The language of dominance and submission

Actually, when we talk about the language of dominance, and the way humans project leadership to dogs, I don't think we can divorce ourselves from the fact that some humans choose to do it with physical force, or with the use of equipment, objects, etc.  So, to say we have gone down a "path" may be your way of getting in a dig at those you disagree with concerning CM's methods, but nevertheless, these things are related.  Otherwise, the issue of dominance would not be so emotionally charged.  No one is challenging the idea of natural dominance and submission as it occurs in canids.  What we do often challenge is how humans choose to exert thier dominance over animals.  There's a lot of difference between body blocking, NILIF, rolling, pinning, or hanging a dog.  All can convince the dog we are dominant, but some are more respectful of the dog as a sentient being (and sentient does not mean that anyone has anthropomorphized the dog, only that it has emotions such as fear, anxiety, joy, etc.).

So, to say we have gone down a "path" may be your way of getting in a dig at those you disagree with concerning CM's methods

 
 
I didn't realize she was talking about Cesar, was she?

Angelique, I find it interesting that you accuse us of linear thinking.  Firstly, I am entitled to my opinion, even if it were linear.  Secondly, to say that I think CM is "all bad" is not accurate.  To say that I think he uses methods I disagree with a good percentage of the time is accurate.  To say that, if the general public's awareness of dog training is enhanced, that he has done something good is accurate, but IMO, only insofar as they become aware enough to really educate themselves about training in general, not just his brand of training.  We go down the "path", as you call it, over and over, because we are basically on two sides of a training divide as far as our basic starting points are concerned.  I don't give a whit if a dog is dominant or submissive, fearful or aggressive - I simple start where the dog is and work toward what I want the dog to be.  I am not concerned with how long it takes me to do that, thus I need make no "miracle cures", and my clients, when I take them on, fully understand that training is a process, and aimed at creating lasting results that the owner can maintain on their own.  I do this by using primarily positive means, but I am not completely opposed to corrective measures - it's just that I don't use them every day, or even every week.  I use them as seldom as possible, and never if I can manage it.  I do use NRM's (no reward markers) to tell the dog "Oops, you didn't do what I wanted".  That's communication, not coercion, and dogs understand it quite well.  I use clickers, or voice markers, and I use luring, shaping and capturing techniques with operant conditioning, based on the years I have spent studying scientific principles of learning and motivation.  If that makes me a linear thinker so be it.  I do not use my dogs as "bait" for the aggressive dogs I work with, and if I have any encounters with them and a client's dog, the client's dog must work muzzled.  That has the added benefit, if a tiff did break out, of having the muzzled dog learn that fighting doesn't get them anywhere - some reactive aggressive dogs just need to have that experience once and they "get it".  But, you need a really safe dog on the other end of the argument, and usually that's the kind of really good dog that ends up a therapy dog, and is a natural leader, not a formerly aggressive sort.  Others, different story.  I don't claim to completely rehabilitate any aggressive dog - and no one else should either.  Aggressive behavior is a survival mechanism that all dogs have, and when you "rehab" a dog, all you are doing is, hopefully, insuring that you have taught him that the triggers that used to cause it don't need to cause it anymore.  In other words, he need not react the way he used to, for example, when a skateboard goes by.  Does that mean he would not aggress if twenty kids rode by at once with sparklers in their hands?  Maybe not.  Aggressive behavior has a threshold - even if you think it does not.
If you think a dog is either rehabbed, or it's not, now that's linear thinking. 

Angelique, I can see that your attempts at discussing how we as humans communicate with our dogs is failing. It always disolves into a training technique argument. No wonder we have difficulties with our dogs(a different species), when we can't even communicate amongst ourselves. LOL Our dogs watch us all the time, trying to learn "our language", and we send them constant information. We as humans also need to watch them with the same desire to learn "their" language. Look at your dog with a smile, and then frown, what does he do? Often when I frown my dogs will all come and sit at my feet without a word being spoken, and if I sing along with the radio, they rush to comfort me in my odvious distress! Oh well, I never thought I could sing anyway!

and if I sing along with the radio, they rush to comfort me in my odvious distress! Oh well, I never thought I could sing anyway!

LOL! I think me have to start our own choir! Dog Idol perhaps?

Your post is right on the mark, dstull. When people try to communicate, they each interpret the same words differently. When we try to communicate with our dogs, we interpret their language differently also. I absolutely agree that our dogs are always trying to communicate with us. And I think they listen to us better then most of the two-legged animals we encounter. Now if we could learn to "listen" to them better than we "listen" to our fellow humans []

I often do those little "experiments" to see how well Lucy listens. I have done a horrible job of training her to voice cues because she responds so well to the littlest look or physical gesture. When my brother brought his pup, Ginger, at Christmas time, I got out some dog cookies for all the pups. I asked Lucy to sit, down, and rollover so she wouldn't bother the Ginger while she ate her treats. My brother was amazed how I got her to do all that without voice cues. (Being a typical Mom, I was multitasking and talking to my kids about what Santa brought). He wanted to know how to train his pup to do that. I just told him to be lazy! I grabbed the treats and showed him how to bait her into a sit. Within 5 treats the hand gesture turned into a sit cue with no treats. Lucy WILL sit and down to a voice only cue, but you can tell it is MUCH harder for her. And it is even harder for for me NOT to give a physical cue! I'm a hand-talker from way back. I've been known to knock stuff over trying to make a point... when I'm on the PHONE!

I think the most interesting thing was how my brother thought that the voice cue was most important and was amazed that Lucy knew "sign-language." I think since we are human beings who communicate primarily with voice, we assume all creatures do. We should be amazed animals respond to our voices. Especially with all of the worthless chatter coming from us at all times.

Anyways... that gets us back to Angeliques original post. (Yes, I walk a VERY twisty path LOL!) We are always sending our dogs messages. We just don't always know what we're saying. And, again, like with NILIF, we send messages about leadership or dominance. I really like the point you made about making a dog confused so it doesn't know where it fits into the "pack." It's like being the new kid at school and not knowing who you are in relation to the other kids. A good teacher, or "leader" can help keep a shy kid from crawling into his shell, or prevent an assertive kid from taking over. A less attentive teacher or leader (or one with an overcrowded classroom), might not be able to foresee the potential for a kid to get picked on or to become the bully.

I just don't see how a dog could be confused about where they fit if the humans control the resources. Clearly if the dog has to wait politely for dinner and then the human gives them dinner, the dog knows that the human has access to things the dog doesn't. That's a pretty clear message and as the species with the opposable thumbs in this equation, there's no need to get all fancy and psychoanalytical about how to establish this relationship.

Clearly if the dog has to wait politely for dinner and then the human gives them dinner, the dog knows that the human has access to things the dog doesn't.

I think part of the problem is, that there are MANY people who don't know that. I wish we had internet when we got our Dalmation. He was kicked out of our bed about 8 years ago for growling at me any time my feet got close to him. If you tried to get him off the bed, he would bite. He also started gowling if I was too close to his bowl after I fed him. That quickly turned to snapping if I didn't just dump the food and leave. I started making him sit and wait for his food. This frustrated him so much I got snapped at quite a few times. Eventually, he got the point, but he is 12 1/2 years old right now, and to this day will not sit for his dinner unless I tell him to and has not been allowed back on my bed. I think he knew who controlled the resources, but some dogs learn how to control anyone controls the resources! Kind of like a kid that can manipulate Dad into giving him money and buying what he wants.

Eventually, I figured out I was the problem. Blackhawk NEVER growled, snapped at, or bit my husband. I was the one who fed him, bathed him, walked him and provided all the toys and chewies. But he respected my husband, not me. So I started treating him the way my husband did, and ignored his temper tantrums and only pet him when I wanted to, not when he was obnoxious. I didn't know it then, but I was doing NILIF. I didn't even know it had a name until this year!

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
Angelique, I find it interesting that you accuse us of linear thinking.  

 
I wasn't talking about you. Define "us"...are you speaking for others here? The borg?
 

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
 
To say that, if the general public's awareness of dog training is enhanced, that he has done something good is accurate, but IMO, only insofar as they become aware enough to really educate themselves about training in general, not just his brand of training.
 

 
We are not discussing "training" methods. This is the CM forum. Cesar does not "train" dogs. All the training in the world will not help a troubled dog who is getting mixed signals when the dog is reading their owner's body language.
 
Thinking outside of the "training box", is important if someone sincerely wants to understand what Cesar is trying to teach. He is a people trainer who trains people to better understand how their behavior impacts their dog's behavior, however inadvertantly. As someone just said in another post, "dogs are always watching us". 
 

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
 
I don't give a whit if a dog is dominant or submissive, fearful or aggressive
 

 
I do give a whit. But, thats just me...I'm funny that way. [8D]
 
Without understanding the cause of a dog's instability, all someone might be doing is shaping that instability. That would be like trying to reason with a drunk. You won't have much luck, until you remove the booze (cause).
 

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
 
I do not use my dogs as "bait" for the aggressive dogs I work with 

 
Glad to hear it. Neither do I.
 
My dog helps me work with aggressive dogs in order to provide a stable influence, help socialize, and serve as an example of a dog (submissive follower) who is already paying attention to and trusting a leader (dominant animal=me). My dog ignores other dogs and pays attention to me. She does pretty good for a very messed up shelter dog who shook and submissive peed everytime a human came near her and almost bit a guy in the face when I first got her. (she got better!)
 
Walking two dogs parallel to each other communicates that "we are working together". The decision to work together was made by the Pack Leader, so the dog (being a follower) does not make this choice.
 
Leaders make the decisions of who is okay and who is not, followers don't. Leaders communicate this by how they interact with others and direct the activities. Their demeanor, attitude, and "energy" are key when the dog is deciding if you are in the leadership position or not, which will determine whether or not the dog will trust your judgement and feel safe.
 
Leaders (dominant animals) act like leaders, look like leaders, and behave like leaders to communicate their place within their social group. Followers (subordinant animals) act like followers, look like followers, and behave like followers to communicate their place within their group. Simple as that...Hey! Dogs are smarter than humans! []
 
This is a social/leadership exercise. But for those who wish to "train" a dog out of an unstable, aggressive, insecure, or confused state they are certainly free to do so.
 
Anyone who can help a dog (beloved family member) become a stable, well adjusted, happy, balanced, secure, and safe member of society who is welcome anywhere rather than put the dog to death,  gets a big round of applause from me.
 
The results speak volumes.
 
 
 

I clipped your post a bit because this is the part that I am most interested in. The body signals of both owner and dog.  Dominate and submissive.

I would be interested in a list of these to see if, and or what, I am or (am not) doing.  I think I know some of them but I want to be sure.

Also, I thought newer research shows that the dominate of the pack (alpha, leader, whatever) didn't waste their time/energy on correction. Only middle of the pack members did this.  (I am referring to paragraph 3)

Ack!  I am so confused

ORIGINAL: Angelique




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. 





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.



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.

JM,
 
I have to take off in a few minutes and will get back to give some specific examples a bit later...if the New Year's activities don't suck me in! []
 
I'm also very interested to hear any examples anyone else has to offer on how we could inadvertantly communicate we are submissive (a follower) to a dog through our body language and behavior.
 
I've been confused myself when I was first trying to separate training from social communication and behavior, but once I "got-it", everything made sense. I also had to stop thinking with a training mind for awhile, in order to do it.
 
 
 
 

Maybe a new thread could be started on this? 

 

ORIGINAL: Angelique

JM,

I have to take off in a few minutes and will get back to give some specific examples a bit later...if the New Year's activities don't suck me in! []

I'm also very interested to hear any examples anyone else has to offer on how we could inadvertantly communicate we are submissive (a follower) to a dog through our body language and behavior.

I've been confused myself when I was first trying to separate training from social communication and behavior, but once I "got-it", everything made sense. I also had to stop thinking with a training mind for awhile, in order to do it.

ORIGINAL: Angelique


I'm also very interested to hear any examples anyone else has to offer on how we could inadvertantly communicate we are submissive (a follower) to a dog through our body language and behavior.

I've been confused myself when I was first trying to separate training from social communication and behavior, but once I "got-it", everything made sense. I also had to stop thinking with a training mind for awhile, in order to do it.

The way I see it, body language doesn't lie. At least not to the likes of dogs that are so darn good at it, and especially when people don't usually realise what their body is saying, so focused are they on their words. I believe that people frequently say one thing, but communicate something else entirely through body language because they have a lot less control over body language. So even to each other, we communicate inconsistencies. It's the human way, apparently.

When it comes to dogs, we just follow suit and continue to say one thing with our words and something different with our body. I think the only way to conquer this dreadful habit of ours is to be totally truthful when we communicate to our dogs. If you don't expect your dog to listen to you, the dog is going to be able to tell that from the way you hunch your shoulders or keep your head down or the way you pitch your voice, and he's probably not going to bother much with you because he knows he's more confident than you. Thus, you communicate submissive signals in your uncertainty and lack of confidence and he communicates dominance in his cheerful disregard of you and your requests.

That's it simplistically, anyway. Of course it gets a lot more complicated, but I'm not sure just how much detail you are expecting or wanting. I can't read your body language through a computer screen. []

ORIGINAL: dstull

Angelique, I can see that your attempts at discussing how we as humans communicate with our dogs is failing. It always disolves into a training technique argument. No wonder we have difficulties with our dogs(a different species), when we can't even communicate amongst ourselves. LOL Our dogs watch us all the time, trying to learn "our language", and we send them constant information. We as humans also need to watch them with the same desire to learn "their" language. Look at your dog with a smile, and then frown, what does he do? Often when I frown my dogs will all come and sit at my feet without a word being spoken, and if I sing along with the radio, they rush to comfort me in my odvious distress! Oh well, I never thought I could sing anyway!

I tried a little experiment last night.  Sequoyah was sitting in front of my chair and opened her mouth, so I opened mine.  Next, she closed hers, so I closed mine.  Instantly, there was a look that said "are you doing the same thing I'm doing?" and she started making more "faces".  I mimicked everything she did.  She was intent on my face and really "got" that I was playing a little game with her.  It was only when I broke it off that she stopped staring at me with the quizzical look. 

Jen is quite correct about dogs learning hand signals first.  That's why it's so pointless to blather on at a dog trying to talk him into doing (or more often, *not* doing) something.  If you think your dog knows "lie down" on only the voice, you can test it by simply putting your hands behind your back, not moving, and saying "lie down".  If the dog looks at you like he hasn't a clue, he's probably been doing it on the hand signal right along, and isn't being disobedient - just has no idea what "lie down" means.

I thought the head being down  was a calming signal in dog language.

I noticed the body language of the husky during "the episode".  Head straight up, direct eye contact, chest out to appear larger, front legs squared with shoulders.

Zeus took this to be very threatening.

I don't want to appear submissive to my dog, but I don't want to come across as threatening either.

ORIGINAL: corvus

the dog is going to be able to tell that from the way you hunch your shoulders or keep your head down or the way you pitch your voice, and he's probably not going to bother much with you because he knows he's more confident than you. Thus, you communicate submissive signals in your uncertainty and lack of confidence and he communicates dominance in his cheerful disregard of you and your requests.

ORIGINAL: corvus

That's it simplistically, anyway. Of course it gets a lot more complicated, but I'm not sure just how much detail you are expecting or wanting. I can't read your body language through a computer screen. []

My tail is wagging in a happy way (heck, the whole butt is swinging from side-to-side) over your post. And, I'm still smiling from the laugh I got over Spiritdog's experiment. []

The body posture is a lot of what Cesar teaches on his show to teach people to take on the look of a confident leader. I've also seen him work on vocal tones and sometimes encouraging people to not talk or look at the dog at all. He tries to get people out of a nervous frame of mind by having them think of a happy time, and out of a hesitant or insecure frame of mind by emulating someone they admire.

By directing the activities, making the decisions, and setting boundaries, he also communicates his leadership status because that's what leaders do. They are beings of action with the followers responding to the direction. Leaders act like leaders.

JM,

I'm sorry if I can't break everything down into more detail from the post you quoted, but I will answer your specific question about a leash correction being like the nip of a dog vs a leash-pop used by a Koehler type instructor.

When thinking training, a correction was to teach the dog to associate the behavior which immediately proceeded the pop with an unpleasent experience - the correction. Yelling "NO!" or "OUT!" is sometimes also added to this lovely picture. It did not matter if the dog saw the handler as their trusted leader or as unstable and unpredictable. Didn't matter if the dog felt attacked. Didn't matter if the dog was sending submissive signals to avoid the punishment. Didn't even matter if the correction was done in anger or frustration. All that mattered was that the dog learned the correct behavior.

The old Koehler-style training believe that one good leash pop, was worth a hundred little corrections. Don't even get me started with this train of thought.

When thinking social communication between a leader to a follower, it takes very little to get a disciplinary point across with even the lightest of correction. The correction is used by Cesar as the bite of a dominant dog to tell the dog "don't do that or stop that because (as your leader) "I" said so". If you are seen as the leader, the dog will comply quite willingly. With communication from leader to follower, less is more. The more you are respected as a leader through everything you project and do (your energy), the more willingly a dog will follow your direction.

The dogs on Cesar's show are usually pretty messed up, makes for good TV. But the dramatic changes are very real and most dogs have not escalated to the severe points you see on the show. If you start a dog out right to begin with they don't need much more than a tone, a look, a block, or a touch to understand and comply with their leaders direction.

It is very much about the position (leader or follower) you have with your dog. A correction given by someone the dog sees as a follower can either be ignored or even disciplined with a bite back from the dog. A correction done in anger or frustration can tell a dog you are unstable and will cause a dog to not trust you.