Dunbar and Donaldson take on the Dominance Theory

dgriego

not discount the value and need for leadership and balance when working with dogs

Then take the word, leadership. As in, to lead. But I've often heard people metion leadership as part of the justification to use physical corrections training. Other people use the word leadership to mean that they lead their dog. Dogos can get over 100 lbs, right? Akitas could teach Pitties a thing or two about tenacity, right? If these dogs were so dangerous, (I can't help but think in Corwin's accent) then what's physical force going to do?) Granted, CM's approach is not always a scruff, roll, and pin, though he has done so in the past and just because he hasn't done so recently doesn't mean he won't again. Some of his corrections are a single pop on the collar and an attempt to get the dog's attention.

But what the purpose of the thread is, is to show that dominance is not always the motivation of the dog, regardless of breed, regardless of popular, though maybe misguided, theories to the contrary. True, I haven't heard CM specifically call other trainers out by name and call them wrong. But that may have something to do with liability. Also, I think, this thread is to show that people with considerable skills and knowledge and experience do have a problem with those theories.

If CM is not about all of the dominance stuff, then let them be wrong in naming him, but it doesn't make them wrong in both showing that the analysis of wolves was wrong and the comparing of dogs to wolves was wrong. Is that to say that a dog is never dominating? No. But not everything a dog does is in order to dominate.

Chuffy

And I don't think that the methods CM or Jan Fennel uses are necessarily bad, just beacuse of the use of the word dominance.  I think that the ideas behind those methods may be flawed and what they do works for another reason.  I find CM does things I disagree with less as time goes by.

Example:  When you come home, ignore the dog until AFTER he has calmed down.  Result - the dog learns to calm hoimself quickly upon your return so that he is rewarded with attention.  His jumping up, barking, highly aroused state is not reinforced even by a look or a reprimand.  Some claim that the dog has calmed and started "behaving" because you have, by remaining aloof, acted as an "alpha" would.  But *I* think you've simply used negative punishment (witholding your attention) when the dog is aroused and "misbehaving" and you have use positive reinforcement (attention, praise) when he is being calm and able to respond to a quiet "sit".

PERHAPS.  Both are true.  Perhaps true "alpha" dogs and wolves are both smart enough to reinforce only what they want to reinforce and remain aloof and leading by example at other times.  Who really knows?  The bottom line is - we can only speculate.

 Yep that is pretty much what I was trying to say.

 It seems to me it may be just as simple as corvus said. I (generic I) say my dog is well behaved because I treat him like a lesser wolf and I am the alpha. What does that mean? I make him wait in a sit while I prepare his food, I make him wait in a sit as I go out the door ahead of him, I make him lie in his bed while the family eats, and so on and so forth. You (generic you) may say that is horse poop, wolves do not do this and wolves do not do that and you may be right. But I still have a well-behaved, polite dog that impresses people with his wonderful manners.

 Anyway, I think they may have jumped a little late with the DVD, but I do not resent it or dislike them for it. I have stated before that I think the positive movement need to prove in the field what their methods can achieve. As more and more dogs become titled more and more people will flock to their camps if their method is proven to be as reliable as older ones.

 If I am trying to sell you something and I think what I have is better, I think I have a better chance if I share with you how awesome this thing is for me, how well it works, how pretty and shiny it is, but if I start out by saying what you have is horse poop and you need what I have, then I have just pissed you off and probably lost my chance to sell to you. People do not like being made to feel inferior, they do not like to be told outright they are wrong and how you deliver your message is important if you want to be heard.

Cita

Seriously, academia is filled with sparring and criticizing contradictory (or just differing) ideas. You have Dr. A publish his theory that humans are descended from basketballs. Then Dr. B publishes *his* theory that humans are actually descended from sea snails. Then Dr. A publishes a paper called "Why Dr. B is WRONG" and Dr. B returns the favor.

Disagreement is healthy. I don't understand why people get so defensive of Cesar Millan - if he's so great, what's wrong with someone else having different ideas? Shouldn't his ideas stand up to criticism?

Good point, i guess if it was once in a while it would be ok but the thing is that i see those "disagreements" from the other trainers day after day that i think is actually part of their daily job, i knew about those trainers because they were "against" someone

Trying to get more clients by discrediting others IMO is not the best approach

Example: 

A trainer comes to me and tells me "Well i know CM and how he works, i however use my clicker and you should see how many cool things i can do with it and my dog, is unbelievable", if he keeps repeating that he for sure will attract my curiosity

Now if the same trainer comes and tells me "Oh no dude, that technique that you like so much is wrong, CM is a bully that hangs, kicks and jabs dogs, my clicker is better", first of all the trainer practically called me a "bully that hangs, kicks and jabs dogs" since i actually practice the same techniques, so if after that he expects me to try his method he is out of his mind

If those trainers just never said they are against or with that kind of ideology but just focused on promoting what they like then they would not have "negative points" in my list, for some people they are famous just for being against CM, not for actually be good trainers (even if they are), because you never forget the first impression, if they keep coming feeding that negative first impression they will still be attackers first, trainers second, if they never were trying to discredit someone and were focus on promoting what they like they might have better chances to get those clients that already saw CM on TV

Those trainers have degrees in zoology, psychology, etc. do you know what degree would be really helpful for them right now? MARKETING 

ron2

But what the purpose of the thread is, is to show that dominance is not always the motivation of the dog, regardless of breed, regardless of popular, though maybe misguided, theories to the contrary.

Firstly, I don't remember anyone claiming that dominance is always the motivation for a dog. I grow tired of these veiled insulting references. This "misguided" popular theorist (a-hem) does not claim that dominance is always the motivation of the dog. Why do you imply that he does? 

Secondly, the original post is a title and a link. I'm curious how you know the purpose of this thread... It looks to me to be an advertisement for a DVD called "Fighting Dominance in a Dog Whispering World".

ron2

If CM is not about all of the dominance stuff, then let them be wrong in naming him

Agreed. In fact, I think they are wrong. He is not "about all of the dominance stuff" and I wonder if someone asked Cesar to explain what "dominance theory" is, if he could actually do it. Sure, we all use the word "dominance", but "dominance theory" is a very specific thing having to do with wolves and genes and alleles and socialization and species recognition... There's a lot more to it than "a dominant dog" or "a dominant behavior" as we talk about those here. Just because a person uses the word "dominance", doesn't mean they're a proponent of proper "dominance theory" or that they think dogs are just like friendly wolves.

ron2

But not everything a dog does is in order to dominate.

And I don't know of anyone who has ever claimed that.

I don't know enough about "dominance theory" to agree or disagree with it. So I'll just let people who know more than I do argue about it. But I think it's wrong for these authors (Donaldson and Dunbar) to attack "dog whispering" and Cesar Millan for supporting a theory that he probably can't even explain, much less support. And if anyone has any information to show that Cesar supports "Dominance Theory", I'd like to see it.

I hope that I can get that DVD some day soon, I really want to see it! I think it's great what they are doing, for both the professionals and for everyday dogparents as well. I think it's great that more and more people are beginning to denounce the dominance fallacy, at least in how it is used in everyday dog talk.

 As for why certain breed groups use it, no, it's not necessarily stemming from CM, in fact I'm pretty confident it has nothing to do with CM (sheesh, the world doesn't revolve around the guy!), but CM did not invent the use of the term dominance. It has been around much longer than he, before he was even able to walk for that matter. ;-) Even though, yes, the idea of the wolf pack model (you know, I really love how Turid Rugaas describes dogs as "flock" animals rather than "pack" animals....I think that's quite intriguing and is worth some further discussion someday) has been outdated and determined to be flawed, the concept of "dominance" has yet to be brought out to the public enough. Just simply looking at the breed descriptions listed, shows very clearly how this is true.

The problem with saying "you must be dominant" or "these dogs are dominant" or "leadership is essential", is that these things do NOTHING whatsoever to tell people exactly "how" you live with your dogs so that all are in harmony. They don't teach you anything. Some people say that there are things such as "natural leaders". I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that rather there are persons with particular personalities (laid back but outgoing, fair, patient, understanding, consistent, etc) that allow them to live easier and communicate easier with others (human or animal), but I don't think people have this hidden aura that secretes "leaderlike" pheromones to everyone who is around them.

If you look at the breeds that were listed, they are all breeds that most people would consider ones that take more work to live with and to make decent members of society, the discriminated breeds. I think those terms are rather more like scare tactics than anything else, to keep the improper people from living with those dogs, almost a fear-tactic really. Of the concept that "if you're not dominant, your dog will become a killer or a bully or a ______". Obviously these breeders do need a way to tell people that this dog is not for everybody, and that yes, certainly they need a certain type of home. But they could go about doing that without ever using the terms leadership or dominance. So I do think there is an element of unrealistic descriptions going on. So even though I think the terms are being used somewhat unnecessarily (whereas better describing the actual temperament and what the breed was use for - it's natural drives - and the steps to working with a dog like that, would be a lot more useful), I do realize why they need to make it known that these dogs are not for every person, because these dogs are a lot more capable of doing a lot more horrible damage than some other breeds, and may be predisposed to doing these things a bit differently than some other breeds.

If somebody does get this DVD before I get the chance to see it, I'd love to hear a review!

Cita made a great post. Not long ago the professor I do research for published a paper that challenged one of the real sacred cows of educational psychology. It was based on sound research but it so struck to the heart of something that for so long was so assumed to be true that there was a huge debate about his findings. In print. With published letters going back and forth criticizing and countering. It's common in academic professions. There are certain professors in various fields who are notorious for their questioning style at conferences (it's hard to strike that balance between criticizing and being downright hostile). Chairs have been thrown. I think every field has at least one story about that one conference where two academic rivals wind up in the same room and something gets thrown. When my team goes to present our research, we get some pretty cutting questions about what we're doing. It's expected. It helps us grow as scientists. So I do not find any questioning of another professional to be "childish". It's what professionals do. And I would be willing to bet cold hard cash that if someone was doing a Nanny 911 show using fairly controversial child-rearing methods that got hugely popular, there would be similar DVDs available to early childhood professionals to help them deal with the inevitable questions that would arise in their daily lives about why they aren't doing it like The Toddler Whisperer.

 And if it went the other way? Fantastic, because the criticisms I see for rewards-based or clicker training are based on misunderstandings so much of the time, I'd love it if there were some way for people to educate themselves about these other methods completely before rejecting them and having a reason for rejecting them that is based on what they actually are and do as opposed to some cartoon idea of what they are.
 

And yes, Cita, I too have encountered the people who've never owned a dog in their lives telling me what to do with my dogs because they have a TV. It's incredibly irritating.

Kim_MacMillan

If you look at the breeds that were listed, they are all breeds that most people would consider ones that take more work to live with and to make decent members of society, the discriminated breeds. I think those terms are rather more like scare tactics than anything else, to keep the improper people from living with those dogs, almost a fear-tactic really. Of the concept that "if you're not dominant, your dog will become a killer or a bully or a ______". Obviously these breeders do need a way to tell people that this dog is not for everybody, and that yes, certainly they need a certain type of home. But they could go about doing that without ever using the terms leadership or dominance

 Good post Kim. I am not sure if I believe that all referenced to dominance by more difficult breeds are scare tactics. I talk often to Dogo people and all of them preach "pack principles and leadership and all of them call the breed dominant, most call them very dominant when referring to males. I find it hard to believe that this is just a scare tactic as most people who "preach" do so because they believe what they are preaching.

FourIsCompany

So I'll just let people who know more than I do argue about it. But I think it's wrong for these authors (Donaldson and Dunbar) to attack "dog whispering" and Cesar Millan for supporting a theory that he probably can't even explain, much less support.

Do you really feel they are attacking, simply because they used "whispering" in the title? The front cover, the back cover, and the preview clip don't mention anything to do with CM specifically. Yes, there is an obvious reference TO him (actually to his television show, but not specifically to HIM), but I don't get anything out of any information provided that there is any sort of attack whatsoever going on. Can you explain better how you feel they are somehow attacking him? Because discussing terms and how they are incorrectly used is not synonymous with attack.

The point is, dominance IS used by CM, and by many other dog trainers. And the entire WORD of dominance around dogs stems directly from the "dominance theory". So if one doesn't know how to talk about a word properly, perhaps one shouldn't be using the word at all in trying to teach the public, no? And THAT is the problem. Dominance doesn't belong in the everyday language of people. And as the video puts it very nicely, what relevance does it REALLY have in the end, when it comes to discussing families (including human/dog families?) Does it help out whatsoever, or does it just make some people feel better to think they have gained "dominance" over someone? I think the benefit it provides is a lot more psychological to the person who believes in it, than it does the dog and the relationship between the two.

Take another example, with identical point but in a different circumstance. I'm not a doctor. But for my project in biology I was to do a presentation on an episioplasty. So I did my project and I explained it. Does that then mean that I am free to try to teach others how an episioplasty is done? Stand beside a veterinarian and teach them how to do it, step by step, since they haven't done one before? To make it even simpler, and non-surgical. I perform a presentation on shoulder dislocations, which includes the process of putting a shoulder back into its socket with relative ease. Does this mean I am then free and clear to begin my "shoulder fixing" practice, where I can teach others how to put shoulders back into sockets, and describe the process and how it is done? No, because I am not a doctor, and if I don't have the first-hand experience in fixing shoulder dislocations, chances are I should just steer clear of it.

Kim_MacMillan

n fact I'm pretty confident it has nothing to do with CM

"Fighting Dominance in a Dog Whispering World" (emphasis added)

are you sure?

ron2

the analysis of wolves was wrong and the comparing of dogs to wolves was wrong

And i'm sure CM cant comment on it since he has never compare them, i remember telling you this more than once before and i remember you answering back asking why he uses the words "dominance" and "pack behavior", then i remember telling you that just because he uses the same words that does not mean you cant call a group of dogs "pack" and a dog who wants to take charge "dominant", calling the things by their name does not mean he is comparing dogs with wolves, those "names" where invented way before that theory

espencer

Observation of wolves that CM has never done, he actually only observed dogs, i guess is just that CM's bad luck that both groups of animals are named "pack", that both leaders on either pack are named "alpha", but hey, if CM one day decides to name them differently (just like when he uses the word "energy";) then he is "confusing people with his own terms", well i guess CM will never be able to make everybody happy

Please show me where I mentioned anything about CM in my post.  You asked a question, I answered your question.  

espencer

I love this part of the description "A particularly timely subject given the number of so-called "experts" who feature dominance in dogs" (emphasis added) mmmm i wonder who are they talking about?

They could be talking about ANY of the trainers that use dominance theory and proclaim to be experts in the field.
 

Xerxes

Please show me where I mentioned anything about CM in my post.  You asked a question, I answered your question.  

Point taken but i was not talking about dominance theory, i was talking about just dominance which are two different things, one is a study that has nothing to do with dogs and the other is a behavior that dogs can show, i also dont see on the DVD description anything that shows them talking about the dominance theory so i dont know why you bring the subject

Xerxes

They could be talking about ANY of the trainers that use dominance theory and proclaim to be experts in the field.

"Fighting Dominance in a Dog Whispering World" (emphasis added)

are you sure?

houndlove

 And I would be willing to bet cold hard cash that if someone was doing a Nanny 911 show using fairly controversial child-rearing methods that got hugely popular, there would be similar DVDs available to early childhood professionals to help them deal with the inevitable questions that would arise in their daily lives about why they aren't doing it like The Toddler Whisperer.

Oh, these arguments here on dog.com are nothing compared to the battles that rage in parenting.  LOL!  It is fierce out there, and people get very sensitive and it becomes hard not to read into other people's words, because the subject is so divisive.  

Here is an entire website devoted to countering an author with very popular books: http://www.ezzo.info/ 

I too run into people giving me (unsolicited) dog training advice, including a casual chit chat with a man at a car wash who told me all about the importance of alpha rolling to show a dog who is boss.  Ooooookay.  I brought up Ivan, as an illustration of a dog who would not take kindly to such treatment, and he was sure that he could have handled it.  I'm a petite female, after all.  It's his face, go for it dude. I'll keep 911 on speed dial.

So on the one hand you have CM, and what he does and says, and on the other hand you have a whole bunch of people out on the street who have their interpretation of CM.  That is probably my biggest criticism of CM - in the name of an entertaining show, he glamorizes macho ideas and touches lightly on the boring details.  Sure, a disclaimer flashes across the screen, but that's from the legal department.  

So there isn't much need to debate CM on his beliefs.  He's actually a very good dog handler, despite the mumbo-jumbo talk.  Donaldson and Dunbar are trying to speak to the professionals who are encountering the ordinary people who THINK they know what CM is all about, and are happy to push dogs around in the name of leadership and dominance.  With rare exception, I don't see people like that on dog.com.  We're people who like to think and talk about dogs.  The basic CM fan is someone who likes a good reality tv show, and the promise of instant expertise. 

ordinary people who THINK they know what CM is all about, and are happy to push dogs around in the name of leadership and dominance.

Like this you mean?

That story right there infuriates me in ways that make it hard for me to even form words. And I'm not really blaming Cesar Millan for that at all--just the ignorant pieces of you-know-what who can't read a disclaimer, apparently. 

houndlove

Like this you mean?

That story right there infuriates me in ways that make it hard for me to even form words. And I'm not really blaming Cesar Millan for that at all--just the ignorant pieces of you-know-what who can't read a disclaimer, apparently. 

Ever watch Mythbusters? Don't try this at home!!!

espencer

"Fighting Dominance in a Dog Whispering World" (emphasis added)

are you sure?

Well, I haven't talked to them on the phone lately, but I can be pretty sure they won't mention a specific trainer's name once in the DVD. And if I'm wrong I'll eat my socks. ;-) Because they are better than that. Like I said, they made reference to (not his name specifically!) one example of somebody who touts the use of dominance in terms of dogs. Just because it happens to be a TV actor does is not a bad thing, contrary it's likely somebody that most people can relate the information to because he's such a famous Hollywood actor. But he's not the only dog trainer in this world that touts dominance, and the DVD is not "about CM". Really, we've all got better things to do then live our lives in relation to what CM is doing at any given moment. This is a general problem, not a "Cesar" problem.

But if you really reach, I'm sure some people can turn anything they desire into something that has to do with CM. ;-)