Controlling the resources

Well, as I said above, food and treats are not the only resources we have to offer. We offer companionship, structure, emotional fulfillment, company. Most (but not all) dog breeds are fairly hardwired to view the security and structure of a group as just as important as food or a comfortable bed. I mean, why is it we can adopt dogs and they don't spend the rest of their lives pining for their previous owners? Because we begin to offer them what they need and that's good enough for them.

Dogs themselves left to their own devices pack up because it is beneficial to all the individuals to do so. In situations and locations where it is not beneficial to pack, they don't. They don't pack because they feel so much love and loyalty to one another. It's about survival.

PS Talk about anthropomorphizing!

Alpha dogs don't give things to other dogs. When was the last time you saw a dog carry his bone to another dog and give it to him?

 
I understand your point, but I disagree. 
 
I've seen Xerxes take something away from a dog, play with it for a while-as the other dog watched.  Then set the item down and walk away from it, turning his back on the other dog.
 
In dog language he told the other dog "I can take and I can give-so remember it's mine."
 
Our Akita used to allow our little male Peke to "steal" chews and bones from him.  He played the "ignore" game.  Every so often the game would get even more interesting because the Akita would glance towards the Peke, and the Peke would scamper away.  But give to a lesser ranked dog he would-only if he wanted to and was bored of the item.  The Akita knew he could take the item back if he wanted it.
 
One could make the argument that either of these situations could be construed as the "giver" is less dominant than the "taker" in these contexts.  However, having seen both situations and knowing the circumstances surrounding I can tell you that the "giver" was in all respects more dominant over the "taker."  I think it's a misnomer to think that the Alpha never gives resources away.  In a resource deprived situation, I know this would be true.  But we don't live, for the most part in a resource deprived situation.

We have also bred domesticated dogs to stay "puppyish" in relation to adult wolves.  Neonatalized is the word, I think.  Adult canids feed young canids.  I wonder if this has anything to do with the peculiar relationship between dogs and people?

neotenized 

do you think that there is a correlation betwen the (neotenized) mind of the domestic dog and the mind of an autistic human being?


there is an interesting book out there which postulates a correlation - that we have genetically selected autism into our domestic dogs gene pool - or more correctly, that an autictic human being's mind has correlation with that of a domesticated dog's mind.

click [linkhttp://www.amazon.com/Animals-Translation-Mysteries-Autism-Behavior/dp/0156031442/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-9236578-7888414?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186677760&sr=8-1]here[/link]
 
(ha - maybe that's why i seem to get along better with dogs than humans - lol)

I think it's a misnomer to think that the Alpha never gives resources away.

 
yeah, perhaps true, and often the alpha simply doesn't want resources and leaves them up for grabs; but the alpha doesn't deliberately feed and care for the submissive dogs the way people do to their dogs. I guess it is more like arent-puppy; parents do feed and care for their puppies.

No, they do not. Most people don't even understand unconditional love. But the things that you have to offer your dog do extend well beyond just food or toys. You give them acceptance, the safety of a group, fulfill their social needs, you give them comfort and security, structure and predictability in life. If your own family didn't give you anything, didn't fulfill any of your needs, not your need for security or for bonding or any of your physical needs, how long would you stick around them?

 
Thanks I understand. You're right I wouldn't like my family if they didn't offer me anything.

but the alpha doesn't deliberately feed and care for the submissive dogs the way people do to their dogs

 
I agree. 

neotenized

do you think that there is a correlation betwen the (neotenized) mind of the domestic dog and the mind of an autistic human being?


there is an interesting book out there which postulates a correlation - that we have genetically selected autism into our domestic dogs gene pool - or more correctly, that an autictic human being's mind has correlation with that of a domesticated dog's mind.

click here

(ha - maybe that's why i seem to get along better with dogs than humans - lol)

 
It is said dogs have the mental capacity of a 3-5 year old. I don't really think there is a connection,just the wolves that were originally chosen when breeding were the extremely submissive ones so the humans could handle the easier.There's a very interesting study being done by a scientists who is domesticating foxes.Down a few generations he began to see they developed pie-bald colorings and floppy ears.I'll have to find the link to it,it was also featured in BARK magazine.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

I think it's a misnomer to think that the Alpha never gives resources away.

yeah, perhaps true, and often the alpha simply doesn't want resources and leaves them up for grabs; but the alpha doesn't deliberately feed and care for the submissive dogs the way people do to their dogs. I guess it is more like arent-puppy; parents do feed and care for their puppies.

 
If domesticated dogs can be seen as neotonized wolves and the only time "alpha" wolves give up things is to their young and most wolf packs are family groups then I believe it would follow that by giving things to our dogs, we are assuming an "alpha" and parental role to our dogs.
 
However, I have known dogs that are of higher status give up things to lower status dogs who are of no relation other than members of the same social pack to maintain social relationships.
 
My Dexy loved his cool kong and would do water retrieves for hours.  One member of Dexy's social pack was a female lab named Sarah who was between one and three years old when this happened.  Dexy and Sarah would share Dexy's kong, when the kong was thrown for Dexy he would bring it into shallow water and Sarah would run up to him and start licking his muzzle, after about 15 seconds of the licking, Dexy would give the kong to Sarah.  If Dexy was swimming when Sarah came up to him, he would growl at her and she would back up until he reached shore.  If Dexy was on shore when Sarah approached, Dexy would drop the kong right away.  We figured that Dexy appreciated Sarah bringing the kong in because the shore was rocky and Dexy had chronically sore feet due to allergies. 
 
 

Desmond Morris wrote that both humans and dogs are examples of a kind of arrested development: humans like juvenile chimps and dogs like juvenile wolves ... something like that.

Via social organization, especially divisions of labor and specializing, you could say that we all have learned quite a bit of helplessness, humans and dogs alike. Individuals in neither species are required, and mostly are not even capable, of "taking care of themselves" fully.

This leads to an incredibly complex web of interdependencies. As houndlove pointed out, we humans haven't even uncovered all those linkages amongst ourselves, let alone with or among other species.

Here's a link on neoteny:http://www.dadamo.com/wiki/wiki.pl/Neoteny

[linkhttp://www.bionet.nsc.ru/ICIG/animal/3_1.html]http://www.bionet.nsc.ru/ICIG/animal/3_1.html[/link]
Here's the link to domestication on silver foxes.Unfortunately there are no pics

Voila! Domestic, piebald foxes:



Interestingly, I think all companion animals have a bit of that neotonisation. My domestic rabbit is 2 years old, but she still likes playing. My hare stopped playing at about a year old. He'll sometimes play 'prey' with the kittens and lead them on a merry chase around the lounge room, but that's as playful as he gets these days. When he was younger, he used to do spectacular, high speed aerobatics in play, and he'd play with toys as well. Perhaps it comes from the same happy chemicals that make floppy ears and interesting colours and cuddly critters?

I don't get the whole "autistic" thing. Normal dogs aren't autistic in any way. Autistic humans are highly impaired in the ability to interact socially and to communicate; dogs are highly skilled in social interactions and communication.
 

Autistic humans are highly impaired in the ability to interact socially and to communicate

content removed: off topic - my fault

.:.

Why do dogs stick around and remain loyal when their owner is a homeless person who is unable to properly feed and house them? I see lots of partnerships like that in Los Angeles, skinny and bedraggled dog, living, faithfully, off-leash, with their bedraggled owner.

 
These people still control resources. Even the poor food provided by a homeless person is still food. Both the homeless person and the disabled child also provide companionship. Don't underestimate companionship as a resource. Tactile touch is a resource. The dog that lives with a disabled person is never lonely and that's important to a pack animal. The interesting places a dog goes in the companionship of a homeless person are resources, because the person still makes the decision of whether to hang out at the park or go somewhere else. Sleeping on top of some blankets or a sleeping bag is just fine to a dog when they have human companionship and protection. Unless they have health issues, homeless dogs seem quite happy because they are never bored or lonely and get at least some exercise per day. They are also extremely well socialized, generally speaking.
 
 I don't like my dogs being rude and nosing or pawing for attention so I ignore them until they are polite. This is controlling a resource.
 
I really think that if you do enough training to eliminate behavior that people find objectionable and also provide the things dogs want, at your discretion,  it gives plently of control over the dog and calling oneself alpha or even a leader is just words.