Dog Psychology or Pop Psychology?

One thing that CM does bring that is of value is that the humans must decide what is acceptable and what is not acceptable and start by not allowing what is not acceptable. That much is good and necessary. The hardest part is getting the humans to decide they will not allow this behavior anymore, training methods aside.
 
If the dog sleeping on the bed is causing problems, don't let the dog sleep on the bed. The difference lies in how different methods achieve that result.
 

xerxes: Do you think he would publicize it if there were ever a fight in his "pack?" That's probably not "Cesar's Way" of dealing with the issue.

of course not. perhaps i shall use the term, "usually stable" - considering that these dogs were largely red zoners & unstable in the volatile sense of the word.

keep in mind that i often use words loosely. i was not being literal in the sense of PURE stability.... but if i were to compare 40 red zone cases put together with no rehabilitation all at once - that would be an unstable pack versus a stable pack that occasioanlly has scuffles and fights here and there.

ron2: to answer Coyote's question, the dogs correct each other all the time. It is very subtle and does not involve physical domination. And there are times when a new dog brought in intact, started causing problems. So, CM had the dog neutered, which solved a large part of the problem.

exactly. dubbed the term, "the power of the pack. "


but keep in mind that cm's pack did not start off as one stable pack of 40. it was built up over time with new dogs being phased in and out as they get rehabilitated and adopted. the dogs are not the only ones doing corrective measures - his (cm's) staff is there around the clock to run the operation.

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote

how come ceasars pack of 40 dogs is so stable, if his methods are so archaic?

Actually, seems to me that the larger the pack the better your chances of stability. The dogs work to create much of the balance. I can't imagine that forty dogs would allow the whole pack to go down in a flurry of aggression.

Don't worry, ron, I started the darn thread, and I find your answers to be on topic and relevant, so I hope that others do as well. You are simply stating science versus hypotheses that have proven untrue, and the heart of the debate that I wanted to point out is over what is scientifically accurate and what is not.

here's the opening part of your reference article.

DOG PSYCHOLOGY OR POP PSYCHOLOGY?

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.

Psychology and ethology (the study of animals in their natural habitats) may not use catchy phrases like "calm-assertive energy", but they are based on scientific studies and observations of both wolves and dogs that have given us crucial information about how dogs live, learn and communicate.

question 1 - is enthology a pure science or more like a comparative behaviorial study like psychology - not really a pure science per se.

question 2 - cm spent years watching dog packs on his farm while growing up. since this is observational in nature, does it qualify as some sort of entology (per article definition - the study of dogs in theior natural habitat - in cm's case, a farm) - that is, he's organizing mental thoughts about dogs but certainly not going out writing up fancy research papers on the subject... so does it still qualify as enthology?

question 3 - where does something become pop? i sorta define the line as when it becomes a fad that is here today and gone tomorrow.

ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

I don't know why anyone would be ticked off at your response, ron. I agree it's totally on topic. You don't agree with CM either, just as the OP site. That's cool.

I  don't know how people know what dogs are thinking about humans being pack members, but if you do, that's pretty cool, too. As has been said, it's amazing how people think we know what dogs are thinking. []

One thing I'd like to point out is that just because a dog sleeps on the bed, uses the furniture, etc. doesn't mean he's going to be a problem dog. That's not at all what CM is suggesting. But I'm not going to go into what he is saying because I'm pretty sure it would fall on deaf ears. And that's ok. I have nothing to prove. I have proven it to myself and that's really all I'm concerned with. And I don't need to defend Cesar.

I do agree with some of what you said. We can't walk fast enough to exercise a big dog. That's not what the walking a dog is about. But again, I won't go into it here unless someone is curious about it.

As regards resorting to physical domination at every turn... Have you seen the show? LOL I'm a woman and Jaia is already stronger then me at one year old. There's very little chance I could physically dominate him if he set his mind on other things. I don't have to use physical domination. Where do you pick up that Cesar advocates constant physical attempts to dominate? This seems like a case of taking a few instances where he DID apply physical means and suggesting it's something he does with every case (which it's certainly not) or something that he teaches people to constantly do... Which is FAR from the truth...

Again, I feel like you're watching a different show. [sm=asking03.gif]

Xerxes, show me a pack of 40 Pits, GSDs, Rotties, etc that were once aggressive or borderline aggressive that have never had a fight and then you might have a good point. By the way, I have seen them have little fights ON THE SHOW!

 
 
 I had  typed out a large post, with references to Skinner and some of his work (which I do not discount, I just do not buy into the myth that he is God and all other methods and theories are therefore mute) and some of Ian Dunbar's comments and studies and my opinion of positive only training and then I stopped to reread the posts prior to my last. After reading Four's post here again I realized that I am wasting my time. No one really wants to debate here, and there is the reference to the thread being hi-jacked by Cesar lovers and taken away from the discussion of science. Well I have come to the conclusion that:
1. I agree with Four although Four states it with much more dignity and thoughtfulness than I can muster, and
2. You guys have your agenda, you are excited about it and you will harbor no thought that anyone else could have anything of value to bring to the table, therefore we waste our time to discuss it.
3.Although you cannot see it (most cults are blind) we are not really that different. All we are saying is that your way is not the only way, and if someone is using some of your way and some of another that is not bad.
4. Ron your comments don't upset me, I agree with most of them, I just do not believe that you have all the answers to training dogs and I do not believe that anyone using any other method is un-scientific therefore stupid and in most cases cruel and inhumane.
5. Hound I did enjoy the link you posted about terminology and found it helpful, thank you for posting it. It is important to define what you really mean when you are talking about positive training.

ORIGINAL: lostcoyote
question 1 - is enthology a pure science or more like a comparative behaviorial study like psychology - not really a pure science per se.

question 2 - cm spent years watching dog packs on his farm while growing up. since this is observational in nature, does it qualify as some sort of entology (per article definition - the study of dogs in theior natural habitat - in cm's case, a farm) - that is, he's organizing mental thoughts about dogs but certainly not going out writing up fancy research papers on the subject... so does it still qualify as enthology?

Psychology is a science- in the sense that it involves systematic research using observations to formulate hypotheses, and using experiments and measurements (the collection of data/information) to verify them. Ethology is a science to the extent that it is based on empirical research.

I wouldn't think CM's method of learning is scientific as he doesn't seem to show evidence of finding out experimentally what it is that he does and why it works. Things like " radiating calm energy" do not tend to lend itself to objective empirical testing all that well.

Careful what you say about psychology not being a science now! Psychology research scientist in your midst takes exception! 

psychology not a science?  huh?  wha?

This thread is getting almost as entertaining as an episode of CM! []

ORIGINAL: FourIsCompany

I don't know why anyone would be ticked off at your response, ron. I agree it's totally on topic. You don't agree with CM either, just as the OP site. That's cool.

I  don't know how people know what dogs are thinking about humans being pack members, but if you do, that's pretty cool, too. As has been said, it's amazing how people think we know what dogs are thinking. []

One thing I'd like to point out is that just because a dog sleeps on the bed, uses the furniture, etc. doesn't mean he's going to be a problem dog. That's not at all what CM is suggesting. But I'm not going to go into what he is saying because I'm pretty sure it would fall on deaf ears. And that's ok. I have nothing to prove. I have proven it to myself and that's really all I'm concerned with. And I don't need to defend Cesar.

I do agree with some of what you said. We can't walk fast enough to exercise a big dog. That's not what the walking a dog is about. But again, I won't go into it here unless someone is curious about it.

As regards resorting to physical domination at every turn... Have you seen the show? LOL I'm a woman and Jaia is already stronger then me at one year old. There's very little chance I could physically dominate him if he set his mind on other things. I don't have to use physical domination. Where do you pick up that Cesar advocates constant physical attempts to dominate? This seems like a case of taking a few instances where he DID apply physical means and suggesting it's something he does with every case (which it's certainly not) or something that he teaches people to constantly do... Which is FAR from the truth...

Again, I feel like you're watching a different show. [sm=asking03.gif]

Xerxes, show me a pack of 40 Pits, GSDs, Rotties, etc that were once aggressive or borderline aggressive that have never had a fight and then you might have a good point. By the way, I have seen them have little fights ON THE SHOW!

Thanks for saving me time to write all that, you are 1000% right

ORIGINAL: ron2

The thing of it is that the linked articles are from people with scientific backgrounds with the very best that science has to offer, including objective observation and not personal paradigms.

And what makes you think that actually are they the ones with personal paradigms and CM does not have an objective observation?

ORIGINAL: ron2
If dog behavior were all about dominance/submission, how could I let Shadow sleep on the bed, sit on the couch, enter/exit doors before I do (physical result of using a harness) and still have him obey me?

Guess what?, my dog does the same (with exeption of the enter/exit) and i dont remeber CM saying that they should not

ORIGINAL: ron2
If a dog is truly dominant, why isn't it exhibiting "calm/assertive energy" instead of what it is actually exhibiting, which is usually fear response to an unknown scene, where it is throwing these behaviors out to "test the waters"?

Probably they are exhibiting "calm/assertive energy", the difference is that us humans dont see it or we "challenge" that energy anyways by trying them to follow our rules anyway

ORIGINAL: ron2
What's more important is to understand the signals of the dog and do what it takes to bring about the calming signals. And rather than call a treatment desensitization, I would rather approach from the perspective that we are re-assigning the meaning of the stimulus. And the way to do that is with reward. Reward is good thing. Connected with calmness in the presence (albeit controlled, at first) of a previously unsettling stimulus, changes the meaning of that stimulus. A dog does not want to be unnerved and will go through all sorts of behaviors until a balance has been achieved. So, I lead towards the balance, which is a place of great reward.

And your point is? nobody is saying is a bad thing (which is the difference between us vs them) i dont see any reason for that statement unless it comes with a "my method is better than yours" feeling

ORIGINAL: ron2
ETA: I forgot to answer the other question as to others using "traditional" training theories based on "alpha wolf dominance," which is, itself, inaccurate, if not wholly wrong.

Show me once, only once where CM compares wolves with dogs, we here in the forum we have the mistake and do it but i never heard CM talking about that

ORIGINAL: ron2
Everyone's heard of Koehler and his hanging dog theory. Go too far and you've got a dead dog.

Apples and oranges

Let me take a stab (again) at the idea of "discovery learning"--that is learning accomplished without any formal instruction just through largely autodidactic means (observation, manipulation of materials, answering questions but not recieving feedback on the answers). I've watched at this point hundreds (okay, maybe an exageration--it feels like hundreds, but probably more like dozens) of hours of video footage of students engaged in discovery learning. Every now and then you get one who discovers the concept behind the task at hand. The vast majority of the time, however, you get students who are utterly convinced they are right, that they "get it", that they totally understand the concept and the task and are in fact completely, totally wrong. Without someone giving them feedback and guidance a la more traditional direct instruction, many never realize that even though what they're doing is plausible and makes a certain kind of sense, it is in fact mistaken. And the ones who do actually figure it out through a discovery process? Their learning is no deeper or broader than those students who learned the same concept through direct instruction. This was an experiment (two, actually--the original and a replication study) conducted through the lab I work in, because of course psychology is a science!

So you will pardon me if I'm a bit of a doubting Thomas regarding this claim that Cesar Millan's own discovery learning process led him to conclusions just as valid as those who recieved mentored instruction from trained scientists--and that even if they did, that his learning is no more special or deep than theirs just because he came up with it on his own.

ORIGINAL: houndlove

So you will pardon me if this claim that Cesar Millan's own discovery learning process led him to conclusions just as valid as those who recieved mentored instruction from trained scientists--and that even if they did, that his learning is no more special or deep than theirs just because he came up with it on his own.

And what makes you believe that CM does not read other trainers books? In his own book he recomends at last a dozen of other books to read, including some like "the other end of the leash" (from McConnell that we all know is not his fan #1), i've heard CM talking about some of the stuff McConnell says in her book

I'm sure that before reading all those books his idea of dogs was different, after that he "molded" his experience to what he read in the books to come up with  what he has right now, and still keeps changing, i dont see him doing some stuff he did in season 1, so i'm sure that by reading the books and talking with other trainers he got more feedback and guidance a la more traditional direct instruction

hiya houndlove.

dicovery learning - is what we b talking about the same thing as "when the light goes on" and someone says "ah-ha - that's it!"

question -

is NILIF considered to be

1) an archaic method
2) a pop method
3) a modern method

So you will pardon me if I'm a bit of a doubting Thomas regarding this claim that Cesar Millan's own discovery learning process led him to conclusions just as valid as those who recieved mentored instruction from trained scientists--and that even if they did, that his learning is no more special or deep than theirs just because he came up with it on his own.

what if the mexican farm dogs were his mentors?

did einstein have a mentor when he came up with relativity or could it be just as valid to say that "the nature of things" was his most valuable mentor along with his own intuition?


(same line of reasoning here)

question -

is NILIF considered to be

1) archaic dog psychology
2) pop psychology
3) modern dog psychology

I don't think NILF is a "psychology".  It's just a method of interacting with the dog, a way of life, but I think it is geared more towards what the human should focus on (reward this, ignore that) than how the dog is actually learning.  It's a simplified description for operant conditioning.