Reward: Millan (Dead or Alive)

I only read the first two pages of this thread and then skipped over, but why do all the CM threads turn into CM vs. The World?  Can't we have a few CM threads without every other trainer and training philosophy being thrown into the mix? (and I'm not just asking that of anti-CM people b/c it seems the CM people are sometimes making posts and threads that instigate this argument).

As for a bounty on CM....I was under the impression that he is still quite popular.  I don't see what CM fans have to be complaining about as far as his popularity and the acceptance of his methods among JQP. 

rwbeagles

Again...if you really believe what you believe...why does it even matter what someone else says?

Has anyone answered that yet?

I think it's clear that it doesn't matter. Not really. But I think this has been answered and there are several answers.

Why does it matter what someone else says? Any or all of the following:

1. Some people are not confident about their own choices, and feel threatened by being told they are wrong

2. Some people want to open others' minds to the possibilities of several methods instead of discounting all other methods but their own.

3. Some people feel judged when CM is judged. They take it personally because their dogs are so close to their hearts.

4. Some people don't want to be thought of as cruel to the animals they love so much.

What has not been answered, though, is the original question in this thread. Why do people hate him so much and feel the need to attack him and put down his methods and anyone who uses them??? The thread has been turned completely around and we've spent the past few pages searching for why CM fans are so "touchy" and sensitive about the attacks against him, but the original question of the thread has been ignored... I find that interesting.
 

Liesje

I only read the first two pages of this thread and then skipped over,

You really should read the last 3 pages or so.
 

Benedict

 And in fact, I think it does our dogs a disservice to bandy about terms like "right" and "wrong" when it comes to training. 

Just to clarify because I think this stems from my post.  My statement said "making right the wrong".  When more information and detail is added to the decision or selection process, one method may be more right than another method.  Personal knowledge of the dog filters many training choices and makes advocating for those methods without qualifying is wrong. 

 Actually I hadn't read your post, DPU.  It was a general reference.

Benedict

 Actually I hadn't read your post, DPU.  It was a general reference.

FourIsCompany

Why do people hate him so much and feel the need to attack him and put down his methods and anyone who uses them???

I'm not sure it matters....those who hate him are entitled to. 

And as I said before, putting down a person who uses his methods, as opposed to the methods themselves, will get the perpetrator a chat with a mod. 

Benedict

those who hate him are entitled to. 

Sure they are. I'm not saying they shouldn't. And those who defend him are entitled to as well.

Benedict

I'm not sure it matters

Well, it doesn't really matter why people are so sensitive about criticism of him either, but we spent pages discussing it, answering questions and coming to some conclusions about it. Why is it so easy to toss off the other side of the equation? Why can't we examine the "CM attackers" motivation the same as we examined the "CM defenders" motivation? That sounds one-sided to me... Am I missing something?

FourIsCompany

What has not been answered, though, is the original question in this thread. Why do people hate him so much and feel the need to attack him and put down his methods and anyone who uses them???
 

This question gets at the root at my issues with CM on this forum.  It's not that I have issues with him or his methods, but just the total lack of clarity.  I've watched three seasons of his show and read through most of the recent discussion pertaining to him, but I'm still very unclear as to what CM's methods even are.  Some earlier threads showed promise and I'd hoped to learn, but all I can find are very broad responses to the tune of "whatever works for you and your dog works."  I know how the anti-CM people define his methods, but in anything I prefer to learn and understand something for what it is, not set against something else, if that makes sense.  So, take away all the responses loaded with negativity I still have trouble finding clear and concise terminology regarding CM and his methods.  Honestly I would rather have a clear understanding of something and feel totally against it than be unclear and confused as I still am.  I've never really felt one way or the other about CM b/c I've always had a hard time figuring out what exactly he's trying to accomplish and what specific methods and behavioral theories he advocates. 

I guess threads like this REALLY confuse me.  I don't really care who is "for" or "against" CM b/c that's their own business.  I don't see why we have to keep starting these threads that seem to have no point other than members positioning themselves against each other. 

Benedict

Honestly?  I have an answer to that but feel unable to phrase it so that it wouldn't offend some people, which I choose not to do.

PM Me. LOL

Liesje

I'm still very unclear as to what CM's methods even are.

Thank you SO much for answering to the best of your abilities. I understand what you're saying (I'm pretty sure). Cesar works in the area of instinctual response. I honestly believe we all have the potential to do what he does with dogs, but I think it's something that takes honing and practice. Kind of like telepathy. We all have SOME ability to read other people, but it takes study and practice to really do much with it. His "methods", for the most part, aren't set out in an orderly fashion like other methods I've read about. Each situation calls for a different response, depending on the dog, the people, the situation.

When a dog starts peeing in the house again, everything else being equal, we all know the first step is to go back to step one and potty train the dog again, using a crate, leash, blah-blah-blah. It's all set out. How do you teach a dog to sit? Use a treat and take it above his head toward the back and when he sits, treat and praise! It's a step-by-step thing.

Cesar is dealing with another level of situation. he's dealing with problem dogs. Not regular old dogs who need to learn to do something. However, his methods (of projecting a calm assertive energy, exercise discipline and affection in that order, rules boundaries and limitations) are all kind of woo-woo. There isn't a "step one". And for many people (especially technically-minded people who like to have everything orderly, laid out and repeatable) this is just a mish-mash of words that mean nothing... Am I coming through here?

Liesje

I know how the anti-CM people define his methods, but in anything I prefer to learn and understand something for what it is, not set against something else, if that makes sense. 

It absolutely makes sense! And thanks for being that way. :)

Liesje

I guess threads like this REALLY confuse me.  I don't really care who is "for" or "against" CM b/c that's their own business.  I don't see why we have to keep starting these threads that seem to have no point other than members positioning themselves against each other. 

I don't care either. But I would love to stop getting hung up on it and I am trying desperately to make this thread HAVE a point that's much larger than re-hashing the same old stuff. And I think everyone is doing a great job, myself. I see a lot more coming together than positioning ourselves against each other here.

Am I blind?  

FourIsCompany

Cesar is dealing with another level of situation. he's dealing with problem dogs. Not regular old dogs who need to learn to do something. However, his methods (of projecting a calm assertive energy, exercise discipline and affection in that order, rules boundaries and limitations) are all kind of woo-woo. There isn't a "step one". And for many people (especially technically-minded people who like to have everything orderly, laid out and repeatable) this is just a mish-mash of words that mean nothing... Am I coming through here?

This is one of my issues with CM's methods. The airy-fairyness (with no negativity implied) of his methods make it difficult for people to replicate/apply properly (especially JQP), compared to something more "step by step", and concrete. Perhaps this is just my empirical behavioral scientist shining through. I certainly don't discount his knack for getting dogs to do what he wants him to do, and the "exercise, discipline, affection, in that order" isn't a bad theory,  but I don't agree with a lot of his techniques- from what I've seen it's far too physical for me, and too correction-based. My dog's a soft dog who can' t handle that stuff, and I don't see why any other dog should have to put up with it either, when other methods work just as well (if not better..)

 *prepares herself for a flaming*
 

Benedict

Honestly?  I have an answer to that but feel unable to phrase it so that it wouldn't offend some people, which I choose not to do.

The more I think about this answer and knowing how articulate you are and how involved you've been in this thread as long as we were talking about the motivation of the "CM defenders", the more surprised I am that you would choose to NOT pursue this side of the issue. 

The posing of the question doesn't imply that people don't have a right to dislike the man or his techniques, it's merely asking why. Why do people hate and attack Cesar? What are some of the reasons?

 OK...here's why I think it is, in 2 parts:

1.  The very notion that CM is a "dog whisperer" implies that he has some kind of special talent, and I maintain that he does not, as I said previously.  He does nothing that the rest of us couldn't do given similar personality traits, education and opportunity.  His title, whether chosen by himself or some PR team indicates that he has capabilities the rest of us do not, and THAT is in itself divisive.  It takes away the confidence that I was talking about earlier, the idea that we can all be experts at training our own dogs if we want to be.  This actually really bothers me, this...otherness....that separates him and puts him on a pedestal.  "I am better than you, I am more talented than you, I know more about dogs than you ever will because I am the dog whisperer"...that is what the title says to me and it is obviously a title that he is comfortable with, whether or not he chose it. 

I realise there are other animal trainers, of horses especially, use this same title and I don't like it there either, but it's worse when the guy is all over TV screens.  While he is, yes, bringing the issue of dog training to the forefront and above all emphasising that does need to be trained, he is still implying that he has some kind of link, some kind of bond with dogs that the rest of us can only ever hope to achieve, and that is demeaning to us "ordinary" owners.  Celebrity is a double-edged sword, and the more people he reaches or who become aware of him, the more people could be made to feel like they will never have the "ultimate" relationship with their dog.  That may be true, but why make someone feel like that before they even start?

2.  Those who dislike Cesar are usually, but not always positive-oriented trainers who think Cesar's methods are too forceful, but because the whole movement has a figurehead, an icon if you will, in CM, it is VERY easy to challenge...because it is easy to attack the "face" of something, and when you become the face of something you do in essence agree to open yourself up to those very challenges...hence why I say it doesn't matter, or that Cesar doesn't need to be defended.  He did in effect agree to what he gets and it would be unreasonable for him or any public figure to expect the perks of fame without dealing with some downsides.

An example:  if we had a debate in NDR about politics, people would and could slam George Bush because he is the face of Republicanism right now.  And that's fine, if people don't like Bush or agree with his methods....but there is a whole group of Republicans out there who would and could be offended because either they believe in Bush or they believe in his political views, and it is easy to forget that big group whilst you're laying the smackdown on its figurehead. 

In general, the +R movement doesn't have one single "face"...there are several good and well known trainers out there, but none nearly as well known as CM.  This makes the "war" harder to fight, because those who stand for what Cesar stands for (whether they have always held those views or whether they learned of CM and then came around to his way of thinking) have someone to rally around, to lift up as their ideal and say "this is the side we are on".  The +R movement don't have that to so much of a degree, which leads to the somewhat-but-not-entirely-logical conclusion that what the +R movement are defending is THEMSELVES...not a trainer they stand behind.  This, in turn, means that in the grand scale of right or wrong, if Cesar is right then all of the +R people as individuals must be wrong.....if a group has a leader it is the leader who gets the brunt of the criticism.  If a group does NOT have a leader, it is every member of the group for him or herself.

 
All of this, of course, is dependent on "picking a side"...which I don't believe in.  I'm a "do what works, fix what's broke and fake the rest" kind of girl.