Poll: Your View of Domestic Dog Groups

I'm inclined to think it's less about things and more about individual personalities. For example, one time Jill found a frog. Pyry saw the frog and knew it was something he could kill and he wanted to do just that. Jill saw that Pyry wanted the frog and picked it up and initiated a game of keep away that infuriated but engaged Pyry for about half an hour. He barked at her in frustration and chased her all over trying to get that frog off her and she had the grandest of times waving it in his face and then racing off with it. Poor frog. I tried to get her to come to me and she gleefully included me in her game of keep away. The frog meant nothing to her. She was only interested in Pyry's obvious desire to have the frog and the subsequent opportunity for play. It didn't bother her in the least that Pyry was clearly very cross with her, even though it normally does bother her.

I have zillions of examples of dogs looking to other dogs for their reaction before deciding how to respond themselves, and it doesn't matter one bit where they might stand in relation to one another. We're always saying our dogs look to us for guidance as well. So maybe it's not so much that one dog wants something more, but that one dog sees that the other wants something badly enough to fight and makes a decision based on their expectations for how that animal will behave. 

I think some dogs tend to get what they want through a combination of honest signals of motivation and the other dog's innate tendency to want to avoid conflict. Motivation is, I think, a measure of willingness to take risks, and closely linked to personality. Pyry is not very motivated most of the time, but if he wants something, he becomes highly motivated and a wild risk-taker. He's stubborn and determined and that's how he can signal his willingness to take risks for what he wants. I think most dogs are not prepared to match his level of commitment and the risk that comes with it. That's the way they are. If something awesome comes along, maybe they'll take risks or maybe they'll still give way in the face of a dog signalling his willingness to take any risk. I don't think status comes into such an interaction. I think it's just one dog telling another how far they're prepared to go. Some dogs, like Pyry, are often prepared to go further than other dogs, which means they get what they want. I think that motivation all comes down to their individual personality - determination weighed against desire to minimise personal risk. Just like my boyfriend always obeys the law because he doesn't think breaking the law is worth the risk of fines. And if I really want to see what might be in that rock crevass, I'll risk personal injury to climb up there and have a look. All the way, I'm weighing how much I want to sate my curiosity with how badly I might get hurt if I slip, and how likely it is that I will slip. I think to dogs, the reaction of another dog is just the same as climbing a rock face. Is it worth getting hurt for? What are the chances I'll get hurt if I continue? What are the chances I'll get what I want without getting hurt? How hurt am I prepared to be to get what that other dog has? If they show one dog more deference, I suspect it's because they see something like a rock face with loose stones rolling past them, not necessarily a dog with more status or power than they.

ron2

Other times, if he is laying on the floor, I will step around him. Possibly a totally anthro concept but it's like extending courtesy to each other. He moves when I ask, and I don't ask unnecessarily.

 

I do exactly this. I even say "Excuse me, honey" and "Thank you, baby". I remember when I decided that I wasn't going to demand that they move whenever I enter the room and might need the space they're in. I had learned never to step over a dog because they need to move out of your way. I disagreed. One of the concessions I make for having 4 large dogs in the house is to always be aware that they might be lying where I want to walk. So, now, I either step over them or ask them to move, but I'm always aware that they might be underfoot. Only once have I tripped over a dog and that was in the dark.

Important point here: Being a leader of a dog group (or alpha - whatever you call it) does not equate to being an a-hole. I think that's a mistaken assumption people too often make. In fact, being a jerk is the least effective way to try to lead a group of animals or humans. Just as being respectful and courteous doesn't equate to being wishy-washy. In fact, being respectful and courteous is the BEST way to lead. Who wants to follow a jerk?

ron2

But I guess the point I'm also trying to make is that you can only lead, or dominate, or correct, or reward a dog, or whatever it is you do, if they allow it. The dog always has the option of running away and never coming back.

 

Most dogs don't have the option of running away. I suppose they could disallow my treatment by biting me, but they are solidly contained and cannot run away. So, I'm not sure I agree with this statement... Or perhaps I'm missing your meaning?

corvus

 If they show one dog more deference, I suspect it's because they see something like a rock face with loose stones rolling past them, not necessarily a dog with more status or power than they.

 

 

Ah, I think I had a lightbulb moment. I don't think dogs abstract the concept of "power" in the way that people do. But language is not truth. Language is an attempt to point at truths, experiences, thoughts.

What I happily call power is not any different than risk vs. benefit assessment. Power is a not an absolute, or a thing that can be measured. It exists in relation to other beings, and exists because some dogs are more like loose rocks, some dogs have really neat crevices to offer, and some dogs never want to break the law while others want to legislate. I also like to call this "influence."

Imagine 2 dogs. Both really want a steak that is on the ground. One is confident and fit. The other is cautious and uncertain of itself. If confident dog gets the steak, we can say it was because cautious dog valued harmony over the steak. That is true. But if confident dog routinely gets the steak, it is equally fair to say confident dog has more status. It is a short cut way of saying: other dogs routinely defer to him to avoid negative consequences. Those negative consequences may not always be force, by the way. If cautious dog depends on confident dog as a way to feel safe, then keeping confident dog happy is also important. Cautious dog says: I need you more than I need this steak. Confident dog says: I want that steak.

That is an exaggerated and overly simplistic scenario, of course. Most dogs are not so clearly distinguished in personality, and dogs with similar levels of skills and desire often negotiate where to spend their power/influence. Maybe the bed, or the toy, or even on a game of chase with a frog. Power isn't absolute, and it isn't always power over. Sometimes it is power to. Like the power to engage Pyry in a game of chase. Having something that Pyry valued gave Jill temporary power to engage Pyry in a game.

Persistence is a form of power. It is not blunt and quick, but it wears down over time and can be very very effective.  

I think some dogs tend to get what they want through a combination of honest signals of motivation and the other dog's innate tendency to want to avoid conflict.

don't forget trickery and manipulation- one of my dogs manages to usually end up with his favorite bed by outright tricks- he pretends to bark at something outside, and the dog in the bed gets up to look out the window, and he immediately scoots into bed.

Dog_ma

It is a short cut way of saying: other dogs routinely defer to him to avoid negative consequences.

 

Bravo! What an excellent post!

This is the danger of thinking for dogs in terms of how humans think. If we think of power-hungry, greedy people and then speak of the "power" a dog has, it is NOT a direct translation. That's the danger of anthropomorphizing to a degree.

Dog_ma

Power isn't absolute, and it isn't always power over. Sometimes it is power to.

I love some of the phrases you used and agree with them completely! Will you be my friend?  

I'm somewhere between option three and option four. I have no doubt that sometimes issues do arise over a particular resource. When two dogs enter a small space, usually one has to go first. When two dogs want the same toy, one dog usually gets it. When two dogs want the same bed, one dog usually gets it (although even that is hugely individual....."my" breed, loves to try to cuddle as many into one bed as possible......).

But I don't think it's about status, even in the sense of one dog "always" has control of the toys, or goes first, or whatever. I think each and every single interaction is different and dynamic, and the dog that gets "the resource" may be either one, at any given time, depending on the context. We all know that in dog etiquette, no matter you "rank" (so to speak, if you believe rank) you get to protect what is currently in your position. But we also know lots of dogs that happily give it up, almost as an offering. The next time they will keep it and not give it up. I think it really simply has more to do with individual states of mind at that moment, and comes back down to who wants it more. And who wants it more, in my experience, changes from day to day, and even minute to minute. It's never static. Which is why I'm between #3 and #4, but why I chose #4 - for domestic housedogs.

FourIsCompany

Important point here: Being a leader of a dog group (or alpha - whatever you call it) does not equate to being an a-hole. I think that's a mistaken assumption people too often make. In fact, being a jerk is the least effective way to try to lead a group of animals or humans. Just as being respectful and courteous doesn't equate to being wishy-washy. In fact, being respectful and courteous is the BEST way to lead. Who wants to follow a jerk?

 

I like this paragraph.  It sums up everything I keep trying to say on various threads and not quite managing.  Thank you! 

Dog_ma

Ah, I think I had a lightbulb moment. I don't think dogs abstract the concept of "power" in the way that people do.

True. Exactly. Absolutely right. If we look at the three P's of social status, Property, Prestige, and Power, in the last case what we're actually talking about is political, legal, or financial power, not physical or mental prowess. A dog may sense another dog's physical or emotional power, but his political power? Legal power? Financial power? Of course not. In fact, I have to point out that the dog can't know that another dog has more or less power than he does himself, because that requires him to make a comparison, which requires the use of language). All he can really know, at least in my book, is how much tension he feels in the situation. And he'll act only in a way that minimizes his own tension.

Dog_ma

What I happily call power is not any different than risk vs. benefit assessment. Power is a not an absolute, or a thing that can be measured. It exists in relation to other beings... 

Agreed as to its relativity. But I should point out that dogs don't do "risk vs. benefit assessments" the way we do. They don't reason things out, make judgment calls about one factor or another. It seems to me that it's much more likely that they would go with their gut feelings, the primary one, as far as I'm concerned, is their desire to create the most pleasurable flow of emotional energy for themselves while maintaining a stable group dynamic.

Dog_ma

Imagine 2 dogs. Both really want a steak that is on the ground. One is confident and fit. The other is cautious and uncertain of itself. If confident dog gets the steak, we can say it was because cautious dog valued harmony over the steak. That is true. But if confident dog routinely gets the steak, it is equally fair to say confident dog has more status.

I don't think so. Remember, we're not talking about how we view our dogs' behaviors, but how they do.

Yes, we could call that repeated pattern of having better access to resources as being equal to having better "status," but the two dogs certainly cannot. They can know that there's a pattern of behavior, and they can know a vast number of things about that pattern that we could probably only guess at. They're geniuses at pattern recognition. The human brain (this according to Temple Grandin) is designed to put patterns into conceptual chunks. We don't even really see patterns as much as we look for what they add up to, what they "mean." Animals (and autistics), Grandin says, only see the patterns; they don't, in fact they can't, conceptualize or abstract "meanings" from them.

In short, you might see such a pattern of behavior as being a matter of status, but your dog's don't. And I think that's the real issue.

Dog_ma

It is a short cut way of saying: other dogs routinely defer to him to avoid negative consequences. Those negative consequences may not always be force, by the way. If cautious dog depends on confident dog as a way to feel safe, then keeping confident dog happy is also important. Cautious dog says: I need you more than I need this steak. Confident dog says: I want that steak.

Well, I disagree with that behavioristic buzzword: "consequences," particularly as you've described it. To me the only consequence that the dog can know is how an experience affects his own energy flow: do his emotions flow freely or get blocked? And even that's putting too much of a human interpretation on the dog's experience, which if you ask me is simply this: is there a pleasurable flow of emotion or not?

In other words, let's say s.d. (strong dog) has more desire for the steak than c. d. (cautious dog). Or maybe their desire is equal but s.d.'s desire flows more freely, without inhibition, whereas c.d.'s desire gets stuck; he's inhibited. His sense of caution (if you want to call it that) stands in the way of his desire. So never mind all that stuff about "deferring" to s.d. and "avoiding negative consequences" or relying on s.d. to "feel safe" or needing to keep s.d. "happy." That's all nonsense in my book. A dog can't appropriate or process those kinds of mental processes. If you ask me, all he's really doing by backing off from the steak is finding the most pleasurable flow of his own feeling states, meaning the ones that create the least amount of increased tension for him, and/or the most tension reduction overall. In other words, while he may want the steak as much as s.d. does, he senses s.d.'s lack of inhibitions about taking it, so he opts for the action that provides the group dynamic the least tension, as well as the most pleasurable feeling state for himself (tension release). Another way of looking at it might be that while s.d. thrives on tension -- he eats it for breakfast (he's a "type A personality," if you will) -- excess tension makes c.d. shut down and back off.

On the other hand, if another dog, let's say, e.c.d. (extra cautious dog), should come along later when there's a steak available and s.d. (strong dog) isn't around, or isn't hungry, then c.d.s flow of feelings won't feel so constricted, because in this case e.c.d's emotional and physical energy engenders less tension in c.d.'s emotional state than s.d.'s did. So c.d. grabs the steak and runs off with it. In both cases, all c.d. is doing is choosing to direct his own energy (through behavior, or lack of it) in whatever manner makes him feel the least amount of tension. Looked at this way, solely from an energetic (tension-and-release) dynamic, we don't get bogged down in all this stuff about status, deferring to others, shying away from negative consequences, and the like. Those are all human qualities, in my book, not canine ones.

I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, and very finely at that, but I think this really does satisfactorily explain the behavior without relying too much on human thought processes. It's all emotion and energy, no abstract thinking required.

Anyway, that's how I see it... 

LCK
 

FourIsCompany

ron2

But I guess the point I'm also trying to make is that you can only lead, or dominate, or correct, or reward a dog, or whatever it is you do, if they allow it. The dog always has the option of running away and never coming back.

 

Most dogs don't have the option of running away. I suppose they could disallow my treatment by biting me, but they are solidly contained and cannot run away. So, I'm not sure I agree with this statement... Or perhaps I'm missing your meaning?

I was most careful not to say most dogs, so that I wouldn't be accused of generalizing. Just a dog. My dog is 26 inches to the shoulder and quite long and can run over 30 mph. I once estimated his top running speed at a dog park to be close to 35 mph. All we have is a chain-link fence. He could jump it if he wanted to or knew how to do so. Plus, DW and I both work, so there is a time where he is in the backyard.

Any dog could run away from you, even with the leash on. Shoot, a young healthy woman couldn't hold on to a Scotty pup with both hands and a leash. Imagine a 90 lb GSD that has had enough or decides she likes her instincts better? When I made that statement, I wasn't talking about your dogs, specifically. But, as you say, you have been healing from surgery and have limited mobility. I'm not saying your dogs want to leave you but if they did, it wouldn't be that difficult. Even if you were fully mobile and able to run as fast as the fastest human, you could still not catch up with a GSD in full double suspension gait. So, dogs stay with us because it suits them and the evolution of dog has made them symbiotic with us. IMO.

FourIsCompany

Only once have I tripped over a dog and that was in the dark.

I did that the other night, in the back yard. I was starting coals on the grill, had my telescope set up to look at the moon and I didn't see Shadow laying in the shadow of the grill. He yelped and i felt bad, but he was okay.

Coming in late (and now, apparently, OT) to say that my two dogs switch things around all the time. As far as I can tell, there is no hierarchy between them--just shifts in what matters to whom when.

 

LCK -

What are the neuronal processes involved in "energy flow"? Is that a frontal lobe function? Does it happen in the amygdala, or the hypothalamus? 

Energy flow is really a meaningless term.  

On the other hand, there is nice scientific support that dogs have theory of mind and the ability to reason to a degree. Neither you nor I know exactly what a dog is mentally capable of, but so far as I know my position is better supported by scientific evidence to date.

Lee Charles Kelley

But I should point out that dogs don't do "risk vs. benefit assessments" the way we do. They don't reason things out, make judgment calls about one factor or another. It seems to me that it's much more likely that they would go with their gut feelings, the primary one, as far as I'm concerned, is their desire to create the most pleasurable flow of emotional energy for themselves while maintaining a stable group dynamic.

 

Well I don't know. When I said I was constantly weighing risk versus benefit as I climbed a rock wall, I should have said that I don't actually consciously do that. I just react. There's a point I have reached on a number of occasions where I suddenly don't like my situation and look for a way to get out of it as quickly as I safely can. I don't think "oh, this slope is suddenly steep enough that my balance is compromised and my footing doesn't feel very secure and there are loose rocks that aren't offering me enough traction and I think my chances of falling have increased". There's no time for things like that. I just gather all this information subconsciously and react. I do make a judgement call, just not consciously. I think it's the same for dogs. I make sub-conscious judgement calls based largely on past experiences. That threshold when I decide to abandon something is known to my brain because it's the threshold that rings my warning bells early enough to pull out safely. I have learnt when external signals like gradient and traction are likely to lead to me falling and my warning bells go off just before that point. I think it's the same sort of thing with dogs. They know from past experiences what external signals are likely to result in something happening. In the case of another dog, the external signal is the behaviour of that dog. BTW, Dog_ma, I was thinking about Sasha and Eko and I reckon that puppies are still learning what signals result in which events, so they are quite cautious and sensitive, in a way. Perhaps Sasha is taking advantage of that because, well, who wouldn't? If an ignorant person comes along, it's very easy to exploit them for your own ends. Penny does it to people all the time. If they don't know how she will react to them asking her to do something, she takes advantage of that by doing whatever she likes and cheerfully ignoring them. In a way, she's teaching them the way she would a puppy, teaching them not to expect her to take notice of them. It works really well.

When Penny and Chloe were fighting, there were times I saw Penny reacting the way I do when I realise I've gone beyond the threshold of acceptable risk. Fear would come into her body language, and she would try to get out of the situation faster than was really safe.

I agree with Dog_ma: energy is a word that doesn't really mean anything. It peeves me, because you may as well say "the dog's goobafiend" for all the meaning it has to me. If people want to use a noun as a descripter, they ought to describe it first! *gets off soapbox* 

corvus

I agree with Dog_ma: energy is a word that doesn't really mean anything.

 

I disagree. Energy definitely has meaning to me. It may be different than what it means to you (and others) but it's not any more meaningless than "dominance", "reactivity", "fitness hill" or many of the other words we use here. It's just one that some people don't like because it's not scientifically defined in this context.

As regards how animals feel or think, it's all in my signature.  

FourIsCompany

It may be different than what it means to you (and others) but it's not any more meaningless than "dominance", "reactivity", "fitness hill" or many of the other words we use here. It's just one that some people don't like because it's not scientifically defined in this context.

And that's a good point, too. "Fitness" is a concept in biology regarding a cellular structure's fitness or ability to survive and the more things it has to aid survival, the greater the fitness "hill." Which is essentially a topology model and was applied to dog-dog interaction in the non-linear theory. And it was tough, I think, trying to apply a biology concept to behavioral concepts and I remember that the forum's final dispensation on it was that some things were useful but not the whole theory and while the author wisely pointed out the prejudices of authors of older theories, she seemed to have some of her own, as well.

Now, I can't really describe energy though I can describe its flow from one point to the next (my job deals with that, the utilization of energy). But there is a plane of existence or level to the physical world that involves the flow of energy, so it does exist. But I don't know if there is a way to quantify or qualify a subject opinion on energy. When a dog is reacting, we might say that is bad energy. But is it? Isn't the dog merely reacting in a way to ensure survival by either running away or defeating the foe?

I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, and very finely at that, but I think this really does satisfactorily explain the behavior without relying too much on human thought processes. It's all emotion and energy, no abstract thinking required.

my dogs seem perfectly capable of engaging in abstract thinking and cost-benefit analyses and understanding consequences of their behavior. As far as I can tell they think in ways that are very similar to human thought processes.