NILIF and pack leadership

*content removed, off topic*

Lee Charles Kelley

DPU

NILIF is NOT a training method. It's more of a structure. Only when the dog is 100% sure of what he is supposed to do should he be required to do it every time. I NEVER have to tell my dogs to sit or wait for their food. I TAUGHT them how to do it, and now they do it automatically. The fact that they won't get their food until they do what they KNOW is expected of them, is NILIF.

No, that's just teaching them manners. NILIF is, or should be, about re-structuring their social instincts so that they're no longer biting people or other dogs to get what they want. I think a lot of people are mistaking STILAF (Some Things in Life Aren't Free) for NILIF (Nothing in Life Is Free).

DPU

Of course people should know how a training method is supposed to be done before they do it. But that has nothing to do with NILIF.

From the NILIF page: "Again, a timid dog is going to be stressed by this situation, a pushy dog is going to be difficult to handle. Both of them would prefer to have you in charge."  This is typically how NILIF is represented here and again it say the training method is a confidence builder just like the Pushing exercise.  Why would a dog owner with a scared and timid dog not try it?

I disagree vehemently with many of the things in the article linked to above, at least pertaining to the rationale behind the exercises, not necessarily in how they're done. I also have to draw an important distinction between NILIF and the pushing exercise. In my view, neither of these exercises should be thought of as "confidence builders." Yes, the pushing exercise seems to have that effect, but it does so because it increases the dog's drive flow (reduces internal fear-based blockages). If anything NILIF works by reducing, or rather re-directing, drive flow from, "I want/need something and I'm going to get it no matter who I have to hurt," to "I can't get anything in life without it coming to me through you." Note that the dog needs to know that he can't get ANYTHING in life without it coming through his owner. That's what NILIF means. It's not a matter of teaching a dog to sit and wait for his dinner bowl. That's just "manners." NILIF is about putting a dog's social instincts back into balance. Remember, the social instinct in dogs and wolves (and to some extent in coyotes and other canines) is a remarkable anomaly in nature. It puts the "selfish" needs of the individual members of the group on the back burner so that the needs of the group as a whole can be realized. NILIF reacquaints an unbalanced, overly "selfish" dog with this noble birthright.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

LCK 

Lee Charles Kelly, I know you stated you only read certain postings but I am not the QUOTER in your above Post.  That would be 4IC that you are disagreeing with.  Its my fault because I messed up on the quote syntax for referencing posts. 

mudpuppy

In my use of NILIF, there is a choice. If my dog knows the command and won't do it, she still gets what she wants eventually.

but the whole key to NILIF is you DON'T give commands. The dog OFFERS an acceptable behavior and in response you OFFER the dog something the dog wants. There is NO STRESS for the dog because the DOG is in control of what happens. You want the DOG to learn how to think and to control himself, not just respond to commands you issue.

You don't start out demanding a perfect tucked sit or you don't get supper, that would be ridiculous. You wait for the slightest sign of improvement-  let's say you bring the dog home from the shelter and the dog, scared, goes and hides in the corner. It would the height of cruelty to think you're not going to feed the dog until the dog comes out and offers a tucked sit in the kitchen doorway. That's your FINISHED behavior, it's not where you start.

Mudpuppy has *nailed* it.  

At its simplest, most basic, NILIF boils down to "I do something, and something happens." Cause and effect.

The people involved can be as domineering and demanding as they want to be, or as gentle and soothing.

I don't think NILIF has jack to do with hierarchy and dominance, but it IS good for teaching strong willed dogs socially appropriate ways to channel their desires. 

It is 5 pm. The dog goes to a mat and sits, waiting for dinner. Is this a submissive dog? Or is this is a dominant dog telling the person it is dinner time? You can cast it either way. Who cares about the D and s? They don't matter for NILIF.

We like to distinguish between STILIF and NILIF, but from a dog's point of view there is always a cause and an effect. The cause may be looking at you. It may be the opening of the fridge. Dogs make note of what behaviors lead to happy things. They then repeat them. NILIF is really a way to channel human thinking and behavior, so that we're reinforcing behavior we desire.

STILIF is really just code for a person who isn't as invested in what a dog is doing. This is NOT an insult. Easy going dogs can handle quite a bit of freedom without causing problems. Difficult dogs are basically dogs that like to do things we'd rather they not, and  the N version of ILIF keeps the human on top of his or her game.

My late Ivan was a dog who needed to live on a strict NILIF in order to be safe. As our trainer put it, "Ivan makes poor decisions."  So we needed to make sure we were guiding his decisions, and reinforcing decisions that led to a harmonious life in which no one needed medical attention.

The joy of NILIF is that you aren't engaging in a showdown with the dog. The dog chooses. The dog is either reinforced or not.

I think very gentle and thoughtful versions of NILIF are appropriate for dogs with special emotional needs. You begin reinforcing small behaviors that are steps in the direction you want the dog to go. You keep your expectations realistic, and work with the dog where it is.

So I'm confused. Is it training, or isn't it? Mudpuppy's version sounds like training, but Four's version doesn't.

And I hereby apologise for putting my STILAF regime under the general NILIF umbrella. My dog has known the routine for just about 12 years and I had never heard of NILIF when I taught her the routine. To be honest, I don't even really remember how we got to where we are, I just know that I'm more than happy for my dog to make lots of her own choices. It makes me feel quite proud of her that she doesn't need me to structure her life or tell her how to live it. I'm a lot more consistant with Kit than I am with Penny, but that's because he is very timid and routine is security to him, however, I can't really make many demands of him because he's not in the least compelled to do anything but exactly what he wants to do. With him I've just got to trick him into wanting what I want with the minimum of stress.

The way I see it, I only really care that we all get along and don't annoy each other. That sort of requires a two-way street when it comes to who does what. When my dog comes and gives me the "You! Pat me now!" bark, sometimes my knee-jerk reaction is to pat her, and sometimes I catch myself about to pat her and I'm like "oi, maybe I don't want to pat you!" which is exactly the same reaction I would have if one of my human friends came and demanded something. Anyway, so then I ask her to do something for me purely so that I no longer feel ruffled up the wrong way, and she does it, probably because she knows from experience that it's the quickest way to get her pat, and I feel happy to pat her now that she's ostensibly giving me something rather than just making outrageous demands.

Of course, she really is just making outrageous demands and I'm just setting myself up to comply without feeling brow-beaten, but hey, it goes both ways. Sometimes I make outrageous demands and she partially complies, or does it slowly, just so I know how she feels about it. Our relationship is a two-way street that way.  

corvus

Of course, she really is just making outrageous demands and I'm just setting myself up to comply without feeling brow-beaten, but hey, it goes both ways. Sometimes I make outrageous demands and she partially complies, or does it slowly, just so I know how she feels about it. Our relationship is a two-way street that way.  

In your case, it does sound like negotiation.

What I see in both your dogs, is that they do what works, for them. And I know that sentence ticks people off. It's used by some on the "+R" camp. It is used by some people with whom it's politically popular to argue or not like. Call it energy theory, call it pack leadership, NILIF, call it the magic of clickers, call it beelzebub getting mellow. It doesn't change the fact that this one little sentence is true. Dogs do what works. Although, we might state a bit more accurately that dogs do what works for them (the individual dog). For some dogs, such as mine, the ultimate reward is some of my smoked brisket, which I must admit, is heavenly. For others, it's getting patted or some other close affection. For my BIL's Blue Merle Aussie Shepherd, it's the chance to herd and cut one more time.

And I know it's been brought up the special circumstance of emaciated and abused dogs, etc. Each dog is doing what works. The abused one may cower and hide because that avoided a beating. And the starving one might be a bit guardy and aloof. But each one is doing the same thing. Trying to avoid the punishing things and seek survival which can be rewarded by finding or getting food. We're all doing that. I know I've made it awfully elemental, that way. And I haven't accounted for psychology, personality, etc. And all are important, at least to humans. But not until basic needs are met. Water, food, shelter. In that order. If being affectionate or whatever it is that humans want secures getting the food, so be it. With exceptions, of course.

Right on. Any animal does what has worked for them in the past. Penny tries new things every now and then. When she started poking her nose into the gap between my knees, I couldn't help but give her the attention she wanted. It was too cute. She now does that a lot to get attention. When she lay on her back barking and kicking me as hard as she could with both back feet.... well, I certainly did withold the attention she wanted that time. I really do not want her kicking me and barking at me whenever she wants a pat. The nose in the knees I can handle, though.

So I think in some ways NILIF is about rewarding the behaviour you want. Even when you want the dog to sit before getting its meals, you reward that behaviour when it occurs. It's no bother to the dog to sit, to get the meal, so the dog cheerfully does it. In Penny's case, she does it very fast before you can ask her. Yes, there is anticipation. Yes, she gets impatient if her meal doesn't materialise as soon as her butt hits the ground. No, that does not have a lasting impact on her. I get her food to her as fast as I can! She's just going to have to deal if it's not fast enough for her. Just like she has to deal whenever I decide not to share my chocolate with her or whatever, and deal when I don't want to pat her. That's life, and I think it's important that they learn to deal.

I wanted to point out, though, that while I refuse to pat my dog when she barks obnoxiously and kicks me, she might refuse to lie still on the ground while I push her along a slippery floor. Or maybe she doesn't come over when I invite her because she doesn't feel like it. Or she hates the pressure of a taut leash, so she freezes and refuses to move if there's pressure from the leash. We both call shots at times. To get what we want and to avoid things we don't like. That's what living with someone is all about, no matter what the species. As far as I'm concerned, I have the right to say no I won't stand for that and so does she.  

corvus

So I'm confused. Is it training, or isn't it? Mudpuppy's version sounds like training, but Four's version doesn't.

That's strange because for the most part, I find myself agreeing with mudpuppy in this thread and we're usually 180 degrees out. LOL

To be clear, I think the dog has to know the basic commands (having been previously taught them) before the practice of NILIF can take place. I can't lay the expectation on my dog of performing a specific behavior (that I desire) in order to gain access to a resource if he doesn't know the behavior. I personally don't use NILIF to TRAIN my dog to do anything. I use training techniques, whether that be luring, using the clicker, praise and correction, etc. to train the dog. Once he knows a command, I can then use NILIF to reinforce the idea that nothing is free.

I think mp is looking at it more from the dog's point of view. "The dog OFFERS an acceptable behavior and in response you OFFER the dog something the dog wants." Like the dog is the initiator. And I look at it from the person's point of view, as if I am the initiator. "If the dog wants something, I withhold it until he performs the desired behavior to get it. He must "work" for it." It's not a training technique, but a philosophy for behavior.

It's 2 sides of the same coin. The chicken or the egg. What it boils down to is that the dog must "work" (or perform a behavior) to gain access to all resources. NILIF is useful on any dog, but particularly problem dogs.

If he wants to go out of the gate, he MUST sit and wait calmly first. He wants his dinner, he must sit and wait until I release him to eat it. (which are also good manners as LCK points out) In strict NILIF, If he wants to be petted or have access to the furniture, or to go outside, or have a drink of water, he must "ask" in a way that we have worked out. He must ask for everything by performing a predetermined behavior.

None of my dogs are on strict NILIF at this time because none of them require it. They are, however, required to have good manners as LCK pointed out.

NILIF

1. Avoid circumstances that elicit the aggression -- at least temporarily. Later you'll be able to work on desensitization, but only after you've gotten the dog's cooperation, not resistance.
2. Maintain an aloof attitude toward the dog. This is accomplished quite easily by crating the dog (or isolating it from the family in a small area with a babygate). This crating will be 90% or more of the time for a few weeks. This seemed to make Gypsy much more willing to do ANYTHING I wanted her to when she was out -- she was so thrilled to have ANY attention that she was beside herself.
3. Two-three times a day for 3-5 minutes maximum practice QUICK sits and downs for food. (If you don't know how to train this, go to a class.) You are working for speed and attitude here -- so reward correct behavior generously with praise and food. If your dog has fear problems, ignore or minimize the need for corrections. Don't make these training sessions a chore -- they should be fast and fun, not a battle. When the dog is IMMEDIATELY and CONSISTENTLY and with ANTICIPATION obeying the commands, she is ready for the meat of the NILIF program. Gypsy does the most lightning fast downs I've ever seen -- as fast as a border collie crouches when herding sheep.
4. At first, priveleges are still restricted, but you'll gradually be able to add priveleges. Don't rush things -- if you have a bad day, just go back to the prior level where things were successful and start over. Don't go from confinement/isolation to full house priveleges in a day -- keep doors shut, start with limited amount of "free time". (This step is my modification to the program, but it worked for me, so I recommend it.) Gypsy got 20 minutes her first day -- twice.
5. NILIF -- Nothing in life is free. This means the dog must PERFORM to get anything it wants. For Gypsy, because we were trying to reduce dominance that was already present, I chose to use the "down" command because it requires her to throw herself into the most submissive posture available. I have since started peppering "sits" into the program, just to keep her paying attention -- but the dominance problem is long gone, so I'm less concerned with how submissive she is. "Wanna cookie?" -- nothing in life is free, so the dog must "down" on command for the cookie. (BTW -- when you start introducing NILIF, carry food AT ALL TIMES -- you're still rewarding the dog for submitting - this is NONCONFRONTATIONAL. Reward for a LONG time, then wean off food sporadically, but still praise the behavior.) "Wanna go outside?" - dog must "down". "Wanna drink of water?" -- that's right. You're catching on. The dog gets NO freebies. She must *earn* everything -- food (you should see her slam her body on the floor for dinner!), play, petting, water, going out, going for a r-i-d-e, getting T-R-E-A-T-S, coming inside. Gypsy even has to "earn" the right to work on the agility equipment ... partly because I think it helps her attitude ("Ohboyohboyohboy, Alpha-mom made me down, I must be about to do something Good";), and partly because she's so excited to be there that she needs the extra control.

From a NILIF user (as posted by 4IC):

NU: we were trying to reduce dominance that was already present

LCK: No, this is confusing anxiety (mixed with selfishness and assertiveness) for dominance. Common mistake.

NU: I chose to use the "down" command because it requires her to throw herself into the most submissive posture available

LCK: Except she previously described the down as being similar to the way a border collie crouches when herding sheep. Is the border collie throwing itself into the most submissive posture possible, in effect, "submitting" to the sheep when it does that? It sounds to me like Gypsy's owner has inadvertently activated the dog's prey drive, because the down is directly connected to predatory (in this case herding) motor patterns.

NU: ("Ohboyohboyohboy, Alpha-mom made me down, I must be about to do something Good";)

LCK: Perhaps. Or else Gypsy feels more connected to her prey drive when she does the down, and that's what excites her; it brings her back into alignment with her instincts. Also, she's doing it as part of a group dynamic, a game if you will. And dogs are group predators at heart, so this is very, very satisfying to the dog. Much more so than feeling needy all the time, and acting on that neediness through aggression. Neediness means anxiety, but aggression doesn't ever really resolve the underlying anxiety that the dog feels. But being part of a group hunting dynamic does. Why? Because Nature and Evolution have designed the canine emotional/sensorimotor system to find the maximum reduction of stress when hunting as a group.

And by the way, if you remove all the dominance and submission cr*p from this woman's explanation of NILIF, it's quite good!

Anyway, that's how I see it.

LCK

LCK-I don't think you can make a call either way as to if the dog was dominant, selfish, anxious, etc. without actually seeing the dog.  I think we need to go with what the owner is stating in this case. 

willowchow

LCK-I don't think you can make a call either way as to if the dog was dominant, selfish, anxious, etc. without actually seeing the dog.  I think we need to go with what the owner is stating in this case. 

Actually I can. The idea that dogs can be either dominant or submissive is a complete myth. It turns out that all the behaviors that we were once taught indicated that a dog had a "dominant temperament" or "alpha tendencies" are actually indicators of anxiety, nothing more.

"Is Your Dominant, or Just Feeling Anxious?"

LCK

Well, while I agree with a lot of the points the article makes about the alpha not being aggressive, about play relieving tension in a anxious dog. . .I'm still not buying that dominance is just a symptom of anxiety.  I'll give you I think it can be, but that's not all it could possibly be. 

And, I think you need a few more references before you can say something is a complete myth besides a couple of sources in an article you wrote, no offense.

willowchow

Well, while I agree with a lot of the points the article makes about the alpha not being aggressive, about play relieving tension in a anxious dog. . .I'm still not buying that dominance is just a symptom of anxiety.  I'll give you I think it can be, but that's not all it could possibly be. 

And, I think you need a few more references before you can say something is a complete myth besides a couple of sources in an article you wrote, no offense.

I think Rudolf Schenkel's observations are a kind of revelation about what's really going on in the kind of encounter Konrad Lorenz described (which was based on Lorenz's observations of his own dogs, by the way, whom he often beat with a stick: read Man Meets Dog). And even if we deny the clarity of Schenkel's theory -- that the lower the "subordinate" dog gets, the more he's in a position to bite his adversary's jugular vein -- we have to admit that on a certain level the "submissive" dog is the one who always wins these types of encounters. His behavior essentially forces the more "dominant" dog to walk away. So what does that say about who's really more dominant, or more intelligent? The exact same thing holds true for the way the "submissive" female steals the hare out of her "dominant" mate's mouth. If she gets what she wants -- and he doesn't -- who's really "dominant" in that situation? And how can you call yourself dominant if you're always losing?

You also need to read "The Social Organization of Dogs," by Alexandra (Sascha) Semyonova. I don't know if you remember this, but in my article I quoted Karen Overall (a widely-respected behaviorist who's on board with using the terms "threatening and non-threatening postures" to replace "dominant and submissive behaviors";). But I also mentioned that Overall's quote was lifted almost directly, word for word, from Sascha's paper, mentioned above. And Sascha's 15 year study of dogs, looked at from the perspective of dog groups as self-organizing systems, shows that the ideas of dominance and submission are total misperceptions and misrepresentations of what's really going on in canine social groups. (And by the way, Sascha has told me privately that, according to some things she's read recently, both Ray Coppinger and Jean Donaldson are now starting to describe dog society as a self-organizing system.)

What's a self-organizing system (you might ask)? Basically it's any system that operates from the bottom up (rather than from the top down) through principles of attraction and resistance.

The following is an incomplete list [from Wikipedia] of the diverse phenomena which have been described as self-organizing in biology.

1. spontaneous folding of proteins and other biomacromolecules,
2. formation of lipid bilayer membranes,
3. homeostasis (the self-maintaining nature of systems from the cell to the whole organism)
4. pattern formation and morphogenesis, or how the living organism develops and grows. See also embryology.
5. the coordination of human movement, e.g. seminal studies of bimanual coordination by Kelso
6. the creation of structures by social animals, such as social insects (bees, ants, termites), and many mammals
7. flocking behaviour (such as the formation of flocks by birds, schools of fish, etc.)
8. the origin of life itself from self-organizing chemical systems, in the theories of hypercycles and autocatalytic networks

The idea that wolf society (and by extension, dog society) operates from the top down made sense to Konrad Lorenz, who believed in the idea of Adolf Hitler as Nietzche's "Ubermann" (the ultimate alpha male), along with the totalitarian state, etc. And his political views were tied directly to his views on biology, and vice versa. In fact one of his jobs under Hitler was to determine which offspring of Polish and German parents had enough German "blood" to stay in the gene pool, and which had to be exterminated -- a perfect, though evil, blending of his biology and politics. It would be inconceivable for someone like Lorenz to see the pack as a bottom-up system. To him it had to be based on these Nazi principles of dominance and submission. Everything had to come from the top down.

You might also want to read Natural Dog Training by Kevin Behan, which was written in 1992. In it Behan gives several descriptions of how wolf packs and dog society both operate as self-organizing systems. And this was long before he'd ever heard of emergence theory.

"Dominance does not create structure, nor is it ever the intention in the mind of a dog or wolf. It is only ever a manifestation of tension when emotion isn't flowing through the prey instinct." And...

"The individual on the bottom is not trying to show submission to the stronger one any more than a predator crouches low before an advancing prey animal to show its respect..." (This ties directly to the self-contradiction Gypsy's owner made about her dog's "down" being similar to the way a border collie crouches in front of sheep, yet at the same time it was supposedly the most submissive position possible.) And...

"What is the point to the pack if it isn't to create order, or friendliness, or a chain of command and lines of communication? Its real function, in my view, is not to produce social behaviors but to inject stress into each individual's life. What we call friendliness is really characterized by nervous, "submissive" behaviors, where true sociability is free flowing. In the pack each individual is constantly being aroused to bite, as they are emotionally attracted to one another. And this impulse has to be constantly repressed, with stress being the resulting by product. Within the pack balances are worked out as a means of managing this stress." He goes on to say that the build up of stress is what facilitates the hunting of large prey. The more stressed the pack is (by repressing their natural urge to bite one another), the more motivated, and therefore the more capable they are, of hunting and killing animals that could just as easily kill or seriously wound them.

Finally, going back to Karen Overall, if dominance were a real instinctual, inherited tendency, and not a symptom of anxiety, or an indicator of stress, why would anti-anxietal medications be able to treat and reduce "dominance-related" aggression?

Dominance is not a real thing; it's a symptom of stress.

LCK 

Lee Charles Kelley

"Dominance does not create structure, nor is it ever the intention in the mind of a dog or wolf. It is only ever a manifestation of tension when emotion isn't flowing through the prey instinct."

And I finally understand this concept a little better by, in my mind, reducing to the most elemental of needs. I can understand how predators feel the "stress" of needing to hunt to find food. If we all didn't have a little stress to find food, we might not find it and eat and survive. And dogs or canids hunting together do have a socially acceptable output for the stress involved in the acquisition of resources. And when there is plenty of resources, there is no strife. Everyones' got a full belly and just enough energy left to fall asleep, so to speak.

I have a more verbal example I can think of that is reminiscent of the flawed studies of wolves wherein the stranger wolves from disparate packs were corralled together and could not secure resources in the normal way and, instead, had to wait for feeding times, which is antithetical to their way of life. These "survivor" shows and "big brother" shows, wherein an artificial scenario is introduced and the animals, in this case, humans, have to do whatever it takes to get "resources." It is not a human or canid thing, it is an animal thing. Humans, left to themselves, will often work out arrangements for co-existance, including staying away from people they don't like but creating ways of negotiation so that each person can exist in their place. One person fishes, another hunts, another forages or farms, etc. But crammed into a box and saying only the person that has this can secure resources introduces a tension that is unnecessary.

What would any animal do when the resource is threatened? Whatever it takes to secure that resource. And what of a person who is fearful of the it all? Might they be prone to emotional displays and behavior that is seen as aggressive but is actually the presentation of stress? And, at the risk of being anthro, might this behavior be similar in dogs, i.e., what is seen as a dominant behavior is actually a stress reaction?

On the first survivor show I thought it was actually about surviving off the land. My money was on Rudy, the retired Navy SEAL. But no, it was about this manufactured social scenario dreamed up by producers and script writers. I never finished watching it or any of the others. And, in my opinion, the desire and aim of the show is opposite of how humans should be and usually can be, which is cooperative. No, these shows are about how megalomaniacal and combative can we make humans.

Left alone, dogs that run loose will form some associations, here and there. And given their druthers, they'd ruther stay away from dogs whom with they don't get along. Left alone, they are a seemingly self-organizing or emergent system that is not based on physical dominance but on who's got the best sniffer for food and who is the best at getting that food, etc.

ron2

And I finally understand this concept a little better by, in my mind, reducing to the most elemental of needs. I can understand how predators feel the "stress" of needing to hunt to find food. If we all didn't have a little stress to find food, we might not find it and eat and survive. And dogs or canids hunting together do have a socially acceptable output for the stress involved in the acquisition of resources. And when there is plenty of resources, there is no strife. Everyones' got a full belly and just enough energy left to fall asleep, so to speak.

Excellent post, Ron. All the way through. I agree with your take on the 1st survivor show. It turned my stomach too.

LCK