Are We Too Wrapped Up in Being Alpha?

One thing that comes to mind concerning humans being alpha...alpha and pack are animal terms...being applied to humans.   We don't want to humanize our dogs, so we will animalize ourselves instead.  It is the very same camp that goes on and on about NOT humanizing our dogs insist that we use animal terms in conjunction with humans.

That's just weird.

ORIGINAL: JM

One thing that comes to mind concerning humans being alpha...alpha and pack are animal terms...being applied to humans.   We don't want to humanize our dogs, so we will animalize ourselves instead.  It is the very same camp that goes on and on about NOT humanizing our dogs insist that we use animal terms in conjunction with humans.

That's just weird.

It certainly is. [sm=drinking47.gif]

Um, scientifically speaking, unless we've been recatagorized as vegetables or minerals...humans (like dogs) are also animals and social mammals. [8D]

Animals and social mammals YES, but still a seperate species from dogs or wolves.... no we shouldn't "humanize" them, but should we "dog-ise" or "lupomorphise" ourselves?  Is that really any better? 

 I think it merely confuses a dog when a human tries to be a hybrid human alpha dog.

And I think the problem is that we do it when it fits our human agenda.

Which probably could also explain why we feel dogs are trying to be alpha or are planning coups...humans usually have an agenda, so therefore we assume our dogs have an agenda also.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

Animals and social mammals YES, but still a seperate species from dogs or wolves.... no we shouldn't "humanize" them, but should we "dog-ise" or "lupomorphise" ourselves?  Is that really any better? 

Misuse of terms that really have nothing to do with leading or having dogs for companionship, is simply making learning more difficult about caring for domestic dogs. And teaching appropriate measures to those who are in real need of very clear instruction.

Consider the opposite term for "humanize"...."we should dehumanize?"....Or dogise??? ..or more made up "terminology" to describe what???

Somethings should be plain and we already have a very good English language. We do not need to embellish ourselves with ornamental Alphas and whatnot.

Leadership is an excellent term when you are referring to a human.  It implies humanistic thought processes/behaviors.  Which are not the same as an animal in the wild.  It doesn't make it appear to be anything other than what it is.  There is no grandiose fluff to the term.  It makes sense.

ORIGINAL: Angelique

Um, scientifically speaking, unless we've been recatagorized as vegetables or minerals...humans (like dogs) are also animals and social mammals. [8D]

I don't know about you, but some people I know have the mental capacity of a turnip.  Does that count as "recategorization"?  [sm=rofl.gif]

ORIGINAL: JM

I think it merely confuses a dog when a human tries to be a hybrid human alpha dog.

And I think the problem is that we do it when it fits our human agenda.

Which probably could also explain why we feel dogs are trying to be alpha or are planning coups...humans usually have an agenda, so therefore we assume our dogs have an agenda also.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

Animals and social mammals YES, but still a seperate species from dogs or wolves.... no we shouldn't "humanize" them, but should we "dog-ise" or "lupomorphise" ourselves? Is that really any better?

There was a thread about it while back... whether or not you have to be of the same species to be thought of as a part of the pack:http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=263774&mpage=1&key=hierarchy .