Dominant dogs?

I haven't read all the responses because I want to give an unbiased response, and then I'll go back and read.

When I use the term "dominant" it's mostly in dog/dog context. A dominant dog is one who has a natural "feeling" that they should be able to have what they want and, in their mind, they should be alpha dog, whether they are or not. They're like the dog counterpart of the "natural leaders" of the human world. Now, I'm sure this could be expanded to include dominance over the human alpha or pack leader, whatever you want to call it, (me) but I don't like to entertain that thought. []

However, B'asia, my youngest (GSD), does constantly test me and even defies me, not just a small infraction, but repeated attempts to do what I have just told her not to do. And she is dominant over 2 of the 3 other dogs, so I think I had better start thinking about her dominance in terms of the whole pack, including myself.

I think certain breeds probably have more natural leader instincts and temperaments and other breeds are naturally more submissive and go with the flow.

Now, I'm gonna go back and read the responses and see how embarassed I should be. [sm=lol.gif]

I've never met or heard of a dog that was truly "dominant" over all of the humans in the household. Occasionally you'll hear about doggy misbehaviors towards children or a lesser member of the household that MIGHT be rooted in dominance.
 
Resource guarding, lack of training, manipulative bratty dogs are not dominance problems.

After reading...

ORIGINAL: Xerxes
Without going into mindless detail, I suggest that true dominance over humans is rare.  That the majority of the time it is bratty behavior that has been allowed to escalate, and that proper boundaries, rules and discipline was never instilled.

I totally agree with this. People use the word "dominant" too much when talking about the dog/human relationship. I'd venture to say most times the word is used in the "dog being dominant over a human" context, it's more likely the human isn't providing strong enough (or focused enough) leadership, and a dog with "natural leader" tendencies is stepping in where he feels something is lacking.

But I want to hear others opinions on dominance, and on "naturally" dominant dogs. 

I think (and it's just my uneducated opinion) that natural dominance in a dog is simply a trait of temperament. I think natural dominance is due to nature more than nurture. They're born that way. In the social structure of a dog pack, some have to be more dominant for the survival of the pack as a whole. Just like some people are born to be leaders (MLK, JFK, Lennon, Madonna) some dogs are born with the desire to be on top.

ETA: Interesting discussion! I wish I had more time!

When I use the term "dominant" it's mostly in dog/dog context. A dominant dog is one who has a natural "feeling" that they should be able to have what they want and, in their mind, they should be alpha dog, whether they are or not. They're like the dog counterpart of the "natural leaders" of the human world. Now, I'm sure this could be expanded to include dominance over the human alpha or pack leader, whatever you want to call it, (me) but I don't like to entertain that thought.

 
 
so would you say that this roughly equates to social status - meaning - - - a high level of freedom to do what they (applies to both dogs and humans) want and set boundaries?

They're born that way.

 
worth taking a closer look at.
 
what makes a human, a dog, an elephant, a dolphin exhibit natural dominance? it's been my observation that this trait emerges very quickly in litters of pups - one will take charge - not sure when it emerges in human growth cycle but i suspect it's early on as well - the rebellious kids, the inquisitive ones...)

Ok, here's what I'd like to contribute:

I think of dominance and submission as descriptions of how individuals behave in relation to power. Since it's conceptual, I think of it in human terms and project that onto other species. I think dominance behaviors are too complex for us mere mortals to decode, entirely, so I find it more effective to think of "dominant behaviors" in terms of the effects they produce, rather than specific behaviors that are exhibited like ignoring, claiming, force, or novelty.

In any social meeting between creatures, where status isn't fixed, the individuals will display behavior to announce their intentions regarding power. For example, with a lion and a rabbit, the status is fixed, there is no possibility of the rabbit holding more power than the lion; ultimately rabbit will run or die. With more equally matched animals, however, say 2 humans, or 2 dogs, social posturing will be performed to establish order so that productive social intercourse may ensue. For example, when I go rock climbing with a group, one person quickly emerges as leader; it's safer and more convenient than constantly negotiating it.

And, I think higher status isn't *taken* by a more dominant individual, it is given to him/her by others. If I want to know who has the highest status when I walk into a room, I don't look for someone "behaving dominantly", I look to see who everyone else is submitting to. [] I can then study that person's "dominant style" and try to decode how they are producing followership.

Given that, a child or dog who displays tantrums, is more like our rabbit than our more equally matched animals. The "misbehaving" dog or child is trying to assert personal sovereignty, but s/he has no concern for social stability. In fact, s/he would be liberated from the tyranny of NILIF, chores, homework, or the crate, if the social heirarchy were to fall apart, just as the rabbit would be spared from death.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All that is to say that I think dominant and submissive behaviors are very useful and healthy gestures in building social stability. Tantrums are meant to destroy social order. So, if a dog senses a lack of leadership in the house, he may step up to provide social stability. But if he's OCD about it, he's just out to feed his neurosis, not contribute to social balance.

How do we know which behaviors are healthy dominance (leadership) and which are distructive brattiness (tantrums)? Probably lots of ways, but I'm going back to observing what effect they have on the social order. What outcome do they produce, balance or chaos? When there's a crisis, or trouble, "naturally dominant" folks emerge as the ones who act for the benefit of the whole (leadership). Others trust those individuals, for good reason! Those who behave selfishly in crisis (tantrum) will naturally earn less followership. It's all very functional, me thinks.

(By "naturally dominant", I think simply of personality traits. The tendency towards dominant or submissive preference is probably mostly genetic, influenced by socializing as well.)

I agree that most dogs that consider "dominant" are just bratty dogs who have been allowed to get away with too much.  However, inborn personality traits that frequently are associated with breeds do play a role.
 
I think we have to distinguish between the concept of "dominant" meaning they always test the boundries, and try to push humans and other dogs around, and the idea of leadership.  This relates to the idea that a true "alpha" in a wolf-pack does not force an alpha-roll in lower ranking wolf, but that the lower ranking wolf voluntarily rolls on its back.  A leader has willing followers and typically does not need to engage in dominance rituals or behaviors. 
 
Think of the people who people have cited as "dominant" MLK, JFK, and others.  These people inspired people to follow them, they did not use force to get followers.
 
The dog that I have known who have been true "leaders" do what I consider to be inspiring other dogs through their confidence and their behavior which often includes protecting the social pack and reducing conflict within the pack.  They don't test the boundries with their humans and they do not bully the other members of their social pack (both human and dog)

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote

They're born that way.

worth taking a closer look at.

what makes a human, a dog, an elephant, a dolphin exhibit natural dominance? <>

 
From what I've seen in my particular breed, it is matriarchal and passes through the bloodlines.  Xerxes litter sister lives with her dam, two other adult females, and two males.  Binti is being groomed by Edie, the alpha bitch, and all the other dogs and bitches defer to her after Edie.  It's kind of odd, IMO to see that type of behavior in dogs-but the behavior in this breed more closely resembles the behavior of African Wild Dogs than it does wolves.
 
Not sure if I can add much more to the direction this discussion is going.

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

Ok, here's what I'd like to contribute:

I think of dominance and submission as descriptions of how individuals behave in relation to power. Since it's conceptual, I think of it in human terms and project that onto other species. I think dominance behaviors are too complex for us mere mortals to decode, entirely, so I find it more effective to think of "dominant behaviors" in terms of the effects they produce, rather than specific behaviors that are exhibited like ignoring, claiming, force, or novelty.

In any social meeting between creatures, where status isn't fixed, the individuals will display behavior to announce their intentions regarding power. For example, with a lion and a rabbit, the status is fixed, there is no possibility of the rabbit holding more power than the lion; ultimately rabbit will run or die. With more equally matched animals, however, say 2 humans, or 2 dogs, social posturing will be performed to establish order so that productive social intercourse may ensue. For example, when I go rock climbing with a group, one person quickly emerges as leader; it's safer and more convenient than constantly negotiating it.

And, I think higher status isn't *taken* by a more dominant individual, it is given to him/her by others. If I want to know who has the highest status when I walk into a room, I don't look for someone "behaving dominantly", I look to see who everyone else is submitting to. [] I can then study that person's "dominant style" and try to decode how they are producing followership.

Given that, a child or dog who displays tantrums, is more like our rabbit than our more equally matched animals. The "misbehaving" dog or child is trying to assert personal sovereignty, but s/he has no concern for social stability. In fact, s/he would be liberated from the tyranny of NILIF, chores, homework, or the crate, if the social heirarchy were to fall apart, just as the rabbit would be spared from death.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All that is to say that I think dominant and submissive behaviors are very useful and healthy gestures in building social stability. Tantrums are meant to destroy social order. So, if a dog senses a lack of leadership in the house, he may step up to provide social stability. But if he's OCD about it, he's just out to feed his neurosis, not contribute to social balance.

How do we know which behaviors are healthy dominance (leadership) and which are distructive brattiness (tantrums)? Probably lots of ways, but I'm going back to observing what effect they have on the social order. What outcome do they produce, balance or chaos? When there's a crisis, or trouble, "naturally dominant" folks emerge as the ones who act for the benefit of the whole (leadership). Others trust those individuals, for good reason! Those who behave selfishly in crisis (tantrum) will naturally earn less followership. It's all very functional, me thinks.

(By "naturally dominant", I think simply of personality traits. The tendency towards dominant or submissive preference is probably mostly genetic, influenced by socializing as well.)

 
[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

Dominant as a personality trait is not the same thing (in my mind) as "in charge."  A naturally dominant dog is not a bad thing.  It is a dog that requires owners who aren't pushoevers, but naturally dominant dogs can be wonderful pets and working dogs.

A naturally dominant dog is confident, and comfortable in the leadership role.  He or she will gladly step up if a leadership hole is percieved.  They tend to have stable temperaments, because nuttiness does not make for effective leadership.  They do not overreact to potential threats (fearfulness), but step up when needed.  They are calm and consistent in the leadership role, if firm.

I have a friend with a very dominant purebred GSD.  He's a huge boy, barely trained, and I've never seen any aggression from him.  He greets the visitors to her ranch, enforces his "rules" on the other dogs with a look, and generally keeps watch over things.  He radiates calm confidence.  Kids can tug on his fur or push him - he ignores them.  If they try and take his toys, he yanks the toys and walks away.  Tell him to sit, and he totally ignores you. 

There is no way I'd ever have a dog that untrained, let alone a dominant large GSD, but it works out for them.  He has a "job" of keeping his eye on 5 acres and all sorts of livestock, and he is around people all the time.  (My friend teaches dressage on her property, hosts birthday parties and holds summer horse camps.) 

p.b.mcconnell writes this:
 

Few dogs, whether male or female, status-seeking or submissive seem to like people handling their paws. How different from us they are in this: we humans like to hold hands and get hand massages and manicures. Some male dogs especially object to their back paws' being handled, and there's a lot to learn about a dog by gently picking up a back paw. Some of them lick your hand; some of them freeze anxiously, the corners of their mouth pulled back in fearful grimace. Others stiffen their bodies and glare at you with eyes like cold, hard steel. most dogs never look at you like that: unless you're a professional trainer or have owned a particular difficult dog, you've probably never seen it. I saw it in the eyes of a wolf-hybrid dog who took the time to shoot a look like a bullet at my eyes, right before he sank his teeth into my hand. (I had thrown a piece of meat 5 feet away from the bone on which he was chewing. I picked up the bone while he ate the treat on the floor and then handed him back the bone, all to teach him not to worry is fomeone picked up his "treasures." In less than half a second, he took the bone from my hand, spat it out while he shot a furious look into my eyes, and then bit my other hand, hard and deep.)

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote
so would you say that this roughly equates to social status - meaning - - - a high level of freedom to do what they (applies to both dogs and humans) want and set boundaries?

When I think of "social status" in humans, I think of wealth, fame or royalty - meaning being born into an environment that allows for a level of freedom. As opposed to having an innate desire to attain leadership or "top dog" status, regardless of social status and regardless how he has to fight to get this status. The first doesn't apply to animals (I don't think). The second does. I'm not sure I'm being clear.

Social status - a freedom allowed because of wealth, fame or royalty.
Natural leadership - a freedom attained by inborn dominance traits. One must work for this freedom regardless of social status. (Natural Leadership can bring social status, but not vice versa)

So, someone with social status isn't necessarily a leader. (Paris Hilton comes to mind - although I'm not ragging on her). But a natural leader would be like Abraham Lincoln, born poor and without freedom, but he used his innate abilities and traits to attain a leadership position that allowed freedom.

I see dominant dogs in the second category. I believe we're all (human and animals) born with SOME traits, needs, desires that we carry with us through life. It's part of what makes us who we are and determines how we do life.

what makes a human, a dog, an elephant, a dolphin exhibit natural dominance?

Bear with me for a second here.

I took a class once and the purpose of the class was to determine which "traits" we each were born with by looking at how we operate in life and what gives us "the juice" in life. It was kind of like a reverse engineering of people. Determining what makes us tick by looking at the results and working backwards. Very interesting. The premise is that we each are born with certain traits (desires, needs - whatever you want to call them) and we can identify them by looking at how we live and the experiences we crave.

For example, someone who always got in trouble as a kid and now skydives, does extreme sports and has extramarital affairs might have a desire for "danger". Duh. Someone who LOVED fingerpainting as a child and now is an interior designer, makes their own clothes and gardens has a desire for "creativity".

I was able to identify 8 traits that have been with me all my life. And each person's set of traits is different. But what I'm getting around to is that SOME people have "leadership" as one of their traits. They're the ones who always made the rules in the school games - who the other children just naturally looked to for instruction and they grew up to be politicians or CEOs. Natural leader. Dominant trait.

What's even more interesting (to me and those who are still reading [] ) is that when one or more of these traits aren't getting fulfilled, that's when people have problems in life. That's when people "act out", feel depressed, feel "off" or out of balance. That's the theory, anyway. And I've found it to be true in my life. And it's great, because when I'm feeling out of whack, I can go down the list and see what's missing and work on getting it back in my life in a constructive way and I'm back on an even keel.

And I think this relates to dogs, too. If a natural leader isn't able to be the dominant dog in a pack (or at least dominant over SOMEbody in the pack) he's going to be "off", "act out" or otherwise be a pain. And when he comes up against a dog who's desire for leadership is stronger then his, they work it out and everybody's happy.

ORIGINAL: Dog_ma
A naturally dominant dog is confident, and comfortable in the leadership role. 

I see. I'm beginning to see what you and Ixas_girl mean about the difference between Dominance (commanding submission) and engendering or inspiring followership (love that phrase!). Yeah. I have been using them as 2 sides of the same coin, but I see how they're different. 

great post 4iC,

i wonder about that "fulfillment" thing and how it applies here - what does the feeling trigger within the brain

i mean, i wonder if there is a direct correlation to some sort of pleasure center (or a region in the limbic structure related to emotional intelligence) in the brain (whether it be dog or human) that drives it to be a natural leader - as in an over-active part of that brain which in essense, is the driving mechanism behind natural leadership tendencies.
(just thinking out loud here)

From what I've seen in my particular breed, it is matriarchal and passes through the bloodlines.

 
Ed I would agree it is matriarchal. In my "un dominant" breed now..Beagles....the pups of the more dominant dam...are themselves dominant over any other lower ranking pack member INCLUDING adults. No adults other than their own mother...would discipline them or break up fights between them. That was truly eye opening.
 
Within their litter group they had an order that was fluid as it began and then more cemented as they approached 8 weeks. As they approached 6 mo or so the pups I kept then had to re order themselves within their pack. Their Mother was still their better...but with others in the pack they would re adjust...and their Mother only interfered when there was a squabble and then BOTH hounds taking part would cow tow to her and stop what they'd been doing.