no proof and the only way to support the theory is to use a discarded fragment of yet another largely unproven theory. That's why I called it a house of cards. It's more dangerous than betting everything on red on the roulette wheel.

So far, the arguments of your theory seem tautological, rather than empirical. In fact, they can't be empirical since you are rejecting the empirical observations recorded thus far. And I haven't seen empirical evidence, as yet, to support the theory. Shifting paradigms, or in this case, at times, shifting language to control the debate doesn't constitute as proof.

As for rebuttals in PT, how come we haven't seen any? Or are those forthcoming, because I would also like to read those.

The real mystery - what will I be like tomorrow? Sorry, couldn't resist, even at the expense of myself.

ron2

I believe that tactic is called deflection. You can't answer the charges against your theory so make it instead about me.

I would categorize it as genuine surprise, because you usually give me solid, well-thought out counter-arguments.

I'm happy to offer counter arguments of my own, and have done so to the best of my ability and time constraints. So please don't deflect or mischaracterize things by saying I "can't answer the charges." I can and do. Give me that respect at least.

ron2

You refuted my statement about wolves eating cows by offering the possibility that a lone wolf cub might retreat from a cow. So, prove it. .

See? This is what I mean about solid, well-thought out counter-arguments. I never said anything at all about wolves eating cows. You gave an example of a behavior seen in your own dog, which was given as evidence that dogs and wolves react differently to seeing large prey. I don't disagree with that at all. I even said quite clearly that there are many behavioral differences in dogs and wolves. What I was offering, in rebuttal, to your example, is that when a pack wolves approaches a large prey animal their behavior would probably be substantially different from the behavior you'd see in a lone juvenile.

But the main disappointment I have in your latest post is that none of this has any relevance to my proposal that the emotional and social flexibility we see in domesticated dogs may be related, genetically-speaking, to the social and emotional flexibility found in wolves when they're hunting large prey.

As far as I can tell, your anecdote about your dog getting "spooked" by a cow doesn't address that idea at all.

ron2

And sorry, in spite of the fact that Shadow does look like a timberwolf ... he is not a neotenous wolf.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was making a reference to dogs in general -- they're sometimes referred to in the literature as a kind of neotenous wolf. So I wasn't talking about Shadow, specifically. I thought that was clear, but perhaps I should have put that in quotes.

But again, what does this have to do with where the dog's social and emotional flexibility comes from?

ron2

Some of your rebuttals are simply rhetoric or theoretical questions, not offering proof of what you say.  You have to prove it. All I have to do is question it. I'm not the one trying to undo decades of behavioral science. I'm also not trying to advance a quasi-QM theory that went out of fashion around the turn of the 20th century.

First of all, where have I said anything about quantum mechanics? (I mean recently; I may have broached that topic 3 or 4 years ago, but further research since then has sent me off in a different direction.)

As for your continually saying I have to prove things, I have offered proof, and lots of it. Just chanting that phrase repeatedly doesn't make it true, or further our conversation. Please give me an example where have I failed in proving something I claimed to have proof of.

ron2

So, at present, there is no way to prove your theory causally. Especially the QM part. And I wouldn't hold out on the dopamine thing as the key, either. But keep searching.

Actually, the research on dopamine strongly suggests that there may be something besides the law of consequences at play when animals learn new behaviors. Since that's already been addressed at length in one of my articles, and in the discussions about it here, I'll leave it at that. (I only have so much time to address actual, substantial arguments my positions, and this doesn't qualify.)

ron2

But I haven't adequately seen where OC, CC has "failed" to explain things

Okay, you haven't. But I have. And I've written about it at length, and countered a laundry list of arguments against my position. See: "Of Mice and Mutts IV," along with all 183 comments, many of which seem to have been written by a high-level academic behavioral scientist. This should also bury the lie that I don't allow or respond to comments on my posts at PsychologyToday.com.

ron2

Nor do I see the wolves peeing on the moosehead as a psycho-sexual role play or interaction. Might dogs have a sort of feeling called affection that grew out of or best expresses the root causes of social behavior to engage in better hunting? Maybe, maybe not. You haven't disproven their ability to socialize with man has coming from survival mechanisms.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Wolves peeing on a moose head as psycho-sexual play? Where on earth did you get that? I've never said anything remotely like that, anywhere.

I also never said that survival mechanisms didn't play a role in the dog's domestication. That doesn't negate the possibility that the wolf's social and emotional adpaptability were passed on to the proto-dogs approaching our campfires, etc. However, just to be clear, survival behaviors are, generally speaking, controlled by the survival instincts. Social behaviors are, generally speaking, controlled by the social instincts. One area where they overlap is in the wolf's need to survive by hunting large prey by doing so as part of a social group.

ron2

So far, the arguments of your theory seem tautological, rather than empirical. In fact, they can't be empirical since you are rejecting the empirical observations recorded thus far.

Ron, please! Come on. You can't keep mischaracterizing my positions and labeling them. Well, you can, of course, if you want to. But it's this kind of evasive discourse that I find so disappointing. What -- exactly -- do you find tautological?

And you're also mis-stating the facts about empirical evidence supporting my positions. I have offered plenty of scientific evidence. There's all the neuroscience showing that the brain actually does operate via the laws of thermodynamics, which was first theorized over 100 years ago by Sigmund Freud, and that this same dynamic is seen in both humans and dogs. I've also offered evidence that animals may not learn via the law of consequences, but rather through paying attention to salient changes in their environments, i.e., that dopamine is what tells an animal "remember to do this (eat, have sex), and not do that (put yourself in danger)." Nearly everything I've written has some evidentiary basis in science. Even the fact that the domesticated dog's morphological and behavioral diversity may come from the wolf's DNA is based on recent scientific evidence showing that the extraordinary high levels of mutational factors exist in both species.

Once again, I'm disappointed because I rely on you for good solid counterarguments, not stuff like this. 

ron2

As for rebuttals in PT, how come we haven't seen any?

Probably because you haven't looked. Also, I don't have any control over who decides to write rebuttals. I only have control over those who post comments that I feel are  highly disrespectful in tone, or whose arguments don't rise to the level of needing any rebuttal.

I hope this answers some of your questions and concerns.

(And seriously, peeing on a moose head?)

LCK

LCK said: Once again [ron], I'm disappointed because I rely on you for good solid counterarguments, not stuff like this… (And seriously, peeing on a moose head?)

ron2

Nor am I at all convinced that a wolf pack is a group mind, per se.

I don't think I've ever characterized the wolf pack as a "group mind," per se.

That said, there's a lot of scientific evidence from emergence theory, swarm theory, etc., showing that social organisms often exhibit a kind of collective intelligence. To wit: "Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in Human Groups," (Science Magazine, September 30, 2010.)

LCK

Lee Charles Kelley

ron2

Nor am I at all convinced that a wolf pack is a group mind, per se.

 

I don't think I've ever characterized the wolf pack as a "group mind," per se.

That said, there's a lot of scientific evidence from emergence theory, swarm theory, etc., showing that social organisms often exhibit a kind of collective intelligence. To wit: http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2010/10/what-makes-groups-of-people-smart.html

LCK

Or like NDT quantum consciousness  which you most  emphatically defend in another of your recent threads?

Burl

That said, there's a lot of scientific evidence from emergence theory, swarm theory, etc., showing that social organisms often exhibit a kind of collective intelligence. To wit: http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2010/10/what-makes-groups-of-people-smart.html

There is a fair bit around to suggest that collective behaviour is the result of quite simple behavour patterns installed in indidviduals, and is a response to the stimuli of surrounding organisms, a kind of closed behaviour pattern.  Look under chaos theory and that kind of thing. (Oh no, i can see the misquotes coming already groan!!)

If you want to get outlandish have a look at a chapter or two in Wolfram's "A new Kind of Science". Now the warning here is that he has a few issues of plagarims out, and i would not be pushing the boat out in describing him as eccentric  and some of it aint that new, but personally it is an interesting read

My bad, LCK. Your stuff reads so much like Behan's and I thought he was you mentor and you have referenced him in the past. So, I thought you were on board with his analysis of say, the wolves scent marking the moosehead in the video that Burl linked in. So, are you not so much in synch with Behan? Because in the video, the wolf is not trying to "touch the heart", he is trying to scent roll. And the scent marking of the moosehead has nothing to do with the play towards Maya. Those are two separate events, not even coinciding. Plus, the fact that you identify with NDT, ala Behan, or so I thought. So, perhaps I assumed that you agree with Behan's psycho-sexual analysis of scent marking. In fact, in his essay, he refers to the scent marking as "so called" and instead, states that it is a psycho-sexual drama played out. And then you mentioned how the dog's social ability with humans is an outgrowth of wolf social behavior, whatever survival mechanism that allowed wolves to hunt cooperatively for greater success in the hunt. And I don't think that theory is totally devoid of merit. Just the same, I still think there is merit in the dog's ability to socialize with humans as coming from the pure survival mechanism of eating our scraps. Wolves do not, as a rule, eat human scraps. At least as far as I know. This also makes dogs different than wolves.

Do you or Behan know the relation of these wolves to each other? It appears they are disparate wolves brought together in the "exhibit" and that introduces a whole new dynamic. A natural wolf pack is usually a family. Breeding pair and their cubs. The cubs grow up and find a mate, usually from another pack and go off and start their own pack. That is from L. David Mech, who spends more time out in the wilderness studying them than he does behind a computer theorizing quantum mechanics wave theory as an explanation for wolf or dog behavior.

Wolves not related to each other and brought into captivity are competitive, giving the false impression that all canids relate this way to each other. In a natural wolf pack, there is not nearly the tension because the "alpha" is mom and dad. Beta might be an uncle or an older sibling, who does much of the instruction. And the interaction in a wolf pack where the "alpha" (Mech is so sorry he used the term and what it has come to mean in popular parlance) is seen standing over a "subordinate" is actually the "lesser" wolf offering up respect. To borrow from your use of non-linear dog, it is something of a bottom up organization. Much as a human child might look up to his parent. Granted, that is anthropromoprhizing a bit on my part, but it is a shortcut to express the intentions of the subjects.

I don't think our dogs look at us as prey. Prey is something you eat. And dogs act differently towards humans than they do toward other dogs and other species. So, getting Shadow to follow me is nothing about me being prey. It is about me being the shortest route to resources. At least, that's how I see it.

You say the dopamine study suggests that dogs don't learn by consequence (OC). There is a big difference between "suggests" and proven. That's why I say keep looking. But don't think that the dopamine study disproves or renders invalid the OC approach. I'm not saying that everything we do is going to be rewarding. Negative instruction is applicable, too. I have chain link fence. That is a limit. Call it boundaries. But all creatures, it might be said, seek the path of least resistance toward survival. So, yeah, that does mimic the effect of thermodynamics, in that fluid seeks the path of least resistance but I use it primarily as a metaphor. "Suggests" is not enough reason to change everything unless you have already decided to change everything, arbitrarily, in which case, you have religion, not science. Because then you look for everything to prove your statement and disregard that which does not fit or support the founding thought.

As for thermodynamics, it is my aim to have Shadow realize that the path of least resistance towards survival, good things, equilibrium, is through what I say. But, to be fair, I lead because he follows. He has the option of not listening to me. Short of putting a bullet through his brain, I nor anyone else can "make" him do anything. Whether by reward or correction, the dog, or any creature, has another option. And that offends a lot of people because it upsets their image of themselves as "in control."

I nor anyone else can "make" him do anything. Whether by reward or correction, the dog, or any creature, has another option. And that offends a lot of people because it upsets their image of themselves as "in control."

 That is the unique experiencing subjectivity that attracted us with the desire to adopt and raise our doggies.  I would never have been attracted to an NDT energy-zombie.  I think a very good point is made here that at the heart of such deterministic theories of dog behavior as LCK/NDT advances is the personal need to control - to always be right.  Wrong.

 On edit:

Come to think of it, LCK does not seem to have a dog, and as he is so prone to analyze the behavior of others, I'll take the same liberty and suggest that the reason is that no dog he could bring home would ever confirm his NDT/zombie theory, and he cannot stand such non-conformance to his ideas.

(how many dog trainers do you know of have read all of B. F. Skinner's books and major papers?)

I know quite a few who have an undergraduate or graduate degree in psychology, so there are probably more than you think, although I'm sure the ranks of behaviorists would net you more individuals who have.  However, I find the general tone of your posts condescending, including that one, and your posts here more indicative of narcissism than valid scientific inquiry. 

A quote from another LCK thread on the forum

Quantum theory, specifically Bell's theorem, does relate to Kevin Behan's idea of network consciousness, which is part of the underlying philosophical and structural dynamic behind how and why NTD works.

 (see page 4 here)  http://static-74-43-21-211.fnd.frontiernet.net/forums/t/80304.aspx

ron2

My bad, LCK. Your stuff reads so much like Behan's.

If you look at his writings and mine side-by-side, I think you'd have a different take on that statement. 

ron2

Just the same, I still think there is merit in the dog's ability to socialize with humans as coming from the pure survival mechanism of eating our scraps. Wolves do not, as a rule, eat human scraps. At least as far as I know. This also makes dogs different than wolves.

If what you've just said is valid, it would mean that the Coppingers' dog-as-scavenger theory of domestication is off base. The very reason they came up with the theory (or perhaps I should say a deciding factor) was their observations of modern wolves who settle near garbage dumps, eating human scraps, which Ray Coppinger personally observed down in Mexico. The Coppinger's then projected that modern wolf behavior onto ancient wolves (or whoever the dogs' ancestor's were), and saw the scavenging behavior as a model for how domestication initially took place. (Incidentally, Ray Coppinger himself has said that wolf groups, like the ones in Mexico, are not real packs because they don't hunt large prey.)

ron2

Do you or Behan know the relation of these wolves to each other?

I haven't seen the video or read Kevin's take on it so I couldn't say.

ron2

I don't think our dogs look at us as prey. Prey is something you eat. And dogs act differently towards humans than they do toward other dogs and other species. So, getting Shadow to follow me is nothing about me being prey. It is about me being the shortest route to resources. At least, that's how I see it. 

If you don't mind, I'd like to examine a few or your statements here.

1) "Prey is something you eat." If that were completely true then all dogs who chase squirrels would end up eating them. It also doesn't explain why dogs chase cars or Frisbees. So I would say that, on the most basic level - for dogs, at least - "prey is something you chase."

2) "Dogs act differently towards humans than toward dogs and other species." This is true. But how can you say for sure that there aren't things about the dog/human relationship that touch on - perhaps in some small way, perhaps in bigger ones - that are inherent to the underlying prey/predator dynamic found in nature?

When Behan talks about "prey energy" he does so in a very general - or rather, universal - sense (something I've touched on slightly once or twice here). He makes the point that all living things have to take in energy, in some form, in order to sustain themselves. True, right? So he says that when elk graze on prairie grass or aspen leaves, they're, in effect, ingesting the preyful essence - the life-sustaining energy - within those plant forms.

Elk are attracted to botanical forms of life-sustaining energy just as wolves are attracted to the higher biological forms of elk, deer, and moose. Are dogs attracted to us simply because we feed them, as your model suggests? If so, doesn't that, in some way, gibe, at least just a little, with Kevin Behan's model? Doesn't providing food fall into that same general category? You may not agree with his widening the definition of "prey" to include all life forms that provide sustainable energy for other life forms, but you can see the correlation, right? (My model is simpler than Behan's, by the way; I think it's easier to think of training dogs in terms of attraction & resistance and tension & release.)

3) You say that getting Shadow to follow you isn't about you being prey; "it's about me being the shortest route to resources." I would say, that given the different levels I've hinted at above (elk being attracted to resources, which are, in effect, forms of life-sustaining energy, and wolves being attracted to elk for the same reason, though in a more complex way), etc., then we're actually not that far apart on this.

However, I would also suggest that, since for dogs, prey isn't necessarily something you eat, but something you chase, if you were to spend time with Shadow playing games where he gets to chase you and bite a tug toy as a reward, you might find that his feelings of "attraction" toward you, and therefore his responses of following and obeying you, would increase in both strength and probability.

Playing "chase me" with dogs is probably the singlemost important thing I learned from Natural Dog Training (the book). When I can get my clients to get their dogs to play chase (following a few simple safety rules, etc.), they immediately see a positive difference in their dogs' overall happiness, not to mention the dogs' willingness to obey. 

I was walking through Central Park last November with some clients, a young couple whose cocker spaniel kept lunging and barking at passing cyclists and joggers. He was paying very little attention to them. So I set up a situation where they got him to chase them around the a patch of fallen leaves not far from the jogging/cycling path. This only involved a quick 15 - 20 sec. game of chase, which then morphed into some fetch and tug with a chew toy. We got the dog to chase his owners a few more times, and from that 2 min. or so session on (at least during this particular walk in the park), the doggie showed no interest at all in joggers or cyclists. He was totally focused on his owners.

So I would say that the owner-as-prey model can be very helpful to dog trainers and owners.

ron2

You say the dopamine study suggests that dogs don't learn by consequence (OC). There is a big difference between "suggests" and proven. That's why I say keep looking. But don't think that the dopamine study disproves or renders invalid the OC approach.

I have a Chihuahua named Prince staying with me this week. I live in a brownstone apartment, so, to save space, I sleep on a fold-out futon couch. Prince was startled the first night I pulled the vertical part of the couch/bed into the horizontal bed position. It can be a bit noisy, especially for a nervous dog. The next night, as soon as I started the same sequence, which he'd only seen once, for the first time, the night before, he immediately scooted away from the bed. He learned that new behavior from just one experience.

I don't think this can be accurately described using the law of consequences. But it can be described, and quite accurately, using Dr. Gallistel's model, which is that the behavior was learned because the dog was paying attention to changes in the environment. Remember, dopamine is released during both pleasurable and unpleasurable events. It's not part of a reward pathway, but an attentional pathway. The sequence of events made a strong impression on Prince, so when that sequence started again, he was ready. That's what dopamine does.

And I'm sorry to have to keep repeating this, but the studies that Gallistel and others have done on this were based on looking specifically inside the brains of animals, targeting specific dopamine neurons, during the process of learning new behaviors.

This doesn't mean that operant conditioning is completely invalid. If you remember, I said I'm not saying we throw the baby out with the bathwater. What I'm saying is that behavioral science is isn't the be-all and end-all that some people want us to think it is.

ron2

As for thermodynamics, it is my aim to have Shadow realize that the path of least resistance towards survival, good things, equilibrium, is through what I say.

Well, I think that's as it should be. You have more knowledge about how to navigate your way safely through what is a largely unnatural, human environment, one that includes cars, trucks, streets, and other dangers that Shadow has less awareness of.

LCK

spiritdogs

 

(how many dog trainers do you know of have read all of B. F. Skinner's books and major papers?)

I know quite a few who have an undergraduate or graduate degree in psychology, so there are probably more than you think, although I'm sure the ranks of behaviorists would net you more individuals who have.  However, I find the general tone of your posts condescending, including that one, and your posts here more indicative of narcissism than valid scientific inquiry. 

I apologize if that question came across as condescending or narcissistic.

Please take into account, if you will, that in this particular post I was responding to allegations that my rationale for questioning the efficacy of learning theory, at least as it's applied to dog training, was based solely on some kind of personal, ungrounded desire to topple it. The reason I mentioned my personal study of Skinner's work was to show that my desire to call some of his tenets into question didn't spring out of nowhere, but was based on a fairly detailed scientific inquiry.

And again, I have to say, that these kind of personal attacks on my character (you called me a narcissicist; that's pretty personal) are, or seem to be, a recent feature of the discourse here.

We were all getting along so well...

LCK

LCK:  And again, I have to say, that these kind of personal attacks on my character ... are, or seem to be, a recent feature of the discourse here.

We were all getting along so well...

 Such sensitivity strikes me as hypocritical, coming from a guy who, though himself lacking ANY professional credentials, nevertheless spams up countless forums and blog sites with incendiary arguments against and flagrant ridicule of the work of training professionals and research scientists.

 I have seen the respondents to your double-posting and evasive combox responses on a number of other websites.  Believe me, you are being treated better than you deserve at this one.