The language of dominance and submission

Excellent post, Angelique. Lots to chew over! I've been wondering how much our individual perception of the term "dominance" has to do with each of our views of different training methods. Reminds me of when my great-grandma told my uncle how "bright and gay" his new blue church shirt was [] He didn't see it as a compliment.

I think there may be a generational gap, too. I've heard many compare certain training techniques with trainers like Koehler and Woodhouse. I am ashamed to admit that though I had heard of those trainers, I knew little about them. I vaguely remember Barbara Woodhouse on public television about the same time I was watching Sesame Street [] I had to research their particular techniques, and I could see how the term "dominance" would get a bad rap when used in the manner described by some of the texts I've read.

Another element may be political correctness. As we change different terms and phrases to make them less offensive, it will automatically make other terms sound harsher than they really are.

Good points, both of you. I don't shy away from a word because someone else has a negative connotation to it. At the same time, I think it helps if definitions are made and meanings attached to words so that we are clearly communicating.
 
In another thread, I pointed out how Shadow will submit to the wiener dog next door. He will play bow, lay down first, and wait for her to come to the fence. Submission implies dominance. He gives her the dominance for that moment. Other times, He really wants to run back and forth, barking, trying to get her to join in, but it still may be plaintive behavior on his part. They could also be of fairly equal rank. Sometimes, she will start the process. But it all takes place through a chainlink fence. Things might be different if they were in the same yard.
 
I've always taken alpha to mean prime, first, or, in the case of our discussion, leader. Just as an alpha wolf may curb or correct a cub that is entering into danger, so must a human guide a dog to behavior or a path that leads away from danger.
 
That being said, I think different methods work at different times. While I usually use treat training and Shadow does trust me, he won't always recall if I don't have a treat in my hand. And I have used nothing but treats in recall training. Sometimes, he recalls, perhaps in the hopes of getting a treat but that is not really recall at my command, it is recall to eat. Hopefully, eventually, it may produce a pavlovian response that recall becomes automatic because it usually means a treat. OTOH, a remote collar would produce a physical "touch" to be identified with recall and would also work, wether he was hungry or not.
 
In any case, I lead, though I don't control every step he takes. If he wants to sit on the double recliner, that's fine, but he will move if I want to sit down. In that case, he gives up the spot because it is mine, not because it's his to choose to give me.
 
We all must assume a leadership role at some point or another. As a parent, a manager, a babysitter, whatever. There are times when we must follow or lead. We need the dog to follow us. Dogs are not egalitarian and it is anthropromorphic to think that they are.

I don't really disagree with anything you say.  Dogs do need to understand where they fit in a pack, artificial or otherwise.  The only problem I have with the "dominance theory" as it is customarily expressed is that some humans feel that the only way to establish leadership is to get physical with the dog.  Leader canids do not use choke chains, yet they go hunting in packs and everyone stays together and ends up back at the den.  Dominance and submission as practiced by humans can be quite dysfunctional and representative more of tyranny than of social cooperation, which is the basis for canine packs in the first place.  No dog should have to feel as though he is about to be killed to realize where he fits in the pack.  And, unfortunately, when a dog is dragged out from under a chair, or pinned to the ground, the only thing that dog is learning is how unpleasant and unpredictable humans are.  I want the dogs I work with to understand that I am in charge but that I will also protect them from harm.  Dogs are not wolves - they are neotenized versions of wolves.  Their behavior is wolflike, but not completely similar, so applying all the principles of wolf hierarchy to dogs may not be accurate.  At any rate, consistency does more good than coercion.  And, you can be firm without being physical.  The use of the words dominant or alpha do have a certain connotation of severity, because of the harshness with which some humans have interpreted the need to establish boundaries with their dogs.  That's why people in +R circles have started  to think in terms of leadership (Trish McConnell, I think, is the one who coined the phrase "benevolent leadership").  So, perhaps we are simply arguing semantics over the wrong issue.  Yes, dogs live in a hierarchical society and need to know their place in the pack to avoid anxiety.  But, the methods humans use to convince them are certainly varied, and up for discussion.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

And, unfortunately, when a dog is dragged out from under a chair, or pinned to the ground, the only thing that dog is learning is how unpleasant and unpredictable humans are. 
 

 
So whats the deal of thinking that pinning the dog to the ground is used as much as giving him a treat?

I want the dogs I work with to understand that I am in charge but that I will also protect them from harm.

 
I agree.
 

I see Spiritdogs points exactly.  I know plenty of people who will yell at their dog and when the runs and hides they drag then out from under something.  I also know someone who hits his dog everytime he catches him in the garbage!  After many years, the dog still gets in garbage every chance he gets.  I also know people who have hit there dog if newspapers while potty training or when they don't come.  So I know its not far fetched, these people have no idea that training dosen't envolve force and anger.
 
What I do think is that althought these same people will probably never change, that others who are now getting dogs are "aware" of dog training more and more and more.  Awareness is up and so is training - classes are popping up all over my town.
 
Although there are more ways to skin a cat, I don't know for sure that leash corrections, etc really harm a dog as much as people think.  PROVIDING, they are done correctly!!
 

I agree with you, but I still wonder why some people refuse to even consider that, if they learn to train positively *properly*, the need for leash corrections so significantly diminishes as to be almost, if not totally, unnecessary.  By doing so, one doesn't abandon the idea of eliminating problem behaviors.  Only the method changes.  Positive does not mean permissive.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

I agree with you, but I still wonder why some people refuse to even consider that, if they learn to train positively *properly*, the need for leash corrections so significantly diminishes as to be almost, if not totally, unnecessary.  By doing so, one doesn't abandon the idea of eliminating problem behaviors.  Only the method changes.  Positive does not mean permissive.

Well leash corrections are painless anyways so no need to get rid of them []

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

I agree with you, but I still wonder why some people refuse to even consider that, if they learn to train positively *properly*, the need for leash corrections so significantly diminishes as to be almost, if not totally, unnecessary.  By doing so, one doesn't abandon the idea of eliminating problem behaviors.  Only the method changes.  Positive does not mean permissive.

Well leash corrections are painless anyways so no need to get rid of them []

Although they may be painless there is a negative energy to them.  I have used leash corrections (and still do infrequently) and even I can admit to that!  The point trying to be made is why do you want to be negative if you can achieve the same response with positive energy?  I understand that argument and is why I do try.  But for me, I can't the quick results I can with my dog since he was already trained using mild aversive.  But I do try each time, I need lots of practice!
 
If  I can get my 5 year old son to pick up his room by asking him please, and he does it,  I feel much better the rest of the day (and so does he) then we would if a I was yelling and threatening him before he did it.  But there are times when nice doesn't work and my Irish get up on him and yup he moves it quickly!!  But that doesn't stop me from next time starting with niceness.
 
To answer your question Spiritdogs.  I think its two fold, people aren't familiar with this type of training and it takes more time, patients and commitment to get results.  But I also think many more people use positive reinforcement than you think or than they think.  The same friend who hits his dog for going in the garbage and will say things to his friends like "I beat that dog and he still goes in the trash!!”  Is the first to pull out the treats by the handful to show us how Bufford rolls over, sits, speaks downs and dances across the room.  People find it hard to grasp the concept of using positive training on hard, problem behaviors.
 
I also think that positive reinforcement techniques are getting much more exposure now that dog training has a new awareness, you'll see. 
 

Perhaps the real question should be who, among our readers, uses force for most things in life? Yeah--that's more like it. Most of us do use physical force--be it a leash pop or an extra smash with the hammer when the nail isn't going in.

I guess it's just human nature and learning to not touch and not grab and not yank or pound or twist takes much longer.

Interesting that these posts say so much about us, as individuals sitting at our computers, and about our take on life, on problems, and our beliefs.

Constantly yanking on a dogs collar will eventually cause harm.
 
However, I believe that if done correctly, you can get your point across without causing any harm to the dog. This is where the prong collar comes in.
 
Instead of yanking on the neck, (provided it's done correctly) the prongs "pinch" the dog thus imitating a "bite" from a dominant dog, or a parent dog, and outlining the fact that YOU are the dominant one, and that the dog WILL submit to YOU, but without causing fear, or harm.

ORIGINAL: luvmyswissy

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

I agree with you, but I still wonder why some people refuse to even consider that, if they learn to train positively *properly*, the need for leash corrections so significantly diminishes as to be almost, if not totally, unnecessary.  By doing so, one doesn't abandon the idea of eliminating problem behaviors.  Only the method changes.  Positive does not mean permissive.

Well leash corrections are painless anyways so no need to get rid of them []

Although they may be painless there is a negative energy to them.  I have used leash corrections (and still do infrequently) and even I can admit to that!  The point trying to be made is why do you want to be negative if you can achieve the same response with positive energy?  I understand that argument and is why I do try.
 
 

I totally agree. My dog was trained with leash pops, and she learnt a lot more slowly and reluctantly than she has since I've abandoned them. Sometimes she would just stop and give me this look when I was popping her leash that said "That's really annoying you know. Why do you keep doing it?"

I certainly didn't ruin her because she's a great learner and adores me for some reason, but I strongly believe that she's a lot more responsive when I use just voice commands.

One thing I find very interesting is how this thread turned from the topic of language, to the topic of physical correction. I've never associated "dominance" solely with physical correction. I've associated it with being the "leader." Like NILIF. There is no phycical corrections to the dog, but a "domination" of resources. I've never really learned "dominance theory" the way others have, so I don't associate it with physical correction the same way.

That doesn't mean I am totally against physical correction any any shape or form. I do believe it has a VERY limited place. But there are many, many ways to physically control a dog without touching it or using a leash correction. Like when Lucy decides to bark at whatever is happening at the neighbors house. I can call her all I want, but she doesn't hear me. But if I walk over between her and the object of her interest to body block, then I can get her attention and ask her for a sit or down to let her know that I know the neighbors are up to something but it is none of her concern. This is physical in a way, becuase I am physically invading her space, but doesn't involve touching her or jerking a leash.

ORIGINAL: jenhuedepohl

One thing I find very interesting is how this thread turned from the topic of language, to the topic of physical correction. I've never associated "dominance" solely with physical correction. I've associated it with being the "leader." Like NILIF. There is no phycical corrections to the dog, but a "domination" of resources. I've never really learned "dominance theory" the way others have, so I don't associate it with physical correction the same way.
 

 
You really nailed the fact that although I started this thread to discuss the language of dominance and submission as a form of communicating leadership, it took a turn down the same old path (A ath! A path!) along the way.
 
My hope was to discuss not only how we misread and misinterpret the signals a dog sends to communicate their position in the relationship (leader=dominant animal=dominant signals or follower=subordinant animal=subordinant signals), but also how we are often completely oblivious to the signals we send which are communicating our position in the relationship with the dog.
 
Cesar often simply uses the word dominance to describe the signals he sees in a dog which communicate that the owner is in the subordinant (or follower) position and he is taken out of context and accused of bringing back the old Koehler-style training.
 
Cesar uses a leash correction as the nip of a dominant dog to discipline a subordinant, and again he is accused of bringing back the old Koehler-style training. 
 
I studied with a Koehler canine officer 30 years ago and puppy raised a couple of his dobermans, so I know exactly how they train. There was no communicating other than make a mistake...and there will be an unpleasant experience. It taught the dog "I better watch my handler to avoid unpleasant experiences...and my handler is unpredictable!"
 
The comments I've read out there on the net by his attackers, are filled with misrepresentations of what he is doing. Is it all just "dirty pool" against the competition by the overly emotional self-rightous? Not entirely. They cannot see outside of a "training" mentality (of everything must be a positive or a negative, and since Cesar is not all positive, he must be negative - linear thinking).
 
There is a clear communication when Cesar works with a dog. And he spends a lot of his time working on the owner's body language, attitude, eye contact, etc...to help the dog see their owner as their leader.
 
He teaches confidant dominant animal body language and tries to correct the owner when they are using signals which are communicating submission or even instability and insecurity to their dog, inadvertantly.
 
I love how he addressed all of the signals that vet was sending in one more recent episode. I was squirming in my seat when I saw how she was approaching the dog. He really nailed everything she was doing wrong which was undermining helping him work with the dog.
 
Many human beings not only send submissive signals to a dog which indicates to the dog the human is not leading, but they more often flip-flop back and forth...no wonder the dogs get mixed up and unstable. The dog never feels secure and knows their place with their leader, dominant animal, alpha, etc...
 
I've enjoyed the posts by everyone in this thread and would also enjoy getting back to the topic of behaviors, body language, and signals which communicate (however inadvertantly) to a dog that an owner is in the subordinant/follower position as this language has two parts.
 

ORIGINAL: jenhuedepohl
 
That doesn't mean I am totally against physical correction any any shape or form. I do believe it has a VERY limited place. But there are many, many ways to physically control a dog without touching it or using a leash correction. Like when Lucy decides to bark at whatever is happening at the neighbors house. I can call her all I want, but she doesn't hear me. But if I walk over between her and the object of her interest to body block, then I can get her attention and ask her for a sit or down to let her know that I know the neighbors are up to something but it is none of her concern. This is physical in a way, becuase I am physically invading her space, but doesn't involve touching her or jerking a leash.

 
Good example of clear communication through body positioning and instruction. If the dog sees you as their leader, they will get the message and comply.