Dog Psychology or Pop Psychology?

Thanks for posting this. This is actually my new (I discovered it a couple weeks ago) go-to page when someone asks me why I'm not in love with Cesar Millan and why I don't use dominance theory in training my own dogs. It's a great resource, with lots of links and book references and a very measured non-confrontational tone. I like it a lot.

I'm sure Lisa Mullinax does a fine job, but I am immediately turned off by her repeated attempts all over her site to bash someone who does things differently (Cesar Millan) to make herself look indispensable.

Reading around her site, I see that she's going to charge me $600 to teach me how to cure my dog of on-leash aggression. It's clear why her site is basically a bash Cesar Millan fest. He's giving it away for free! []

Slapping the "Dominance Theory" moniker on Cesar Millan as the way he trains dogs is highly innacurate. It's the way he rehabilitates problem dogs when necessary. He doesn't "train" dogs. On TV, anyway. He trains people and he does that with care, understanding and patience. Just because he mentions dominance as a trait of the animal doesn't mean he is a proponant of Dominance Theory in training.

He's giving it away for free!

He's getting a huge paycheck from the National Geographic Channel, a running a for profit business, so the idea that he's giving something away seems a bit of a stretch to me.  []   IMO, what both of these people are doing is just plain good old American capitalism.   But, I agree with Lisa's methods more than I do with what I consider a pop psychologist for dogs.  We'll just have to politely disagree on this one, I guess.

Yeah, I know he's getting paid for his show, I just meant that I and millions of other people don't have to pay for the advice he gives because he's distributing it to us for nothing. And while I agree with a lot of what he says, and have been successfully dealing with my dogs using his advice, I find absolutely nothing wrong with Ms. Mullinax's way of doing things and I see no need to bash her or her techniques. And I highly doubt Cesar would either.

And yes, I know we disagree on this, but I do respect you and think you have a lot of great training and behavior knowledge. I have a lot to learn from you. [sm=happy.gif]

Been there, read that, at the moment i saw therms like "jerking" and "jabbing"  i knew this lady let her feelings do the talk 

ORIGINAL: espencer

Been there, read that, at the moment i saw therms like "jerking" and "jabbing"  i knew this lady let her feelings do the talk 

Aw c'mon espencer.  I'm just trying to make up for all those youtubes...[sm=rotfl.gif]  Let's not [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif], shall we? 

Did you go to any of the links on the page, (which is  why I posted it)?  There's a lot to be said about learning the difference between actual science and "pop science" no matter which side of the debate you are on with regard to any of the personalities involved.  

This:

As stated by Myrna Milani, DVM, author and veterinary ethologist: [blockquote] "...the mark of a true leader is the ability to control without force. And, in fact, wild animals who rely on brute force to maintain their status typically get eliminated from the gene pool because this approach requires so much energy." [/blockquote]

is not so much bollocks as a misrepresentation of the facts. It is my professional opinion *puts on zoologist hat* that wild animals FREQUENTLY rely on brute force almost to the exclusion of everything else in order to control a situation, which in turn, is the best way to get what they want. They DO NOT get eliminated from the gene pool, but in actual fact, rule the gene pool because they CAN strut around all day beating up weaker individuals and still get enough food into them and avoid getting picked off by a predator. Any female would go bananas to mate with a stud muffin that good at living. And I personally know of a small female bird that raised more chicks to fledging than any other bird in my study area at the time, and I attribute that almost soley to her willingness to use brute force on anything and everything that came near her nest. There were times I feared for my eyes as she flapped about at the brim of my hat. She was still alive despite spending 10 minutes out of every 30 beating something up because she was such an awesome forager that she could keep that up and still feed herself and her 3 kids. That makes her a huge genetic winner of the kind you have to admire.

However, in extremely social animals, especially those hanging out in a family group, brute force does not reign and maybe then the assertion about leading without force holds true. If there's one thing animals understand, it's risk of being beaten up. I think it is often the case that a leader controls without force because it's so confident in its ability to win a fight with anyone that everyone else believes them and does everything possible to avoid fighting with them. Sometimes such a confident individual happens to be very small and not realise it, but it doesn't matter if that confidence is strong enough.

And also, I loved this point:

Dominance theory is so muddled that it often contradicts itself.  For example, if a "dominant dog" is acting aggressively and the solution is through "calm-assertive" energy which makes the human the "dominant pack leader," wouldn't a dominant dog act calm-assertive instead of aggressive?

[]

And also, I loved this point:

quote:


Dominance theory is so muddled that it often contradicts itself. For example, if a "dominant dog" is acting aggressively and the solution is through "calm-assertive" energy which makes the human the "dominant pack leader," wouldn't a dominant dog act calm-assertive instead of aggressive?

The problem is that humans often associate aggression with dominance, and treat dogs accordingly.  Aggression is just aggression.  True dominance is much more than that.  Often, the most aggressive animals are the "wannabes" or so-called "betas".  Who usually starts the tiffs about mating?  Yup, young full-of-himself-male challenging the older, "dominant" for an opportunity to pass his genes along.  The older animal may have to fight the young one off, but he didn't start the argument, only finished it.  And, my guess is that if he could have warned the suitor off  with a glance, that would be the way to go.  Self preservation and all - it's hard to pass your genes along if you are fighting all the time.

Quote” No matter what the problem, whether in dogs or humans, there are those who claim to have a secret, undiscovered knowledge and solution. However, this claimed knowledge is not based in science. " End Quote
 
 I do not see Cesar as claiming to be the owner of some "secret mumbo jumbo" passed down from his ancestors or found inside of a Chinese fortune cookie. What he says is not new, he is not saying it is new. He is just working with the "actual fact" that although there are millions of dogs in our homes the majority of dog owners know nothing about their dogs, have never been to a professional trainer and have not even read a book about dogs.
 
 I have no problem with the training methods used on this webpage that was posted. I am sure the lady is successful in her methods, she would have to be so in order to get a 600$ fee. I do have less than 100% respect for those who go out of their way to "discredit Cesar".  Hey if it comes up in conversation and you hate him, then tell everyone why you hate him, but those that go out of their way to refute everything he does, to me are showing something that just does not sit well with me. He has and does do a service to dogs. He educates people about dogs. One thing he has done and done very well is to show people that there is hope for their dog and that it does not require them to become full time dog trainers to achieve.
 
 Those of us who eat and breath and sleep dogs, would love it if everyone in the entire world that owned a dog would be like us. Take care of it; enjoy a relationship with it, yada yada. But this is not going to happen. The fact is that the vast majority of dog owners are casual at best. They do not want to read books on training, go to seminars and take their dogs to classes. For these people Cesar may be all they see, and if he can show them that their dog can be a part of their family by showing the dog its place in the family, by setting boundaries and by walking it and exercising it then I applaud him!
 
(Note small measure of sarcasm) I am not going to even get into the pop science (dominance) thing versus the science (The one true gospel of dog training) other than to tell you that your method is not the gospel. Those not abiding by it are not necessarily going to hell and dominance theory is not the devil. I use some of both, both work, both show measurable results and depending on the personality of the dog at times one works better than the other. Some of you remind me of television evangelists in their fervor to collect funds!
 
 One would expect to see dogs peeing on themselves and cowering on the floor in sheer terror when one tunes in to the Dog Whisperer. Had I never watched it prior to listening to some of the folks on the forums that is the impression I would have. I have not seen him administer harsh leash corrections, I have not seen him kick, beat or otherwise brutalize a dog. Now mind you I know that some of you will pop back that any pressure on the leash is a correction and to touch or mold your dog into position is torture. And the famous Alpha roll, well that one just proves Cesar is going to hell doesn#%92t it. (note sarcasm).
 
 Sorry for my sarcasm, but why can#%92t we just give out our advice to people when they ask for it, and refrain from discrediting or defaming any other trainer unless that person is actually evil and is operating with cruelty. He is on the side for dogs! I am on the side for dogs! You are on the side for dogs! We are all advocates for dogs!

Thanks for posting this. This is actually my new (I discovered it a couple weeks ago) go-to page when someone asks me why I'm not in love with Cesar Millan and why I don't use dominance theory in training my own dogs. It's a great resource, with lots of links and book references and a very measured non-confrontational tone. I like it a lot.

I agree, I liked it a lot!  I don't see any CM "bashing", just a critical analysis of his methods.  Hey, if you go around claiming to be the "dog whisperer" and make a TV show, you have to be open to some skepticism and critique.  Whoever made the webpage has just as much right to promote her own scientific evidence as someone like CM.  I also like all the links and additional resources.

On the television show, a great deal of importance is placed on exercise as a dog's primary need. Dogs do need exercise. The following is not an attempt to minimize the importance of regular exercise. However, Most breeds were bred for particular work which require both mental and physical exertion. Dogs need mental stimulation as much, and in some cases even more, than they need physical exercise.

just took this one snippet out to make a quick comment.

there is no disagreement that dogs do need exercise but the author goes on to infer that c.m. offers little or no mental stimulation to the dogs.

i think that it is up to the owners to step up to the plate and offer the exercise and mental stimulation. c.m. is just called in there to rehabilitate an unstable dog, which is the thrust of the show's content.

however, an astute observer watching the show will, after watching many episodes, see that c.m's own pack does get exerise and mental stimulation. tho he doesn't take his pack of dogs to agility contests, he does play games with them back in the back alley and every day, a group of the dogs to get to go off leash on trails and even to the beach - where there's plenty of mental exercise going on, for a dog at least.

going back to the show, there are episodes where he does talk about mental stimulation such as giving the dogs a job to do so he does understad the concept ofg mental exericse. in his book, he even speaks of mental exercise as one of the dogs requirements.... but anyway, it is up to the dogs owner to follow through which is what the show does not capture much at all.... and most people are lazy with their dogs which is why thereare so many problem dogs in the first place.


my first impression with this site is that it is indeed a c.m. bash site. all of the related links on the lower left side are anti c.m. links. sheesh! talk about negative campains - it's not quite as deplorable as political campaign smearing the politicians do but all that stuff could have been left out of the website fo sure.

i don't see c.m. going around bashing positive trainers and ther methods.

While I'm not a die hard Milan fan (I see his usefullness but also question his methods), I was also turned off by the website. Most of the site was bashing Milan and backing it up by fluff. There's no studies referenced (unless I missed the links), it seems to be all opinion. IMO, you send the wrong message when you bash other professionals just to prove your point.

I'll freely admit that my own non-dog-related professional life comes in when I think about whether or not this topic should be debated. I'm a research scientist (as are several other on this forum--it seems like dogs and a scientific mind go together) and if there were not debate in science, progress would never be made. If everyone just went around saying, "Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion, I'm just going to keep mine to myself" nothing would ever happen. The professor I worked for caused a pretty large stir recently (and is about to again with a replication showing the same results that we're currently working on) showing that, at least in our study, "discovery learning" has no advantages over direct instruction, and in fact has one major disadvantage. Needless to say, discovery learning has many advocates in educational psychology and for a while has been the sexy new thing and naysaying against it does not make one terribly popular in some circles. But that's the way science works. If you are not open to having your theories challenged, don't get into any kind of a scientific field.

An interesting side-note is that what advocates of discovery learning (which is essentially what Cesar Millan is claiming he did--receieved no formal instruction and taught himself through observation and forming his own theories) say is a major advantage of it, that it creates deeper understanding was not found to be the case in our studies. Many fewer students were able to master the task at hand through discovery learning and those that did, did not display any deeper understanding than those who had been formally taught the same task through traditional direct instruction. Their performance on all post-assessments and transfer tasks were pretty much the same.

Dee Ganley's article on training impulse control in dogs.

as a reader of the referenced website above, i would have wanted to be able to quickly find Dee Ganley's article on training impulse control in dogs, rather than having to sift through all of the anti-dog-whisperer rhetorhic.