Dog Psychology or Pop Psychology?

-Removed by poster-

Then that means that there are different feelings behind your dislike towards him other than just the "this could be dangerous" one

Why does it mean that?

ORIGINAL: houndlove

Then that means that there are different feelings behind your dislike towards him other than just the "this could be dangerous" one

Why does it mean that?

Well at least it sounds like "ALL that press, attention and followres" should be also for the trainers that YOU like, and because that does not happen then your CM dislike is bigger

I would be willing to put money on the fact that he has failed.

he has.

i forgot which episode but he did mention about one dog that he could not rehabilitate.

any method of training and rehabilitation (note the distinction here) a large number over time is going to have failures. on the opposite side of the bell curve, there will also be a few shining star dogs that will change in 5 minutes or less.

likewise, there will always be hardcore supporters of one trainer &/or behaviorist over another that consider their methods to be gospel.... just as there will be people that pick and choose training/behavior methods from several sources.

No, that's not it. What I'm saying is that the cards are very much stacked against other trainers (all other trainers, not just positive ones) if they have something to say about Cesar. He's got all the press right now and the celebrety and if you want "methods to speak for themselves" then his method is shouting so loud no one else can hardly be heard. It is changing a little, but for a while he was the only trainer with a show on TV and in that environment if you disagree with hiim you might want to speak up a little louder in order to be heard.

What I'm saying is that the cards are very much stacked against other trainers (all other trainers, not just positive ones) if they have something to say about Cesar. He's got all the press right now and the celebrety and if you want "methods to speak for themselves" then his method is shouting so loud no one else can hardly be heard.

 
yes. I think he has a very entertaining TV show and wish him all the best in the world. However, as to "methods speak for themselves":  I have a coworker with permanent scars on her arm and a dead dog because of these methods. We have a steady stream of people coming into our training center with really messed up dogs because of these methods. And they won't listen to gentle suggestions that the dog's behavior might just dramatically improve if they switch to some other methods.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

I have a coworker with permanent scars on her arm and a dead dog because of these methods. We have a steady stream of people coming into our training center with really messed up dogs because of these methods. And they won't listen to gentle suggestions that the dog's behavior might just dramatically improve if they switch to some other methods.

 
And who's fault was that? CM or someone that just wanted to try what he saw on TV? i dont think were the methods fault, CM would have scars on his arm too if that was the case since he uses them every day

And here again is the assumption that all he is does is violate dogs. He rarely performs an alpha roll (of which I might add I am not an advocate of). And I assume the "poke" you mention is his "cheeee" thing where he touches the neck? Again this is not done hard and it is not painful it is more of a check to bring the dogs attention back to the handler and away from whatever they are fixated on. 

 
I'm not saying his methods are abusive; I'm saying they are dangerous to apply to dogs- dangerous for the human. There's a youtube clip where he was poking a border collie and the only reason he didn't get bit was because the dog politely reconsidered. Joe Q Public who goes out and emulates his Poking is going to get bit. I would strongly urge everyone to NEVER suddenly touch a distracted or highly aroused dog. You need to get the dog re-directed, try making a noise. Much safer.

ORIGINAL: houndlove

No, that's not it. What I'm saying is that the cards are very much stacked against other trainers (all other trainers, not just positive ones) if they have something to say about Cesar. He's got all the press right now and the celebrety and if you want "methods to speak for themselves" then his method is shouting so loud no one else can hardly be heard. It is changing a little, but for a while he was the only trainer with a show on TV and in that environment if you disagree with hiim you might want to speak up a little louder in order to be heard.

It's funny how some things (TV shows) catch the public's interest. Gosh I know people that don't even own dogs that love to watch CM. The good news for +R supporters is that the popularity of this show is bound to spur more and more dog related programmes. I've noticed a few already, plus there has been other dog training shows on for quite a while. It's just a matter of time until someone comes up with something sexy enough to cause a stir. Years ago I used to watch Woodhouse (was that her name?) with her sing-songy voice. She was a unique personality that caught your interest. Same with CM. Now if you want some healthy competition, you just have to find a +R person with a bit of zing! Stay tuned, I'm sure the networks are working on it as we speak.

And who's fault was that? CM or someone that just wanted to try what he saw on TV? i dont think were the methods fault, CM would have scars on his arm too if that was the case since he uses them every day

 
and we are back to it again-- the disclaimer on the show that no one listens to.
Don't you think a methodology for handling dogs that can only be performed by one person in the world is kind of well, fatally flawed? 

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

and we are back to it again-- the disclaimer on the show that no one listens to.
Don't you think a methodology for handling dogs that can only be performed by one person in the world is kind of well, fatally flawed? 

No, there are other professionals that can also do it, just like Karen Pryor is not the only one that uses a clicker. Not because i watch "Cops" and "Dog the bounty hunter" that means that i should go and chase criminals myself, even if i do, and of course i get hurt, are you gonna blame the TV shows or me?

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

If you are a really good behaviorist/trainer, the object is not to trigger a dog's aggression - that just enables the dog to practice poor behavior, and it's reinforcing for some dogs to enforce their personal space requirements by using their teeth.

I agree with this statement

I completely agree.  And, perhaps he will eventually come to the same decision a lot of us former traditional trainers have...positive training works, if you work it correctly.  And, it doesn't destroy your relationship with your dog.  And, it is not at odds with a theory of "calm, assertive" handler behavior.

  When you mention Positive Training what exactly do you mean? Are you refering to PROC or Positive Reinforcement Operant Conditioning? Is that in your opinion the only way one should train? Is no in your vocabulary when training? Is any form of correction useful? I ask this to better clarify where you are in regards to this term. I consider myself to be a positive trainer, but not in the same manner that others using that term would mean. Please clarify.

That was enough for me to assume the topic was Cesar and his dog psyhcology theory.

Actually, since I posted the OP, I will tell you that the discussion is actually about valid science (dog psychology) or "pop" science (CM and anyone else who is practicing it - could be animal communicators, energy workers who claim benefits to the dogs that can't be measured, take your pick).  If you wish to expand the conversation to include others, feel free.  It might help us to get back to the idea at hand, which has less to do with CM, and more to do with science versus cult, or science versus anecdotal evidence. []

Well I still think that since the topic concerns "pop" science and the site referenced seemed to be very adamant that Cesar is in that camp one could say debating Cesar is part of the topic or could be included in the discussion.

I made some comments above. I am convinced that PROC only is an unbalanced method of dog training. It has also been proven to take more time and to be less reliable than combining the method with other proven methods (yes the dominance, behavioral, pack methods etc (what ever you want to call them) are proven, they have been proven in the field, in the obedience ring, in the agility ring, in the working dog world (police, SAR etc) and they do work. Dr Ian Dunbar stated that positive only methods led to an average of no more than 85% reliability and when combined with other methods (positive praise combined with corrections) the reliability increased 12-14% to a high of 97%.

I do not have terminology to describe my dog training philosophy other than "balanced and progressing onwards". I use corrections, Communication with my dog and understanding why my dog is not performing or is having difficulty understanding are very important to me. Corrections are not useful if the dog does not understand. I do not use harsh corrections. I believe in tons of praise. I believe the dog should enjoy working with the handler and the handler should delight in the dog.I believe that the humans in the house should always be above the dogs in chain of command. I believe that humans should control all resources.I believe that no is understood by my dogs and I use it, although yelling it at the top of your lungs is not recomended.

Since we are discussing the science of dog training I would like to ask how you have determined that your (or shall I say the method posted on the website) method (as opposed to the "pop" method) is scientific and valid? Do you have proven scientific data to show that your method is science and the others are not? I would also like to see the evidence that the others have been officially "disproved". Pack thinking has been around for some time, and was accepted by the majority of the scientific community, only recently have there been those who have spoken out on this and suggested that it may have been formed by observing the behavior of animals in captivity.To my knowledge the theory has not been completely discounted although there are now other theories out there regarding animal behavior and dog behavior to be specific.

ORIGINAL: Liesje
You cannot read CM's book and then be equiped to deal with a human aggressive dog.

And no one is claiming that. The truth is, most people aren't equipped to deal with aggressive dogs. 

I want to know good, proven science on how I can relate to my own dog, and for that purpose CM's methods don't apply. 

That's true. And he is the first person who says he works on an intuitive level. Not science.

ORIGINAL: houndlove
Well, but what do you do when a method that you really disagree with and think does not work as well as your own gets ALL the press, ALL the attention, and ALL the followers?

I'm not sure I understand. Why should you do anything? He's good at what he does, he's charismatic, he's successful and people like him. Why shouldn't he get a lot of attention?

ORIGINAL: Liesje
I see the new volunteers at the shelter come in thinking they are going to be all calm and assertive and say "ssst!" and the giant Saint Bernard that's doing flips in his kennel is just going to sit down and shut up while they open the door and leash him....ha! 

I don't think CM's methods are made for new volunteers at animal shelters where there are many unknowns. He always has extensive discussions with the people before he even meets the dog so he knows what he's dealing with. A dog can't tell you his past.

However, using "chsst" along with my calm assertive energy does absolute wonders when dealing with 4 rowdy LARGE dogs who haven't had their exercise yet that day! His jargon turns people off, but if you've watched the shows and know the history behind the terms, it makes perfect sense. He appeals to a wide audience and the repetition of his jargon phrases make handling every day situations doable for many people.

The way he commands followership on walks is another helpful method for the average dog owner. There are many tips and ideas that he passes on to people besides the alpha roll. People just can't get off that. []

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote
i forgot which episode but he did mention about one dog that he could not rehabilitate.

I remember that. And one thing people seem to forget are the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of dogs who were on their way to the "gas chamber" and Cesar either taught their people or influenced his TV audience that there was another way. He encourages people to get a behaviorist in their area instead of taking that tragic step. He rarely gets the credit he deserves for that!

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
Don't you think a methodology for handling dogs that can only be performed by one person in the world is kind of well, fatally flawed? 

There are many professionals who use his techniques. He's not the only one in the world. Thousands of people do it and never get bit. But you don't hear about them. Oh, wait, yes you do! They're the ones who say Cesar saved their dogs' lives with his technique... You don't get the reports of "I used CM's techniques and I didn't get bit"!

And denise m, yes, there are several shows coming up and I watch them! They all have something good to offer to the dog person.

I think when people talk about "positive training" (and it is a problematic term which we've discussed on these forums before) they mean operant conditioning using primarily (or only) positive reinforcement and negative punishment, with also a heavy emphasis on good management and handling.

See this article on the problem of the term "purely positive" or "positive only":http://www.clickertraining.com/node/988

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

I wonder, if CM started utilizing more and more positive theory, if those that staunchly defended his "way" would still defend those methodologies rather than following the icon.  Just a thought.

 
 Well I do not consider myself a Cesar follower, more like a Cesar defender and not "staunchly" but I would continue to defend him until he reaches the point whereby he begins to preach "positive only" and everyone else is going to hell in a handbasket or until I saw cruelty or abuse in his methods, and I guess this leads me back to my previous question directed to Spirit, what do you actually mean when you say "positve theory"?
 
 The definition of "positve theory" is possibly the most crucial part of this discussion. If you mean one thing then we are debating in error if you mean another then the debate is valid so can you define what you mean when you say "positve theory"?