Dog Psychology or Pop Psychology?

thanks - i changed the wording of the question.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

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

the dominant dog in my household is the smallest dog and would be slaughtered if she tried to fight one of the other dogs. I'm smaller than several of my dogs and I would be badly injured if not killed if I got into a serious fight with my dogs-- I know I would lose, so how do you explain that I can control my dogs without force?
Most humans would be completely unable to win a serious fight against any medium to large sized dog. I watch the horses in the field. The "dominant" horse in most groups is usually an elderly mare. If she got into a tiff with the young geldings she'd get the stuffing kicked out of her.

The idea that "dominance" depends on ability to win a fight doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.  Humans are really good at misinterpreting the behavior of other animals.

If you'd quoted me in full you might have got the bit where I said sometimes such leaders are quite small and it doesn't seem to matter as long as they possess the confidence I mentioned. I agree with you 99% of the time, but I can't bring myself to believe that fighting doesn't come into dominance, even if it's a matter of simply giving everyone reason to believe you could win a fight. The biggest, strongest animal doesn't always win a fight, because it hinges largely on who wants to win more, and there are plenty of weaklings out there that figured out sneaky ways to get what they want without fighting. Those sneaky individuals have to watch themselves, though, because if the dominant ones figure out what they're up to, they could get beaten up.

Dogs are different to the animals I'm used to dealing with, but I think you can't rule out fights as a driving force behind dominance. The dominant dog in our small pack isn't the largest and strongest either, but he's the one with the confidence to bring it to physical violence if he has to, and he wins because he cares more about winning than the others and won't give up. He'd get trounced if the bigger dog ever wanted to trounce him, but she never cares enough to start something so big. He's not even an intense dog. Most of the time he couldn't give a damn, but it's when he could that matters.

It is still my belief that humans fall outside of dog social order and don't get caught up in these arguments in normal situations.

Geez Louise, but it's getting a little hot in here. Here are some thoughts:

1. I always hated discovery learning. It irritated me that I had to figure it out myself without the tools my teacher could have given me but couldn't be bothered to. It was tedious and time-consuming and I felt like I was always in danger of missing some important link that would light up the whole issue for me and send my mind zooming off in a dozen different directions. What I've always loved is a wise, experienced mentor who could point out those important links for me so I knew I was getting the most out of the topic and fully grasping it. I was always a very good student, but I really hated being expected to work it out for myself UNTIL I had the tools to do that.

2. My chief issue with CM's methods and general pop psychology is that it can be very dangerous to know a little. It can be dangerous to only have one or two tools in the tool box and then charge off to create a sculpture. I feel like CM offers the most dangerous of those tools and I don't think merely saying "Don't try this at home, boys and girls" absolves him of all responsibility. I think that if you're going to offer tools, you should start with the LEAST dangerous ones. In this case, that would be operant conditioning.

3. As a graduate of 'ethology', or as we called it (because apparently my university didn't like that term) 'behavioural ecology' I can say that it is a science, even when you're just making observations. It's amazing what you can learn when you record a bunch of things an animal does and then sort through it all and try to work out how often it happens and what precedes and follows and what it's all for. Yes, you can do statistical analysis on that and draw likely conclusions. The beautiful thing about this kind of science is that there is no wrong answer. Even no result is a result. You know you're right when you can predict the behaviour. Of course, there's always some nutjob of an animal that chooses to do incomprehensible things and fly in the face of logic and reason and what everyone else is doing, but that's what's cool about animals.

I've always preferred observational science to experimental science, and these days I'm a casual observer. I can still learn a heap, but I can't back up my theories with statistics. I can predict behaviour, but I'm not right often enough to say I know what's going on in a dog's head. The problem with dogs is that they're a domestic animal, but one that has no useful produce that brings you money in the western world. Therefore, not many people are interested in studying them properly.

4. I don't like pop science because it's like a freight train. Regardless of whether it's been proven experimentally or whether it's based on any kind of scientific method or whether it's just a mish-mash of confidently asserted quasi-facts, pretty soon practically everyone is onboard and defending their rash leap onto the bandwagon vehemently. Sometimes it's a good bandwagon to be on, but who can judge when it's going so fast and everyone is shouting at you that you're either on or off? And then you get attacked or supported based on that one decision that you may have made without a great deal of thought. And often pop science turns out to be a load of bollocks, or at least so simplified and warped that it's difficult to work out what in it is true and what's not. So I stay away from the whole thing and build up my preception of things a little at a time, testing each piece before I add it to my house of knowledge.

Oh, and I wanted to mention that I think exercise is more mental stimulation than physical for dogs. If they're walking or running out and about, they're not sitting in the yard staring into space. As the caretaker of some herbivores, I know it can be hard to keep them busy. In the wild, they'd spend most of their day foraging. What do you do with an animal that doesn't need to forage? Taking it for walks is a great way to give it stimulation akin to that you would get from foraging.

Pop can be interrupted as "quack", quirky" "un-scientific" "fad" etc.

Quack - no recognised qualifications?
Quirky - different from what others are currently doing?
Unscientific - touchy feely?  little or no use of recognised terms? many things that cannot be quantified or analysed? (eg: "It's instinctual")
Fad - time will tell......

While "pop psychology" may sound derogatry to some, if you interret "pop" this way, it is accurate! 
 

The term is often derogatory, used to describe psychological concepts that are oversimplified, out of date, unproven, misunderstood or misinterpreted

 
I do believe CMs methods to be oversimplified.  They are also very similar in some ways to methods used back in the 40s based on studies done on packs of captive wolves which have been since disproven.  It does look like the site is about CM when you put it like that.  However, I don't think it IS.  CM does subscribe to some of the ideas criticised within the article though.
 
I do not see any man-bashing on this site.  Criticism of mtheods and ideas but not man bashing.  I liked the site, for the most part.

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.  

houndlove, are you sure you are not a more intelligent version of me?  I just started a thread on this subject in NDR....

quote:

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

 
Power of the pack, dominant and aggressive, dominance and submission, all part of CM's terminology, all based on the studies from the 40's that were so flawed.
 
As for perceptions through a personal paradigm, to some extent, people do bring their own values. But the struggle of science is to observe what it is, not what we want it to be.
 
And the results of decades of scientific research, with attention to not bringing in personal paradigms and simply observe what is, shows that most people's understanding of wolves is wrong, predicated by flawed studies. That dogs are not wolves, regardless of the closeness of mtDNA, and that learning theory offers an excellent way to train and modify behavior because you actually involve the motivation of the dog. It is true dog whispering.
 
Of the people most identified with traditional methods, CM, in my opinion, is preferrable to Koehler and a few others who advocate extreme measures. But he seems limited in that he can only use corrective methods and the once or twice he did something he called positive reinforcement betrayed a lack of experience and understanding of that aspect of operant conditioning. For all those who talk of balance, why can't he balance out with some understanding and use of +R? Why must it be always +P?
 
Per the earlier discussion about the 40 dog pack, not only do they correct each other, but they also display calming signals to each other. Which is to say, that they are not always trying to assert dominance. So, any style based solely on the theory of dominance and submission will be inaccurate.

As I read through this thread to catch up, a thought occurs to me. Many here seem to be making the assumption that science is automatically superior to any other way of dealing with dogs. The premise of the thread is that the scientific way of dealing with dogs is of course the more scientific and therefore, better practice of dog psychology than any woo-woo "pop" psych that Cesar Millan might practice or teach.

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.

My point throughout this thread (which seems to go ignored time and time again - but I'm used to that) is that there is room for BOTH principles. I actually think a more well-rounded household (or pack) will operate better using some principles of science and some of good old fashioned touchy-feely "nonsense". Mine does.

But I see it's difficult if not impossible for some to embrace both. I guess it's understandable reflecting on my experience in similar discussions about science, religion and philosophy. Some people think you have to pick one and fight for it and make the "other side" look wrong. I disagree. Although I want no part of religion, science and philosophy and even the metaphysical play large roles in my belief system.

But that's my choice and I respect the choice of those of you who want no part of "this side" of dealing with animals. Like I said before, there's no need for me to defend it. It works. Beautifully. And no one can argue with that.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
We have a steady stream of people coming into our training center with really messed up dogs because of these methods.

It occurs to me that these "messed up" dogs were probably already pretty messed up before people started trying CM.s techniques with them. Surely you're not suggesting that they were perfectly well-bahaved until some Cesar fan got their clutches on them? Unfortunately, I think people forget that CM isn't "ruining" these dogs. Their owners are.

And I have yet to see any indication that people who use these techniques are actually having problems. Where are the studies? Where are the enclaves of Cesar-bashers on the Internet who used these methods and ruined their dogs? I suspect the people streaming into your place have been hitting, yelling at and ignoring their dogs and Cesar is getting blamed for it.

ANY training technique can confuse a dog if used improperly.

ron, Cesar also encourages displaying calming signals. He's simply not all about correction. He's not a one-trick pony, His style is more encompassing.

Discovery learning is not a term used to describe that "a ha moment" we all have when we discover something. It refers to an educational methodology in which the student is left to discover on their own the principals of what they are learning about, with little or no guidance from an instructor. It's an extreme constructivist approach and while I think it does have it's place in the educator's toolbox, it is often over-used and over-talked-up as the best way for students to learn. The problem with it is with no guidance, students often arrive at the wrong conclusion. In tasks where there's only one way for things to fit together that works, that is less a factor (ie, doing a puzzle is a fine time to engage in discovery learning), but in complicated tasks that require a conceptual understanding of an operating principal, the student can in fact arrive at a misunderstanding of the that principal, appear to "complete the task" and do it all completely wrong, all the while thinking that they have done it correctly. Too much time left to do that and they begin to preseverate on these misconceptions, even when an instructor finally steps in and says, "No, you did it wrong."

The context in which I've observed this process is students learning how to set up a controlled experiment. It's not a principal that most students really develop just through playing around with the experimental apparatus and trying different stuff out. They usually have several key misunderstandings of the task that, if not cleared up by an instructor, they continue to hold and use to set up the apparatus for confounded experiments, all the while thinking they are "doing it right". After all, they can run the experiments just fine with them being confounded, and they don't realize they were confounded because they don't understand what that means and why they should strive to make unconfounded experiments.

I see Cesar's time in Mexico with the dogs as like this--the dogs are like the experimental apparatus that we use, and he developed his own theories through a discovery learning process that over the years because he did not ever study other theories or get instruction from anyone else, he preseverated on and fully believes are completely correct even if someone points out the flaws in them. The dogs are not the instructor, they are the experiment.

houndlove, if Cesar's learning style brought him to the results he wants, what makes you sure he's wrong?

If a student gets to 2+2=4 by taking the first number, adding 7 and subtracting 5, it's clear and provable that that's not going to work in every situation. But what proof do we have that what Cesar has discovered is wrong? He has excellent results time and time again. He saves "lost cause" dogs time after time.

There comes a time when saying "The science doesn't support it" just isn't relevant because the results DO support it. Cesar doesn't claim to be working with science. There are other aspects to life and relationships than science. Science is cool, and it serves a significant role in dog training, but it's not the be all and end all, especially when we're talking about relationships between two beings.

If you whittled me down to the scientific only, I think I'd be kind of offended. There's more to me than science, and there's more to my dogs than science, too. []

What do you do with an animal that doesn't need to forage?

if you have the capacity to let them go off leash while on a "migration" walk, then that's an excellent way to let them explore the near field perimiter of the trail that you are on and this is highly mentally stimulating.

if on leash, i always let them look around and do a lot of sniffing - especially sniffing because that sniffing is really working their brain activity. also, while on a walk, i guess you can practice things like sit, heel, come, etc as part of dicipline which is mental recall.

Geez Louise, but it's getting a little hot in here.

this was the first post i read this morning. thanks for the "geez louise" - it made me laugh out loud and made my opening morning complete with a smile.

this topic is inevitably going to be a hot topic. peoples passions are involved as well as human herd dynamics. thus, the topic really does tend to become dog psychology VERSUS pop psychology.

maybe then, i would propose that CM is more like an artist (not in the literal sense of the word, maybe dog sociologist is a more appropriate term) that relies on observation and intuition governed by FEELING and more importantly, feeling the energy, and also, discovering what works and does not work. He always talks about trying new things and discovering what works and does not work in many of the situations that he has to confront.

Many here seem to be making the assumption that science is automatically superior to any other way of dealing with dogs. The premise of the thread is that the scientific way of dealing with dogs is of course the more scientific and therefore, better practice of dog psychology than any woo-woo "pop" psych that Cesar Millan might practice or teach.

 
When I grew up EVERYONE used "the pack model" to train dogs. You alpha-rolled your dog, you dominated your dog, you corrected your dog, you applied firm boundaries and dealt with the dog as a submissive inferior who was always looking for his chance to dominant you. Then the alpha roll and other aspects of "the pack model" were resoundingly discredited as a mis-interpretation of wolf behavior, and Karen Pryor and others figured out how to apply the science of operant conditioning to training animals. I've done it all, and my experience is that "the pack model" does work to train dogs, but operant conditioning works a lot better. And is a lot safer for the human, and much easier for the average human to apply. And for a few years everyone was moving towards using operant conditioning. Note that operant conditioning does not necessarily imply pure +R.
 
And then CM showed up on TV and set the doggy world back 30 years. His ideas are not new or unique, just old-fashioned and discredited and dressed up with fancy words. I really can't believe anyone in this day and age would ever propose to alpha-roll a dog, and BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. To me, anyone who talks about using alpha rolls is revealing their ignorance of how dogs actually behave.
 

Science, which holds the sanctified, unquestioned and revered place that god, as the blesser of all things true and good, once did, brings us many things we would call good. It also brought us:

The hydrogen bomb
Phrenology
Animal testing
Lobtomies
Agent orange
Toxic waste

[]

One of the truest sentiments I've seen expressed in the thread is that science doesn't look for wrong and right, science simply looks. Of course, since humans are racticing it, all sorts of biases are offered along with the actual science. Without a stringent methodology in scientific practices, human bias is unchecked.

The problem with the article is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. If an individual wants to critique a set of practices based on its lack of "valid" scientific foundation, a credible argument would engage valid science in doing so. This means using a dispassionate methodology for analysis, rather than using emotional triggers in prose that's constructed to soundly discredit, based solely on conjecture and inference.

Using scientific language, or evoking the objective standards of science does not lend credibility to one's crusade, it is only a practice of pop (rather than valid) science. The article practices pop analysis to critique pop psychology, so we get a lot of feelings expressed, but very little substance. Reading the article offered me nothing to enhance my relationship with my dog, or make me a better caretaker.

There comes a time when saying "The science doesn't support it" just isn't relevant because the results DO support it. Cesar doesn't claim to be working with science. There are other aspects to life and relationships than science. Science is cool, and it serves a significant role in dog training, but it's not the be all and end all, especially when we're talking about relationships between two beings.

This is so very true.

I tend to think that scientists (not all of them) tend to view things with a microscope and miss the bigger picture sometimes - that there are other ways to look at things through feeling directly coupled with observation and interaction.

Another thought ran through me yesterday but I am having trouble articulating it: that we've got all these nifty technological gadgets we use to train and analyze dogs to try to understand them better.... even genetic manipulation... The funny thing is that dogs don't need this stuff and i tend to get the feeling that sometimes, we're trying to bring our dogs up to the technological age as we have become ourselves.... modern dogs might be the result of our ingenuity in terms of creating breeds with certain characteristics, but left to their own accord, they're just dogs that really don't need all the e-collars, clickers, designer outfits, etc. We need that stuff.... just as some people have become so dependant upon science as the catch-all. But can science ever understand (and model) what anyone thinks and feels?

And then CM showed up on TV and set the doggy world back 30 years.

seems to me that doggies are about the same now as they were 30 years ago.... maybe even a hundred years ago - setting aside all of the new breeds of course.

(humor intended)


as a side note.

the wheel was invented thousands of years ago. and here today, it works. why fix something that works? and if there are things that also work, just add them to the mix instead of trying to impose ONE WAY.

I asked whether people thought NILIF was archaic, pop, or modern and received no answers. What i was driving at is that if someone were to come along and say that it was considered modern (which i tend to think of in human terminology), then i would have to say that anyone claiming that CM's methods are archaic is simply not looking at the entire picture because CM uses NILIF extensively with his dogs. He just doesn't use that terminology which is nothing more than modern fancy lingo - it's been around for 1000's of years just like the wheel. Left to thgeir own, dogs (and all other animals) HAVE TO work to survive.