KB: I was willing to give some benefit of the doubt, especially as you were providing your own words here, rather than is reading paraphrased or even modifying definitions from LCK, who seems, of all of us, most attracted to the definitions and models you have set forth.
But I must strongly disagree with you on one point. And that is the evolution based on emotion. I am firmly in the camp of non-radial adaptation. That is, survival by random mutation. One version of a species or genus survives better than another because of a mutation that works well and that mutation is passed on.
For example, of the primates, we seem to have the most forebrain activity and the highest evolved language of sound. As well as our ability to write, which creates, I think, new understandings of time. This allows us to not be relegated to living in the moment. That may or may not be what gives us survival. We are also the most vicious of the primates and of mammals in general. We not only kill other mammals for sport, we kill each other, too. Much of our industry and intelligence is centered on finding more efficient ways of killing each other. In so doing, it is somewhat of a cleansing process. In other animals, the slow and weak are weeded out by the hunting process from other predators. Where as man is an apex predator. Not bad for a functionally weak and slow ape, such as we are. Most any other primate species is faster and stronger than we are. So, even evolution is not about optimum, such as fastest and strongest. But it is about what mutations give a species an edge where other species do not survive as well or for as long. And I might be giving ourselves airs as man is not an old species. In geological time, we exist in less time than the blink of an eye. But, in that time, we have climbed to the top of the heap.
We don't evolve something out of a need for it in the environment, whether that be skill or an emotion (radial adaptation.) We mutate and the mutation that fits best with the environment is the one that survives (non-radial adaptation.) And modernly, many who study evolution use the latter explanation because it fits better with the evidence. It also explains the predominence of Man. The mountain gorilla is farther along on the evolutionary track, completely suited for the environment it is in. Which leaves it vulnerable to environmental changes. It cannot adapt. It needs the habitat it is in or it dies. As opposed to Man, a truly vagabond species that adapts to whereever he is. But man, physically, is evolutionarily stunted. We are weak and relatively hairless, lacking speed, lacking the dentition to survive without the tools that we use. But, like wolves, another apex predator, we hunt in groups and utilize strategy and tools to bring down a prey larger than ourselves. Wolves have explosive speed to run down and gang-tackle a large prey. We, on the other hand, can make a .308 with scope and bring down the same animal from 600 yards away.
I must agree with Corvus, in that the terminology used in your system is mostly a matter of semantics, for the processes have already been explained in simpler, more direct language elsewhere. Where I may differ from her is the caveat of whether that explains all or not. For then, we delve in to religious opinion, perhaps. The problem with religion as a scientific investigation is that it lacks falsifiability. Any question can be answered (paraphrased, regardless of religion) as "God's Will."
What I find to be disingenuous at the worst and a stumbling of logic at best is the slippery use of falsifiability I have seen in your work, that of LCK, and that of Gallistel, a theorist LCK has referenced. You accept falsifiability for OC and behaviorism. You can say, "I did this and it didn't seem to follow the rules of OC, or OC worked backwards." Fair enough. Until further examination, at the outset, one can say the theory is "in trouble." That's falsifiability. But when NDT is presented with the same test, we seem to get any amount of crawdadding, extra verbage of different definitions, even explanations that don't pan out in our own anecdotal experience. For example, the notion that the supine dog is superior to the dog standing over it. What about the situation most anyone of us has seen where in the standing dog has nipped the one on the ground and that one on the ground yelps until released? How does that yelp of pain signify social dominance? And, by that definition, when a dam is holding one of her unruly pups to the ground, is that pup superior to his mother by means of the position? That's not to say that a dog that lowers itself is not showing respect and position. For the pup who changes his behavior, he is released. But showing respect and being the authority are two different things, even if they coincide in time.
For many a trainer who trains with positive rewards, as well as those who train with corrections, the standing position is one of dominance or superiority. It is the primary reason for having a problem with Cesar Milan scruffing and pinning a dog. For the dog being pinned is not showing respect, he or she is being attacked by another creature that assumes superiority. For those of us who don't believe in physically confronting a dog, such a tactic is considered counter-productive. I am not making this a debate about CM ( and I understand he has been changing as he progresses), just using it to show that the experience of the rest of the world, both corrective trainers and rewarding trainers, and any variation in between, is to avoid the confrontational pin, which is not to be confused with a play pin, where dogs can interchange roles of who is down or up. I could have just as easily mentioned Koehler, etc. Reward trainers and handlers can also use the pin but it is a physical hold, not a training tool, just as an animal control officer may use a catch pole in an emergency but it is not a training tool. It is traumatic to the dog but not as traumatic as not addressing the situation wherein it is needed.
When a wolf cub lays down before his father (for a true wolf pack is a family unit, as shown by L. David Mech, who spends more time in the wilderness than behind a computer keyboard), it is a sign of respect to the elder, not the cub showing superiority. The cub could choose not to show the respect and continue in his own path and perhaps suffer the consequences. It's the equivalent of saying yes, sir or even uncle, whether the superior is father's brother or not.
I understand the value of different mental imagery to accomplish something, whether the image is accurate or not. But because success has been achieved does not mean the image is a true representation. Here's an example. I sing. Functionally, I am a tenor with some baritone. And that depends on the criteria. In some circles, your classical fach (bass, baritone, tenor) is defined by your lowest usable note. Well, that also depends on usable. I can hit some low baritone notes but not with lots of power. Another definition is that you are the range at which you have the most dynamics (soft to loud) and the most number of usable notes involving those criteria. Ergo, I am a tenor.
Anyway, here is my mental imagery for a high note. I used to imagine it as the folds (what most people call the vocal cords) as being contracted to create a small opening. Other variations, such as the method taught by Jaime Vendera (you have seen him on "Mythbusters" breaking glass with his voice is "zipping up the folds" as one would close a zipper almost all the way. But, I also have the info provided by Steven Fraser, a man who has encyclopedic knowledge of vocal anatomy, having been a classical singer, himself. Here is what actually happens. For higher notes, the folds actually stretch and thin out. By the are in close proximity, with only the leading edges of the folds vibrating, like a guitar string that is tighten by the tuning peg. Here's where the imagery melds. Like a higher note on an instrument, slightly increased force is needed. This is in the form of consistent air pressure, just a smidge more than when speaking. And the throat is configured in a way that is conducive to resonance. Classically, it is the singer's formant, modernly, we call it twang. And the actual resonance happens in the soft palate, in subtle locations behind the sinus, not through the nose. In fact, when I hit a really high note, it feels like it is vibrating behind my eyes. Hence, the misnomer, head voice. Just as, a low note feels like it rumbles the chest, hence the misnomer, chest voice. All resonance actually happens in the head, from just above the larynx to the base of the sinus. Different pitches require different resonating shapes because an amplified note is actually due to the second harmonic doubling back on the fundamental in the same waveform at the same frequency, causing an amplitude increase of that pitch, more than doubling in dB's. Or, as I like to put it, as a layman, a high note is really a small note that is well-resonated. My current imagery is that the folds a very close together and thin, with just a little bit of them vibrating. But you see how my initial imagery was nothing like the reality, even though that misguided imagery has allowed me to sing the high note in Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody." That wrong imagery has allowed me to hit the high note "Dream On" by Aerosmith. But because I have been successful at singing in the tenor range doesn't make that old imagery accurate or a viable means of teaching, per se.
Same can go for dog behavior nomenclature and models. Many a thinker has a problem with the energy and emotion model, not because such things don't exist, but the terms are too vague and subject to individual interpretation and the goal of semantics and descriptive language should be to clarify, not obfuscate.
Nor is necessarily bad to use terms of energy and emotion but it depends on how they are defined.