The Alpha Roll--purpose and effectiveness?

There's definitely a possible confounding factor in trying to draw a causal relationship: Positive training methods (the real kind, not just throwing a bunch of treats at your dog) are fairly new and while growing in popularity are still not the norm. People who have easy dogs don't have much of an incentive to seek them out in the same way that people who are really at the end of their rope and desperate do.

You find that in a lot of cases of practices (not just with dogs, in all areas of life) that are "outside the norm"--the people who seek them out do so because they are themselves experiencing something outside the norm. They have the incentive to do so where people who are living an average life with average problems that have average and easily-accessible answers don't. The reason why my Zen teacher has said that so many people that come to Zen Center have issues surrounding serious depression or mental illness is not that Zen makes you depressed or mentally ill, it's that those people have way more of an incentive to actually go through the process of seeking out a new way of doing things than people who are already happy with everything in their life as it is.

.:.

.:.

houndlove

There's definitely a possible confounding factor in trying to draw a causal relationship

And I have not once said or implied that the cause of these issues is positive methods. I'm not even trying to hint at such a thing. I don't believe that positive training causes problem dogs (done correctly).

Yet I am told constantly that the reason I have good dogs is because I'm "lucky" and that I raised them from puppies. There seems to be no problem drawing a causal relationship there.

My point is two-fold. One is that I believe many problem dogs could be helped a lot faster with other methods because based on the results I see, most problem dogs do much better with other methods. Not ALL, but most. Secondly, in general, people who use more conventional methods (properly) have happier, more balanced, better-behaved and non-fearful dogs.

There's much talk about how the conventional methods (done properly) is damaging and hurtful (or could potentially be), but I see NO results that indicate that. Quite the opposite. So, before you answer a point I've made, you might want to be sure I actually made that point.

FourIsCompany

Secondly, in general, people who use more conventional methods (properly) have happier, more balanced, better-behaved and non-fearful dogs.

I think that would better be said as:

"In my opinion, general, people who use more conventional methods (properly) have happier, more balanced, better-behaved and non-fearful dogs."

Because it's just that, an opinon. Not fact, not even true really. Just an opinion. :-)

You're all "right"!

From your own perspectives, given your perceptions, values, and experiences ... everything each of you has said is true and correct and important and valuable. 

Now, how you all choose to use your knowledge, at home with your own dogs, and here on the internet, "helping others" remains to be seen. 

Have at it!

Best wishes to you all! 

FourIsCompany

My point is two-fold. One is that I believe many problem dogs could be helped a lot faster with other methods because based on the results I see, most problem dogs do much better with other methods. Not ALL, but most. Secondly, in general, people who use more conventional methods (properly) have happier, more balanced, better-behaved and non-fearful dogs.

More conventional methods allow me to integrate more difficult dogs into my pack......you know the dogs that usually are returned in no time at all.......

 There sure are a lot of unfounded opinions based on zero actual data being thrown around here.

I never suggested a causal relationship one way or another, just suggesting that there may be some confounding factors that were not previously considered in trying to draw, if one were going to try, a causal relationship between the methods used and whether or not a dog has a problem. On the surface it may appear that there's a causal relationship, but there are several reasons why it could just be a non-causal correlation. You were the one who originally said you judge methods by results and your perception was that the people who use positive methods have problem dogs and people who use conventional methods do not. I was just giving an alternative reason for why you may have gotten that impression (though really, who are you talking about here?)

And please let's be honest, raising dogs from puppies is a different experience from adopting an adolescent dog who has spent his first couple years being neglected, abused, undersocialized, untrained, etc.... You can't say there isn't. And I'm not saying your methods don't work for your dogs and there is more than just luck involved in having well-behaved dogs. But if you have never had a troubled dog, who was troubled from Day Numero Uno come through your home, yes, you are lucky. And I don't mean that facetiously, you really are lucky because it is heart breaking. There's a reason why raising a puppy correctly is so important (and kudos to you for doing it four times!), because if you do not do it right, if you neglect the early socialization and behavioral needs, there's a high chance that you will wind up with a Conrad. The people who had him first screwed up big, and I've spent the past 6 years cleaning up their mess.

 

lostcoyote

**content removed, previously edited content**

**content removed, refers to edited content**

My point is two-fold. One is that I believe many problem dogs could be helped a lot faster with other methods because based on the results I see, most problem dogs do much better with other methods. Not ALL, but most. Secondly, in general, people who use more conventional methods (properly) have happier, more balanced, better-behaved and non-fearful dogs.

where on earth do you get these ideas from? they are totally counter to my experience, and to the recommendations of most respected behaviorists, trainers, and experienced foster homes. The last thing most "problem" dogs need is any kind of "conventional" methods; what they need is NILIF, trust, and clicker training.

mudpuppy

what they need is NILIF, trust, and clicker training.

I agree with NILIF and trust.....clicker training....NO......

Wow, I left for a few weeks and come back to this. There are actually people that still try to justify the alpha roll?

Merry Christmas all, I am outta here! 

snownose

.....clicker training....NO......

Can I just ask what you could possibly have against clicker training?

snownose

FourIsCompany

My point is two-fold. One is that I believe many problem dogs could be helped a lot faster with other methods because based on the results I see, most problem dogs do much better with other methods. Not ALL, but most. Secondly, in general, people who use more conventional methods (properly) have happier, more balanced, better-behaved and non-fearful dogs.

More conventional methods allow me to integrate more difficult dogs into my pack......you know the dogs that usually are returned in no time at all.......

I began with R+ thinking and methods, which provided lots of good learning for me, and some good rituals and protocols for me and my dog. I was also really happy that there were people I could learn from who understand and can explain a wide variety of methodologies, including "more conventional methods".

Having a place to read about a variety of people's thoughts and experiences is really valuable. Thanks to those of you who share your own knowledge and experience, and make yourselves available for questions from those who want to learn more about what you have to offer.

chelsea_b

snownose

.....clicker training....NO......

Can I just ask what you could possibly have against clicker training?

I have nothing against clicker training.....I just don't think it is "Needed" to properly train a dog.....