Dog Psychology or Pop Psychology?

ORIGINAL: dgriego

the links are not working for me

 
The link is fixed now in the original post []

This *Content removed. TOS violation, rule #3* rationalism. *Content removed. TOS violation, rule #3* a part of it.

But if I want him to refrain from pulling me down the road on the end of a leash, I'm going to assert my position and let him know that's NOT acceptable behavior.

 
and what exactly does this have to do with "pack theory"?  it's just operant conditioning-- you apply a negative consequence to his behavior and he changes his behavior.
I think "pack theory" is a big smokescreen that just confuses ones interactions with dogs. Consider the following common "dominance theory" method of dealing with dogs:
 
1) always go out the door before your dog does, cause that impresses upon the dog that you are alpha and that will improve his behavior.
 
My alpha bitch usually goes out the door last, so I'm not sure where the idea came from that the dominant dog goes out first. But making your dog wait instead of charging out the door does often have a dramatic impact for the better on a dog's behavior. Why? because it teaches the dog self-control. He can't get what he wants until he controls himself and gives you what you want.
 
Lots of other "dominant pack theory" techniques, like the alpha roll, hanging with a dominant dog collar, or using a short tight leash to force your dog to always march solemnly by your side, may appear to "improve" your dog's behavior- why? cause dogs who get treated in these ways become subdued. Thus the incidence of "misbehaving" decreases. Nothing to do with dominance. But they give satisfactory results to many people.
 
My biggest concerns with "pack theory" is that often it is used to justify undeserved unishment of dogs. "He didn't sit when I told him to; that means he doesn't respect me; I need to dominate him". When the reality is that the dog is most likely just undertrained, and bit more training would produce faster results than making the dog respect you.
 
My second concern with it is that it by necessity poisons your relationship with your dog. If you're always concerned about whether your dog is going to try to "dominate" you you're always going to have that element of distrust between you.  
 
You may end up using many of the exact same techniques if you discard "pack theory" in your interactions with dogs, but your mindset changes for the better. And your relationship with your dog changes for the better. And you can often think of much more effective methods of changing your dog's behavior instead of sticking with "got to dominate the dog".
 

Wow ....your german is that good

 
Yes. Not so much lately.

Moderator's Note:

The discussion in this thread has been impressively civil. Good job! [sm=wink2.gif]

Carry on!

I think as long as we can concentrate on the style itself, rather than on a personality, the discussion can stay on track. Example, I find this or that wrong with a theory, completely divorced from any opinion I may have of the person using the theory. Such as the recently discussed paper on the non-linear dog. Though the author is decidedly for + OC, I don't agree with all of her summations, regardless of herself as a person. Simply discussing on the merits or demerits of the information involved.
 

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

and what exactly does this have to do with "pack theory"?  it's just operant conditioning-- you apply a negative consequence to his behavior and he changes his behavior.

 
Does not have to do with it if you dont want to,  is just matter of preference. If i go out first and then my dog, does that affect anybody?. Lets write to all those dog shows a complain letter for using a tight leash on their dogs while they are walking

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
"He didn't sit when I told him to; that means he doesn't respect me; I need to dominate him".

 
Do you really know somebody who thinks that way only because the dog didnt sit?

 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
"He didn't sit when I told him to; that means he doesn't respect me; I need to dominate him".


Do you really know somebody who thinks that way only because the dog didnt sit?

 
Because the corrective method assumes the dog already knows how to sit and refused to sit when commanded for reasons known only to him. Therefore, the dog must think his reasoning is better than yours. Hence, you'd better administer a correction to show him that he did wrong and your correction, such as a leash pop, is often advertised as simulating momma's bite on the neck. And how many times has someone, such as CM, said the "dog thinks he makes the rules and he is the dominant one. You need to be the dominant one showing calm. assertive energy." Tssst! Pop! Kick!
 

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

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.

This is an argument that is often used, but science also got us:
The Polio Vaccine
Cardiac Stints
Heart Transplants
A Few Trips to the Moon

Bad science doesn't make bad pop psychology a good thing. [sm=2cents.gif]

Maybe it's important to define terms to prevent so many assumptions.
Dog Pack Theory
[linkhttp://101-dog-training-tips.com/Behavior/Social_Reinforcement.shtml]http://101-dog-training-tips.com/Behavior/Social_Reinforcement.shtml[/link]

This brings us to the first important element in social reinforcement training; establishing the proper leadership role in relation to the dog. As a working model for this type of training, we will work with the hypothesis that the dog views the people in the family as they would view members of a dog pack.
In general a dog will feel more secure if there is a well defined leader/follower hierarchy in the family pack. To avoid dog behavior problems, people in the family should be the leaders and the dog(s) should be the followers.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy
and what exactly does this have to do with "pack theory"? 

I'm not sure it does for everyone, but whatever action I took, whether it be tightening the leash or saying something to the dog, he would listen and respond, not because of fear of negative consequence, but because I#%92m the leader and he trust me. Most of the time, when my dog gets out too far, I use verbal cues to get them back.

I think "pack theory" is a big smokescreen that just confuses ones interactions with dogs.

OK. Maybe some people are confused when they hear that term. I am not confused. And my interactions with my dogs are just fine. After reading your post, I#%92m not sure we#%92re talking about the same thing when we use the term pack theory! If to you, it means hanging your dog until he complies, I'm not surprised you're against it. []

1) always go out the door before your dog does, cause that impresses upon the dog that you are alpha and that will improve his behavior.

Eh… That#%92s not why I do it. I think some assumptions are going on here. You#%92ve got the action, but not the reason. And my dogs will wait if I ask them to.

Lots of other "dominant pack theory" techniques, like the alpha roll, hanging with a dominant dog collar, or using a short tight leash to force your dog to always march solemnly by your side, may appear to "improve" your dog's behavior-

These are not part of pack theory. And I can#%92t speak to these because I don#%92t do them. I believe you#%92re rolling up a bunch of things under the heading of "pack theory" that don#%92t necessarily belong there. 

My biggest concerns with "pack theory" is that often it is used to justify undeserved unishment of dogs. "He didn't sit when I told him to; that means he doesn't respect me; I need to dominate him".

Totally out of line with how I deal with my dogs. I can't speak to it.

If you're always concerned about whether your dog is going to try to "dominate" you you're always going to have that element of distrust between you.  

I am NEVER concerned about whether my dog is going to try to dominate me. NEVER. That#%92s laughable.

"got to dominate the dog".

Again. laughable. No wonder you're so against pack theory and Cesar if you think this is what it represents. []

ORIGINAL: ron2

Because the corrective method assumes the dog already knows how to sit and refused to sit when commanded for reasons known only to him. Therefore, the dog must think his reasoning is better than yours. Hence, you'd better administer a correction to show him that he did wrong and your correction, such as a leash pop, is often advertised as simulating momma's bite on the neck. And how many times has someone, such as CM, said the "dog thinks he makes the rules and he is the dominant one. You need to be the dominant one showing calm. assertive energy." Tssst! Pop! Kick!

 
My question was not "why would somebody think that way?", my question is "Do you really know somebody that thinks that way?", i mean thats a clear exaggeration, thinking the dog wants to dominate just and only because he didnt sit? please [8|]

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.

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 am coming late to this discussion, but excuse me, sociology is also a science.  it certainly isn't an art. 

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 won't get into the fact that psychology should not be used to refer to animal behavior at all, that is another topic.  Of course there is both clinical and experimental psychology for humans, but while the one is more focused on treating clients, it uses the research and findings produced by experimental psychologists.  Therefore if there were a clinical dog psychology, it would have to be very closely tied to the research being done by veterinary behaviorists and ethologists, the same people who have voiced doubts about Milan's methods.

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%.

The funny thing about actual competition dog trainers is that they are using more and more positive reinforcement techniques.  They are evolving.  And trainers are developing +R techniques for other sports like field events where aversive methods were SOP.  Very successful trainers who used Kohler techniques in the 70s now use only +R.  My sister who had a national top ten ranked GSD in the early 80s using Kohler style training now regrets it and knows she could have gotten the same results or better using +R.  She used only +R with her current Lab and realized that her relationship with her dog and knowing her dog was having a good time in the ring was more important to her than getting a UDX. 

In agility +R is the standard training technique since in agility mistakes are typically miscommunication on the handlers side.  I suppose the handler can hit themselves if they want to.   I train with people with MACHs on breeds not known for agility prowess and you should see the communication between handler and dog all based on respect and fun, not dominance.

 I find it funny that people can train dogs to do they complex tasks required in agility and obedience with only +R, but somehow +R doesn't work in everyday situations.

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"
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.

Therefore if there were a clinical dog psychology, it would have to be very closely tied to the research being done by veterinary behaviorists and ethologists, the same people who have voiced doubts about Milan's methods.

 
Good point. CM has the Dog Psychology Center, without a degreed psychologist in the place. And has been billed as a dog behavior specialist. But animal behaviorists (and there are such people) have a doctorate or two, one of them in psychology and others in animal specialties and have had decades of actual experience with what they talk about. There are some, such as Dunbar, who have been professionally dealing with dogs for as long as CM has been alive. CM has his discovery learning process from village and farm dogs. Not to denigrate his experience, but he hasn't applied scientific process to what he does. It simply feels right to him, operating in his own paradigm, which was formed by his own admission from teaching from his grandfather. And none of this is to cast aspersions on CM. I think he is a personable guy and probably pleasant to be with in person. And I can still think he's wrong, on the merits or demerits of his methods. As many are often quick to cast aspersions on scientific value, I could have easily said that CM is successful in the same way that a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while but that wouldn't be fair, either. And if he is that successful with corrections, think of how much more successful he would be if he applied his tenacity to positive motivation. But he probably wouldn't have a tv show. Clicking and treating for a week or so isn't as exciting or dramatic as dog wrestling.