The language of dominance and submission

Zeus tries the non sit with me.  I just wait him out.  Patience. And a bit of humour helps.  Because you know what the hell they are up to

I got a non sit this morning at the gate.  I just laughed, looked to the sky and hummed a little tune.  He got the  ideal and his butt hit the ground.

In any circumstance that I begin to take Zeus's actions personal, I laugh.

Not only is it good for the soul, but it lightens the tension for both of us.

In some ways dogs are superior to us. They read us very well, we need books and scientific study to read them. It's like a primal non-verbal language or social order, which we have mostly lost. We are a very verbal species.
 
Animals can also "read" animals of different species. The zebra knows when the lions are in hunting mode.
 
The problem is, dogs dont read us in "human". They read us in dog with a dog's mind. Whatever instinctive "language" they were born with, it is their language. To make sense of who is who, who is leading, who is following, and where do *I* fit in is a simple truth for me when dealing with a dog.
 
Maybe I just "get" this a little easier because I had dogs as playmates (instead of other kids) when I was very young.
 
I have found if your dog does not see you as their trusted leader, it can come out in the form of social and behavioral problems...regardless of how you "train".
 
I've actually seen Cesar quoted as saying what he does is instinctual rather than instructional when he works with a dog. Although I do think the owners do well once the are instructed on how to be more instinctual and dogs are more easily instructed once their instinctual needs are acknowledged, understood, and fulfilled.
 
It is very important to a dog to know their place. It is the first thing they need sorted out before they can feel secure and know whether they (the dog) should be making decisions and leading the activities, or following the directions of their owner.
 
IMO, deny them this, and you are discounting and denying them a very simple and basic need that is hard-wired into them.
 
Too simple I guess. We modern humans are just so smart and really think we know it all. But, I'll bet a caveman could do it. [8D]

ORIGINAL: Angelique

Ignoring a dog when you first meet them is helpful. But most people do not do this. They approach the strange dog head-on making high-pitched whimpering noises, they reach for the dog, shove cookies towards it, they stare at the dog, they tower over the dog or lower themselves, they grin and show their teeth...this little scenario right here can send confusing messages to the dog that we are dominant, submissive, or unstable.

We could break the entire paragraph I just wrote down into all of the components and discuss our different viewpoints.

This one very confusing (to a dog) interaction only takes a few seconds, but will affect how the dog "sees" you.

 
Any comments on this? Does this interaction mean nothing as long as the dog is "trained"?
 
Training is aided by the dog seeing you as their leader. It goes against their nature to take instruction from a follower, yet it is perfectly natural for a dog to take instruction from their leader, IMOAE.

Maybe dogs don't look at us as dogs.

Maybe they look at us as humans.

Maybe they are just that smart

The problem is, dogs dont read us in "human". They read us in dog with a dog's mind. Whatever instinctive "language" they were born with, it is their language. To make sense of who is who, who is leading, who is following, and where do *I* fit in is a simple truth for me when dealing with a dog.

I've actually seen Cesar quoted as saying what he does is instinctual rather than instructional when he works with a dog. Although I do think the owners do well once the are instructed on how to be more instinctual and dogs are more easily instructed once their instinctual needs are acknowledged, understood, and fulfilled.

It is very important to a dog to know their place. It is the first thing they need sorted out before they can feel secure and know whether they (the dog) should be making decisions and leading the activities, or following the directions of their owner.

IMO, deny them this, and you are discounting and denying them a very simple and basic need that is hard-wired into them.

 
Angelique, I agree with you up to the point where you say leadership is the primary concern of the dog (and also on CM's approach to dogs). I totally agree about learning the dog's language and how their minds work and learning to speak their language (though I would say, while teaching them a bit of ours). I totally agree that training is nearly useless without a solid trusting relationship with a dog. However, the leadership issue is where we part ways. Dogs' primarily needs are food and shelter and social companionship... some dogs are quite interested in social hierarchies, other dogs really are not. I agree with McConnell rather than CM on this topic - she says that not all dogs are status-seekers and not all dogs are going to try to fill the 'alpha' role if there is the slightest chink in the owner's armor. How could individual dogs not vary in that regard... it is very much a personality issue.

ORIGINAL: JM

Maybe dogs don't look at us as dogs.

Maybe they look at us as humans.

Maybe they are just that smart

 
I agree. They know we are not dogs.
 
Yet, we are not smart enough to realise that a dog was not born being able to "read" us in human. They read us and try to make sense of our weird and conflictiong signals in dog.

ORIGINAL: jones

I agree with McConnell rather than CM on this topic - she says that not all dogs are status-seekers and not all dogs are going to try to fill the 'alpha' role if there is the slightest chink in the owner's armor. How could individual dogs not vary in that regard... it is very much a personality issue.

Actually, Cesar does agree with her on this and recommends Trish's book "The Other End of the Leash" in his suggested reading section at the back of his book.

He has also mentioned it on his show saying that if you have a naturally easy going dog, go ahead and interact with them without worrying about it. He has mentioned in his book that easy going dogs can be raised from puppyhood and trained with positive reinforcement, and they will do just fine.

However, his specialty is working mostly already messed up, adult dogs who do not have this "naturally" born subordinate personality, dogs who are acting out due to not getting their needs for exercise and mental stimulation met, or are just confused.

Frustration (lack of exercise and mental stimulation) and instability (confusion and insecurity) are two seperate areas.

The instability is usually addressed by working on the owners interactions with the dog and teaching the owner the language of leadership and leadership skills. 

He has also mentioned it on his show saying that if you have a naturally easy going dog, go ahead and interact with them without worrying about it. He has mentioned in his book that easy going dogs can be raised from puppyhood and trained with positive reinforcement, and they will do just fine.

 
I have heard him say that, but he usually says - and you have also just said - that a dog's primary need is leadership, and I disagree.

Well okay....lol...

But...what if what we consider 'submissive' signals to a dog, is actually calming signals.

So...if you walk up to a dog, then bend down to it's level, you may not be showing signs of submission but relaying to the dog that, all is calm and you mean no harm.

I have seen techs do this at the vet's office.

It is only their primary social need before they can function within their group, family, pack, etc...

Disagreement is good. It makes for an interesting conversation. If we all agreed, there would be a lot less to discuss.[]

In any circumstance that I begin to take Zeus's actions personal, I laugh.

Both of the trainers I respect the most do this also. When they are working a dog and I hear a ringing "Ha-ha!" I know to watch carefully as some serious schooling is going to take place subsequently.

They genuinely enjoy when a dog offers them oddball behaviors. These offer insight into the dog's mind. That's why you never want your dog to feel so inhibited that he doesn't act freely when he encounters something new. I've seen this happen in the context of both positive and aversive based training. In the case of the "postitive" trainer, the dog is actually so controlled that he's never allowed the chance to do wrong. And of course we've all seen the aversively trained dog that is so shut down he's afraid to move a muscle. Both of these are misapplications and something to watch out for no matter how you train.

Angelique, in theory, I agree that dogs are more comfortable knowing where they fit in the pack.  But, I also agree with jones that there are dogs that simply don't want to fill the leadership vacuum.  And, I guess that the biggest problem I see on CM's shows, regardless of our difference in training methodology or equipment choices, is that he doesn't always accurately assess which dogs are which.  I think you must be able to do that pretty consistently, or you are going to make wrong choices for treatment a good percentage of the time.  And, to me, it is important whether we are increasing a dog's long term chances for success - but I mean that  both in terms of whether the dog meets the owner's expectations, as well as whether the dog is emotionally healthy while he's doing it.  I don't want a "shut down" dog that now walks nicely by his owner because the owner has obsessed so much on being dominant that he forgot to investigate whether the dog was really applying to be CEO of the household.  I want a dog that trots along next to his owner joyfully, as if that's the best place on earth he could be because the owner took the time to learn to communicate with the dog, and form a relationship with the dog based on benevolent leadership.
And, as to the notion of the "last chance dogs" that CM handles, most of what I see on that show is very common in any training and behavioral practice in the country.  The percentage of those dogs that are truly "last chance" are minimal when you assess for how likely it is that they can be helped.  If you base your assessment on what an owner says about the possibility of euthanasia then many of the dogs might be "hopeless" to a neophyte, but from a training & behavior point of view, most are not.  So, the "magic" is really not any more "magic" than what many trainers and behaviorists deal with every day.  You wanna see hopeless, call Dr. Dodman and ask about the dogs that come his way.

Well, Mr. Dodman has his own set of critics. Most of the negative remarks I've read refer to his over use of drugs to deal with behavioral and/or social problems. 
 
Your points regarding whether or not a dog may be beyond redemption or is simply displaying average correctable problems are valid. However, how "bad" a dog's behavior has become matters little if the owners are simply tired of dealing with it and have run out of options.

If we make ourselves superior to another species' detriment, the balance may be temporarily in our favor, but it won't last...

 
I agree to this, not from a spiritual perspective but from the standpoint that Mother Nature is not the weakling that human-centric people would have us think. There is a theory that some greenhouse effect will lead to another ice age. First, there are other factors besides our emissions. Sunspts, El Nino, etc., the cooling conveyor belt in the ocean. At some point, these effects actually trigger another ice age. Example, too many emissions cause the ice caps to melt and chunks of icebergs float south. This interferes with the warm flow from the equator, and the floating icebergs actually make the north seas cooler, there by causing a cooler norther hemisphere. This results in colder winters. An ice age would kill a lot of humans. Or, a drastically hot period could also kill off a lot of humans. Either way, the "problem" is reduced and Mother Nature goes on about her merry way. She always has her "balance."

Truthfully, I think it is a bit arrogant of humans to believe that they have the power to destroy Mother Earth (the superiority factor again)

She'll only take so much, then shake us off like so many fleas.