CM and Fear

I think of dogs as FUR BABIES![sm=smile.gif]

Wow corvus, great post.

I just want to zero in on one aspect of the fear topic for a moment....
 

The dog has to be pretty stupid not to construct behavior on how to avoid pain and not remember the circumstances that originally caused the pain.

 
The above is an excellent point and shouldn't be glossed over if we're going to discuss fears and phobias. I strongly disagree with the stance espoused by espencer and Awsomedog that dogs do not dwell on fear and trauma unless influenced by humans, and that dwelling on fear/trauma is an entirely human occupation. This goes against everything we know about dogs and, really, all wild animals. Fear is a survival mechanism. In humans it has evolved into a more complex emotion, but that is the origin and the first purpose of fear. Dogs are remarkably less fearful, it happens, than their wild cousins in the canid family, because they are not as dependent on it as a mode of survival. Within the species, and even within breeds, dogs vary as to how fearful and/or shy they are, not solely because of experience or human handling, but also because of inherited temperament. Most dogs can cruise through fear imprint periods unscathed, but a dog with a fundamentally less sound temperament can develop a phobia that lasts throughout its life during that window of imprint. There was an experiment done where scientists deliberately bred a line of "genetically nervous" pointers who are now being studied by Karen Overall among others, and some Cornell researchers are studying a line of shy Sibes as well, to learn more about inherited shyness.
 
One thing that I've always found interesting about CM philosophy is that for all it emphasizes "dog being dog," I find it quite human-centric. It's this kind of Saint Augustine notion of the dog as an inherently perfect and good being whose "fall" or imbalancing happens only at the hands of human influence. It's a bit curious to ignore the biology of fear, which itself is incredibly fascinating... for instance, did you know that ambidextrous humans and dogs who don't favor either paw appear to have lower rates of anxiety and phobic disorders? Certainly human handling plays a role, don't get me wrong - but to say that's the whole story is missing a lot.
 
 

Espencer, this pertains to your second comment. CM says that dogs are not humans and dogs just want to be dogs. Owners should not humanize their dogs and their dog relationship behavior should reflect that. With that distinction the human has a higher life value than the dog. If you buy that, then proceed reading.

When it comes to sensations, things like pain, humans can only relate and translate based on their own sensations. So in that respect it is humanizing the dog

 
I wanted to say that's a bit of a straw boss, something to pick apart in debate. More accurately, I think, it is assuming facts not in evidence and equating things that may not be equal.
 
I agree with others that having empathy for another animal is not humanizing them, but reacting as we might to a hurt child is our humanizing of them, yet they are not acting in a human way, but a dog way. That is, if we now have fear of them being on the floor or the stairs, they will react in order to match us. Then again, there are some dogs that may not react at all to our emotional state involving an incident.
 
I know you really want to hash out the difference between your method and CM's, and make Spencer "bow" to your logic, which strikes me as the verbal equivalent of a scruff and pin, but what's more important than the exact method that you use is that you expect the dog to get over it. That you do not accept the fearful reaction and that you do not hold fear in place over the problem. At some point, the dog has to realize that floor or stairs is not to be feared, yet respected. Fear and respect are too different things. I don't fear standing on top of an 8 foot ladder but I respect that precarious position I am in by moving slowly, so as not to topple. I am not afraid of getting shocked but I handle energized wires in a certain way. I onced threaded the feed wires to a transformer through a 2,000 amp switchgear that was energized. I was not fearful but quite respectful of the instant death just inches away.
 
So, finding a way that is successful for the dog to not fear, yet respect the environment he is in is possible and I will stipulate that you may find a better way than CM's, at least for you. But that need not stop someone else from agreeing with CM to whatever extent they wish to agree.
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: jones

I just want to zero in on one aspect of the fear topic for a moment....

The dog has to be pretty stupid not to construct behavior on how to avoid pain and not remember the circumstances that originally caused the pain.

The above is an excellent point and shouldn't be glossed over if we're going to discuss fears and phobias. I strongly disagree with the stance espoused by espencer and Awsomedog that dogs do not dwell on fear and trauma unless influenced by humans, and that dwelling on fear/trauma is an entirely human occupation. This goes against everything we know about dogs and, really, all wild animals. Fear is a survival mechanism. In humans it has evolved into a more complex emotion, but that is the origin and the first purpose of fear. Dogs are remarkably less fearful, it happens, than their wild cousins in the canid family, because they are not as dependent on it as a mode of survival. Within the species, and even within breeds, dogs vary as to how fearful and/or shy they are, not solely because of experience or human handling, but also because of inherited temperament. Most dogs can cruise through fear imprint periods unscathed, but a dog with a fundamentally less sound temperament can develop a phobia that lasts throughout its life during that window of imprint. There was an experiment done where scientists deliberately bred a line of "genetically nervous" pointers who are now being studied by Karen Overall among others, and some Cornell researchers are studying a line of shy Sibes as well, to learn more about inherited shyness.

I glossed over nothing, and how can you "strongly disagree" with what I'm saying if you don't understand what I'm saying. Dogs in the wild don't go through life with *unreasonable* fear, if they fear something, they most likely have a good reason to. Most likely something they learned "during that window of imprint". Or even later in life. And as far as "Most dogs can cruise through fear imprint periods unscathed" yep, and there the ones that live in the wild. Because "a dog with a fundamentally less sound temperament can develop a phobia that lasts throughout its life" lets stop right there. there would be no "throughout its life" because that dog would never survive in the wild. A fact, not an opinion. Further more, while fear, *reasonable fear* helps a dog to "survive", that is totally different than the unreasonable fear dogs owned by humans exhibit. Notice i mention *reasonable* and *unreasonable* fear in my earlier post. Was that glossed over or do you not understand there's a difference in the two types of fear. Now, let me also piont out so know one thinks it was "glossed over", leave it "to scientists (I'll place the word human here) deliberately bred a line of "genetically nervous" pointers". Something nature does not do, instead she breads only the strong, and even then only the strogest of those will survive. Again, fact, not my opinion. But by all means, feel free to prove my points wrong. And if we're going to do the whole nature vs nurture, and that some dogs are just born that way. Does that mean sinse it can happen in one species it can happen in another? Like, humans? So some people are just born bad. A long and on going debate in of itself. And while one group of "scientists" may draw one conclusion, another group may come to a completely different conclusion. Then what? And what do we do with a study that goes completely against the way nature does things. Now that I don't get.

One thing that I've always found interesting about CM philosophy is that for all it emphasizes "dog being dog," I find it quite human-centric. It's this kind of Saint Augustine notion of the dog as an inherently perfect and good being whose "fall" or imbalancing happens only at the hands of human influence. It's a bit curious to ignore the biology of fear, which itself is incredibly fascinating... for instance, did you know that ambidextrous humans and dogs who don't favor either paw appear to have lower rates of anxiety and phobic disorders? Certainly human handling plays a role, don't get me wrong - but to say that's the whole story is missing a lot.

I like the use of the word "appear" meaning a drawn conclusion but not 100%  fact. Means again that some other expert doing a similar study may draw a different conclusion. Only amongst humans do you find unbalanced dogs. Perhaps you can piont out where I'm wrong in that fact. Unbalanced canines in the wild do not survive. Now, to end all this let me also point out, I'm not saying dogs can't be born with mental defects, that to would be silly. But this is rarely the case (and even less so in the wild) and I know this because of my success rate and what i have studied, and when I'm working with dogs I can certainly spot a dog that is showing mentally abnormal behavior vs that of just bad behavior. And that's not a dog I can help, it's that simple. So there it is. Gloss away.

ORIGINAL: corvus

David, I'm not sure, but I suspect you're being misunderstood in your questions about how far we should humanise dogs if we should at all.

As I interpret the points you are making, if we refuse to acknowledge anything we might have in common with dogs, how do we empathise? If we don't empathise, do we fail to appreciate just how much our dog might be suffering?

Yes, and it goes to all of the dog's emotions.  Since empathizing is an understanding of human feelings and situations, that is our only bridge to understanding while the dog's only communication to the human is its behavior. 

My foster Marvin, a SA dog is clearly in distress when I leave and is confined in a kennel.  I know this because Marvin paces, barks, whines, and breaths heavy.  This condition can be described in human terms as a panic disorder and since I have no actual experience, I can only express empathy, from a human understanding.  I have absolutely no idea what the dog is actually feeling, its degree or intensity.  I can improve the situation so that the behavior will change such as giving Marvin a smaller area and a chew bone.  It will appear I have provided the dog comfort, but have the panic feelings diminished?  The panic feelings could still exist but not exhibited by behavior. 

Many people elevate their pets to family member status.  Some dogs live their life chained to a doghouse in the backyard.  In both situations, the human has placed a different life value on the dog.  The more humanized the dog, the higher the life value because of the human emotional dependencies.  As the life value decreases so does the concern for the dog's well being and empathy for the dog's feelings, such as pain.  CM says dogs are not human and should not be treated as human.  I interpret that to be less than a family member humanized dog.  I think the life value placed on the dog becomes a factor in behavior modification.  That is why I wonder if CM assumed all dogs' displeasure degree is the same because of the life value he places on the dog.


Trevel and Espencer, I am not clear if you do or don't consider age as element of consideration in behavior modification for fear.  It got a little confusing and I appreciate knowing your opinion.

ORIGINAL: jones

I strongly disagree with the stance espoused by espencer and Awsomedog that dogs do not dwell on fear and trauma unless influenced by humans, and that dwelling on fear/trauma is an entirely human occupation. This goes against everything we know about dogs and, really, all wild animals. Fear is a survival mechanism. In humans it has evolved into a more complex emotion, but that is the origin and the first purpose of fear. Dogs are remarkably less fearful, it happens, than their wild cousins in the canid family, because they are not as dependent on it as a mode of survival. Within the species, and even within breeds, dogs vary as to how fearful and/or shy they are, not solely because of experience or human handling, but also because of inherited temperament. Most dogs can cruise through fear imprint periods unscathed, but a dog with a fundamentally less sound temperament can develop a phobia that lasts throughout its life during that window of imprint. There was an experiment done where scientists deliberately bred a line of "genetically nervous" pointers who are now being studied by Karen Overall among others, and some Cornell researchers are studying a line of shy Sibes as well, to learn more about inherited shyness.

One thing that I've always found interesting about CM philosophy is that for all it emphasizes "dog being dog," I find it quite human-centric. It's this kind of Saint Augustine notion of the dog as an inherently perfect and good being whose "fall" or imbalancing happens only at the hands of human influence. It's a bit curious to ignore the biology of fear, which itself is incredibly fascinating... for instance, did you know that ambidextrous humans and dogs who don't favor either paw appear to have lower rates of anxiety and phobic disorders? Certainly human handling plays a role, don't get me wrong - but to say that's the whole story is missing a lot.

Like Awsome said, is all about reasonable an unresonable fears, just like the difference between a human being afraid of a lion or being afraid of the dark; if you show a dog there is nothing to worry about he/she is going to move on with that fear really fast, maybe the first time was an accident but if you show the dog that every single time the accident wont happen then the dog would stop being afraid

DPU: I never thought about the chance of changing a technique if the dog is old, i dont know if the dog would react differently, why do you think an older dog would react in a different way?

Awsomedog, I'd like to kindly and politely suggest that you don't need to take a combative tone. We can discuss this topic without trying to put each other down and resort to sarcasm. We're all adults here, just discussing dog behavior calmly and reasonably.
 
Now,
 

Dogs in the wild don't go through life with *unreasonable* fear, if they fear something, they most likely have a good reason to. Most likely something they learned "during that window of imprint". Or even later in life.

 
I think you misunderstand what I'm saying about fear as a survival mechanism, or maybe I did not explain myself well enough. Dogs in the wild, and wolves much more than dogs, are much more fearful and shy than domesticated dogs in family homes. They are afraid of a lot of things that aren't necessarily dangerous and aren't something that's harmed them in the past, because it's to the wild animals' advantage to be fearful of anything unfamiliar. When a puppy's in a fear imprint period this is where he harkens back to that fear of the unfamiliar most strongly... which is also why it's so important to "socialize" puppies to all of the people, places, and things they will need to cope with later in life. Socializing as we all know doesn't mean playing tug-of-war with the neighborhood Lab, it simply means familiarizing a puppy with novel objects & situations. This works against the animal's natural tendency to be shy and fearful of anything it's never seen before.

Wolves will valiantly fight off bears, but if they've never seen a human before, they will run and hide from people if they can. Obviously bears are probably a greater threat than a human scientist with a camera, but the wolf is inherently more fearful of the unfamiliar thing. This is the point I'm trying to make about genetics & fear... not mentally defective dogs, but dogs closer to their wild heritage in some way - biologically somehow their brain is wired to have that stronger fear of the unknown.

ORIGINAL: jones

Awsomedog, I'd like to kindly and politely suggest that you don't need to take a combative tone. We can discuss this topic without trying to put each other down and resort to sarcasm. We're all adults here, just discussing dog behavior calmly and reasonably.

???Ok

Now,

Dogs in the wild don't go through life with *unreasonable* fear, if they fear something, they most likely have a good reason to. Most likely something they learned "during that window of imprint". Or even later in life.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying about fear as a survival mechanism, or maybe I did not explain myself well enough. Dogs in the wild, and wolves much more than dogs, are much more fearful and shy than domesticated dogs in family homes.

No, I understood, I simply don't agree.

They are afraid of a lot of things that aren't necessarily dangerous and aren't something that's harmed them in the past, because it's to the wild animals' advantage to be fearful of anything unfamiliar.

Still I don't agree, Becuase it something I've never seen, ever. And are you sure your not mistaking caution for fear. How much of this have you actually witnessed?

When a puppy's in a fear imprint period this is where he harkens back to that fear of the unfamiliar most strongly... which is also why it's so important to "socialize" puppies to all of the people, places, and things they will need to cope with later in life. Socializing as we all know doesn't mean playing tug-of-war with the neighborhood Lab, it simply means familiarizing a puppy with novel objects & situations. This works against the animal's natural tendency to be shy and fearful of anything it's never seen before.

Normally wild puppies will only show unreasonable fear of  "the unkown" until they're shown by their mom or other adults in the pack , things are ok.  Adult wild dogs show a reasonable fear of  things they should fear.

Wolves will valiantly fight off bears, but if they've never seen a human before, they will run and hide from people if they can. Obviously bears are probably a greater threat than a human scientist with a camera, but the wolf is inherently more fearful of the unfamiliar thing. This is the point I'm trying to make about genetics & fear... not mentally defective dogs, but dogs closer to their wild heritage in some way - biologically somehow their brain is wired to have that stronger fear of the unknown.

Actually one has no way of knowing weather a wild wolve has seen a human or not, we've been killing them for years. I think we're far more of a threat to them because of that fact than bears are.

ORIGINAL: espencer

DPU: I never thought about the chance of changing a technique if the dog is old, i dont know if the dog would react differently, why do you think an older dog would react in a different way?

 
Espencer, my thinking was that since there are so many gaps, givens, and assumptions in viewing the material that is made public about the CM ways, common sense should always be added.  I did not attempt to do the video demonostration on fear because I took into consideration risk (steps vs flat surface), source of fear, intensity of fear, breed knowledge, age, my relationship with the dog, etc.  I am a common Joe and I can see that these elements have to be taken into consideration in approaching any behavioral change.  I don#%92t see how CM can omit these factors in his teachings and I bet he has not.  I think because Petro at 2 years old and has reached physical and mental maturity would have been a better candidate in those circumstances than Kane who has not reach physical and mental maturity.  I attempt to resolve/change situations based on my experience and knowledge.  The situations are always different because of randomness.  To leave a situation alone because of lack of experience or not being directly taught is not real life.  This would be a disservice to anyone#%92s teachings and could even be considered a failure in the teachings.  CM has to have addressed these simple factors in his teachings.

 DPU

I'm starting to unstand (I think lol) where your questions are coming from. Here's the thing, I think Cesar trys to answer as much as he can, in his blogs, books, and vidio's, the problem is, that no matter how he explains it, there will always be more questions. different people want to know different things. It's somewhat impossible to give those answers without speaking directly to the person asking them. It's one reason I can't answer every question here. Time is a issue, as I will be out working with dogs for the rest of the weekend, and from here on out (because of time restraints) I won't be able to be here as much as I've really grown to enjoy this site. I will still stop by when I can, but, you know, that means I'll be so far behind in what's going on that, difficult it will be to catch up let alone give an opinion. I'll still try though.

Normally wild puppies will only show unreasonable fear of "the unkown" until they're shown by their mom or other adults in the pack , things are ok. Adult wild dogs show a reasonable fear of things they should fear.

 
Interesting, I've never heard that before. Do you have any source material for that? I got my information (in previous post) from a book called For the Love of a Dog by Patricia McConnell, by the way... the chapter called "The Many Faces of Fear."

Jones, I thought your point was a very good one and an important one. As someone with more experience with wild animals than domestic animals, I agree with your viewpoint because of my own experiences and observations. Raising a wild hare alongside a domestic rabbit has convinced me far better than mountains of scientific papers ever could. The hare was hand-raised and socialised every bit as much as a puppy would have been, and yet, he hates strangers, loathes to be touched outside of very specific circumstances, and goes nuts whenever he sees something out of the ordinary. On the other hand, my rabbit was raised basically in seclusion with minimal handling and she's so laid back you'd think she was comatose.

This story serves to make two points. Firstly, to back up jones in producing a real life wild animal with "unreasonable" fear. He's never been hurt by a person in his life, and he met plenty of strangers as a baby and loved it, but now he's terrified of strangers. His environment was very controlled and I know he had no unpleasant experiences prior to this fear setting in. And yet, there he is, freezing up and hiding the moment someone new walks in.

It also demonstrates what domestication has the power to do. Domestic bunnies would not stand a chance in the wild. It's just not right for rabbits to stamp their feet angrily at dogs and chase cats and hop around the feet of strangers, begging for treats. Domestication has indeed seriously modified fear behaviour in animals.

I also don't buy this reasonable/unreasonable thing. Those things are defined by people, who know nothing very much of what is important for wild animals to survive day to day. It's dangerous to define reasonable and unreasonable fear in a human context for animals that are not humans. I'm sure every dog that is frightened of thunderstorms is damn sure it's a reasonable thing to be frightened of.

I've never seen a wild animal that ISN'T afraid of unfamiliar things. If you've never seen it before, you'd better be real cautious in case it's dangerous. No one's there to bail them out if they eat poison, or mess with an animal that looked safer than it turned out to be. Whether animals pick an approach of fear or caution, I believe, is neither here nor there. They are all frightened for at least the first few moments. Some flee never to return, some hang around and eventually pluck up the courage to explore further. The curious ones might discover that the new scary thing is a good source of food, or they might discover it's toxic and die. That's why we still have both responses in wild animal populations. Neither is universally beneficial. If you can convince me that it's ALWAYS beneficial to overcome neophobia with a cautionary approach, then I'll believe you that neophobia never sticks around, despite my observations to the contrary.

I think that fear is an incredibly basic and universal emotion. Reasonable and unreasonable doensn't come into it, because those things are arbitrary and subjective. I don't indulge fears my dog has that I judge unreasonable, because she's my dog living in my world, but I make those judgements based on her future quality of life, seeing as it's not nice to be afraid of something you have to deal with everyday. That's why I would say a fear of stairs is unreasonable whereas a fear of fireworks is reasonable.

Lastly, I think this would be a good time to add that dogs are neotenised wolves. Essentially, they are young in their behaviour, and young wild animals are more prone to fear responses than adults. Who are we to say that's entirely attributable to experience, especially as we've already discussed the juvenile "fear period"? If we say it's entirely attributable to experience, then my hare should have overcome his fear of strangers by now.

  corvus

So now we're comparing rabbits to dogs? Good greef.

Unless anyone has a wolf in their home to compare to their pet dogs and draw conclusions from the comparison as corvus has then I think corvus is taking a very good line with that post.  I also think that the statement "fear is a basic and  universal emotion" is relevant here.