Dog Psychology or Pop Psychology?

ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

I suppose defining terms is also an important part of any discussion like this.

[linkhttp://www.sntp.net/psychology_definition.htm]http://www.sntp.net/psychology_definition.htm[/link]

The Definition of "Psychology"
[font="arial"]by Gene Zimmer The word "psychology" is the combination of two terms - study (ology) and soul (psyche), or mind. The derivation of the word from Latin gives it this clear and obvious meaning: The study of the soul or mind.
This meaning has been altered over the years until today, this is not what the word means at all. The subject of psychology, as studied in colleges and universities, currently has very little to do with the mind, and absolutely nothing to do with the soul or spirit.

My point is that I don't believe Cesar is asking to be judged based on science. If so, I doubt he'd say that he's mostly intuitive. Not very scientific. He's not calling himself a psychologist. He studies the dog's mind and social interactions. If the definition of Psychology only includes the clinical science of the mind and not the simple study of it, then I can understand the confusion.

Although the term psychology was used as far as history can tell rather infrequently to refer to a religious study, it modern meaning, that which would be understood by a reasonable person to use a legal term relates to the scientific field of psychology.  If Milan wanted to use a term which relates to a spiritual understanding of the soul, I am sure he would have used a different work. 

Second, Milan's business in L.A. is called the Dog Psychology Center, he is using in its clinical sense as a marketing tool, he should follow its precepts.

So, this all comes down to the word, "Psychology"? [sm=lol.gif]

You're right. He's not a scientist and he doesn't have degrees. He doesn't claim any of this. And if you're a person to whom that is important, then you're going to choose a different way of dealing with your dogs. And there's nothing wrong with that AT ALL! No one is saying that.

But there is another way of dealing with dogs. Not better, just different. No, it's not scientific, it's an intuitive knowledge that comes from observation and experience. Not something learned in a classroom.

But I'm not the one trying to say that one is better and the other is crap. I think they both serve.

I can see that people aren't going to agree and that's fine. I wish we would have been able to reach an understanding and mutual respect for each other's choices.

I wish we would have been able to reach an understanding and mutual respect for each other's choices

 
Science has a certain undeniable value. For me, if science proves something be a certain way, I accept that finding and view alternate theories as fantasy. It's a personal limitation of mine. Applied science is part of my job, every day. Electricity seeks the shortest route to ground. Stay the heck out of it's way. No negotiation, no alternate theory. That's the fact, Jack. Forgetting that can cost me my life. So, in my personal paradim, I value science. It hasn't led me wrong, yet. And when I do get shocked, it's not an alternate theory, it's me making a mistake.
 
So, I tend to value science highly. My bad.
 

I think that by using the term "dog psychology" to define what he does, Milan is asking to be judged on the basis one judges science.

i'm not so sure that millan is asking to be judged - but he is certainly open to the fact that people will judge him whether he wants to be judged or not. i think he just wants to help dogs and dog owners. some of the money he raises even goes into a foundation that is supposed to target anuimal shelters that despertely need financial aid.


what i find to be sad is how people become so harsh in their judgements of others who happen to be different from their own adopted status quo way of conforming to their own group mentality (identity.)

CM has the Dog Psychology Center, without a degreed psychologist in the place.

universities offer bachelor of science degrees in clinical dog psychology now?

Clicking and treating for a week or so isn't as exciting or dramatic as dog wrestling.

i would like for you to do an exercise. watch 10 sequential episodes and count the number of cases where he actually engages in an alpha roll.

only in the most extreme cases.

with all due respect to the "dog wrestler" comment::: this is the pont i made earlier:
people who do not approve of CM's methods of dog rehabilitation are often polarized to the extent that "dog wrestling" becomes something they identify CM with and hand a buig sign around his neck that reads something like this:

"Dog Wrestler For Hire"

it's just not like that at all.

ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany
So, this all comes down to the word, "Psychology"? [sm=lol.gif]

That makes sense, since the subject line of this thread offers it as the root of comparison.

The terminology, or standard, that has me scratching my head at the moment is "Animal Behaviorist". Some certifications require a Master's degree, others a Doctorate. And, educational requirements for associate level certification may be even looser than that, depending where you hunt, and which applications you read.

Is there a standardized board of certification, equivalent to a Bar association or AMA? Or are they private self-organized certification groups?

Can anyone shed light on these questions? It would be helpful to learn the range of credentialing, and who confers it.

universities offer bachelor of science degrees in clinical dog psychology now

That's cute.[]

Dr. Ian Dunbar
Dr. Ian Dunbar is a veterinarian, animal behaviorist, and dog trainer. He has given over 750 full-day seminars and workshops for dog trainers and veterinarians around the world. A columnist, the star of the British television show Dogs With Dunbar, and author, he has written numerous books and hosted a dozen videos about puppy/dog behavior and training. He received his veterinary degree and a Special Honors degree in Physiology & Biochemistry from the Royal Veterinary College (London University) and a doctorate in animal behavior from the University of California in Berkeley. He is the founder of many dog-training organizations, including the Center for Applied Animal Behavior; the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the largest and most influential worldwide association of professional dog trainers; and Sirius Puppy Training, the leading provider of puppy classes in the San Francisco Bay Area. He lives in Berkeley, CA.
.
Dunbar's bio is nearly typical of a true animal behaviorist. I don't believe there is yet a specialized degree program for just dogs. But that could change.
 
Some others have nearly the same or the same academic creds plus time in their field of animal behavior, not limited to dogs. But Dunbar has been working professionally with dogs for about as long as CM has been alive. On experience alone, he should have an equal footing but the education also tips the scales in his favor, IMO.
 

^ Yes, but is he single? [] ... (kidding)

Agreed, Dunbar is very interesting. Let's discuss him next! [sm=clapping hands smiley.gif]

It occurs to me that this issue is a whole lot of misunderstanding and people's personal feelings and stances getting tangled up in the argument. I learnt the most about animals when I didn't think I knew anything about them and started from scratch. Sometimes I think we should pretend we know nothing about dogs and rebuild our knowledge base from scratch. I am actually in the process of doing that, and hoping the dogs I interact with can teach me better than the people who think they know about dogs can. [] That said, scientific findings are very important additions to the knowledge base, because science is driven by a desire for the truth. There's always disagreeing people trying to prove each other wrong, and that's how we work out what's really happening, like houndlove said.

I'd just like to say that I don't see a lot of CM bashing here. The people that often speak out about CM speak out about any training methods they think does more harm than good. There are people that have done the same thing regarding hands off methods. I think everyone here wants what is best for their dogs and we're all just trying things out and coming to different conclusions through our experiences. There's nothing wrong with that, and I don't see anyone trying to make people agree with everything they say.

I also don't see anyone denying that pop psychology methods can and do work. It's not a matter of whether they work or not, it's a matter of what works best. Maybe there is no right and wrong way to go about it, but there are certainly good and better ways. It depends on your dog and your situation which way will be better. I still think CM presents the most dangerous tools in the toolbox and I don't think a little disclaimer at the start of every show absolves him of responsibility.

From my perspective, I don't care so much about what works. I care about what feels right for me. I'm a gentle person and I don't like aggression or posturing or force. Neither my hare nor my rabbit will stand for force. It destroys trust and if I want to get anywhere with them, I've got to coax and manipulate, often without touching at all. They have to choose where to go and how to behave. It's my job to encourage them to choose something that aligns with what I want. I could force them, and I've tried once or twice. It might get me immediate results, but in the long term, it only damages my relationship with them, and it's pretty heart-wrenching to have your animals jumpy and nervous around you. Since I learnt how to deal with the buns without touching, I found I was doing the same thing with my dog and she was responding really well. She's so easy any method will work on her, but if that's the case, why would I use force when I don't have to? I'm only disappointed this question didn't occur to me earlier. The way I see it, even if the force-free way is harder and takes longer, I'm happier putting in the extra work and my bond with my animals deepens. Before I quit using force, I thought Penny was doing just fine. It was only when I got Kit and was forced to forget about force that I realised my relationship with Penny was sorely lacking and I don't think I will ever make up the lost ground.

I believe in the airy fairy unsubstantiated things in life because that's the kind of person I am. But that doesn't mean I apply them to every corner of my life. I'm also a scientist, and often I find science helps me to decide what airy fairy things are worth my attention and what I dismiss without trying it.

Yes, there is room for both in the world. The only thing I don't really understand is why use force when you don't have to? If someone had told me what my relationship with my animals could be like without force, I would have stopped using it that day. I've only got a dog, a hare, and a rabbit to go off, but my experience has been so profound that I'll be avoiding force for the rest of my life, regardless of what pop psychology or scientific methods pop up. I guess it's no different to those that have had profound experiences with using force. They'll probably never want to change either. For my part, I look for methods from either camp that don't use force, but I'm wary of pop culture in any shape or form because it gains momentum so fast and I don't want to commit to anything until I've puzzled it out in my mind and tested it cautiously myself. I'm not against CM or traditional training methods per se. I'm against using force, and that includes positioning my dog physically and using a leash to guide her. My voice works perfectly well.

question on "pop" psychology

let's say that a person has a certain style of working with dogs with behavior problems. it could also be a person who has a certain style in training dogs.

let's also say that the person's style is more or less consistent through time.

at what point in time does this style become "pop?"


i suspect that many of the +R folks here would say that the Dog Whisperer program falls into the "pop" psychology classification.... and since the Dog Whisperer revolves around Ceasar Millan, that he would be classified as a pop dog behaviorist (pop psychologist of you wish.)

my question is when did the transition to pop psychologist take place? when the show became popular?... independant of his techniques that were pretty much in place well before that time. was he a pop psychologist when he first opened up the doors to the Dog Psychology center and nobody hardly knew that he even existed?

Or is fame required before "pop" label can be attached? This is what i suspect and it's really sort of shallow to label people this way, in my opinion.

ORIGINAL: ron2
So, I tend to value science highly. My bad.

NO ONE here has suggested that science is bad. I value science very highly myself. It sounds like you may be in electricity or electronics. I spent my career in Electronics Engineering, so I hear you.

The point I've been trying to make without much success, unfortunately, is that there IS no bad and good here. There is no right and wrong. It's all valid. But it's clear that making Cesar the bad guy is really necessary for whatever reason.

I say again... How many of you that are "worshipping" science here believe in God? It's none of my business and it's a rhetorical question, but unless you're all atheists, science isn't the be all and end all to everything. It's important, agreed! It's real important. But there's more to my relationship with my dogs than science. I actually feel bad for anyone who's missing that extra element with their dogs.

Ixas, I'm sorry, I have no idea what an animal behaviorist is. I think there's a Masters involved.  I would rather learn about my dogs by observing them than read about what someone thinks my dogs are thinking.

But Cesar is a dog trainer. That's it.

Great post, corvus! [sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

Wow ....your german is that good

Yes. Not so much lately.

Right up my alley....
Very interesting.....we should have a german yack fest soon when you got the time[]

ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

I'm reminded of many of the discussions in which atheists and believers argue the existence of God and the story of the bible. Not to change the subject, but I will ask us all to remember that the existence of God is neither scientific, logical nor reasonable, yet most of you who are arguing on the side that science is superior probably believe in this fanciful man in the sky. In fact, may base your life around it.

You hit the nail with that post [sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

ORIGINAL: corvus

The only thing I don't really understand is why use force when you don't have to?

Probably 60% of what CM does there is no need to use force (exersice,body blocking, a simple "sssst"), 35% might need force but there is no more "force" that the one you use to close a door or pick up a spoon to eat, i have seen dogs protest nut never yelp or cry in pain for what CM does, people choose to se what they want to see

ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

So, this all comes down to the word, "Psychology"? [sm=lol.gif]

You're right. He's not a scientist and he doesn't have degrees. He doesn't claim any of this. And if you're a person to whom that is important, then you're going to choose a different way of dealing with your dogs. And there's nothing wrong with that AT ALL! No one is saying that.

But there is another way of dealing with dogs. Not better, just different. No, it's not scientific, it's an intuitive knowledge that comes from observation and experience. Not something learned in a classroom.

But I'm not the one trying to say that one is better and the other is crap. I think they both serve.

I can see that people aren't going to agree and that's fine. I wish we would have been able to reach an understanding and mutual respect for each other's choices.

But isn't that the crux of the matter.  He uses the term dog psychology center, which would imply that he the owner, head person, personality, of the place is a psychologist, a scientist.  I don't think you can have it both ways, you can't use the credibilty of a term that implys scientific credentials and then say scientific credentials are not important.

ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

ORIGINAL: ron2
So, I tend to value science highly. My bad.

NO ONE here has suggested that science is bad. I value science very highly myself. It sounds like you may be in electricity or electronics. I spent my career in Electronics Engineering, so I hear you.

The point I've been trying to make without much success, unfortunately, is that there IS no bad and good here. There is no right and wrong. It's all valid. But it's clear that making Cesar the bad guy is really necessary for whatever reason.

But there can be a right and a wrong in terms of training techniques if one can cause harm to dogs.  I think everyone would agree that the more extreme hanging of the Kohler method was harmful to dogs and therefore wrong.

I say again... How many of you that are "worshipping" science here believe in God? It's none of my business and it's a rhetorical question, but unless you're all atheists, science isn't the be all and end all to everything. It's important, agreed! It's real important. But there's more to my relationship with my dogs than science. I actually feel bad for anyone who's missing that extra element with their dogs.

I am an atheist but still science is not everything.  I believe that my dogs and I share a bond which goes beyond scientific method, but who knows with the research being done on the brain it may be explained.  However, it doesn't make the bond any less valuable.

Ixas, I'm sorry, I have no idea what an animal behaviorist is. I think there's a Masters involved.  I would rather learn about my dogs by observing them than read about what someone thinks my dogs are thinking.

While the term "behaviorist" does not have  a strict educational requirement , in fact it does not have any educational requirement, "applied animal behaviorist" typically refers to someone who has a masters or PHD and a veterinary behaviorist is a vet who is certified in animal behavior.