The Alpha Roll--purpose and effectiveness?

For clarification, when I was referring to force in that context, it was physical force.  I absolutely agree there are other types of force, some subtle and some necessary.  For ME, "force" enters the realm of what I was discussing above when it is something that is a) not necessary for the safety of the dog or b) the safety of the dog could be achieved in some other way.  Taken to a logical extreme, using a leash is force, since I am physically forcing my dog to stay within 6 feet of me.  I doubt anyone here would disparage the use of a leash.  Force is a continuum, and each one of us has a marker on that continuum past which we will not go, and for each one of us where that marker is is different.  For ME, and in particular with physical force, I won't go past that notch beyond which force is applied to achieve an effect I could produce in a non-physical way - that is, that point where physical force becomes something for MY benefit, rather than for Ben's.
 

mudpuppy

The problem I have with the "I'm the boss" approach is that it encourages you to think in terms of force and punishment- because if the dog doesn't comply, he's obviously defying your authority, and so you have to punish him.

See, that's not how I feel. You have just taken your perception and applied it to me. Now, it may be that when YOU hear "I'm the boss" YOU think in terms of force and punishment and defying authority and all that, but I do not. I never HAVE to punish my dogs and I rarely, rarely do.  That doesn't change the fact that I'm the one who makes the rules. If the word "boss" makes anyone uncomfortable, I suggest they use another word.

I don't deny using operant conditioning. I do. We all do. So, yeah, I agree with that. But I don't think my philosophy with my dogs is any kind of "smokescreen"... I'm not sure of the connection. There is more to my dealings with my dogs than OC. We have a relationship. Just like I have a relationship to everyone else I know and everything else in my life. I have a "relationship" with money, and there is no OC there... See what I mean?

And I do think in terms of OC. All the time. At any occurrence (except for the extreme**), I think - what is the best way to get the response I want.  

**This morning I had all 4 dogs out in the yard when the concrete guys showed up. To prevent Jaia from taking off and eating them, I grabbed him by the scruff to attach his collar and leash. I didn't think, I just did it.

DPU

I spend the most of relationship time serving the dog, that is taking care of the dogs and its needs.

Same here. Don't forget money! LOL I told my husband, "I don't do hair, nails, clothes, shoes, makeup, or any of the things that many wives do. But I spend thousands on dogs."  

DPU

When I bond, the animal no longer is just an animal, in the ordinary sense.

This struck me as the big T Truth!  Very well-put!

Benedict

I personally am inclined to agree with Cressida - if animals that are beyond our capacity for physical control can be trained (go to Sea World!) then an animal I can physically control does at the very least deserve the opportunity to choose to cooperate with me.

I agree with that, but in the real world of dogs that doesn't always apply....you know yourself how tough somes dogs can be.....be it through fighting or other serious issues.

 Absolutely...once a dog proves that it is making bad choices, it is my responsibility as owner/carer to reevaluate....as in the "physical force" continuum I described above, it might necessitate me moving the notch over a little bit to allow for a dog/human partnership that needs more control, physical or otherwise.  I'm not inflexible, I will give each and every dog I ever own what it needs, and teach it how to do what I need.  But the dog will *always* get the opportunity to show me what kind of decisions it will make.  Depending on the severity of the situation, they may get to make a bad decision only once before I change the environment or the amount of control I exert in order to protect everyone involved.

mudpuppy

I think the "I'm the boss" approach is a smokescreen- regardless of what philosophy you think you are using, you are in actual fact using basic operant conditioning. The problem I have with the "I'm the boss" approach is that it encourages you to think in terms of force and punishment- because if the dog doesn't comply, he's obviously defying your authority, and so you have to punish him. Whereas if you're thinking in terms of operant conditioning, you instead think in terms of under motivated, confused, distracted, and you're unlikely to reach for punishment.

Well, I don't see it as "I'm the Boss" vs. "Operant Conditioning". I agree, conditioning is conditioning, even if you don't call it that. I see it as a "I'm the Boss" vs. "We're partners"--but either way various forms of conditioning (classical and operant) are taking place. And I agree with everything else you've said here too.

houndlove

I see it as a "I'm the Boss" vs. "We're partners"

It might just be another case of definition (Sorry to bring that up again). But when I think of partners (as I do in my marriage), we check with each other on important decisions. We don't do anything of great import without getting input and agreement from the other one. We cooperate, give and take, on an equal basis. Never would my husband say, well, I have the final word on this one, and neither would I. We may agree that something affects him more so he has the final word or that his expert lies in a certain area and vice versa, so we AGREE that he (or I) make a certain choice. 

My relationship with the dogs isn't like that. They make plenty of choices, but not without my consent. They live their lives under a framework of what I will allow and what I won't. So I guess it can be seen as a partnership, but certainly not what I would consider an equal one. To me, partner implies equal input in all important decisions. And around here, as regards the dogs, when it comes to important decisions, my word is the final one.

Benedict

 Absolutely...once a dog proves that it is making bad choices, it is my responsibility as owner/carer to reevaluate....

Yes, but I think it is all temporary measures until the problem behavior and the associate need is identified.  Try stopping a dog from scratching an itch.  This behavior can be casual or extreme. 

I agree, it's not an equal partnership....and I don't think it should be a dictatorship.  Maybe it's more like someone managing a team in a workplace.  The team leader gives overall direction, but has enough faith in those under him/her to make ordinary, day-to-day decisions.  When one of the team members messes up somehow, the team leader reevaluates that person's duties and responsibilities, and how much freedom to make their own decisions they can handle.

That's my ideal, anyway.  Blind obedience, in the sense that the dog would be looking to me to make every single decision for him (do I sniff this leaf, or that rubbish bin?) is just as disagreeable to me, in a dog, as complete disobedience.  I am an independent thinker and value that quality in my dog.   

DPU

Benedict

 Absolutely...once a dog proves that it is making bad choices, it is my responsibility as owner/carer to reevaluate....

Yes, but I think it is all temporary measures until the problem behavior and the associate need is identified.  Try stopping a dog from scratching an itch.  This behavior can be casual or extreme. 

That is assuming that every problem behaviour has a correlating need that is not being addressed.  I don't agree with that.  Self-rewarding behaviours are sometimes exactly that.  Dogs, like humans, are not immune from the temptation to do something simply because it feels good.  

Benedict

DPU

Benedict

 Absolutely...once a dog proves that it is making bad choices, it is my responsibility as owner/carer to reevaluate....

Yes, but I think it is all temporary measures until the problem behavior and the associate need is identified.  Try stopping a dog from scratching an itch.  This behavior can be casual or extreme. 

 

That is assuming that every problem behaviour has a correlating need that is not being addressed.  I don't agree with that.  Self-rewarding behaviours are sometimes exactly that.  Dogs, like humans, are not immune from the temptation to do something simply because it feels good.  

That is fine that you do not agree with me now and for the record I am exploring because of my experience and the problems I encounter.  There are always assumptions made with addressing every behavior problem and the choice of training or technique.  It would be progress if some unwanted behaviors can be correlated with a need deficency or a misuse of that need. Again, try solve an itch with a training method.  Its an idea.  To keep on topic, the alpha roll is not going to solve or contribute to stopping the scratching from an itch, whether the itch is real or not.

My relationship with the dogs isn't like that. They make plenty of choices, but not without my consent. They live their lives under a framework of what I will allow and what I won't. So I guess it can be seen as a partnership, but certainly not what I would consider an equal one. To me, partner implies equal input in all important decisions. And around here, as regards the dogs, when it comes to important decisions, my word is the final one.

I view my role as guiding the dog to WANT to make the choices I want him to make. 

mudpuppy

I think the "I'm the boss" approach is a smokescreen- regardless of what philosophy you think you are using, you are in actual fact using basic operant conditioning. The problem I have with the "I'm the boss" approach is that it encourages you to think in terms of force and punishment- because if the dog doesn't comply, he's obviously defying your authority, and so you have to punish him. 

Only if you have baggage with the word boss.  I have the luxury of not having to work for bosses that use force or punishment. (I know that not everyone is in the socioeconomic position to make those choices.) I choose to work, for the money and the satisfaction of accomplishing things. I don't assume I have authority over anyone.  Heck, what I love about Sasha is that she often the only one in my house who appears to care about listening to what I say. (The husband and child certainly don't. Nor the cats). There's a reason my next dog is going to be a hound.  I don't expect or need total authority.

I would argue that for some people (not all, and not posters here) operant conditioning terminology encourages them to think of animals as things and not individuals. Look at Orcas - life at Sea World is not in the best interest of a killer whale. An Orca at Sea World is a commodity, and it lives a tightly controlled life.  

Benedict

I don't think it should be a dictatorship.

I don't either. And I have never once said or thought, "I am your dictator."

Benedict

Maybe it's more like someone managing a team in a workplace.

And what's another word for that? Starts with B. LOL 

mudpuppy

I view my role as guiding the dog to WANT to make the choices I want him to make. 

This boss/team leader/ dictator/guide thing is a matter of semantics, I believe.

Benedict

Blind obedience, in the sense that the dog would be looking to me to make every single decision for him (do I sniff this leaf, or that rubbish bin?) is just as disagreeable to me, in a dog, as complete disobedience. 

It is also very disagreeable to me. One of the most precious things to me is that I watch and learn from my dogs. I would learn nothing from them if I were making all their decisions for them. I don't think I've ever indicated that I do that. People may interpret what I've said as that, however. That's not my fault as I have been VERY clear (I believe) from the start.

When I was working outside the home (in the electronics industry, at Intel, GTE, Siemens, etc.) I had many bosses. And the best ones were those who told me what they wantedmade sure I understood and then trusted me to figure out how to get there. I had some really good and some really bad bosses (who micromanaged every minute). There were times I had to "disagree and commit" to doing what my boss wanted even though I wanted to do it differently or thought it would be better done differently, but since he or she was the boss, I did it the way they wanted.

I am a really good boss. Boss is not a bad word. It is not at all the same as "dictator".

Boss - a person who exercises control or authority; specifically : one who directs or supervises workers

Dictator - one holding complete autocratic control c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively

Only if you have baggage with the word boss.  I have the luxury of not having to work for bosses that use force or punishment.

the entire thread started off with the idea that the way you convince dogs that you are the boss is to use force, i.e. alpha roll or puppy pin. The only poster who admitted to freely using puppy pinning insisted it was the foundation of the relationship with the dog-  a act of violence.