Natural dog training - pushing

schleide

Lastly, on the fasting item - a dog who is not used to eating on a set schedule, a prey model fed dog that gorges and fasts, for example, or a dog who regularly eats some big meals, some small and at varying times can be very very healthy.  I think that that is a completely valid way of feeding.

So that is what you are recommending to JQP dog owners?  How do I interpret your statement "can be very very healthy" as in is the case of most, some, or a few of the dogs that are feed this way?

Kim_MacMillan

Is it possible that prey drive already has a perfectly good definition, and that rather than the people being confused, it is that the term is being used incorrectly? That another term may be more suitable?

Oh, that's certainly possible, yes. And I have been using the term as I understood it to be used in Natural Dog Training. Since that's the subject of the thread. I'm not willing to say it's being used "incorrectly" because I think we're always discovering new aspects of dog behavior and I'm not at all sure that the way it's being used is incorrect. I was just trying to stay in context.

Here's why I said I thought the PEOPLE were confused:

glenmar

I don't see the point in this exercise [...] I'm just not clear

spiritdogs

I don't see the point either

mudpuppy

I'm mystified

DPU

I am getting quite confused

Kim_MacMillan

I guess I just don't get where the prey drive really enters the equation.

schleide

I am completely confused...

.

DPU

schleide

Lastly, on the fasting item - a dog who is not used to eating on a set schedule, a prey model fed dog that gorges and fasts, for example, or a dog who regularly eats some big meals, some small and at varying times can be very very healthy.  I think that that is a completely valid way of feeding.

So that is what you are recommending to JQP dog owners?  How do I interpret your statement "can be very very healthy" as in is the case of most, some, or a few of the dogs that are feed this way?

I am certainly recommending that JQP dog owners do a lot of research on how/ what to feed their dogs...  Prey model raw feeding is a completely valid option.  Many who feed in this style do not feed regularly as more "conventional" feeders do (with certain amounts of food at certain times). 

There is more of a free flowing approach to feeding - where the dog needs to eat a certain amount, over time, not each meal necessarily - there is a lot that goes into it - much more than is relevant to this post - but, suffice to say, there are many holistic vets and tons of raw feeders out there who feed this way, and they will tell you that it is the best way to feed (based on their years of experience with many dogs).  I personally do not feed this way - more because it is not convenient for my life than because I think it is in any way not healthy for my dog, but I have been convinced that it is certainly a valid feeding model.  There is a ton of research and evidence out there (if you would like to start another thread on it - I am happy to dig some up) that this is, if not the "right" way to feed dogs, certainly a good and healthy option, when done correctly...

LCK:1 So what does this have to do with the pushing exercise? It teaches the dog to work past his internal resistance, that's all. It reduces his inhibitions. So while Kim is sort of mistaken when she says the exercise is just operant conditioning, in a way she's not. The reason is that the behavioral scientist tends to see things more through the lens of behaviors than through changes in internal states. And what's being "conditioned" or positively reinforced here is ... the wellspring of a whole host of [inter-]related behaviors and feeling states.

Kim_MacMillan

Lee Charles Kelley

Well, I hope I've answered them. It's about building tension in the dog and teaching him that he can overcome his own internal resistance to reduce that tension.

You haven't really answered it in the context of pushing though. ... Wolves do not "push" their prey around as a way to fulfill their prey drive

Part of the emotional process of hunting is being able to work past your own internal resistance. So you're right in a sense, the pushing exercise has nothing to do with modal action patterns, wolves don't physically push against their prey. Prey animals have energy though. And wolves do have to push against the resistance inherent in that energy. I thought I addressed that. It's about the internal emotional dynamic of attraction and resistance which supports the predatory action patterns. (I realize now that I left the attraction part out of the equation.)

Prey energy is very attractive to dogs. And I mean that literally. Puppies are attracted to almost everything in their environment through their teeth. Some people don't like that. The puppies get punished. Part of the natural development process these puppies "inherited" from wolves gets stunted. Meanwhile, the prey drive is designed to build tension in both dog and wolf. That tension needs some form of release. So the dog who doesn't have the natural means of expressing that tension might become over friendly, jump up more than he should, dig holes, chew the furniture when left alone, or become fearful of men in hats, or aggressive toward other dogs. All these things happen, on the most fundamental level, because the prey drive is acting on the dog internally and the dog has no acceptable means of offloading that emotional pressure.

Kim_MacMillan

It's not that I'm looking at it just from an OC POV

I think it is, though. It's related to Kuhn's theory of incommensurability. You can't understand a radically new paradigm from within the structural framework of the old, outdated one.

Kim_MacMillan

but that it just doesn't match up IMO with the theory that is presented. When you discuss the patterns of wolves, they make sense. Because they are wolves doing things that all revolve around survival and hunting. But dogs aren't hunting as a means of eating anymore, not to mention dogs are much more opportunistic scavengers than their wolf counterparts were, just taking whatever they could get. And I really don't think that dogs eating a bowl of kibble, or even working for a treat, are doing so from a prey drive perspective, as other than the "consume' part (which is inevitable in eating *G*), there are no other parts to the motor action patterns that involve hunting and prey drive. And part of that is where domestication comes in as well.

You see, this is what I'm referring to. You keep talking about action patterns and seem to be trying to relate the action patterns of wolves to the action pattern inherent to the pushing exercise. Let me make this clear: this is no physical connection between them. The exercise operates on the underlying emotional and energetic dynamic that supports or perhaps even switches on the action patterns. Now do you see?  

Kim_MacMillan

Prey drive is directly correlated to the modal action patterns involved in hunting, such as orient, eye, stalk, chase, grab, kill-bite (some with a shake, some not), and then consume. Then there are those behaviours that are linked to post-prey interactions, such as chewing on a left over bone to clean the teeth, relieve boredom, and strengthen the muscles of the neck and jaw. And what you see today in the various breeds of dogs is how those action patterns have been artifically altered and selected for for different tasks.

And do these action patterns come out of nowhere? Is there no supporting energetic or emotional basis for these action patterns? Are they only triggered by the movements of prey animals? Is there nothing going on under the surface? Doesn't a wolf have to push past the resistance in the environment, the terrain, the prey animal's energy, in order to perform these action patterns? Doesn't he have to push past his own fear, tiredness, etc., in order to succeed? Don't you know of dogs who can't seem to push past their own internal emotional blocks?  

Kim_MacMillan

So it just isn't adding up to me, to how a dog pushing against your hand with its chest is in any way satisfying the prey drive.

It's not. It's building the prey drive, or rather, as I said in my previous post, it's teaching the dog to overcome the internal resistance he has about expressing his prey drive. He can't exhibit the modal action patterns you're talking about, at least not in connection with his owner, because the owner (or previous owner) has created blockages to doing that. The pushing exercise removes those blockages. It's kind of like an emotional colonic, if you will.

And you guys don't need to tell me how mystified you are! Trust me, when Kevin Behan first told me about this exercise I was just as mystified as anyone else. I had two advantages though: I already had a grounding in how Kevin sees dog behavior (attraction and resistance, tension and release), and I knew from past experience that every time Kevin has said something to me, or even going back to when I first read Natural Dog Training, and found the information contained in it, my first reaction has always been "You've got to be kidding me! This is ridiculous." Yet every time I've put one of his ideas into practice I found they not only worked, they worked much better than anything I'd ever come across before. So I had no resistance to trying the pushing exercise. I didn't have any faith in it or think it would amount to much. But like everything else Kevin has come up, my first impressions were wrong. It's very cool to see the changes that take place in areas where you think it wouldn't make a difference. I've even seen it make a difference in housebreaking issues, which makes no sense.

LCK

PS: The idea that Neil Sattin talks about (in his blog article on pushing), that dogs see us alternately as prey and predator, is another example of an idea of Kevin's I had trouble with initially. Like most dog owners and trainers I thought dogs saw us their packmates. I was able to see pretty quickly the advantage of turning myself into a prey animal. That's how dogs play with one another, after all. But the idea of them seeing us a predators didn't make sense until Kevin explained that the level of gaze between a wolf and a moose is roughly equivalent to the level of gaze between you and your dog. So when a moose is running away he's a prey animal; an attractional object. But when he turns around and stares at the wolves, with his big antlers and his imposing stare, what do they do, normally? They stop in their tracks. He's now the predator in a sense.

Not long after I recognized the inherent truth in this observation something interesting occurred to me about the idea that dogs see us as predators. which is this: Think about Cesar Millan and how he uses his body language with dogs. He thinks he's being the "pack leader," right? But if you look at him closely, and study how the dogs respond to him, he's actually behaving more like a predator than a fellow pack member. And that's why dogs respond to him the way they do. They're like deer caught in the headlights. (I'm not recommending this as a training practice by the way; I'm just saying this is the instinctive/emotional dynamic he works with.) And this is probably why all dominance trainers believe their methods are successful because the dogs "sees them as the pack leader." Since there is no pack leader in wild wolf packs, that's not the reason. It can't be. How could dogs have inherited an instinct from wolves if wolves don't even have that instinct. The primary reason dominance techniques are successful (and I'm not including the negative side-effects such training methods automatically create) is that to a certain extent dogs are responding to the trainer emotionally the way they would to a moose who suddenly stared them down.

Anyway that's how I see it. 

FourIsCompany

Here's why I said I thought the PEOPLE were confused:

Well, I'm not certain that I'm confused (although it's always possible), I just meant that I don't think it has much to do with prey drive whatsoever. I just don't feel it's an accurate use of the term prey drive, and feel that it is being redefined when it already has an established definition. And again it does come down to the background and experience I have in how these terms are used, as with the people I tend to speak with, and in the fields I tend to be involved in, these terms have established definitions already, so it's offputting sometimes when the words are taken from one field and redefined to fit another theory. It doesn't bother me in any huge sense, but it can easily create misunderstandings when you can't talk with others about established terminology. *G*

Lee Charles Kelley

I think it is, though. It's related to Kuhn's theory of incommensurability. You can't understand a radically new paradigm from within the structural framework of the old, outdated one

But once again you are assuming things that aren't so. Psychology is only part of my degree in university, and within psychology (of which there are many fields of view) behaviourism is only one part of what I study. Within psychology I also look a lot at learning theory as a whole, including social learning, mimicry, etc. My other major happens to be biology, within which I focus more on ethology, which has absolutely nothing to do with OC or behaviourism. I also have a lot of experience in neurobiology/neuropsychology, that focuses on the physiological basis of many of the "broad" topics we discuss here. Such as what hormones are secreted for what changes, what neurotransmitters are used to activate what receptors, and when a dog aggresses just what changes happen in the body.

The point is, for any individual phenomenon, we can very accurately explain that phenomenon in a variety of ways. When discussing learning, I can talk about operant conditioning (psychology), or I can talk about modal action patterns (ethology), and how animals are developmentally and genetically predisposed to certain traits (ethology), or I can talk about long-term potentiation as a molecular basis of learning, and how mossy fiber sprouting and expansion of the Schaffer collaterals are great models for information storage, and how synapses change and action potentials fire as learning occurs (neurobiology). All of these very different faculties all accurately explain the exact same phenomenon. But in the end there are some that better lend themselves to having discussions than others. It would be hard to discuss teaching a dog to sit when trying to determine just what synapses you want to form and just how much LTP needs to occur to begin to see changes in the brain's connections, and just how much you need to cause an action potential to occur, and how that is affected in turn by whether or not glutamate is present as the excitatory neurotransmitter.

You can explain it in chemistry terms and say that our entire level of being is nothing more than a bunch of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms, with a few magnesium and irons in there to boot, and that all of our thought processes are nothing more than the ways in which oxygen is absorbed by the brain and how hemoglobin attaches oxygen to carry it to the blood brain barrier.

The point is, there is no "one answer". And I certainly speak from the viewpoint of a variety of standpoints and theoretical beliefs. As I've said before, I don't adhere to one theory alone, I use a wide number of theories as a knowledge base, from a variety of sources. So yes, I use OC as part of a framework in theories, because it is an extremely valid set of principles, far from outdated, in fact it has withstood time better than most other theories within psychology, within the framework of how it interacts with other theories, such as fixed action patterns or drives or emotions.

The way you explain things makes it sounds as though it is some unique way of looking at the world, when in reality the exact same phenomenon can be explained, just as accurately, in a number of other ways. To say prey energy is "attractive" to dogs. Sure. They are innately prewired as predators, with genetics and the right body structure to be predators. They have evolved to be predators, based upon their metabolism, their teeth structures, their body structures. As a predator, certainly prey is attractive to dogs. You say that a dog that doesn't release its prey energy will act out in a number of (to humans) undesirable ways, when in reality simple physical exercise, even on a treadmill which is devoid of any prey drive, can completely fix those problems.

I'm really not mystified by it honest, don't give me too much credit *G*. I don't find it that mystifying at all, just another way to explain the same phenomenon that can be explained in innumerable other ways. It's not that I even totally discredit the theory, as again it's just another way to look at things, but I prefer how the other theories seem to interact with one another much more fluidly, and they seem to mesh quite well. Is there a place for this theory? Sure, I am happy to say that, but within reason and within the framework of other theories as well. It's certainly not the be all and end all of what we need to know about dogs, nor is it the only accurate theory out there.

Kim_MacMillan

You say that a dog that doesn't release its prey energy will act out in a number of (to humans) undesirable ways, when in reality simple physical exercise, even on a treadmill which is devoid of any prey drive, can completely fix those problems.

And I have done so, using "play" to express prey drive. If a squirrel runs through the trees and gets away then I will throw the kong and Shadow can chase and get it.

I would like to agree with something LCK said, with my own conditions thrown in. On the notion of pack leader, when there is not a particular pack leader in a pack of wolves, why should dogs have one. I agree with that but my exception is that I don't think dogs descended directly from wolves. I think they descended from a canid similar to the wolves and coyotes, probably closer to coyote (the structure suggests so, in spite of Wayne's work on a singular locus of mtDNA). So, I would expand it to say that if other canids don't have an exact "pack leader," why should a dog.

I haven't considered or observed in my limited senses, dogs that are inhibited or resistant to expressing their prey drive.

And, Kim, you have stated in another way what I was saying, regarding something like the commensurability. A different way of explaining things is just that, and not necessarily the whole story. While I agree that paradigm shift can be difficult and good things can arise from discarding a paradigm that is not accurate, I find the new paradigm valuable if there is a way to prove it. And, I am not easily swayed to shift paradigms. It has to be proven to me. Such as when I shifted from thinking that dogs were pack animals that needed a leader and acted up to usurp authority to realizing that a dog will do what you want when you let him know what that is. And the latter was proven to me from the first training exercise.

So, even though I can't see how the pushing exercise improves prey drive and I don't see every thing as tension and release or pure energy exchange with no other explanation, I won't throw it out completely. Bits and pieces may work out later, maybe.

ron2

I would like to agree with something LCK said, with my own conditions thrown in. On the notion of pack leader, when there is not a particular pack leader in a pack of wolves, why should dogs have one.

Oh, I certainly agree with this too. But of course you already know that Ron *G*. Without having to stir up old conversations again.

Lee Charles Kelley

Part of the emotional process of hunting is being able to work past your own internal resistance.

There you go again anthropomorphizing.  "Emotional" and "internal resistance?"   I don't see how you can make assumptions about dogs in this way.  You are placing and making value judgments in relation to dogs, I could just as easily say that "part of the process of hunting is objectifying the prey as it relates to the emotional state of the dog."  But I'd be expected to explain how I know the emotional state of the dog and how I know that the prey has been objectified.  Both of which are very anthropomorphic concepts.

Lee Charles Kelley

Prey energy is very attractive to dogs.

I completely agree. 

Lee Charles Kelley

Puppies are attracted to almost everything in their environment through their teeth.

I disagree with the "teeth" idea.  Puppies and most dogs are very mouth oriented, but many times the teeth need not be involved-unless in a teething stage.

Lee Charles Kelley

The exercise operates on the underlying emotional and energetic dynamic that supports or perhaps even switches on the action patterns. Now do you see?  

No.  I still fail to see how you've established the emotional dynamic that you speak about, and believe me I have read your posts several times, trying to sort through the various thought patterns. 

Lee Charles Kelley

Doesn't a wolf have to push past the resistance in the environment, the terrain, the prey animal's energy, in order to perform these action patterns? Doesn't he have to push past his own fear, tiredness, etc., in order to succeed? Don't you know of dogs who can't seem to push past their own internal emotional blocks?  

Consciously-No.  Not at all.  In an emotional sense (though you have still failed to effectively demonstrate how this is emotionally related,) especially in a highly prey driven individual, there is no "push past" because there is no resistance.  In fact, I would venture to say that there is relatively little thought.  There is focus and reaction.  I believe I read a study relating to predators in which sensors read specific levels of stimulus in different regions of the brain-when prey was present, the brain waves were unaffected by external stimuli with the exception of that prey item. 

So I think your assumption that the dog is "pushing past the resistance" is wrong.  And further to say that a dog would consciously or unconsciously relate a pushing exercise to overcoming and "pushing past resistance" while in prey drive is a very large leap, and I would say it's unsubstantiated.  

Lee Charles Kelley

he's actually behaving more like a predator than a fellow pack member.

Don't say that too loud in certain circles!  

Kim_MacMillan

Psychology is only part of my degree in university, and within psychology (of which there are many fields of view) behaviourism is only one part of what I study. Within psychology I also look a lot at learning theory as a whole, including social learning, mimicry, etc.

I was responding to what you wrote in your post, not your academic background. I don't know what your academic background is, and don't really care that much (nothing personal). You spent the greater part of that particular post (the one I was responding to) talking about behaviors (specifically predatory motor patterns), and asked how the pushing exercise has anything to do with them. I had already stated that the exercise is about increasing a dog's ability to overcome resistance. Here are the opening and closing paragraphs of that post:

"It actually does increase the intensity of the prey drive in a way because it teaches the dog to work past his internal resistance; the less resistance he has the more his drive is expressed through behavior. It's a bit like reducing the drag co-effecient in an airplane or race car."

and:

"Well, I hope I've answered them. It's about building tension in the dog and teaching him that he can overcome his own internal resistance to reduce that tension. Puppies are pretty uninhibited with their teeth, and often get punished for it. So pups who grow up with this internal conflict are often unable to work past their internal resistance, and offer all kinds of alternative means of reducing tension and stress. What the pushing exercise does, essentially, is decreases that internal resistance, which is why most dogs who do it start to play more than they did before."

This is stated quite plainly, I think. Yet your response was all about behavior, not about internal resistance, etc. What was I supposed to think about your not "getting" what I was saying, except perhaps that you're too focused on learning theory to be able to look at my explanation, which may or may not be part of a new paradigm shift? After all, your entire post was about how you couldn't see any relationship between the pushing exercise and the modal action patterns that wolves exhibit when hunting. (I also went into specific detail about how I believe those action patterns are the direct result of the build up of internal tension and stress in wild wolves, so I actually did answer that question.)

Kim_MacMillan

My other major happens to be biology, within which I focus more on ethology, which has absolutely nothing to do with OC or behaviourism. I also have a lot of experience in neurobiology/neuropsychology, that focuses on the physiological basis of many of the "broad" topics we discuss here. Such as what hormones are secreted for what changes, what neurotransmitters are used to activate what receptors, and when a dog aggresses just what changes happen in the body.

The point is, for any individual phenomenon, we can very accurately explain that phenomenon in a variety of ways. When discussing learning, I can talk about operant conditioning (psychology), or I can talk about modal action patterns (ethology), and how animals are developmentally and genetically predisposed to certain traits (ethology), or I can talk about long-term potentiation as a molecular basis of learning, and how mossy fiber sprouting and expansion of the Schaffer collaterals are great models for information storage, and how synapses change and action potentials fire as learning occurs (neurobiology). All of these very different faculties all accurately explain the exact same phenomenon.

You can explain it in chemistry terms and say that our entire level of being is nothing more than a bunch of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms, with a few magnesium and irons in there to boot, and that all of our thought processes are nothing more than the ways in which oxygen is absorbed by the brain and how hemoglobin attaches oxygen to carry it to the blood brain barrier.

But in the end there are some that better lend themselves to having discussions than others. It would be hard to discuss teaching a dog to sit when trying to determine just what synapses you want to form and just how much LTP needs to occur to begin to see changes in the brain's connections, and just how much you need to cause an action potential to occur, and how that is affected in turn by whether or not glutamate is present as the excitatory neurotransmitter.

You're still not responding to the information in my post. You're, I don't know, showing off? I guess the part of my post about Thomas Kuhn and how behaviorism is a dying science put you in a defensive mood, perhaps? If so, I apologize for that. I was under the impression that you wanted to understand what the purpose and effectiveness of the pushing exercise is. I tried to answer that, and thought I did a pretty good job. But again, perhaps it goes back to something else I said, which is that I've always been skeptical of Kevin Behan's ideas, and it's only when I've put them to the test, tried them in as scientific a way as possible (meaning without any prejudice toward proving them right or wrong, though truthfully I usually try to prove them wrong), that's when I began to understand them. Now maybe you're smarter than me, and so maybe you can understand Kevin's theories without putting them to the test. But as for me, that's always been my process.

And by the way, you'd think that after almost 15 years of using Kevin's techniques, and understanding his theories so well that his daughter, after she read my first novel, said to him, "Dad, I finally understand what you've been saying about dogs all these years!" And yet, even with all that history, I was still skeptical of the pushing exercise when Kevin described it to me a year and a half ago. It wasn't until I did it with a few dogs that I saw, and understood how and why it worked, and what, exactly, it did for dogs.

Kim_MacMillan

You say that a dog that doesn't release its prey energy will act out in a number of (to humans) undesirable ways, when in reality simple physical exercise, even on a treadmill which is devoid of any prey drive, can completely fix those problems.

Well, that right there is pure behaviorism, a purely mechanicalistic view. And it's wrong. I'm not saying that treadmills can't be an effective way to wear a dog out, but it only takes 15-20 mins. of prey work (sometimes less) to center a dog, while it sometimes takes hours on a treadmill to have the same effect, which doesn't always last, by the way. And, the pushing exercise only takes about two minutes. And after a few weeks or so of doing it, the effects really do last.

Kim_MacMillan

I'm really not mystified by it honest, don't give me too much credit

Sorry. That wasn't directed at you. FourIsCompany wrote a post, dated 03-18-2008 5:16 PM, in which she quoted a number of members saying that they were confused or mystified by the purpose of the pushing exercise.

Personally, I'm kind of mystified as to why when we have discussions our positions never seem to dovetail. I'm happy to know you use the prey drive (in whatever way that's defined for you) in training, which I think is unusual for a clicker trainer, particularly since most +R trainers believe that play is just another form of positive reinforcement (and it's not). But I'd enjoy these discussions a lot more if you would actually respond more concretely and directly to the specific points I make.

LCK

By the way, you said you're studying mimicry, so I assume you've got a bit of knowledge about mirror neurons, and the idea that mimetic behaviors, emotional resonance, and some aspects of succorant behavior may be some of the pre-cursors that led to the development of human language? If that's true, then it seems to me that that, along with the idea of EEC (embodied embedded cognition) would certainly explain why so many people mistakenly believe dogs have the ability to use and understand language. Or do you still think that dogs actually have that ability?

I've written a reply to your questions, but it's not posting.

LCK 

I think I've got it now:

LCK1: Doesn't a wolf have to push past the resistance in the environment, the terrain, the prey animal's energy, in order to perform these action patterns? Doesn't he have to push past his own fear, tiredness, etc., in order to succeed? Don't you know of dogs who can't seem to push past their own internal emotional blocks?

Xerxes: Consciously-No.  Not at all.  In an emotional sense (though you have still failed to effectively demonstrate how this is emotionally related,) especially in a highly prey driven individual, there is no "push past" because there is no resistance.

LCK2: Of course there is. Particularly if the wolf is hunting large prey. That right there creates tension and resistance. All canine behavior relates in some way to the prey drive, which creates a constant balancing act between attraction and resistance, tension and release. That's the core dyad, if you will, of this way of viewing behavior.

Xerxes: In fact, I would venture to say that there is relatively little thought.

LCK2: How about none? I never said anything, or even intimated, that it was a conscious thought process. But if you think dogs don't have emotions or feel things like tension and resistance on a purely visceral level, then we'll have to spin this off to whole 'nother thread.  

Xerxes: So I think your assumption that the dog is "pushing past the resistance" is wrong.  And further to say that a dog would consciously or unconsciously relate a pushing exercise to overcoming and "pushing past resistance" while in prey drive is a very large leap, and I would say it's unsubstantiated.

LCK2: Huh. I really have no idea what to say here. You have an almost complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I'm not sure why. I have never said, nor intimated, that the dog "relates" the pushing exercise to "pushing past resistance while in prey drive." I assume you haven't you read the link to the article that Corvus posted, and which is where this thread got started? If not, here's a snippet or two that might help (the first part is directed to a dog owner with a leash aggressive Boston terrier named Wille, who recently lost his best friend, a great Dane):

LCK’sBlog: All aggression is based on fear. And Willie is exhibiting high levels of nervous tension (or stress). Think of the little guy as a salmon swimming upstream, fighting against the current, only Willie is fighting against internal emotional currents that get stirred up in him when he sees other dogs and feels suddenly as if he's going to be attacked. In the normal scope of things, his emotional river runs through a broad channel, and the current travels at a slow, comfortable pace. But when he sees another dog, the energy builds, the emotions tighten up in him, and he feels like he's going to "drown." So he lashes out at what he perceives to be the locus point of the sudden energy shift from lazy river to extreme rapids.

With me so far?

Okay, now let's take this down to the bare essential quality that causes his aggression. Dogs have two social polarities, social attraction and social resistance. Social attraction is what makes dogs gravitate towards, and to want to be pals with, other dogs. Social resistance is what makes them tell another dog, "Hey, you're getting too close here!" As you found out with your great Dane, Willie has strong social attraction, and would probably love to play with every dog he meets if he could only get past these Rapids of Doom that keep cropping up in his internal emotional river.

The reason his emotions feel like rapids is that he doesn't have a normal, well-balanced dog's (or a salmon's) natural skill for swimming upstream. This is probably because he was abused or trained in very heavy-handed manner before you came along and rescued him. So, to repeat the metaphor, when there's a sudden influx of energy, he feels thrown off balance emotionally. And since he has strong levels of social attraction, his instinctive strategy is to go AT the other dogs rather than to run AWAY from them. The primary reason he does this is that he hasn't been given the skill-set necessary for dealing with strong feelings of internal and external resistance. He doesn't know how to swim against the current.

There are two exercises that will help him learn this skill.

One is a pushing exercise, where you hand feed him all his meals, outdoors. You put one hand against his chest, palm up, and hold his food up to his mouth for him to eat. As he eats out of your hand you start to slowly yet almost imperceptibly pull the food hand away so that he has to push into your other hand in order to eat. As you progress with this exercise over time, you want to get to the point that he's pushing into you with all his might in order to eat. This will teach him, on a visceral and emotional level, that he can not only tolerate strong feelings of resistance, but that he can conquer them; he can swim upstream. It will also change the emotional dynamic between the two of you so that he'll be more focused on you and your commands while he's outdoors and there are other dogs around.

LCK2: I don't know if that clears it up or not, but there's no need for the dog to "relate" the pushing to another mode of behavior, or anything like that. It's simply a matter of increasing his ability to work past the kinds of resistance that happen whenever the stream of emotions he happens to be in at a given moment start rushing too fast and he feels like he's going to "drown." (In a figurative sense, of course.)

LCK1: [MIllan] is actually behaving more like a predator than a fellow pack member.

Xerxes: Don't say that too loud in certain circles!

Hah. I'm not worried.

LCK 

Lee Charles Kelley

Not long after I recognized the inherent truth in this observation something interesting occurred to me about the idea that dogs see us as predators. which is this: Think about Cesar Millan and how he uses his body language with dogs. He thinks he's being the "pack leader," right? But if you look at him closely, and study how the dogs respond to him, he's actually behaving more like a predator than a fellow pack member. And that's why dogs respond to him the way they do. They're like deer caught in the headlights.

Anyway that's how I see it. 

Ack! Get out of my head! I've been thinking that ever since I watched an episode of The Dog Whisperer.

Interestingly, humans alternating between predator and prey for their dogs is pretty much the only thing from NDT I've immediately understood and agreed with. Maybe because I've worked a bit with wild animals and the dance of pressure is always there. Driving small birds into mist nets when they've been caught before and know what a person trying to drive them into a net looks like does wonders for developing a sense for personal space and pressure and even body language. Ditto trying to convince a bird with a nest that you're not going to eat the contents if you discover where it is (with the exception of human-habituated birds that ignore people). You can't, of course, but you can trick them into seeing you as no threat. Sometimes. What I described with Penny not really wanting to play was what made me think dogs are just the same as the little wild birds. The same, only with different thresholds. This one time, Penny snapped at a dog on the other side of me. I instinctively brought my hand up between them to try to stop her (it was the dog she was locked in an ongoing war with). She accidentally got my hand in her mouth, and before I knew what had happened, she was on her back looking like she expected me to kill her. I was quite shocked at her reaction. She's never done anything like that before or since, and I was still coming to terms with the fact that she'd nearly bitten me. She was terrified over the whole incident. I see dogs behaving the same way when CM marches into their world, minus the human shock.

Lee Charles Kelley

This will teach him, on a visceral and emotional level, that he can not only tolerate strong feelings of resistance, but that he can conquer them; he can swim upstream.

Lee Charles Kelley

but there's no need for the dog to "relate" the pushing to another mode of behavior, or anything like that. It's simply a matter of increasing his ability to work past the kinds of resistance

These two parts seem to not mesh, to me. Either dogs can link some things together or they cannot. Also, and I don't say this to be cheeky and I don't say it as being from a particular viewpoint but it would seem that the aspects of your training include the dog's ability to think. Confidence is a human emotion. Though I'm not saying that a dog can't feel something similar. And yes, a dog can be resistant to do something if they have been trained not to do that thing, previously. Or, it is not in their personality to do a certain thing. For example, another member with a dog not of a sled dog breed wanting to train her dog to pull for skiing and sled pulling or cart pulling. And the dog was previously trained and rewarded to walk in heel and LLW position. So, I can see where reward training for overcoming the resistance of your hand would help to untrain the previous reticence. But to assume that the dog would relate the rsistance of your hand to overcoming the resistance in recall provided by other distractions is a bit of a leap and, I think, expecting the dog to generalize as you would hope them to do. I would think it much more direct to simply reward recall in various levels of distraction. That's not to say that some dogs couldn't benefit from that but then I would think those dogs are generalizing from the push exercise to all other resistances in the world, internal and external. Which would require some thought process.

Lee Charles Kelley

Xerxes: Consciously-No.  Not at all.  In an emotional sense (though you have still failed to effectively demonstrate how this is emotionally related,) especially in a highly prey driven individual, there is no "push past" because there is no resistance.

LCK2: Of course there is. Particularly if the wolf is hunting large prey. That right there creates tension and resistance. All canine behavior relates in some way to the prey drive, which creates a constant balancing act between attraction and resistance, tension and release. That's the core dyad, if you will, of this way of viewing behavior.

I completely disagree with you there.  But that's from having very close associations with high prey drive dogs.  Dogs that will chase and kill without hesitation very large animals because that's what thousands of years of breeding and instinct tell them to do.  No resistance.  No overcoming.  Simple predator-prey relationship. 

Lee Charles Kelley

But if you think dogs don't have emotions

What I feel on a personal level and what I can prove on a scientific level are two completely different things.  

Lee Charles Kelley

feel things like tension and resistance on a purely visceral level,

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I don't believe your theory at all.

Lee Charles Kelley

ou have an almost complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying. I'm not sure why. I have never said, nor intimated, that the dog "relates" the pushing exercise to "pushing past resistance while in prey drive.

Yes, actually you did.  You related the pushing directly to prey drive and play.  Therefore you insinuated a relationship, to wit, a causal relationship.

Lee Charles Kelley

This will teach him, on a visceral and emotional level, that he can not only tolerate strong feelings of resistance, but that he can conquer them; he can swim upstream. It will also change the emotional dynamic between the two of you so that he'll be more focused on you and your commands while he's outdoors and there are other dogs around.

I think this is a very long reach and until I see studies that indicate this cause/effect relationship, I will dismiss it as unsubstantiated.