The language of dominance and submission

OK, here's a question. I've read things where people say that "appeasement" gestures can mean your dog is saying "don't hurt me" and that you could be harming your relationship with your dog. As seen in my post in Anything and Everything, Lucy has declared War on the squirrel in our yard. To diffuse tensions and save my front windows, I have been stepping in to keep the situation at a low level of conflict. When Lucy is barking her head off and throwing herself at the window, I walk over and point away with a snap of the fingers while saying out! then ask for a down after she gets off the couch and out of the window. I usually don't have to touch her, but occasionally will lighly touch her back to get her attention if she doesn't react.
No yelling, no hitting, no getting angry. Just calmly and firmly letting her know that she needs to stop. I learned this technique watching He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (and I don't mean Voldemort) and it has been working extremely well. Way better than my husbands technique of screaming and yelling and accomplishing nothing but getting her more excited and my previous technique of just calling her away from the window until I finally had to grab her colalr and pull her out.

At first, she showed very mild appeasement or submissive signs. She will slightly roll over on her back and lift one front leg with her floppy ears a little back. I would also get an expression on her face that I usually see when she's trying to figure out what I want. After successfully stopping her barking then doing a down a few times she stopped the appeasement gestures and just waited for the "good girl!" or cookie or tummy scratch that always followed. Now, I am at the point where just standing up and saying "out" while snapping my fingers and pointing away from the window stops her and we don't do a down. Hopefully soon, I won't have to stand up to get her attention.

Now, if I understand some author's opinions correctly, those gestures when I first started working with her mean she is scared of me and I'm harming my relationship with her. I read the gestures as "oops, I'll stop! I respect your rules!." Especially since she'd go right back to keeping my lap warm or reading my book with me as soon as a cease-fire is enforced with the squirrels. Or am I missing the point entirely on appeasement/submissive gestures?

I think some of that stuff is one perspective only.

I ntoiced that Zeus yawns at the gate before our walk when I am putting him in a sit/stay position.

At first I thought..."oh mah gawwwd, mah dawg is skeered too death of me" ( I actually talk like this)

But in reality, he is calming himself (not me) so he can focus.

Trust me, he is wanting to bolt out of that gate and run like a wild man.

Bolting out the gate will get him nothing but a nice short walk back into the inside. Which is not something he is wanting at that moment.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said her demenour was like when she's trying to figure out what you want. Appeasement gestures are like insurance for a dog. When they're uncertain or something is new and strange, an appeasement gesture is a way to hedge their bets and make sure everyone is all clear on their lowly harmless status.

Conrad has his appeasement gestures on a hair trigger and at any given time is liable to roll over and expose his belly and wear his best submissive grimace. Any time something is new, unusual, surprising or even something that makes him really happy, he'll make sure everyone knows that he's totally harmless and a very good boy. Just in case.

Edited to add: JM you should see Conrad when he knows we're about to go for a walk. His yawning reaches epic proportions if I'm dragging my heels. I take all these various calming signals and appeasement gestures as evidence that something is causing the dog stress (remember, good things also cause stress!), but that thing isn't necissarily me. It's the situation, something that's being asked of them that they're not sure about, the presence of someone or something around them that makes them slightly nervous, something perhaps that they are hearing (Marlowe spent about an hour last night pacing around the living room with a grimace on his face because he could hear the neighbor beagle next door howling in lonliness). The first few times I worked with Conrad with a clicker were very stressful for him because all of a sudden he didn't know what I was asking him to do, and he displayed a lot of calming signals and appeasement gestures during those first few sessions, until he figured it out. Now when the clicker comes out, he wags all the way through our session and has no more need for calming or appeasement.

What you saw was a posture that is usually described as "passive submission", and it does not indicate fear, merely an acknowledgement of your position as the one in charge. 

yeah.  What Anne said.

Pity it didn't extend to dogs. (Oh, slap me, I just couldn't resist... )

Here is your slap[8D]

Men chase women, and usually do whatever it takes to get the woman.

Once, men have achieved that, and women fawn all over men, well, it is over.

Unless, this is my experience, women keep their independence, not so much financially, but a character independence, a woman is done..........
 
Sorry, this was OT.............[]

My favorite author, Heinlein, put it this way. Man pursues a woman until she catches him. Read that twice, as I did not mispell.
 

What people frequently seem to overlook or forget in wolf packs is that the dominant pair are the only ones that breed with the support of the pack. This, basically, means that only the alpha pair get to pass on their genes. That is as HUGE selection pressue. A wolf that didn't fight to the death to hold that position is a wolf full of genes that are never going to last long in a wolf population.

Fighting, though, is VERY costly to wild animals. It can result in injury or death and that's going to be a massive blow to the chances of getting your genes passed on. It's not for the good of the pack or the species so much that wolves mostly practice ritualised aggression only. It's selfish, as is almost everything in the world of genetics. A wolf that picks fights all the time will very quickly meet his match and that will be the end of any attempts to pass on his genes. Now consider that wolves live very closely with other wolves and are desperate for one thing and that's to be at the top of the hierarchy in order to breed. So you have the very high cost of serious aggression weighed against the huge advantage of actually getting to pass on your genes. It's a very high stakes game, and for that reason, we have ritualised aggression. It means the wolves can test themselves and settle minor arguments without taking those big risks involved in a serious fight.

My point is, just because they don't often fight doesn't mean they a) don't need to or b) don't want to. And nor does it mean they are keeping the peace for the wellbeing of the pack. They only care about themselves. The pack is required to raise pups. Therefore, it's in an individual's best interests to keep the peace within the pack. That's all.

To me, leadership ability doesn't have that much to do with it. I don't believe wolves can tell what makes a good leader. I believe the strongest wolf gets the job, because a strong wolf that didn't challenge a weaker wolf would not pass on its genes and therefore, the genes would drop out of the population. I have heard this talk about wolf packs ejecting a tyrant, but I don't really believe it. What sounds a lot more likely to me is that a stronger wolf challenged the tyrant, won, and was backed up by the pack. My suspicion is that tyrants are tyrants because they know they are not very strong and feel the need to cow everyone in the pack before they think to challenge. Sure, most leaders don't need to resort to aggression because all the lower members know they're no match for the alpha, so they're very careful not to upset him/her/them.

So what I'm seeing with this leadership 'abilities' thing is that strength causes benign leadership, not the other way 'round.

Just my [sm=2cents.gif].

As for dogs, like I've said before, they don't have the tremendous selection pressures on them to be alpha. Most dogs find alpha to be an upsetting and stressful position they'd rather not have. There's little drive to want to be alpha beyond having someone in control if no one else is willing to step up.

I totally agree that bringing home the food should be enough on it's own in most cases to ensure an alpha position in a doggy/human household.

There's little drive to want to be alpha beyond having someone in control if no one else is willing to step up.

 
Okay. Keep two females.

ORIGINAL: ron2

There's little drive to want to be alpha beyond having someone in control if no one else is willing to step up.

Okay. Keep two females.

Pansy.  I have three. []
Love,
Maska

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.

 
I agree with you 100 percent. It seems very strange to me that many of the people who accuse others of being anthropomorphic want to be the Alphas of a pack. I think that if we use the goal of replacing unwanted behavior with acceptable behavior the level of respect we desire will naturally follow.
 
Although it may be anthropomorphic I believe we can use many child rearing principles in raising dogs. They have many similarities in their brain structures. For example a child wants to go outside and play and rushes barefoot to the door. We don't let them outside until they let us put on their shoes and socks. We don't take the dogs for a walk until they sit and wait for their leashes. etc. I also believe in using the same levels of force. Of course you will grab a child's arm if they are running out into traffic, but then you stop and think hmmm....maybe I'd better work on teaching them to stay by my side.

ORIGINAL: corvus

I totally agree that bringing home the food should be enough on it's own in most cases to ensure an alpha position in a doggy/human household.

 
If thats true then this forum would be reduce to only half of the problems without dogs that nip to their owners, resource guard, etc. and NILIF would not exist
 
Dogs dont follow shy leaders, fearful leaders, unconfident leaders, etc and it does not matter if they bring a prime rib steak every day for dinner, they just wont accept them

And where is your evidence of that, spence?

ORIGINAL: houndlove

And where is your evidence of that, spence?

 
Well i can go a look for threads where the dog has those kind of behaviors and i dont think the dogs are the ones that go to the grocery store []

And what does "controlling resources" really mean? This phrase is used a lot, but if I observe most people interacting with their dogs it always looks to me as if the dog is having the resources "given-up" to the (already well fed) dog.

In the wild there is order in who feeds first, but the alpha does not deny the others their right to feed. I doubt the dog can reason that it is the human which owns the house which provides shelter, it is simply where they live together.

Where is the logic that says just because we have the food in our possesion, then give it up to our dogs we are automatically seen as a leader?

I don't need the links to someone's book or site, I've read the human logic written about this. Makes sense to a lot of people because it's human logic, but it makes little sense to me in terms of the big picture in establishing yourself as leader by how you are "read" by the dog as far as body language, attitude, and if it is you who are directing the activities and making the decisions.

Are we only talking about the "control" of food and toys as "all things good" come from me so I am automatically to be seen by my dog as their leader?

Constantly giving up the food in your possesion would seem to tell the dog otherwise and I've seen too many treats send the wrong message to a dog, and it doesn't say leadership.

Give me some personal reasoning behind how "controlling resources" alone, establishes leadership because I just don't see how this has more relevance than how we interact with a dog when the food or toys are not involved.

I'll be completely shocked if examples can be given without talking about training methods. []